Slashdot Mirror
Andreesssen: Why Open Source Will Boom - in 103 Words
An anonymous reader writes "You gotta love Marc Andreessen's 12 reasons why Open Source is set to boom: can anyone use fewer than 103 words and still adduce as many reasons as he does?"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
inertia
And the year before, and the year before that, and so on? Or are these all new ones that we're going to start posting every year even though they never come true?
*yawn*
Customization. Not so important for joe public, but a great boon to the office side of the market, which is what originally drove Windows into the home, and will drive Linux in the same direction.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
There is only one thing holding linux back - an integrated API for desktops. If the developers for Linux could develop API for all the applications that they write and the Desktop then becomes integrated with each application at the API layer, you will have what M$ has now. That is the only item the article missed. It went over embedded systems and how cheap Linux is (free).
Translation: You don't get thrown in jail for pirating open source products.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Because it can be an enterprise level solution for free.
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
FREEdom
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
It didn't say "Linux", it said "Open Source" which does NOT always equate with Linux.
Or am I reading the wrong article?
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Basically, foreign governments don't want to spend money on Software when that money goes outside their own country - governments don't like upsetting their balance of payments themselves.
Using Open Source means that the money stays in the Local economy, not going to Redmond.
A lot of countries, particually in asia and the third world, don't like the economic dominance the US has and any chance to keep money in their own economy instead of owing it to the US is a good deal for them.
That is probably another reason for the increasing use of Linux in China, Israel, and even the EU.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
I think the sentiments from which Open Source benefits are directed against the dealings of a number of big software companies, not against the fact that most of these are American.
There are a lot of people, even whole countries, who do not like America, what nothing to do with America and feel more than a little annoyed that the "standard" operating system is written, designed and funds and american company.
Guess what using OSS alternatives allows them to do?
Right, so he's such a big believer in this open source stuff that he runs a proprietary software company, Opsware. I mean what has this guy actually done that deserves a front page story connecting him with open source. He wasn't the one who decided (or even proposed) to open source Netscape Navigator; he's just a guy that got rich off of someone else's idea.
...) and you'll find software developers developing stuff for internal use. In fact I'll wager that more LOC are written outside the "software business" than in it.
1. "The Internet is powered by open source."
Hello? Yes, Apache, Sendmail, BIND etc. are used extensively, but how about those Sun boxes and Cisco devices doing all the routing?
2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."
I don't see how this means that OSS is going to succeed, it just seems like a fact. Anyhow RMS was doing Free Software using tapes and the USPS long before the Internet came along.
3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
True, but proprietary companies also use the Internet for development, so how is this important?
4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
Maybe.
5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
Great. Thanks, so you manage to put Open Source and anti-American in a sentence. That's the last thing that OSS needs: "OSS developed by terrorists". Stop splitting the world into American and anti-American; it's not that simple, and surely the number of people who sit that and go "I'm going to develop this cool software because I hate America" must be tiny. Most of them are doing it for the glory.
6. "Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."
Yes, true.
7. "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
I don't even understand this.
8. "Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
Hmm. Ever talk to IBM about running Linux on Big Iron? Not everything is Intel and if it were wouldn't that mean that Intel could charge whatever they like for a processor and make servers expensive again?
9. "Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."
Yes, they are.
10. "There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."
Oh man, this guy is out of touch. Go to any large organization (Shell Oil, JP Morgan, HBO,
11. "Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."
Wow, the insights never stop.
12. "It's free."
Very unimportant. A far more important issue is TCO; if you can make a good TCO argument then a CIO is going to buy into it.
John.
Am I the only person who can't seem to understand what that is meant to mean?
Basically.. a more widespread distrust of America will be reflected on american products.
Do foreign governments want to put their strategical infrastructure software in the hands of a nation which they do not trust?
Let's not turn this into a flamewar on how or if these sentiments are valid and just agree on that they exist, like it or not.
You must all be reading a different article to me.
I'm reading how OPEN SOURCE will boom in 5-10 years, not linux.
Do story submitters not read the articles either ?!
"Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
Actually almost the whole World is anti-Bush, not anti-American.
Iraq: war to save the U
When I was walking into NEC a couple months ago with my ggod friend at Red Hat, I asked him why he worked at a Linux company. He told me, "Because it will be the last OS". It took me a while for that to really sink in-- but I think it has a stong chance at becoming true. Any major advances in security, compartmentability, portability, etc. will wind up in Linux. Even if they are developed in some subbranch or separate OS (QNX, Embedded, BSD), the features and code concepts could (and most likely will) find their way into Linux.
The only thing that would prevent such "Borgification" would be a superior kernel structure with a fundamentally different architecture. Sure, there will be one eventually, but the temptation to graft that into Linux will be too great, and "Linux" will most likely adapt, rather than get killed.
davejenkins.com |
Now, imagine that a company you distrust that much is in bed with a government that cannot be trusted. A government that feels free to impose its will on anyone anywhere, and had no respect for anyones privacy. That requires little or no imagination these days. Now, imagine that it isn't even your own government. How would you feel?
Even true US patriots can see why any sane government would want to ensure that they rely only on OPEN computing systems instead of coverting their governments and populations into MicroSerfs.
That's not true. The complaints about America are largely the result of American culture and history. It's not like suddenly in 2001 Bush took office and people just started having problems with America... do you really think it only took El-Qaida a few months to whip up their plans for 9/11?
Let's just be clear with this particular point that Mark is making that this isn't about Bush or that "open source" software itself is anti-American. The point is: people remember the Cold War and worry that American business works hand-in-hand with the CIA and other agencies (which is not to say that their own governments are any better in many cases-- but look at which foreign groups are most receptive to "open source": governments).
I do not have a signature
Let us not forget the recent example of China: why should any government implement critical installations of software that may have been compromised by the NSA and its affiliates? If you can't see the source, you have no assurance of code integrity. What good is strong crypto if your info is intercepted before it's encoded?
Go with an entirely open-source solution, and you can make sure there are no built-in trojans, watchers-at-the-gate, or other boojums lurking behind the desktop.
Damn those pesky terrorists
Mark Andreesen is the biggest example of "right place at the right time" fame/fortune ever.
The guy was lucky to have stumbled onto the Mosaic project in college and has been coasting on that dumb luck ever since.
He accomplished nothing while at Netscape, he wasn't a core developer, he wasn't given any real position of responsibility or authority, he was merely a handsomely paid poster boy. He has accomplished nothing since the demise of Netscape. Loudcloud was a complete and utter failure. His latest venture will likely sputter and die as well.
Why he continues to get publicity as an "Internet Whiz Kid" boggles my tiny mind.
His "top 12" list shows no signs of creative thought or keen insight, its just a regurgitation of the same Slashdot karma-whoring BS seen here every day.
1. "The Internet is powered by open source."
Really? Cisco routers are open source? What about the switches and core hardware/software that makes things work? Open source? I don't think so.
2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."
Uh, yeah... The "Internet" doesn't give a shit what it "carries". Open or closed, it is an
agnostic transport.
3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
"The Internet" is merely the means of transferring data. Linux is a platform, but so is Windows, Solaris, and other folks that have made significant contributions to the growth of the internet.
4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
Really? Just saying it is so does not make it so.
Open source code can be just as buggy and full of security holes as proprietary code.
5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
Huh? So its good that the rest of the world hates the US? Hmmmm, right, so lets foster even more ill-will around the world so the mighty Linux can RULE! How does one make such an idiotic statement?
6. "Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."
Yeah, thats SOOOOO Much better than cold hard cash. I'd really rather my friends think I'm cool than make a decent living.
Statements like #6 are easy to make for a guy who stumbled into his fortune by sheer luck.
7. "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
Maybe, but Mark Andreesen is not one of them.
8. "Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
9. "Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."
10. "There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."
Yes, and this "software" is not necessarily any good. The barriers to entry in the open source world are very low, but that doesn't mean that everyone is produciing quality code. Volume != quality.
11. "Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."
Geez, how long did it take him to come up with #11? Really keen insight, Mark. Keep up the good work.
12. "It's free."
Wow, brilliant, thanks for the insight, captain obvious.
It's not like suddenly in 2001 Bush took office and people just started having problems with America... do you really think it only took El-Qaida a few months to whip up their plans for 9/11?
This neatly illustrates the difference. Al-Quaida are anti-America. The dislike America and want to destroy it.
At the same time there are millions of people around the world who are anti-Bush. They dislike Bush and think his politics, especially international politicies, suck. These people are not anti-American and certainly do not sympathise or support Al-Quaida.
There are certain people in the US for whom it is beneficial to lump those of us who are anti-Bush alongside the anti-Americans. You don't need to help them by doing it yourself, though.
disclaimer: i run both windows and freebsd + linux and have done for years. as much as i support the open source community and dislike MS's strong-arm anti-competitive strategies, i do feel sometimes one gets carried away with very a very isolated view on certain real-world scenarios.
so here goes:
1. "The Internet is powered by open source."
Sorry, but this statement is a little too broad. As far as I am aware (and I'm open to being proven wrong - bait!) a large amount of "The Internet" is powered by Cisco routers which run the proprietary operating system IOS. I accept that there are a large amount of Sendmail/Postfix/Exim/Qmail boxes around pushing email, but there are also a hell of a lot of MS Exchange Servers and IBM Lotus servers pushing email as well powering corporate email. Also MS represents around 1/4 of web servers on the Net. So, like I said, a very bold generalisation.
2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."
As it is for proprietary systems.
3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
That is because open source is largely decentralised. Business itself is decentralising to some degree (although not to the same level as Open Source - but this can be as much a strength as a presumed weakness).
4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
This is the one that erks me the most. Lets take a look at the nuts and bolts of the O/S rather than the user interaction. There have been probably (if someone has stats, I would love to see them) as many Linux (think SSH + FTP + Telnet etc...) exploits out there as there have been on Windows (think IIS). The more the Linux front-end bloats like Windows has over the years and the more "features" that get added to various products introduce security risks.
The fact that the source is open means that people can exploit it rather than by trial and error or just hacking around than by actually analysing the source and finding weaknesses in it like people did with the Windows leaked source code.
Most of the bad security press (especially recently) has been Outlook (Express) based Worms and this was do to introducing a good idea (feature) that turned sour. Could just as easily happen in the Open Source community, but due to lack of penetration (he said penetration) it has never cascaded into something as far-reaching as MS's security woes have in this regards.
5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
Personally I'm big into this! I feel that the potential for Europe to regain power and all of that is pretty massive. However, outside of the USA there is one big problem - language. You may think that this is getting better - go to Brussels, goto Barcelona and see how many 20-30 year olds speak English; not many.
6. "Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."
At our (proprietary) office peer respect amongst coders is pretty high too. Are we an exception?
7. "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
"He doth stride the world like a colossus...". What if the giants jump up and down and shake you off? Sorry I just don't get this - anyone care to explain?
8. "Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
As does Windows. And don't say the free thing because RedHat Advanced Server and all of the other commercial guys also charge for their server distros. And then you want support, and then you have to have certified engineers. I've seen too many contrary ROI models to not prove anything here.
9. "Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."
Fair enough. Although consider Symbian. Also consider that MS have not been big on an embedded device strategy until recently. We all know what happens when MS starts taken an interest in something - and of all people M
1) From the TCP/IP stack onwards and upwards to the really critical applications (web, mail, DNS), GPL and BSD software dominate the Net. The only real counterexample I can think of is the software on the big Cisco routers. I think the first statement is a sound one.
2) It's not meaningless. I don't personally remember the bad old days when Linux distros were mailed between developers on stacks of fifty or sixty floppy disks. But those dark times did exist.
The Internet allowed for collaboration on an unprecedented, massively multiplayer level. This is something that proprietary developers haven't been able to take full advantage of, because their model requires a certain level of secrecy. They can release beta software and ask for feedback, but they can't say, "Here's the code. Tell me if you see anything wrong with it."
I don't believe #2 and #3 are saying anything different. #4 may be true, but it's difficult to make a convincing case either way.
5) It's not just about the developers. It's about the acceptance of Linux by users. The fact is, only about 5% of potential computer users live inside the U.S. Therefore, for 95% of people, any money paid for Microsoft products is money leaving the country. The higher the level of anti-American sentiment, the more people will clamor for an alternative. There's also the fact that a foreign government cannot check the Windows disks they receive for backdoors.
In America, no it won't resonate. But we're not the center of the world, and those who be against us dwarf the number that be for us. So I think Bush should be playing nicer, but that's a flame for another time.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
The point is that if it isn't true, they're not necessarily reasons for Linux to be set to boom. Instead, they're reasons that will help an eventual boom if other things fall into place (and they are at the moment, but he didn't mention them). For instance:
1. Growing cost of software in relation to hardware (related to "it's free"
2. Growing anti-Microsoft-sentiment (in part related to his mention of anti-American sentiment)
3. Growing Internet use (related to his first 3 points)
4. Growing interest in security/coverage of Microsoft security problems (related to #4)
5. Growing interest in replacing expensive hardware and associated software and support contracts with inexpensive hardware that can easily be supported by any number of local individuals (related to #8, and makes the cheaper cost of software even more important in relation to my own #1)
6. The inherent flexibility and portability of open source (leading to #9, embedded (and other) devices making use of open source software)
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Disclaimer I am a linux loving desktop hippy who plays games ONLY on windows 2003.
True enough except not really certain parts of it certainly are. TCP/IP bind apache etc are all opensource. Telecom infrastructure sure as hell isn't. Neither is the hardware that powers all the opensource. At best it is 50/50.
True enough. Opensource can usually be downloaded legally wich is a bit less usual for propietary code.
And how do all those outsourcing project work? Over the internet. It is more like opensource is possible because of the internet. Opensource is big because of the internet not the other way around.
Well sure. As soon as someone gets all the bugs out of openssl. It is not the biggest piece of software in the world and still holes are found. Sure they are plugged as soon as possible but they are still there. Opensource is only secure at the moment because nobody has found a gigantic hole yet. We may not be so lucky in the future.
Oh boy. What a nice way to ruin an article. Exactly what is meant by it anyway? I know plenty of "anti-american" kiddies. They just go with the flow but I don't see them using linux. They spout of against america because it is cool but it is just words. None of them practice it. Would be hard to do as none of them got a clue.
There is a far more real anti-"what america has become" feeling. How exactly this applies to the choice of software would be hard to say. I think at best you can say it is powered by an anti-coorperation feeling but this would not exactly explain why big business is adopting linux.
This argument is too big to be included in a short list.
Incentives around closed source include million dollar salaries. I think this is a tie.
Linux stands on the shoulders of unix. Since when has unix been opensource? Sentence is incomplete. Opensource stands on the shoulders of giants who may have nothing to do with source at all or who developed some closed source but allowed others to use it and work with it and it is sharing a place on those shoulders with closed source.
Nice speech but meaningless.
So does windows. In fact it runs only on Intel and AMD but linux runs on the most expensive hardware out there. Intel isn't proprietary? WAHAAA. Intel isn't expensive? Depends, get some real hardware from intel and you will be paying big money. Not as big as "real" servers but you get what you pay for. Itanium? Better have a 19inch fridge ready to cool it.
True. Same as tron. Tron is also capable of running on the desktop. Have you even seen it live? So my washing machine etc will run on linux but I control it via windows? Nice win, not. Only if all linux powered embedded devices are also compatible with linux on the outside it will mean very little.
Ehm, right. What was AT&T again? Or Xerox? Software companies? Don't think so. Hell software being developed by software companies is a relativly new idea.
Yup but that is not a reasing why it will win. It is a symptom of the fact that it is winning. Cause and effect I am afraid.
Yes nice. Free as in money or free as in freedom. People care about money. Far less about freedom. Opensource costs money. Same as closed source. You need to pay someone to maintain your setup. To install and modify.
I know he was trying to limit words but this sentence should be more specific.
"Opensource allows freedom."
CONCLUSION:
Meaningless.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Eh? You really mean to say you think that, before one year ago, everyone in the world LOVED the US?
Look, I'm not happy with the situation in Iraq, but to blame all anti-American sentiment on the War is just plain dumb-ass. To blame all anti-American sentiment on any one thing is just as stupid. There are lots of reasons why people dislike the US. Some of those reasons are good, and some aren't, but most go back to policies that have been in place since at least WWII.
The point is that Open Source will boom because people, and even more so governments don't trust an American Monopoly, especially one which has been repeatedly convicted of abusing its monopoly position to extend its power and control.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
It's all come to the point where you get Americans seemingly under the impression America is "better" than other countries, and that everything America does is, by very definition, "good". The only thing America is better at than the rest of the world is impregnating incredibly baseless patriotism into its citizens, and gun crime. America isn't about freedom, liberty or justice - it's about stock, shareholders and dividends. I think that's what pisses most people off. It would be like if Jesus came back and decided to be a slave trader. Lots of promise, but no balls to carry it out.
And so on.
Linux is old in the hobbyist market. Linux is the player to beat in the server market. And in the scientific computing market. It is now well-established in the embedded field. It is getting a foothold in the corporate desktop market.
The home desktop market is still missing.
Many of the arguments Bush made to go into Afghanistan and Iraq were made before him by Clinton to justify bombing Afghanistan and Iraq. All of the same justifications, all of the same outrage from foreign governments, but very different results because of the effectiveness of the very different approaches.
Right, but Clinton was also wrong. However he wasn't as consistently wrong and bone headed about it as Bush as proven himself to be, hence any "anti-Clinton" feeling was minimal compared to the current anti-Bush sentiment around the globe. It is this rise in ill-feeling towards the U.S leader which has been interpreted as anti-Americansim by U.S Conservatives in an effort to discredit what are largely valid complaints. Labelling someone who is complaing about your foriegn policy "anti-American" and placing them right next to Bin Laden himself is a great way to make your critics look bad.
"It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
Saying "simply" is a bad idea. It makes it sound like open source code is inherantly more secure... written, released, secure all in one fell swoop. Succesfull open source code might be more secure but it was work to make is so. It didn't just happen. People had to look at it, analyze it, use it, push it and do things to it that weren't meant to be done. That can happen with closed source exactly the same way. However, open source seems more accountable and verifiable to the outside world (in my opinion). Accountable in that they don't put 4 pages of EULA that must be agreed to before ever running the program(1), and that you can usually access the developers of the software if something is really fscked. Try getting through to a software engineer at microsoft if your machine keeps booting up into an unstable state and explore.exe or whatever it is keeps crashing on load. Verifiable in that you can view the source code, or hire someone to do so without NDA's or other contractual obligations to the owners of the source code.
I would have prefered, "Open source can be verified as secure, where closed source can not." But that isn't even perfect.
(1) question: does the GPL or BSD license have to be agreed to for simply executing a binary created by source code released under the GPL or BSD license? naively I assume it does not need to be agreed to, only if you redistribute.
Just after Sept 11, 2001 - most of the world (save a few corners of hatred) loved the US. Most across the globe was a New Yorker for a short period.
The Bush politics, and pushy-war-mongering, squandered the good will of the world in record time.
Now, after a few years, most of the world is indiffernt to the US, a bit more of the world hates us, and Great Britain is on our side.
You're both right. Where's the agrument there?
What are the particular reasons Europeans hate Bush? Could anyone be fairly explicit and mature in their response?
1. "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists."
2. The opinions of "old Europe" do not matter.
3. Freedom fries.
4. British and Spanish troops in Iraq, counter to public opinion.
Now, why do *I* (a Canadian) hate Bush? He wins an election by about 500 votes. He has the good fortune to be president on 9/11, which turns him into a pariah. Then he manipulates public sentiment about 9/11 to push forward the most extreme right-wing agenda in recent history.
-a