Slashdot Mirror


Open Source Spreads Beyond Software

B'Trey writes "Britain's Prospect Magazine is running an article entitled 'The Microsoft Killers.' The article covers the success of Open Source software in particular but also looks at how the methods and practices of Open Source are moving outside the software environment."

58 of 241 comments (clear)

  1. will this work... by freerecords · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ..I think the idea is extremely novel! however, i don't think it will work simply because of the measurability of "good things". ie. in software we can always pick, and recommend, Mozilla over IE., not only cos it is open source, but because it is better security wise. however how do you tell someone that "OpenCoke" is better than Coca-cola, can this be done? if it tasted as good and didn't rot your teeth i guess so.. heh, but i dont think prices can be cut - and freeness is one of the big drawing factors to OS/GPL products... what do you think?
    by the way, i'm allergic to flames!
    Tim

    --
    tim
    1. Re:will this work... by rokzy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      prices COULD be a lot lower since advertisement would be word-of-mouth not multi-million $currency campaigns.

      the only thing that might prevent this is Opencoke having higher operating costs due to small-scale production.

    2. Re:will this work... by qw(name) · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Word of mouth will always be the best advertizing method. IF the advertizing is good, of course. When people spread the word about something they really believe to be of benefit to themselves, it naturally brings in new customers. And it doesn't matter what the "thing" is either. It could be religion, cars, long-distance, restaurants, or whatever. And since this kind of advertizing costs nothing to the company, they can try maintain lower production costs.

    3. Re:will this work... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 3, Informative

      For anyone that is interested in the idea like I am there is a guide here. (It's a badly laid out, partially Japanese page with an English article though)

    4. Re:will this work... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful
      the only thing that might prevent this is Opencoke having higher operating costs due to small-scale production.

      You might be abe to run this sort of thing in the model of the CAMRA 'Real Ale' or Micro-Brew campaigns. Kind of a local coke micro-brew.

      But I still find it a bit ironic that the folk wittering on about open source can then segue instantly into complaints about lack of jobs, outsourcing and such. This morning a guy contacted me saying he was unemployed and wanted some advice on starting an open source project that might establish his reputation.

      Well what happens if everyone does that?

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    5. Re:will this work... by tuba_dude · · Score: 5, Funny

      OpenReligion...Nah, doesn't sound right. OpenOsiris? BSDBuddah? GNU/Jesus? This could go somewhere...

      --
      "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
    6. Re:will this work... by UserGoogol · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most religions are already as close to Open Source as you can get. (Except for "Mystery Religions" which keep the "source" of their religion secret. Scientology has even managed to copyright their religious texts.) You can take ideas from religions freely and to form your own religion. Just look at how many forks came out of the original Judaism project.

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    7. Re:will this work... by antiMStroll · · Score: 3, Funny
      "Just look at how many forks came out of the original Judaism project."

      And how many died, often completely exterminated, in the process each time. Analogies can be stretched to far. ;)

    8. Re:will this work... by antiMStroll · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The market adjusts, as it has in every other industry. Programmers are just the latest to feel the pinch of a new production process, as did labourers when automated manufacturing systems (and let's not forget the associated computerized controls which made it possible) arrived. Large machinery did the same to farm labour. Twenty years ago in my field it wasn't uncommon for four technicians to maintain a single operation. With the advances in technology we four now support more than five times that, over a much larger geographical area, without damage to our personal lives.

      The questions programmers are asking have been answered over and over, industry by industry. The answer is, there will be few programmers using more efficient development means to create better product. It happens to all but the 'commodities' among us (artists, celebrities, etc.).

  2. Microsoft Killers : Premature? by Puchku · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A little premature for such a title maybe. F/OSS needs to concentrate on the details.. God is in the details, and this is where MIcrosoft excels. Sure, they have their shortcoming, but they Human Interface designs are uniform at least..

    1. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by baryon351 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're very right in that details comment. Honestly too, I think many people CAN get around having problems with inconsistent UIs. After all, there's millions of people swapping between office PCs, their home PCs, and they're not necessarily exactly the same. I don't think it takes a great deal of smarts to work out there's a difference between how 2 apps work, it's more on the level of small annoyance.

      What frustrates many people with Linux is in details like... Joe Average buys a digital cam, hooks it up to his linux box. It has a USB port, he has the right cable, he has a supported cam, he has the right software and everything setup to work. However when it's plugged in... what then?

      A linux loving friend of mine who's not short on smarts (but perhaps a little behind on cluefulness when it comes to anyone but pure geeks) would say "It takes three seconds to mount the camera as a drive. duh". For Joe Average, finding out HOW to do that in 3 seconds can be 2 days of frustrated chasing information on how the OS works on a device level around the net.

      Now thats just one example, but there's so many little things like that with linux that still pop up. They're TINY things, MINISCULE things, but for a user who has no tech knowledge apart from operating a gui, it's the difference between 'hey linux is a neat replacement for windows!" and "this linux OS is a heap of shit, there's so much fucking around".

      That being said, it IS getting better. piece by piece...

    2. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by Xpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sure, they have their shortcoming, but they Human Interface designs are uniform at least..

      Ugly as heck, but uniform ;)

      Nowadays people love bashing OSS (and Linux especially) for being "inconsistant". They also enjoy pointing out that Linux's cryptic CLI scares away new users. Now I have to wonder, why did DOS and Windows 3.x become so popular? The command prompt to DOS was as cryptic as *nix, and in addition it was quite retarded as well. Win 3.x doesn't win any prizes for consistency either. Plug and play hardware was non-existant. Yet it was hugely popular, more so than the more user-friendly Macintosh. If people could put up with the crappiness of DOS and Win 3.x (the infancy of MS operating systems), why is Linux being bashed constantly during its infancy for stuff MS got away with?

      --
      "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
    3. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by Puchku · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If people could put up with the crappiness of DOS and Win 3.x (the infancy of MS operating systems), why is Linux being bashed constantly during its infancy for stuff MS got away with? Because Liux is being continuosly compared to Windows.. When DOS and 3.1 were around, there was nothing to compare them to. People did not have any expectations, so whatever Microsoft did was sen as a giant leap forward Linux has to catch up to Microsoft becuase that is what people expect from their computers. Once that is done, it can go past. But you have to have the little stuff working first....

    4. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by Xpilot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When DOS and 3.1 were around, there was nothing to compare them to.

      Ehem. Apple Macintoshes. They had nice friendly GUI's, but more people bought PC's with the "cryptic" DOS and the "inconsistent" Windows 3.x.

      --
      "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
    5. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by MooKore+2004 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most Modern Linux distros put an Icon on the desktop when you attach a camera to do it. Sure in the old days it had to be mounted, but its all automatic.

      Try The latest version of Mandrake, SuSE or FEdora if you dont believe me! The ONLY people who say linux is hard to use these days are Debian users stuck with their 2.2 kernel and 2.2 KDE desktop because its "stable". Moderators, please stop handing out mod points to FUD.

    6. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'll tell you what killed my use of windows. At christmas I got a new dvd-rom drive, nothing fancy, no drivers. I plugged it in and booted my dual-boot pc into linux. It just worked. Then I booted into windows. Not only did it not work, it had also disabled my cdrom drive and I had to reinstall my secondary IDE controller to get my cdrom drive working. Worse, I now find that I have to reinstall the second IDE controller every time I reboot. And the dvd drive still doesn't work.
      My ass windows has better hardware support.

    7. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by MooKore+2004 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Report to Mandrake about the Camera, They cant possibly try every single camera about there. PLease visit The bug report page about it. You can also try the latest beta of Mandrake to see it if it works out of the box. If it dosent, then report a bug. Part of the Open Source movmenment is that EVERYBODY needs to take part. If you dont report bugs and problems, then dont complain about them!

    8. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by Xpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yup, Mac's were great, but beacuse they were in locked down proprietary mode, while IBM PC's were being assmbled by eveyone and his dog, they got left wayy behind...

      And yet curiously it does not work the same way with software. Now, it is Windows that is locked down in proprietary mode, with expensive and draconian licenses. Linux distros can be assembled by everyone and his dog, but yet, it is still a mostly a niche OS on the desktop.

      --
      "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
    9. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by qoquaq · · Score: 5, Interesting
      It's your customer which defines the OS experience. If your customer is a new computer user ... the software should be intelligent enough to configure itself.

      If your user is an engineer ... mounting devices as drives is something the customer may know how to do so your software must be intelligent enough to do that well.

      Apple ... fault them if you must but ... they have such great attention to the user experience. Hide the bits in an abstraction known as Macintosh, their customer does not want to see drivers and mount points. This is their starting point, that is their customer. How can we delight the user with the Macintosh expeirence, not the low level details of the O1 scheduler. I don't mean to start a Mac/Linux/Windows holy war but I do need an example here .

      With Linux that starting point and customer are different. Most of the distributions which are ready for the desktop have a customer in mind who is using Windows 2000 at work or Windows ME at home. This is the user experience which they start with. I think some people here agree that is starting off a bit handicapped.

      The Mac customer does not even want to know what a driver is or does.

      The point I'm bearly making here is its about the customer ... and what experience you want for that customer. Will Linux overtake the desktop? ... Sure if the desktop really begins to abstract the fact you are running Linux and does a better job of creating the a great customer experience for more customers than everyone else.

      --

      "They say travel broadens the mind, so I went over the falls in a barrel." -Thomas Dolby

    10. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by wfberg · · Score: 4, Interesting


      A linux loving friend of mine who's not short on smarts (but perhaps a little behind on cluefulness when it comes to anyone but pure geeks) would say "It takes three seconds to mount the camera as a drive. duh". For Joe Average, finding out HOW to do that in 3 seconds can be 2 days of frustrated chasing information on how the OS works on a device level around the net.


      On the one hand, yes, this is a problem (for distributions that don't automount it right away) - this should be default on any distribution, and for non-USB-mass-storage cameras, gphoto should be included in an obvious way, if only a link to the installer in some sort of control panel's "digital camera options" section.

      On the other hand; linux is now better at detecting hardware, and having the pertinent drivers installed out-of-the-box than windows is, except for the most proprietary of hardware. For example, my FujiFilm S304 required extra "USB Mass Storage" drivers to be installed, even though USB Mass Storage is pretty much a standard. My non-standard archos jukebox requires drivers to be installed on every windows box I want to hook it up to. Again, linux recognized its fairly oddball chipset out of the box, and I the only thing I had to do is mount it (the machine I tried it on doesn't have no steeking gui installed, so no biggy ;-))

      And the number of times I wished windows had a /proc/pci list just this week (yes, there are multiple pci listing tools on the web, but they usually do not work, and in interesting ways..)

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    11. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by micromoog · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I would have been dual-booting Linux for years, but my very simple request for a bugfix in the Ultra-66 driver was ignored by the kernel developers (as in, no response after multiple attempts to contact them). The fix would have involved adding one line to an already-existing list of quirky drives, impacting only drives of my exact type with my exact IDE chipset.

      I tested the fix myself, then submitted it to the owner of IDE individually multiple times, then to the proper list. Not so much as a response from anyone.

      Yes, I can install Linux with the Ultra-66 DMA disabled, edit the source file (/drivers/ide/pdc202xx_new.h), recompile and reinstall the kernel, enable DMA again in the hardware, and reboot.

      Am I willing to do this every time I want to update my system to newer kernel code? No.

      If the system doesn't work because the people who control the kernel are unwilling to even answer their email, then I'll just use an operating system that does support my hardware.

    12. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by danimrich · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When DOS was around, Joe Average did not own a computer. Those (geeks) who had one were stuck with the OS. If they couldn't figure out how to do something, they'd look it up in a book.

      Today, people expect the user interface to be graphic, self-explaining and consistent. They get frustrated if something does not work the first time.
      And -- what's most important -- they have a choice. If they try Linux, they will switch back to Windows if they encounter problems.
      If we want Joe Average to use Linux, there is the need for a consistent user interface that is similar to Windows.

      --
      where's all that Karma?
    13. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by Pedrito · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only is it premature, it's STUPID. Why do people keep associating OSS with anti-Microsoft? As I said yesterday, OSS is about choices, not about putting MS out of business. No matter how much any of us dislikes or even hates MS, that should not be what OSS is about. That is anything but a noble cause.

      A noble cause is providing free choice to people. That's what OSS is and should be about and someone needs to get this message to the media. MS should rise or fall based on their own merits, even if those merits are questionable or at odds with the OSS community. If Microsoft falls because of OSS, so be it, but if that's the cause, and Microsoft falls, then OSS no longer has a cause. The cause to provide choice will always be there.

    14. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by LibrePensador · · Score: 4, Informative

      Has it occurred to you that maybe the did try youur fix and it led to data corruption, so they decided not to apply it?

      Or that they did not try because they knew it would not work?

      There is also a huge difference between Linux supporting your hardware and your hardware manufacturers supporting Linux. The former implies that Linux provides APIs and ABIs for which drivers can be written, the latter implies the makers of your hardware thinking of Linux compatible hardware design and driver development as something more than an afterthought that they community will address for free.

      And if Linux doesn't suit your needs now, you may wish to try it it in the future. Things change quickly.

      By the way, why where you recompiling your kernel to enable DMA?

      Look at /etc/sysconfig/harddisks or pass a boot-time kernel option to lilo.

      --
      Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
    15. Re:Microsoft Killers : Premature? by antiMStroll · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The Mac customer does not even want to know what a driver is or does.

      Not a valid comparison. Mac achieves this by 'monopoly' control of the hardware. This isn't an option for Windows and even less so for OS's such as Linux or NetBSD, designed to support as many architectures as possible.

      I agree it's about the customer but not with your implicit assumption about them. Macs are the superior solution for a delimited subset of users, those too busy, unwilling, or incapable of tinkering with their machines, willing to live with the attendant limitations and pay the premium for ease of use. It supports them extremely well but by no means is the best solution for all purposes, as Apple's market share makes obvious.

  3. finally, its free! by fatgraham · · Score: 4, Funny

    whoever said there's no such thing as a free meal must be kicking themselves now

    or at least, if not a meal, a free beer

  4. It's not surprising really. by ahfoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The GPL is based on using copyright as a shield against those who would use copyright as a weapon. The underlying situation is one that is often reflected in the physical world and often noted in literature: the knife cuts both ways.
    The Creative Commons licenses could eventually have an even greater impact on the world than the GPL although the latter's impacts have only begun to be felt.

  5. Software patents movement by Elektroschock · · Score: 5, Informative

    A Good example is the movement against EU software patents. A similar style is used as in huge open source development projects. Different sites such as FFII.org, the AEL Wiki, Vrijschrift, Eurolinux Petition are used. There are many core activists that contribute to email communication on different lists, monitor the net, take part in events, speakers for events and many supportes 8around 50 000 registered of FFII or 300 000 Eurolinux signatures). Registered supporters can be contacted in cases of urgent action. There is no strict organisation structure, contributions count and create a personal karma. Participants in the debate act as individuals, not as objects of an organisational ideology. If you don't like something, contribute. If you are not pleased with the organisation or action of FFII join another group in the debate and contribute in a different style.

    Participants were able to convince the EU parliament by massive protests. FFII and the other groups of the network created a kind of watchgroup for IP policy issues. They were able to put light in dark backyard where patent attorneys and servants of the DoJ decide what may be beneficial for the information society.

    I think in europe we were able to show: "Hacking politics works."

  6. Best religeon ever... by Apreche · · Score: 3, Interesting
    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
  7. Re:Very exciting indeed! by qw(name) · · Score: 3, Funny


    If they're reading Slashdot then they've tried Open Source Software.

  8. Open Source impossible for capital intensive apps by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would suspect that Open Source is limited to particular categories of work. Labor intensive, but not capital intensive, activities are ideal for open source. With capital intensive endevours, the people that own the money want to own the output. Fortunatly, the captial required for many activities is dropping. With the low cost and ubiquity of technlogy, many formly expensive activities can be done by amateurs on an open source basis (software, indie films, encyclopedias/wikis, helpdesk/help forums, etc.).

    For bigger open source projects, the problem is monetization -- converting the fruits of open source into money that goes to pay the burgeoning and unavoidable expenses of a large project. The free-software, expensive service model (RedHat) or free software, expensive hardware & service model (IBM) seems popular.

    But there are limits. I doubt we will ever see open source retail stores, hardware factories, or apartment buildings (except on an unusual donation basis). Probably the only capital-intensive forms of "open source" is university science -- the scientists provide the labor, release there findngs to the public, and the government provides the money for the equipment (even here, university IP people try to own the fruits of the academic labors).

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  9. YAHOOSSA .... by qoquaq · · Score: 4, Troll
    Yet Another History Of Open Source Software Article

    Please don't take this as flaimbait, but ... this article tells me nothing new. Its a great one to pass on to my boss .. but come on.One more summary of the open source movement article and i'll puke.

    I mean no disrespect to the author. it was written very well. There is no News for Nerds here. I don't mean to be negative. I enjoy the community and most of the articles are really good. But I just can't take another ... history of open source software/anti microsoft article for the world to cut its teeth on.

    I'm sorry to sound critical but I wonder how many others here feel the same way.

    --

    "They say travel broadens the mind, so I went over the falls in a barrel." -Thomas Dolby

  10. Sic ! by foobsr · · Score: 5, Funny

    One of the best technology magazines on the web, Slashdot, has only a few members of staff who post short articles and allow readers to comment and elaborate: most of the site content comes from readers.

    Sic ! Now I think I wonder what those magazines of lesser quality are alike.

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  11. They have it backwards by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful
    the methods and practices of Open Source are moving outside the software environment.
    I wonder how the author thinks we got to the current state of scientific knowledge? Open source is a subset of the sharing of information which got us out of the dark ages.
    1. Re:They have it backwards by foobsr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder how the author thinks we got to the current state of scientific knowledge? Open source is a subset of the sharing of information which got us out of the dark ages.

      Excellent point which can be stretched when thinking of (natural) 'language'. We might then even draw the conclusion that 'Open Source' is quite a natural (not to say plain vanilla) phenomenon.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  12. OpenCola Recipe by FJCsar · · Score: 5, Informative

    [From Google's cached page]

    Introduction:
    Contained hereunder is a HOW-TO for brewing up kitchen-sink OpenCola. Amazingly enough, every soft-drink vendor we spoke to acted like the preparation of cola was some kind of deep, dark trade-seekrut(TM). With much reverse-engineering and creative shopping, the research kitchens at OpenCola have coopered together the following makefile for brewing up The Black Waters of Corporate Imperialism(TM) in the privacy of your own home.

    The basis for the whole thing is the 7X, Top-Seekrut(TM) formula. Our sources tell us that 7X is the internal Coca-Cola codename for their syrup. You'll note that the 7X formula contains eight ingredients: still more evidence of the deviousness of the Soda Gnomes.

    As it turns out, mixing up a batch of cola's pretty easy. Finding the ingredients is damned hard. Most of this file is about finding and handling ingredients so as to produce a tasty bevvy without blowing up your kitchen, melting your flesh off your bones, or poisoning yourself. As with all undertakings of great moment, read and understand the instructions before attempting to commit cola on your own. Pay special attention to the "Warnings" section.

    This recipe is licensed under the GNU General Public license. It is "Open Source" Cola, or, if you prefer, "Free" Cola. That means you're free to use this recipe to make your own cola, or to make derivative colas. If you distribute derivative colas, you're expected to send email to the recipe's author, Amanda Foubister (amanda@opencola.com) with your updates. In the future, we expect to have a CVS server up to handle additions, bug-reports, etc.

    The Formula
    7X (Top SeekrutTM) flavoring formula:
    3.50 ml orange oil
    1.00 ml lemon oil
    1.00 ml nutmeg oil
    1.25 ml cassia oil
    0.25 ml coriander oil
    0.25 ml neroli oil
    2.75 ml lime oil
    0.25 ml lavender oil
    10.0 g gum arabic
    3.00 ml water

    OpenCola syrup:
    2.00 tsp. 7X formula
    3.50 tsp. 75% phosphoric acid or citric acid
    2.28 l water
    2.36 kg plain granulated white table sugar
    0.50 tsp. caffeine (optional)
    30.0 ml caramel color

    Preparation
    7X Flavoring:
    Mix oils together in a cup. Add gum arabic, mix with a spoon. Add water and mix well. I used my trusty Braun mixer for this step, mixing for 4-5 minutes. You can also transfer to a blender for this step. Can be kept in a sealed glass jar in the fridge or at room temperature.

    Please note that this mixture will separate. The Gum Arabic is essential to this part of the recipe, as you are mixing oil and water.

    Syrup:
    In a one gallon container (I used the Rubbermaid Servin' Saver Dry Food Keeper, 1.3 US Gal/4.92 l), take 5 mls of the 7X formula, add the 75% phosphoric or citric acid. Add the water, then the sugar. While mixing, add the caffeine, if desired. Make sure the caffeine is completely dissolved. Then add the caramel color. Mix thoroughly.

    Cola:
    To finish drink, take one part syrup and add 5 parts carbonated water.

    Scavenging and Handling Ingredients
    7X flavor:
    Measurement: I used a dropper purchased at a Shoppers Drug Mart (normally used to measure infant portions of medicine, I believe).

    Oils: Oils can cause skin irritation. Wear latex food-prep or surgical gloves. If oils come in contact with skin, wash with soap and water.

    I purchased all oils from health food stores and the herbalist store, Thuna's (see notes on gum arabic).

    Everything could have come from the herbalist's. Try for 100 percent pure, undiluted oils. I used oils from the following companies:

    CK Solutions, Ft. Wayne, IN 46825
    Aura Cacia Oils, Weaverville, CA 96093
    Aromaforce Essential Oils
    Frontier Natural Flavors, www.frontiercoop.com
    Karooch, Peterborough, ONT K9J 7Y8
    When I purchased the oils, I specifically asked whether they were food grade or not.

  13. Open Music. by SharpFang · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Open Music anyone?

    My only concern is, is it free for the idea of freedom or because nobody would pay for it anyway? ;)

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  14. Oracle by rdean400 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Oracle's dominance in databases is coming under attack from MySQL..."

    Please. Oracle's supposed dominance in databases is under far more threat from Microsoft and IBM than it is from MySQL **at this point in time.** IBM earns more database revenue than Oracle, so it's not even fair to say that Oracle dominates.

  15. Short honeymoon? by Ricin · · Score: 4, Funny

    The guy just got married. From his website:

    "Until Feb 25th, I am going to be extremely busy with my wedding and honeymoon. I will be slow replying to non-wedding related emails during this time so please accept my apologies in advance. I expect to have a backlog of mail when I return so give me a few days to respond to these (probably by early March)."

    Now, I hope his honeymoon was short, not his marriage. Perhaps they have an OpenMarriage though :)

  16. LPI by ThisNukes4u · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A good example of open-source spreading beyond software is the Linux Professional Institute. They take suggestions on what should be on their certification exams, questions, and they make available the detailed process of the examination.

    --
    thisnukes4u.net
  17. Excellence takes time.... by LibrePensador · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As you recognized towards the end of your post, the small details are being addressed at many levels. Stay tuned for a Linux distribution near you.

    In fact, your specific example has been dealt with by Mandrake and Suse for the past 2/3 years. Where have you been?

    And how do they do it? Better than Windows, most times.

    No driver CD necessary. If it's supported, plug in the camera and it shows up on your desktop. Click on it and get your pictures. Now that was easy, wasn't it.

    I am not impervious to criticism and there are tons of things that need improvement, but they are coming. Anyone who has used Linux for the past five years cannot be blind to the huge improvements in ease-of-use and consistency that have been made.

    Finally, the community aspect of Linux is not to be dismissed. When I set somebody up with Linux, I make sure that his/her every whim is satisfied so that the experience is more positive than it was with their prior OS.

    --
    Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
  18. Re:So.... simple solution. Stop buying non-interop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    LALL!. the hardware worked fine in the end. It works perfectly.

    You have things typically backwards. I have a computer and wish to try Linux. I try a good linux distro on it and there's some very frustrating parts to getting simple things done. You come along and say I should buy better supported hardware. As Joe Average, I say to you "Oh well, It works on windows" and boot back into windows, and continue getting work done.

    THOSE are the little differences that make the difference between averageman considering an OS as a useful tool, and considering it a liability. Making excuses for the OS deficiencies by saying it's a hardware problem when another OS works just fine with it is passing the buck

  19. Open Source and Free Software by gustgr · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is important to observe that OS is different from FS. I think that the main idea behind Open Cola relies in the Free Software, since this movement cares more about Freedom (inside the software environment and outisde of it too).

    Please check http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-fr eedom.html for more information.

  20. Groklaw is a non-programming example of this by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "Open source is a philosophy for software licensing designed to encourage the improvement and use of software by anyone who wants to join in. It ensures that the source code, the underlying instructions of the software, can be examined and modified freely.

    The open source movement eschews proprietary controls and its software is usually produced not by firms, but by networks of volunteers who look after different pieces of an application."

    Groklaw is an example of this exact method, even though it is not involved in software development. It is a legal site that encourages anyone to join in, the results are not produced by law firms, but by networks of volunteers who look after different pieces of the legal brief. It started as one woman's personal blog and then took off when the FOSS community saw the usefulness of having a subject matter expert in law commenting on cases that mattered to the community. So the community joined in and now it's a distributed project on the exact model of an Open Source programming project.

    So these principles work for more than just programming. It's a useful model for any community project. The power of the community made manifest. We're stronger when we work together.

  21. Not troll. True, wise and good. by SharpFang · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Forget Soviet Union and all the evil that lived there. Learn about the original ideas of communism.

    Read Stanislaw Lem's "Magellan Cloud" (or something like this, I don't know how they translated the title) - it depicts a world in which people were responsible enough for communism to succeed - a world in which one likes to live. No propaganda, slogans, terror, stiff norms. Just "open source" in all domains of life.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  22. Re:Open Source impossible for capital intensive ap by Tony-A · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I doubt we will ever see open source retail stores, hardware factories, or apartment buildings

    Actually it would be very hard to find "closed source" varients of the same. Imagine that if you shop at WallMart you couln't even look at Target. Imagine you couldn't check out competing apartments to the one you live in.

    As for capital intensive, seems like bridges, dams, tunnels, skyscrapers are all pretty much open source.

    Basically, open source benefits the industry at maybe a bit of cost to the individual corporation whereas closed source benefits the individual corporation at the expense of the industry. If "reinventing the wheel" is perceived as a loss, closed source is a good way to ensure the perpetuity of that loss.

    BTW, open source does not mean free (as in beer) or cheap. Methinks open source may actually wind up more expensive than closed because it is sufficiently more effective that things will be done using open source that would never be attempted with closed source.

  23. Similar Article in Wired by smelroy · · Score: 4, Informative

    There was a similar, and very good, article in Wired last November, Open Source Everywhere Software is just the beginning ... open source is doing for mass innovation what the assembly line did for mass production. Get ready for the era when collaboration replaces the corporation.

    --
    Switching to Linux can be an adventure!
  24. Poster is redundant by Trigun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you believe that open-source is causing unemployment due to a lack of a marketable product, then you are completely wrong. Open-source will, and is creating employment as programmers are being hired by small companies to tailor their software to their needs. It's just not as pervalent, as open-source is only just breaking into the SME market.

    Small business can pay as well as big business, but you have to wear at least one other hat, and you don't get stock options.

  25. Dangerous Misconception by GraZZ · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the article: (emphasis mine)

    Stallman developed the idea of distributing free software with its source code and a licence that allowed you to modify the source code as long as the modifications were kept in the public domain . ... The licence was known as the GNU General Public Licence (GPL).
    A well written article, but it still stumbles on the key point of copyrighted work vs. public domain work. How can we better educate the journalists so they can better educate the general public??

  26. Since when has the open distribution of recipies by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    become some sort of revolutionary act?

    I always thought of it as the standard model.

    Even when it comes to making Cola that secret has been out of the bag for over 100 years and thousands of little bottling plants around the world churn out psuedo "Coke" by the billions of gallons. If you think there's really some deep dark secret to it you've been reading marketing as nonfiction.

    It's flavored sugar water. You play around with the flavorings until you get it right. When you make your own you even get to use real sugar in your sugar water.

    You don't really think that KFC's spices are a secret, do you? You can taste them. Any decent cook could figure them out if he really wanted to. In fact, here's a list. Make your own:

    KFC's "Secret" recipe

    When commercial entities and large sums of money are at stake comapanies even employ chemists to analyze ingredients of competitors products. You can't hide physical reality. It isn't like code, and even code can be reverse engineered as soon as you know what it does.

    I'm all for open distribution of knowledge, but to claim that Open Source invented it is a bit daft. The libraries are full of the stuff.

    Ok, let the monogram bashing begin.

    KFG

  27. Open Source & Process before Product... by Spoing · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Sorry, I have to rant.

    To be somewhat on topic, the OpenCola idea is great and I'd like to buy a case and pass it around to give a little shove to folks who don't get what open source is and what it isn't.

    1. [RANT]

    My sig (if you have sigs off);

    1. "Programs and software are not the same; one is a plan of action, the other a good for sale."

    Specifically: Open source is mainly a plan not a good. Closed source is mainly a good not a plan. That said, give me a good plan -- or a well planned good (closed or open) -- and I'll take it.

    From that: Linux does not matter, GCC does not matter, Windows does not matter, Office -- Open or MS -- do not matter. Who is interested -- who is motivated -- is the only thing that matters.

    People are motivated when they are interested. Motivated interest that comes from personal interest -- not externally imposed by mild or excessive force -- tends to be most effective over time since the person is not running away from the motivator but is cheerfully compelled to act.

    In general, open source and closed source -- commercially driven or not -- have different built-in motivators. None of these are absolutes, though they do pull people in different directions;

    Open source motivators;

    Transparency (corillary: Look if you want)

    1. Nothing to hide

    Process over products (corillary: harder to 'buy')

    'Natural' growth;

    1. Projects become stronger from interest and personal actions
    2. Projects are abandoned from apathy but the code can be reused (if helpful)
    3. Forced actions lead to dammage and dammage is routed around or forked
      1. Forks are more frequent, though there is a limit to the number of practical forks per project type
      2. Cruft and imposed features die or are sidelined
    4. Pushes practical improvements since nobody wants to "eat their own dogfood"

    Closed source motivators;

    Secret formula (corillary: Joe Isuzu "Trust me!")

    1. "Hear no evil, see no evil, know no evil"

    Products not projects (soft goods)

    Action imposed by past or likely sales;

    1. Products become stronger from sales and personal interest and actions are often blocked
    2. Products die when sales do not support products
    3. Actions are always forced by actual or implied customer demands (not needs);
      1. Features that sell more goods or cut the cost of production are added
      2. Products do not change otherwise
    4. If "eat your own dogfood" is pushed, tends to lead to pessimisim and sarcasm

    I don't care if you use open souce, though the built-in motivators alone are what make it strong. The goods -- the soft-wares -- are entirely secondary.

    --
    A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
  28. Microsoft Google Ad by tjstork · · Score: 3, Informative


    Microsoft is running an adwords on Google for if you search on "Linux Development Grants". I imagine it costs them $1 a click or so....

    --
    This is my sig.
  29. Simputer - Hardware device license by Valluvan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Another instance of opensource-like license . The Simputer General Public License

    Highlights of SGPL

    * Any individual or company can download the hardware specification, PCB layout details, the bill of materials, etc., henceforth called "Specifications" free of charge. The act of doing so binds the individual or company to the SGPL.

    * Any derivative work has to come back to the Trust to allow for further dissemination. To allow the commercial exploitation of the derived work, a one year delay in putting back the derived work is permitted. This does not however preclude others from independently engineering a similar derivative work during this period.

    * Any derivative work is subsumed as Specifications and hence, they are also governed by this same license.

    * The word "Simputer(TM)" is trademarked and cannot be used without the permission of the Trust. If an individual or company is interested in using the word "Simputer(TM)" in conjunction with their products, they can do so only if their product conforms to certain rules that will be put up on the trust website (and which may undergo periodic revision). The product has to provide a visual clue to attest it being a Simputer by way of displaying a logo issued by the Trust.

    * While recognizing the possibility of using the Specifications in application other than as a Simputer, the License deems that such derived work be called "Simputerized" products. The product description should state that the product is "Simputerized" and provide a visual clue on the product by way of displaying a logo issued by the Trust.

    * Any commercial exploitation of the Specifications (whether Simputer or Simputerized) involves a nominal one time payment to the Trust. The payment will be $25,000 for developing countries and $250,000 for developed countries.

    --

    Science as a way of life.
  30. Will Microsoft bring on a new dark age? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is my basic concern--that if they succeed in wiping out the remaining competition, there will be nothing to embrace/extend/extinguish and OS technology will freeze. If they can kill off the rest of the industry, there will be zero need to innovate...computing will enter a dark age.

    This happened to the American auto industry in the seventies--and that was with three big competitors--there was no way for a small company to break in or innovate. Then cam the oil crisis and foreign cars, and America had no choice but to follow the leaders.

    Of course, an OS is a lot different. It's possible to hide all your "IP" below an access layer (think PS/2) and that's that--only the hardcore hackers will be able to get to it, and you can charge a pretty penny for the right to modify it...which is pretty much how IBM and the other big iron computer companies treated their customers until recently. It's tough for anyone to compete with that.

    There is a war between the MS controlled corporate desktop and the internet going on right now.

    Lately I've seen "free computer classes" and "free developer training" popping up in the papers, and these classes are hilarious. The first five minutes is like a religious event--the speaker intones about his years as a professor, his years as an engineer, and how he loves computers, and how great they are...and then starts talking about how much innovation MS solutions provide and what a fantastic company they are. Then he starts in with the discussion of this fantastic MS-only solution.

    Although they hate to admit it, I got one "professor" to admit he was being paid by a company that was taking a beating from open source, a company that sells only MS products, and he was just repeating the messages in the documentation kit they sent him. In other words, he's claiming to be an authority, but he's really a used car salesman, an infomercial "talking head". It's a shame, because he really had an impressive resume and career.

    Funny thing is, he had that engineering career and professorship because he could go to libraries, universities, read books about all the math underlying enginneering, and he didn't have to get certs or attend corporate training sessions to do all of that. He has forgotten what freedom of information and technology did for him, and is now working to deny it from others. He doesn't even realize it, all he knows is the nice company is paying him to promote their product, and that product looks impressive to him, and that's about all he knows. He's retired, etc.

    A lot of people in the audience were buying it. His credentials, like that of a priest, made his opinion mean something. And he is right to a certain extent...MS runs the corporate desktop. But there was no mention of the internet, open standards, other huge success stories (ebay, google) that use open source happily and succcessfully.

    So which way will it go? Will the internet technologies work their way into the corporations, or will MS bust out of the corporations and creep into the internet? It will be a mix; many internet companies can't afford to lose a sale because a browser failed with their website. Thus they have to work to the lowest common denominator. They won't budge from that, and if people outside the corps use free software, that's the only real way to stop MS, prevent them from locking technology.

    The problem is raising the lowest common technology level is a free way, and MS can't do it. They want to use pseudo open standards and then break them subtly when the time is ripe, and then blame the failures on non-standard platforms.

    They've done it before, and that's their true goal with these patents and opening up of the C# bytecodes, etc...get people using a partially free implementation and lock it down. Ximian is betting they can come up with a free platform that will end up on MS boxes, but who knows?

  31. Coke's recipe by kajoob · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually Coca-Cola's recipe is no secret. They just do it better than everyone else. Here is real Coke's "highly guarded secret recipe"

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
  32. No D&D players here? by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 3, Informative

    This has been going on for 2-3 years with Wizards of the Coast. Called the Open Game License, it's not the same as the GPL, but it's easy to see that they got the idea from it.

    The OGL boils down to: if it's designated open game content in a book, it can be reprinted in another book freely as long as credit is given. This includes incorporating someone's open content rules into another, different rules book, and various other stuff a non-rpger couldn't care less about.

    Amusingly enough, many rpgers are mystified by the OGL and don't understand that they can still use closed content in their own games. But there's hope for them: I'm willing to sell them closed content openers at very reasonable prices, and I'm honest enough to tell them that they're not allowed to republish closed content material. ;-)

    To summarize, the basic OSS idea is indeed catching on, albeit slowly, and in rather surprising places.

    --
    I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
  33. burned at the stake by mattdm · · Score: 4, Funny

    You can take ideas from religions freely and to form your own religion.

    I think the historical cases where this happened peacably are the exceptions, rather than the rule. There's almost always anger and political fighting, and often actual violence, all the way up to outright war.

    Since most religions view their picture of the universe as The One True Path, it's typically more of a "freely distributable; do not modify under pain of eternal damnation" sort of license.

  34. Ecosystems by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think it's very appropriate to compare the universe of software development, or even business to an ecosystem.

    I spent years in the environmental world, and to this day every time I walk in the woods I see examples of cutthroat competition and stunning examples of cooperation. I think the rise of free software/open source in a sense mirrors this property of complex systems of individual agents to have cooperation emerge as a major form of interaction. It is a restoring of a natural equillibrium that was disrupted by a decade or so of exponential growth. Closed operating systems and software that performs other, nearly universal functions are like weeds that prosper by being able to use the resources freed by the disruption to colonize new niches. Cooperative models can't self assemble quickly enough at first to compete.

    In the long term the equillibrium will swing the other way, although not totally because cooperation is not a natural model in many situations. For example in vertical markets, the disincentives of cooperations outweigh the benefits. In that case internally developed systems make sense, and closed "black box" COT software is an acceptible compromise which maintains at least a level playing field.

    I think cooperative models of production will always exist as long as the contract doesn't become the sole form of human relationship. But it will always coexist with competition as a pardigm. Speculation: as long as world population grows exponentially, and the world economy grows exponentially with it, competition will remain the dominant form of human economic interaction. It's interesting to speculate what will happen if world population stabilizes and growth switches from exponential to linear growth or steady state.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.