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?"

Comments

Why Linux Will Boom - in 3 Words

[ChaoticChaos]

It's not Windows.

Re:Why Linux Will Boom - in 3 Words

[kantai]

Funny you mention this...

Because I would think this is the number one reason that open source and linux WILL NOT boom.

Think, if Microsoft didn't exist, what would be holding Open Source back?

Re:Why Linux Will Boom - in 3 Words

[dmx450]

If Microsoft didn't exist, OS/2 would have been king!

Re:Why Linux Will Boom - in 3 Words

[z_gringo]

We actually took this question to a Professor in the Education department.

We were concerned about Bon Jovi's song where he says "I'll be there for you. These five words I say to you". One person said "Ha leave it to Bon Jovi to screw that one up. It's six words." I however was convinced it was 5 words.

The whole thing got bigger than it needed to, but the professor didn't have an immediate answer.

After reviewing with some colleagues including 1 who was an attorney, the general consensus was that it was indeed 6 words. It's also a contraction, which is pronounced as 1 word, but if you diagram that sentence, you have to separate the subject and the verb.

Therefore, if you accept the decision of the Professors (and attorney), What we acutally have is Andreessen's "Why Linux will Boom in 106 words" due to the 3 contractions he used in his list.

Although, there is a good argument for either side..

Re:Why Linux Will Boom - in 3 Words

[Anonymous Coward]

$ echo It\'s not Windows. | wc -w
3

How dare you question the all knowing wc.

Not Impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

It would have been impressive if he did it in 100 words.

Re:Not Impressed

[Kehl]

Would have been even better if the web page containing those 102 words wasnt 108KB. Do web developers test a pages on a T1 connection?

Sorry if this sounds like a rant - but my Broadbands been a little iffy this morning so I switched to a 56K modem, the page "only" takes 26 seconds to load at 4KB/Second! Arnt modems (33.6 - 56K) still the most popular connection method to the Internet? /rant off

Insightfull article though!

Re:Not Impressed

[good(k)night]

as a geek -- I will be impressed with 102.4 words.
ow, i mean 128 ...

Re:Not Impressed

[Flexagon]

This sounds like the old "theorem" that any program can be reduced to 99 lines because any program larger than that can surely be reduced by one measly line without breaking it.

Re:Not Impressed

[David Gould]

Do web developers test a pages on a T1 connection?

No, I think they generally use their local filesystems. Sorry. *shrug*

Then again, the actual html document is only ~26KB, and if you're using a "real" browser, it should be able to do the layout and display the text before loading the other objects.

It should even be able to do incremental layout, displaying the text before it's even finished loading the html. Though in this case, the text you want to see is 14KB (!) down, so you're definitely waiting for that.

only 12?!?

[PhuckH34D]

Only 12 reasons? There must be more :)

Re:only 12?!?

[dooguls]

I big one he missed was, every smashing new idea coming out of academia is based on linux. Though this is mostly because it's free and the source code is available, which makes this more of a correlary, but still an important one. C.S. students learn about C.S. on linux. Therefor they understand it and are comfortable with it. It follows then, that those creative enough to start their own companies or invent something new will use linux.

1 word counter-argument

[BillFarber]

inertia

Re:1 word counter-argument

[TheSpoom]

I agree.

Linux has to overcome consumers attachment to Windows fueled by the incredible power of their apathy and lazyness to learn anything new (at least, on the desktop).

Perhaps it's a good thing that some Linux distros try to emulate the Windows interface (Lindows and the like), because for simple people who use their computers for email, browsing, and the occasional spyware-filled P2P, there's no way they're going to take the time to learn something like KDE as it is.

Re:1 word counter-argument

[Thag]

Most of those people don't know Windows either. All they need is icons on their desktop for their apps.

Jon Acheson

Same 12 reasons as last year?

[Anonymous Coward]

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*

Re:Same 12 reasons as last year?

[krygny]

Maybe, but it all can be summed up in a single reason: There is quite simply a certain, undeniable, inescapable inevitability to OSS. Its growth is slow, steady, and seemingly unstoppable. At some point, it will reach the "tipping point". Then, its growth will be exponential.

It hard to imagine this whole thing just blowing over.

Re:Same 12 reasons as last year?

[HenchmenResources]

I think that the proof of Linux's expansion can be seen in fact that there are court cases against it (SCO). I'm not necessarily talking about the IBM and Novell cases though they do lend their support, but I speak more directly about the cases against Auto Zone as a Linux user as well as putting forth threats of legal action against government agencies, and thats just in the United States. Why would a company spend millions of dollars fighting legal battles against something that is not a threat.

Yes there are success stories, you may have heard of a small search engine called Google, though admittedly they are a company built on Linux, not one switching over. For a list of other success stories see IBM's website and yes it is true that some of these companies have only switched a portion of their computers to Linux, but I think you'll find that when any switch is being made it gets done a few computers at a time, I know of companies that do this even when upgrading their chosen OS ie. MS 2000 to MS XP.

When it comes to switching OS's two basic rules apply:

1. The switch will go much smoother if the technical knowledge base already exists in your company.

2. The larger number people the switch affects the larger the problem of switching. I think the latter in particular applies to the case of the German government, though their IT guys may be well have experience with Linux, it may not be on the scale that they are working on now, and when you add in the training that need to be done to get the large number of users up and running on Linux it starts to become clear that there will be extra unforeseen expenses and delays.

The company I work for just switched a large number of people over from using IBM's OS2 to using Mac OSX an OS know for being relativity user friendly and we have had many unforeseen setbacks, so this is not just a Linux thing, it can happen with Windows, Unix, BSD, even Mac.

Change may be a good thing in the long term but it can have severe short term effects and the challenge is to not let the short term disrupt business for longer than is necessary.

Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Internet is powered by open source."
"The Internet is the carrier for open source."
"The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
"It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
"Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
"Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."
"Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
"Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
"Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."
"There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."
"Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."
"It's free."

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[zeux]

"Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."

Actually almost the whole World is anti-Bush, not anti-American.

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[ichimunki]

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).

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[Bios_Hakr]

> "The Internet is powered by open source."
Like Cisco or Nortel?

>"The Internet is the carrier for open source."
It's also the carrier of porn and illegal copies of propritary software.

>"The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
It is also the platform through which propritary software is developed.

>"It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
Not nescessarily. Most insecurities are due to looming release dates. There is also a tradeoff between usability and security. Which is better? Depends on your mission.

>"Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
Not sure about this. I just got back from Kuait and there are literally hundreds of street vendors there selling propritary software.

>"Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."
Like the respect between the Reiser group and Linus? Why did it take so long to get that patch added? Those two crews showed as much respect as a couple of kids yelling "Did not! Did too!"

>"Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
Uuh, not sure what he means by this. I'm assuming he means IBM. What about Sun, MS, Adobe, and other closed source "Giants"?

>"Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
So does Windows. And when you are buying a $10k server, $200 for Windows doesn't even figure into it.

>"Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."
You have a winner here. But imbeded Windows and QNX are also players. This marker is not usually concerned with backwards compatibility and is very volitale in regards to the underlying kernel they choose. If x86 chips become prevalant, expect Windows to dominate.

>"There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."
This has always been the case. Lots of companies need some app that custom-built. They don't really care where the source comes from. Since the app is rarely redistributed, they have no requirements to release their modifications.

>"Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."
Not really. There is a percived lean to newer technologies in non-critical areas. Expect MS to respond to their concerns with newer server technologies that are hardened for special applications.

>"It's free."
But it can cost a ton while you have an outage and the one guy that knows about it is in Jamaca with his family on holiday. Most big projects are not like that, but you never know... MS shares the love. There is rarely one person who holds all the keys to a project.

And remember, if Linux truly takes over, MS will just use the kernel and bolt on a propritary installer (YAST) and a propritary desktop (Java Desktop) and then crush the competition like they always have.

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[thumperward]

Errr, how are western Europeans any worse off than Americans?

Seriously, don't you think the childish "you're just jealous" defense has something to do with it as well?

- Chris

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[Dracolytch]

Probably... But I was only really posting to remove a mod point I had placed on the parent previously. The server isn't being slashdotted, so no bonus.

~D

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[PainKilleR-CE]

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.

People don't need to sympathize with or support Al-Qaeda, though, to be anti-American, and many people that are now anti-Bush were previously anti-American in other ways. Lumping them together in defense against arguments he never made is just a straw-man to avoid the real issue. 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.

In any case, anti-American sentiment tends to be very different from anti-Bush sentiment, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the US government, but rather with the perception of American culture and the globalization of American business. Many foreign governments would just as readily support Microsoft if they were a corporation in their own country, and the idea that China, like any other socialist country, would prefer an outside capitalist-run corporation's products in their market over an internal government-developed version of open-sourced products is laughable. It's not even particularly anti-American in that case, it's simply anti-Capitalist.

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[dave420]

Actually dude... I hate to break it to ya... Lots of it is simply because America spawns lots of the worlds problems, and makes life worse for many people around the world. America's commercially-powered government and responsibilities means its true nature isn't one of protection of people, but protection of money. It all stems from that. America is insular because Americans want American money in America. Al Qaida are after the US because the US put its troops in Saudi Arabia to launch planes into Iraq (to protect its money in the area, during the first war), yet never took them out (Saudi Arabia having some of the holiest lands in the Islamic world, so having infidels wandering around scratching their nuts with M16s probably isn't the most respectful thing).

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.

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[jfengel]

Anti-Americanism goes way back, for a lot of different reasons, many of them deserved, many not.

Past American screwups in foreign policy have left deep scars. Americans are frequently accused of imperialism. That was true in many ways, in the 1880s in Latin America and Africa (just as the rest of the world was pulling back its colonial powers).

More recently, during the Cold War America fought a variety of proxy wars with the Soviets, often backing one set of ruthless dictators against the Russian-backed ruthless dictators. These wars caused a lot of pain and grief, and because America was trying to establish client-states (or at least, keep the Soviets from establishing their client-states), it looked like more imperialism.

The CIA, in particular, is less effective fighting terrorism today than it might be because it has screwed up so badly in the past that a host of restrictions were placed on its power. It still hasn't effectively integrated its intelligence with the FBI, for example. That wall was put into place because the CIA had badly, badly misused the FBI to abuse American citizens in the 60's and 70's.

I live in America, and I'm not sure the rest of the world believes me when I say that the American people really don't want to run your country or own the world. The worst I can accuse us of is being willing to take advantage of less-developed countries, to use cheap jobs and nonexistent worker and environmental regulations to our advantage. But we don't want to colonize those countries, nor are we particulary intent on forcing them to continue those practices. We just take advantage of what we see. (I do not approve of this, mind you, and many will see this as worse than plain-old imperialism, but I'm just trying to lay out my observations as best I can.)

When Americans want to invade a foreign country, it's always out of fear. When we fear for our safety, we become aware of our strength. Other than that, we'd rather be economic than military.

Except, perhaps, for GW Bush, and his dad. The first Gulf War was clearly about oil, though we were able to play it as being about a small, oppresed country (as opposed to all those other small, oppressed, non-oil-bearing countries that we ignore). The President played it for oil, and sold it to Americans as freedom.

The same thing happened again last year. Americans, worried for their safety, were plenty ready to fight whomever the President said, with secret intelligence, was a danger. But the intelligence was wrong, or false, and the President misled America. Last time it worked, because the war was cheap, and he lied less. This time, there could be serious repercussions for American foreign policy.

But I believe that Americans, as individuals, had no interest in stealing Iraqi oil, even if the President did.

I've allowed myself to get drawn rather off-topic, so mod me down if you must, and I apologize in advance.

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[gcore]

I dont like the US for just that attitude youre showing. "We are on top of the world".
I mean, the europeans occupied a continent and nearly whiped out the natives and called it America, had slavery when most other countries had abbandoned it centuries ago.

"If youre not with us, you are against us" must be the most stupid thing any president has ever said.

And there are many countries more "free" than the US.

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[protohiro1]

Isn't it great when a sight holds up to the slashdotting, but the ads don't? The banner on this page timed out for me...

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[master_p]

Open-source is not anti-American. It is anti-authority, anti-power, anti-monopoly. It's for the people, by the people. It's about freedom and democracy.

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[nickos]

"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"

No, this is not true. In Europe we pretty much switched overnight from liking and respecting the US to despising it as a result of Bush's response to the terrorist attack in New York.

Hopefully you guys will get rid of the current administration soon and we can get some sanity back into world affairs.

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[God! Awful 2]

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

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[Leon_Trotsky]

I can't speak for Europeans or Americans, I am neither. I can speak for myself though.

As much as we hate the idea, US'ers own everything, have most of the wealth (therefore power) in the world, and do so by exploiting their hegemony (as did the British against whom the US'ers rebelled for that very reason).

If it were as simple as the leader of the US remaining the leader of the US and minding his own business, no one outside the US would care much who the leader was.
But this is the problem isn't it? The Leader of the US styles himself the "Leader of the free world" and genuinely believes it. I don't remember a "Leader of the free world" election, which makes him the "dictator of the oppressed world". While preaching like a missionary to the savages about democracy and open markets, Bush's machine imposes protectionist duties on imports, invades countries at whim, implants dictators, removes them, etc.

You can't think that the leader of the US has no impact on the rest of the world. Who is elected in that country has a direct impact on everyone.

That's why we hate him.

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[BgJonson79]

No, this is not true. In Europe we pretty much switched overnight from liking and respecting the US to despising it as a result of Bush's response to the terrorist attack in New York.

If you switched overnight, as you say, did you ever really like the US that much? I mean, if I go from being someone's friend one day to their "enemy" the next, were we ever really friends?

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[sbaker]

Anti-Americanism goes way back, for a lot of different reasons, many of them deserved, many not.

It does - but everyone was very positive about the USA at the time of the first Gulf War. The good will from those times has not just evaporated, it's reversed.

I don't think the average Joe on the streets of Europe knows anything about
American imperialism in the 1880's.

I live in America, and I'm not sure the rest of the world believes me when I say that the American people really don't want to run your country or own the world.

I certainly believe that. Most Americans are EXTREMELY ill-informed about world events. (I recall an incident at a Sonic's drive-through: "I love your accent! Where are you from?" - "I'm from England" - "Oh...So what language do you speak there?"...OK - that was a cheap shot!)

But the US media doesn't like to impart uncomfortable images of America in the world. Making people uncomfortable makes them tune out - and that sells less soap powder.

It's really difficult for Americans to find out about the real issues that the rest of the world cares about. Heck - most of them think that everyone except the Arabs and the French still love America!

The worst I can accuse us of is being willing to take advantage of less-developed countries, to use cheap jobs and nonexistent worker and environmental regulations to our advantage.

I don't think that's it either. I'm sure British, French and German companies do much the same kinds of exploitation.

But I believe that Americans, as individuals, had no interest in stealing Iraqi oil, even if the President did.

Yep. I agree.

I don't believe that Americans as individuals are responsible for ANY of the problems that the rest of the world has with America. I think that most thinking people outside of the USA don't hate Americans as individuals.

Big business and worse government are the things people can't stand. What I think Europeans don't generally understand is just how ill-informed people here in the USA are about that.

What's *so* distressing is that there isn't a way out of that. Once people only see events through the lens of the media (which is owned by big business) - they vote on the basis of what they see and are influenced by advertising campaigns that are paid for by...guess what...big business again. This makes it VERY hard for America to get the government that it truly needs.

Take something like Global Warming. The US media broadcasts very mixed messages about this "It's not proven", "Fixing pollution will wreck the economy" - that kind of bullshit. The government is in the pockets of people who are quite anxious to sell more oil - and honking great SUV's - so THEY aren't going to fix it.

The citizens who COULD fix it - either by buying smaller cars - or by voting out government who won't impose the necessary car efficiency laws - don't even believe there is a problem! I simply cannot believe how almost every American I talk to denies that Global Warming is even *real*!!! It's not because they are stupid or uncaring - it's because they are being cut off from the truth.

The rest of the civilised world isn't (yet) under such constraints - so most Europeans are driving more appropriate vehicles and voting in governments who want to do something about the problem. When they look to America - they just can't believe how people here could be so STUPID as to not want to do something about it.

If it were just one issue - this would be overwhelmed by the fact that Americans are actually a pretty reasonable, nice people with good intentions. But it's not just one issue. Scarcely a day goes by without something like the USA being the *ONLY* country in the entire world who refused to sign the anti-land-mine treaty! Ack!

Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting

[iwadasn]

More than that, there just isn't enough oil to be worth it for the country. Looks like we're going to spend about $300 billion on this mess, and that's pretty conservatively more money than the total worth of all the Iraqi oil, so oil as a motive for the american people doesn't make sense, there just isn't enough.

However, there is enough to enrich Bush's cronies (halliburton), and they get rich from war Profiteering, they don't even need the oil, though I'm sure they'll try to take it anyway. It's a huge net loss for the american people (even without considering other costs), but Bush's cronies can siphon off a few percent of that loss, and that's billions of dollars, enough to be very rewarding for them.

Don't think that americans want oil, it's not worth it. That's what oil barrons want though, and that's what we get for (almost) electing one, and then lettnig the judiciary appoint him without flat out lynching Scalia, Thomas and Renquist.

As horrible as it sounds, a good old fashiones lynch mob would have been much better for our country, and everyone else's as well.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it is documented - documentation is just as important as being open source. If the behavior of MS software was fully and accurately documented, it would be much more stable, as programmers could account for every situation.

One Word

[SkArcher]

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.

Integrated Desktop and Applications

[stecoop]

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).

Re:Integrated Desktop and Applications

[truthsearch]

He said why it's set to boom, not why it's set to mimick Microsoft. Beating a giant doesn't come from copying the giant.

Anyway, integrated APIs are not the way to go. It's one of Microsoft's weaknesses. (Traditional) Unix is based on the idea of loosely coupled parts. Deep integration is anti-Unix and would therefore contradict the very basis of what makes GNU/Linux great.

Open source benefits from anti-American sentiment

[dan dan the dna man]

Am I the only person who can't seem to understand what that is meant to mean?

Andreesssen - Why I'm an idiot in 103 words.

[His name cannot be s]

Wait a sec.

He tried these 12 steps With Netscape. Then this guy went and founded LoudCloud.

I'm not sure that we even want this guy giving us his support or opinon.

It's kinda like getting political backing from Nixon.

Feh.

Re:Andreesssen - Why I'm an idiot in 103 words.

[dr_canak]

"He tried these 12 steps With Netscape. Then this guy went and founded LoudCloud.

I'm not sure that we even want this guy giving us his support or opinon."

I agree,

in that the average reader of slashdot may take Andreesen's thoughts and opinions with a grain of salt. With that said:

(1) the guy did have a vision many moons ago, that while others may have had, he somehow figured out a way to parlay it into millions of dollars. So he's got something that the rest of us don't have.

-and more importantly-

(2) financial and industry wonks do give the guy some credibility and are interested in his opinion for reason "1" above. So when you get someone with his cache talking about Linux, it's gonna get more airplay than 99.9999% of the slashdot readership.

just my .02,
jeff

Less than 103?

[AlaskanUnderachiever]

All Your Base Are Belong To Tux

Of course...

[tomknight]

..if I was using Perl

Tom.

Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min

[flewp]

I'm guessing it's sort of along the lines of anti-capitalism.

Or perhaps MS is seen as a big bad bully, and so is the US?

I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are the ones that popped into my head right away.

In fewer words

[platipusrc]

I would change "The Internet is powered by open source" to "Open Source powers the Internet" and I would have fewer words!!

Two words

[Lord Kano]

Outlook viruses

Re:Two words

[Lord of Ironhand]

Yup, Linux will boom not just by itself, but because the competitions implodes. 99% of people don't actively look for something better as long as what they currently have is "good enough".

What would really help Linux is a disastrous (Fortune500-company- secrets-in-the-newspaper- disastrous) security hole in Windows.

Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min

[Paulrothrock]

Translation: You don't get thrown in jail for pirating open source products.

My reasons in WAY less than 100 words

[cmburns69]

Because it can be an enterprise level solution for free.

Worthy of a /. news?

[dalamarian]

As much as I am glad to see positive news about Open Source, I have to wonder why this was worthy of news...

Some of these are not so good

[Saint Stephen]

1. "The Internet is powered by open source."

Anybody who can exhibit a counterexample can say this is not true.

2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."

Okay, that's true, but meaningless. Who cares?

3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."

Again, who cares?

4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."

This can be proven wrong, and you'll look stupid.

5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."

I really take exception to this, although it may be true. I think it's true that many open-source devs are europeans who have green-ish attitudes, it's immaterial, unhelpful, and boring. I for one don't wish to be associated with this and I raise an eyebrow at Andreesen for thinking this. If Kerry thought looking anti-American is going to help him, or you think it will help Linux, you are wrong. It is not going to resonate with people who aren't already on your side.

#6 - #12 are all fine, true, okay, and useful.

Re:Some of these are not so good

[Minna Kirai]

1. "The Internet is powered by open source."

Anybody who can exhibit a counterexample can say this is not true.

That's not how counterexamples work. If I claim my car runs on petroleum, and someone points out that it also has a electrical cell-battery providing a tiny bit of power, the existence of a 2nd power source doesn't eliminate the first. "is powered by" is not an exclusive phrase.

4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."

This can be proven wrong, and you'll look stupid.

The fact that secrecy harms security is becoming increasingly well-documented (and that applies not just to software, but in general)

How can software which can be changed or withdrawn at a whim from Microsoft ever be considered secure? To be dependent on Microsoft is to be insecure (in the same way that the US subsidizes unneeded farming production for "national security"). Furthermore (and more related to tradional ideas of software-security), Microsoft claims that Windows has exploits that those with access to the source code can see and use. They're essentially saying "We could hack your box, if we wanted."

Re:Some of these are not so good

[An Onerous Coward]

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.

Re:Some of these are not so good

[SlashDread]

"I think it's true that many open-source devs are europeans who have green-ish attitudes, it's immaterial, unhelpful, and boring"

I ALSO really take exception to THIS, although it may be true. I AM an european with a green-ish attitude (I got several more, amongst them liberalism), and I am NOT immaterial nor unhelpful, and given some drugs I can be quite entertaining.

I would have phrased 5. "anti-American blabla" as 5. Open Source benefits from anti-global-coorperation sentiments.

That would include greenish Americans... (I still fail to see what greenish has to do with Open Source, but he)

"/Dread"

Re:Some of these are not so good

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I really take exception to this, although it may be true. I think it's true that many open-source devs are europeans who have green-ish attitudes, it's immaterial, unhelpful, and boring. I for one don't wish to be associated with this and I raise an eyebrow at Andreesen for thinking this. If Kerry thought looking anti-American is going to help him, or you think it will help Linux, you are wrong. It is not going to resonate with people who aren't already on your side.

When a billion Chinese + Europeans + Russians + Arabs + anybody else that has a recently developed case of paranoia that the CIA and NSA are tracking them decide to dump Microsoft in favor of an OS whose source they can inspect, it's not going to matter who you want to be associated with.

America is likely to be the last consumer of Microsoft in the world, just like our measurement system.

Honest to God, if you're the CIO for the State department of a country that has interests opposite those of the US, Microsoft's "Open Code" program wouldn't cut it--if you can't compile and use it yourself, you have no idea of what the differences are between what you were shown and what you were given. And you have the technical resources to roll-your own, or at least inspect available Linux sources.

I think that's what Andreesen meant, more than anything else.

Linux | Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is talking about open source, not linux in particular (apart form the bits that are ;)

One word counter counter argument

[FatherOfONe]

FREEdom

Re:One word counter counter argument

[BillFarber]

You know that old saying, "you get what you pay for".

I'm not saying I agree. In fact, I disagree. However, many, many people say it to themselves every time they download a piece of software and it doesn't run because it needs to be re-compiled on their platform. So then they go to Best Buy and purchase something that runs, but crashes, but at least it runs.

Re:One word counter counter argument

[alph0ns3]

and the link with freedom is... ?

Re:One word counter counter argument

[Alzheimers]

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson

Re:One word counter counter argument

[Zerikai]

What I get for buying proprietary software is vendor lock-in. What I get for using open source software is freedom.

Yes, I get what I pay for. Yay.

Re:One word counter counter argument

[The Almighty Dave]

Here's another one.

"Only a fool thinks price and value are the same." - Antonio Machado

Re:One word counter counter argument

[tshak]

"Only a fool thinks price and value are the same." - Antonio Machado


That still doesn't negate the fact that value generally comes at a price.

Re:One word counter counter argument

[FatherOfONe]

That holds true until price is zero, then all you need is acceptable quality and performance. Also notice that I did not say FREE but FREEdom. There is a HUGE difference.

In the late 90's it was once said by venture capital types looking at putting money in to a software company... "Is Microsoft going to develop anything like this". The reason being that "IF" they did then, even if the product sucked, it would be cheaper and then it would drive this new company out of business. Well, now instead of Microsoft, it is open source.

You don't see many new closed source Web servers being developed do you? How about any new SQL databases?

You and I would agree that if there is good quality closed source programs, and they can be cost justified, some companies will use it. That software MUST add value to the company though, and there better not be a "good enough" open source solution. Granted there are many in I.T. today that just buy whatever Microsoft/Oracle/IBM puts out, but those types are quickly being replaced, or because of cost they are "looking" at other alternatives.

In my opinion it is not a good day to be a software development shop. Too bad for all those Indian programmers out there...

Re:One word counter counter argument

[AntonyBartlett]

In my opinion it is not a good day to be a software development shop.

On the other hand, it's probably a wonderful time to be offering consultancy on systems integration and how to best tailor particular open source programs to a clients needs.

Re:One word counter counter argument

[GAVollink]

I'm an IT Director. I make software decisions every day. Free software is not free to me by a long shot. Free software cost the countless hours of several people who care enough about a product to put time into coding and testing it.

By the time you have even heard of this software, it has been in use at several sites for many months... usually years. That is several people taking the risk of running a possibly unstable product, joining the mailing lists, sending feedback (and sometimes fixes).

I submit patches to Open Source where I can, and I use products that are labelled alpha and beta quite frequently - if they do, or have the potential to do, what I need them to. Once a product has reached critical mass (Apache, Linux, VIM) I use the software with confidence. Other's have already paid for it with thier time and energy. At that point, the cost of the software is usually in the time it takes to install and configure it with sub-standard documentation, lack of wizards, etc.

If I wasn't in IT, I would not use a lot of the stuff that I do - I know I can usually "make it work" and submit the tips/questions/fixes/how-to that are requisite in using such software in it's early phases.

Re:One word counter counter argument

[benploni]

That still doesn't negate the fact that value generally comes at a price.

And commodity infrastructure software is an exception to that.

Re:One word counter counter argument

[kasperd]

You know that old saying, "you get what you pay for".

How much do I have to pay to get freedom?

Am I missing something?

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

It didn't say "Linux", it said "Open Source" which does NOT always equate with Linux.

Or am I reading the wrong article?

Re:Open source benefits from anti-American sentime

[SkArcher]

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.

Eh?

[Serious Simon]

"Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments"

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.

Re:Eh?

[k98sven]

Well, you're forgetting about the strategic angle.
No nation likes to be a dependent of another nation.

If all your software is american, you're just one trade embargo away from having your entire IT infrastructure obsoleted.

Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

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?

What about BSD?

[catmaker]

No, I'm not trolling. Don't most of those reasons also apply to the BSDs?

Re:Open source benefits from anti-American sentime

[lovebyte]

Am I the only person who can't seem to understand what that is meant to mean?

Linux et al. are international efforts. They are not made/control by an American company (MS, Apple, IMB, SUN, ...) [outside of SCO!].

Andreessen relevant how?

[JohnGrahamCumming]

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.

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, ...) 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.

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.

Re:Andreessen relevant how?

[gobbo]

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.

Argh! This is a premium example of why so many who do not hate the USA or its citizens are 'anti-American' -- it's that "yer with us or agin' us" attitude that comes off as so peurile, and it makes the electorate seem bellicose and dangerous. There is the kneejerk belief that comes up: if you aren't waving stars 'n stripes(TM), you're a potential enemy, or divisive. It's an emotional response that goes against the grain of the Constitution, but never mind hypocrisy.

Anti-american != terrorist, okay? Terrorists are extremely rare; opponents to the strategic geopolitics of the USA are globally in the majority. Anti-american is a catch-all phrase that incorporates many concepts, including resistance to: economic/cultural expansion/neo-colonialism, foreign policy apparently as cynical as imperial Rome, a populace ignorant of or uncaring of the secrets and excesses of its leaders, and of course more than half the world's military expenditures being used to enforce dubious (Dubyous?) goals, etc. etc.

Patriotic blindness to the validity of external criticisms aside, the US government and its intelligence agencies provide no reason for other nations and their industries to trust software produced in the USA. Don't forget that most espionage is nationalistic industrial intelligence.

Re:Andreessen relevant how?

[jmacleod9975]

"7. "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."

I don't even understand this."

I am not sure if this helpful, but I think that this is supposed to be a paraphrase of what Isaac Newton supposedly said about his accomplishments in science.

So I guess he means that because open source works like science ideally is thought to work, with everyone else sharing in others works, that you can do more.

For example, if you want to make some new kind of web commerce engine or something. You can stand on the shoulders of linux/bsd, apache, mysql/postgresql, perl/python/php, and concentrate on your webcommerce code, instead of having to reinvent all of that other stuff first. And theoretically those "giants will always be there to stand on, unlike non open software.

Re:Andreessen relevant how?

[Trailer Trash]

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.

You're being too kind to the guy. Look, he left UIUC where he had been working on open source (although not Free) web products, the NCSA httpd and NCSA Mosaic. He then founded a company to directly compete against those products. They gave away the web browser (oh, did you think Microsoft started that tactic?) and sold the server for some ungodly sum of money. After gaining a monopoly, they abused their position to keep the monopoly by staying one step ahead of everybody else with new proprietary features. Within a couple of years, most of the web had turned into a big "This site works with Netscape Navigator, Download Netscape Now" button.

In a wierd turn of events, the only company that had the resources to keep up with them- Microsoft- finally put an end to their monopoly position by using similar tactics (free browser, etc.) and were finally able to establish a monopoly position themselves when Netscape ran out of money and couldn't quickly create a decent browser to replace the terrible 4.x series.

Andreesen made his money by being the antithesis of the open source programmer. He took a page out of Bill Gates playbook and found that Gates still knew how to play that game better than he could imagine.

After it was all said and done, Netscape decided to create an open source project to get free programming for their browser, since they didn't have the cash to do it themselves. The result, of course, is the browser that I'm using right now.

But I don't see Andreesen as some sort of open source luminary, and never will. History will remember him, instead, as the guy who started the first dotcom.

Re:Open source benefits from anti-American sentime

[Ralph Yarro]

Foreign governments will tend to use Linux, and encourage their industries to use it, to avoid dependency on software from the evil USA?

Seriously though, governments would be well advised to avoid dependency on software so heavily subject to the control of any other country's government, it shouldn't depend on anti-American sentiment in particular.

Re:Open source benefits from anti-American sentime

[rokzy]

(this is an explanation, not necessarily my opinion)

the world view's America as the land of the selfish, run by corporations, headed by a falsely-elected retard, and not bothered about persecuting people, being hypocritical, or just plain murder if it's beneficial to profits.

MS is associated with similar "American" traits - bullying, being crap, holding the world back.

so being for open source and linux is like being against capitalism and MS.

Re:Open source benefits from anti-American sentime

[k98sven]

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.

Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min

[zapyon]

Probably you have to be Non-American (if not Anti-American) to understand this one ;-)

Odd...

[fullofangst]

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 ?!

hmm...

[wolfgang_spangler]

"Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."

Most reports I have heard say that most people from countries outside of the US view many US products (McDonalds, Microsoft, Nike, others) as international producs and don't really associate them with the US. Is that BS?

I'd also like to know if that statement is just a knee-jerk statement or if there is any proof to back it up.

"Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."

So does Solaris, and it HAS for a while.

This could just as easily be 103 words about Apple

[adzoox]

1. Apple has a loyal fanbase that supports it "enough" to break even - make a profit
2. Apple has the iPod, the iSight, Quicktime, iTunes - all superior Mac and Windows implementations
3. Apple has the design prowess and the marketing genius to cater to just about any market segment they choose to go after - right now; audio - next; video
4. Apple has the appearance of support - most people don't know where to turn for Linux support
5. Macs can run Linux too
6. Apple has an immense support base on the internet
7. Mac OS X is a Unix derivitive - so everything mentioned in the 103 words pretty much applies to Apple.

There - exactly 103 words!

Weak and strong reasons.

[Tarantolato]

> 3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."

Most users don't care about the development platform of what they use.

> 4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."

Going to be?

> 5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."

I've heard this argument before. Could we be setting ourselves up for an anti-anti-American backlash?

> 6. "Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."

Read: OSS users are snobs. And snobs about something dweeby. More negative than positive.

> 8. "Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."

Fine for the server market.

> 12. "It's free."

So far this has helped on the server, but not the desktop.

> 11. "Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."

This might be the strongest one.

What's new?

[Pedrito]

With the exception of one or two things on the list, this stuff has been true about Linux for a long time. So why does it suddenly mean Linux is going to boom?

Two things will make or break Linux: a> Ease of use and b> Applications

The first, ease of use, has been a problem for Linux for a long time and only in the last year or two have people really started to address this. I think with time, Linux will boom, but there's still a lot of work to do.

The "Last" OS

[davejenkins]

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.

Re:The "Last" OS

[DLWormwood]

In theory, there should only be one "cola" product.

Why? The only thing that makes a cola a cola is the inclusion of the cola bean as an ingredient. What Pepsi, Coke, RC, and others do is vary the other ingredients, like sugar and caffeine, to taste.

Advocating that Linux should be the one true OS is to fall for the same kind of hubris that Microsoft is known for. We need diversity in our OS space for security reasons, to prevent any form of "monoculture."

Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min

[Technician]

It's examined closely for open backdoors. Because it is fully checked for big brother backdoors that could permit spies, it's not likely to have big brother holes in it. This is real security. If you don't want to share your private business with the world, who's software would you use. MS with the hole that gave away SCO's Haloween X secrets, or something that will keep your edits private. I know which editor I don't use for e-mail.

Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min

[TrentL]

There are several reasons.

1) American companies have been known for putting back-doors in programs so that organizations like the NSA could easily break in if needed. (Remember the infamous Lotus Notes story?)

2) America has put back doors in other software that caused nasty things to happen.

In short, other countries don't trust us.

How is that a good thing?

[Corporate Gadfly]

can anyone use fewer than 103 words and still adduce as many reasons as he does?

Exactly. Goes to show that if you don't have any substance in your speech, don't bother speaking at all. Looking at the 12 reasons, 1, 2 and 3 say the same thing repeated 3 times. Standing on giant's shoulders sound like a cliche as well. Totally useless list, IMO.

5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentim

[Cid Highwind]

Way to play right into Darl "Linux is for terrorists" McBride's hand. With boosters like this guy Linux certainly doesn't need enemies.

12 Reasons for Growth of Open Source

[Aceticon]

That's the real title from the article.

The missing word is adoption (as in 12 Reasons for Growth of Open Source Adoption).

That's because he states mostly reasons for doing open source, not using it (unless you think users really believe that "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants" or find it a compelling argument ofr open source that "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed").

Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min

[An Onerous Coward]

There are plenty of reasons why countries outside the U.S. might consider Open Source, and yes, a couple of them are mostly about dislike for the U.S. itself:

"We don't want to send America one cent that we don't have to."
"The NSA might be pushing code into Windows that can be used to compromise our security."
"Support your local developers."
"If Microsoft doesn't support our language, we're screwed. If Linux doesn't, we can fix that."
"Maybe they saved our asses in World War II, but they're still acting like a bunch of pricks. Screw 'em."

Re:not trolling but..

[rokzy]

just because they aren't new doesn't mean it isn't true.

some of them are stronger now e.g. IBM and Novell/SUSE.

but linux actually being good is also required. linux is constantly improving. conversely (imo), windows is getting worse (activation BS, DRM, unTrusted computing pushes).

while MS might be able to push all this DRM BS on home users via stupid DMCA-style laws, flexible computing is too important for business and education institutions to let the BS in. and these places have the resources to use linux and make it even better.

#5 explained

[originalhack]

Those of us in the US get angry enough about the heavy-handed way that Microsoft forces anything it chooses down the throats of users, the closed formats that require access to a Microsoft-based system in order to interoperate with some companies and government agencies, the concerns about an untrustworthy company deciding that they know better than the system's owner what should be done with a system, etc....

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.

Note: US patriots do not blindly agree with everything that the government says and does. Quite the opposite.

Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min

[xyzzy]

Despite the fact that the whole open/free source movement is arguably an American invention?

Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min

[tehanu]

To put it simply, in a way a lot of Slashdotters would understand is that the way a lot of the world sees America, is the way a lot of us see Microsoft.

Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min

[ElGnomo]

Anti American Sentiment: a one act play
Boss ( a politician/buisnessman/citizen ) - American goverment opresses my country economically through clever means such the IMF and WTO. Americans go to war with Iraq without that agreement or support of the mejority of the U.N.. American-based transnational corporations opress my countries laborers and attempt to subvert my goverment to achieve their own ends. On top of this I have to hand over bucketloads of cash to Microsoft to pay for their shoddy software?
Assistant: Wait, why dont we just use linux?
Boss: linux?
Assistant: yes! its a free operating system that works just as well or better than windows. With it we also get a replacement for Office, also free! On top of that it is owned by no big american corporation so not only do we save money, we hurt microsoft and the american economy by switching!
Boss: Brilliant!
the end
moral: The united states is an empire and acts as such, which, historically, will always result in pissing of the rest of the world, creating anti-american sentiment. Anybody who thinks America attacked Iraq for the good of the Iraqi people needs to brush up on their international politics.

103 Words? Meh!

[ndnet]

There are too many wasted words. He's concentrating on one per sentence, since he's delivering it as twelve points.... try this.

1) The Internet is powered by,
2) is the carrier for,
3) and is the development platform for open source.
4) Open source is more secure than proprietary software,
5) yet benefits from anti-American sentiments.
6) Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers.
7) Open source stands on the shoulders of giants.
8) Linux runs on any type of server,
9) or any embedded device.
10)Software isn't always made by software companies anymore.
11)Support is improving.
12)It's free.

Now, this takes it down to 72 words mostly through paraphrasing into compound sentences. I'll bet it could go down to 51 (half of the original) but I don't have time...

Now, anonymous reader, I've fulfilled your challenge. Where is my prize? ;)

In all truthfulness, we need articles like this. Marc Andressen was once a name that some non-Techs even recognized. Quotes like these make conversion/assimilation easier.

AND distrust

[gobbo]

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.

Marc forgets an ingredient

[4of12]

an important reason why open source isn't easily co-opted or why it won't fizzle out easily.

The GPL.

Share and share alike. There's nothing like an idea whose time has come (although many of the principles were utilized in the scientific community for centuries).

Mark Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Argh! Linux is not free!

[NotClever]

Linux isn't free (as in cheap), unless YOUR TIME IS WORTH NOTHING.

I would like to see an unbiased TCO comparison between an 'easy-to-use' Linux (Suse perhaps - as opposed to Gentoo) versus Windows Server 2003 in a company. I don't think an exact comparison is possible, but one that's not sponsored by either 'team' would be worth a read...

To stay on-topic - most of the other points are valid, but they are valid for both open source and closed source code.

Standing on the shoulders of Giants? Don't get any bigger than MS. Go develop something in VS.NET. Enjoy the enormous framework that they have created for your use as a developer.

Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min

[Feathers McGraw]

I don't get #5, anyone want to spell it out for me?

It means open source is preferred by terrorists. I assume that's why it's going to "Boom".

Re:Open source benefits from anti-American sentime

[danharan]

Some good points have been made already.

The balance of payment situation has been mentionned, but I think it also has something to do with security concerns as well as countries wanting to develop an indigenous software sector.

Basically, your whole economy is dependent on outside investments to keep running, and that's hurting your currency. Some have suggested using the Euro for petroleum sales to hurt the dollar further, possibly causing a recession in the US (obviously aiming to affect the next elections).

If you are unsure how deep anti-American sentiment runs, consider the last Pew Research Center annual survey on attitudes towards Americans. The percentage of people that think suicide bombings against the US are justifiable is just plain scary.

So while the BOP, security and protectionnism all play to a certain extent, I wouldn't underestimate the sheer resentment against the US.

Easy to beat

[Mr_Silver]

1. It's free

In case you hadn't noticed every single example of countries, cities, companies, schools and government departments moving to Linux have always cited one and only one reason for moving.

Because they're looking to cut costs and Linux is free.

You know Linux has more advantages, I know Linux has more advantages but they don't appear to ever be quoted by these companies.

Reasons to use Windows, less than 103 words!

[Jugalator]

1. It's the most common OS in the market.
2. You get what you pay for! And you pay a lot.
3. Dodging exploits is exciting.
4. SCO doesn't have anything against it.
5. The guy designing it became the richest man in the world, so it must be good.
6. It hasn't got a silly penguin logo, but a much more exciting four-color Windows flag.
7. Paper clips are your friends. You have no such friends in Linux.
8. It has a puppy to help you search files. Linux has no such puppies, so you don't search as well.

13.

[Chris Deegan]

13. Open source development is based on the same system as the peer review system that has given us such wonderful things such as medicine, electricity, computers and a better understanding of our place in the universe. If that doesn't tell you - go get a lobotomy and your MCSE :) ....if you uhhh haven't already done so....

Alternative...

[shic]

A more substantial reasoning - in 10 reasons, 60 words:

• Open protocols enable collaboration.
• POSIX compliance encourages stable APIs.
• Open source permits white box security analysis.
• Component based distributions allow customisation.
• Significantly lower risk of vendor lock in.
• Substantial heritage increases confidence in scalability.
• International user base ensures long term support.
• Cross-platform tools avoid dependence on overpriced hardware.
• Relaxed licensing burden reduces costs.
• Big-business backing enforces momentum to OSS migration.

some rebuttals

[mydigitalself]

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

Another reason

[110010001000]

Another reason is because the mega-corporations (IBM, SUN, etc) have decided that offshoring proprietary work to third world countries doesn't produce enough pure profit. Luckily they have figured out a way to get programmers to work for them for free! The executives can't believe their luck, its a dream come true!

Documentation? my ass

[Interfacer]

I am a professional software developer, and program often in C/C++ on both windows and linux.

when programming device drivers on linux, i was often frustrated at the lack of up to date specifications of functions and interfaces. for example the documentation about PCI functionality is hopelesly out of date, and specifies functions that are mentioned in other places as 'they are obsolete and you should not use them. EVIL EVIL'.

the old functions did have man and info pages. how nice. the new functions did not have them.

compare that to developing on windows. not everything is nice, but the MSDN documentation collection for developers is the best documentation ever, and includes not only a complete function reference, but also tons of samples that -shock horror - actually work.

even on mandrake 10, the developers documentation is crap.

regards,
Interfacer.

Re:Documentation? my ass

[nathanh]

compare that to developing on windows. not everything is nice, but the MSDN documentation collection for developers is the best documentation ever, and includes not only a complete function reference, but also tons of samples that -shock horror - actually work.

I'm always impressed by how good the OSS documentation is. OK, I can relate to your experience of Microsoft documentation being better. I have to agree. Microsoft, Cisco, Intel and IBM are all first rate in the documentation department. But have you used documentation from other vendors? Dell? Nortel? Shudder. It's enough to make you cry.

OSS documentation isn't always the best, but it's quite often not the worst. GNU documentation is consistently shoulders above UNIX documentation. Linux kernel documentation is lacking but GTK and GNOME documentation is good. Perl documentation is excellent (though that sort of language needs it). Popular server applications for Linux like Sendmail, BIND, Apache are all extremely well documented both for developers and users alike.

I agree with you that writing device drivers for Linux is like stumbling through a darkened room filled with lethal boobytraps. Linux isn't a stable API or ABI (yet). Other OSS can be much better. It's no different to the commercial world where some vendors are good at documentation and other vendors definitely are not!

Re:Let's see you go against Microsoft.

[Fear the Clam]

It's only a matter of time before Andreesen's on a VH1 "where are they now" special where they reunite him with the pets.com sock puppet and the dancing baby. Until then, the only fun is watching him get fatter in each new publicity photo.

Re:Open source benefits from anti-American sentime

[YetAnotherDave]

You forgot my favourite description of Dubya: Moron

Well, ex-president would be better, but we can't use that yet. Soon, I hope...

Re:not trolling but..

[PainKilleR-CE]

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)

"Linux runs on Intel"

[Bilbo]

Good point, but too specific. I think it would have been better to waste one more word and say, "Linux runs on commodity hardware."

The whole point is that Linux is not limited to one or two platforms! If Linux only ran on *Intel Brand* hardware, then Intel would squeeze the market, and people would go elsewhere. However, you aren't limited to Intel or AMD or Sun or PowerPC. You aren't limited by either 32 or 64bit. Vendors compete on the basis of their features and price. If one vendor tries to put the squeeze on you, migrating to another platform is relatively painless. Makes it harder for the vendors, since they can't lock you in, but it sure frees the end user!

In less words ...

[Random BedHead Ed]

I can easily do it in less words. For example, take this:

There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies.

and change it to this:

An increasing number of companies developing software aren't software companies.

That's down to 99 words right there. And yes, I was an English major.

Re:Windows is well docuements

[davegust]

Windows is very well documented, both for developers and users. The availble APIs are fully documented in a consistent manner, and Microsoft does an excellent job of making sure future operating systems properly support all documented APIs.

And for the sibling poster who claimed documentation is not free, check out the following links.

• MSDN Library
• Resrouce Kits
• Security Bulletins

I've been developing for Windows for 15 years and have never purchased API documentation. I used to purchase books for examples and ideas, but I haven't done as much of that over the last five years - online sites, both Microsoft sponsored and others, have filled the need.

Software is mostly developed by non-software cos

[kahei]

"There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."

Most software is developed by companies that drill oil, build widgets, sell things or move money around. Companies that actually _specialize_ in software, like Adobe, are a rarity (but getting more common).

Once, recently enough that I can just barely remember it, there were no software companies -- most software was developed by the organization that used it, and some was developed by hardware vendors like IBM. Then, in the 70's, companies that just made software began to emerge. But it's still the case that most software development is done outside of 'the software industry'.

(dozes off in armchair by the fire, mumbling about young people these days)

No,

[2names]

anit-Americanism is largely fed by the fact the America has done way too much "side-hopping" in the past. We help people for a while, then stop. We bomb a country for a while, then send them aid. We are the most fickly nation in history. I don't like the French, but at least they are consistent in who they hate, which is everyone who isn't French.

Wow, a lot of flaws

[SmallFurryCreature]

Disclaimer I am a linux loving desktop hippy who plays games ONLY on windows 2003.

1. "The Internet is powered by open source."

   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.

2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."

   True enough. Opensource can usually be downloaded legally wich is a bit less usual for propietary code.

3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."

   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.

4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."

   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.

5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."

   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.

6. "Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."

   Incentives around closed source include million dollar salaries. I think this is a tie.

7. "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."

   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.

8. "Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."

   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.

9. "Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."

   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.

10. "There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."

    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.

11. "Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."

    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.

12. "It's free."

    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.

Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min

[BabyDave]

"The NSA might be pushing code into Windows that can be used to compromise our security."

Damn right! For extra security, they should use SE Linux instead ...

Everyone Used to ADORE the US?

[Bilbo]

> complaints about America are largely the result of American war in Iraq.

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.

Has he changed his tune?

[raincrow]

Two years ago, at my previous employer, I sat across the conference-room table from Mr. Andreessen while several of Loudcloud's salesmen and "sales engineers" literally shouted at me and the other developers and admins on the tech staff that our reliance on "shareware schemes" (the lead salesman's term for FOSS) was going to be our company's downfall and that we were fools not to let them save us. Six months later Loudcloud morphed into Opsware and got out of the enterprise hosting business. We hadn't signed their contract, either.

Maybe he was thinking counter to his salesforce even then, though that is giving him the benefit of some large doubt. I don't think he was actually thinking about anything in particular related to that meeting, since he spent most of his time checking information on his Blackberry and filling out a Federal security clearance application, and didn't participate in the meeting other than to sit there and look famous.

In any case, this story makes me laugh, only half-ruefully.

Also, since when is desire for control over one's computing systems 'anti-American sentiment' (point 5).

Open Source != Linux

[Junks Jerzey]

Yes, the Linux kernel and associated parts of the system are open source. That's not what I mean. I mean the persistant equating of "open source" and "Linux," especially on Slashdot. That is, "open source success" is immediately assumed to mean "Linux success." This is the root of the problem, I think.

Open source is good. Linux is...well, it's good but it's not really what's needed for desktops. It's a modern incarnation of old thinking, something one notch below an OS for heavy iron mainframes, much too complex and awkward to really want on my desk. I live with it because it's better than Windows in some ways, but I've used UNIX professionally, and UNIX on my desktop and notebook is categorically what I don't want. And if I don't want it, just think about people who don't know much at all about computers.

Now if Linux were drastically simpler to understand and configure than Windows, then we'd have something here.

Re:Open source benefits from anti-American sentime

[love2hateMS]

Bush got better grades than Gore in college and graduate school (Yale and Harvard don't forget)

Al Gore FAILED OUT of grad school twice.

Who's the moron?

It came true last year. And the year before that.

[Per Abrahamsen]

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.

It doesn't "Run on intel"

[Anarke_Incarnate]

It runs on lots of platforms. Intel != x86. x86 != intel. He also forgot to mention PowerPC etc as an alternative and forcing it into a lower price point because of this.

secure

[happyfrogcow]

"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.

Re:That's why everyone still uses DOS

[DrSkwid]

newsflash - the web isn't a programming platform

have you tried this mythical program in bochs / vmware / other virtualizer ?

Responses..

[iamsure]

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.

Sendmail, Apache, BIND. Three Opensource programs each with over 50% market share on the internet at large. Not at all an overgeneralization. All of the root servers save three are running BIND. Thats the majority of the internet being powered by opensource.


2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."

As it is for proprietary systems.
Not always, and less so. While WinZip might be distributed online, generally proprietary software is sold in retail chains, through corporate purchasing agreements, etc. Not the internet.


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).

He was mentioning it as a strength - just because it can also be a weakness doesn't change his statement.


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).

Generally not true. By numbers, Linux generally has fewer. However, more importantly is the impact - how severe is the risk (priv escalation, or remote root compromise?), and how widespread is the impact? (A single OS version has a 60% penetration worldwide).


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.

But the fundamental design decisions (seperation of priveldge, power users, non-root users by default) ensure LESS impact. Not to mention the many-eyes theory has proven generally true to date (with notable failures).


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.

Which do you see more worms for - Apache or IIS? The code is available for Apache, its more widely deployed, and yet FAR more exploits exist for IIS than Apache. Its not source availability making it less secure - its poor programming.


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.

No - it is (continuing - not past tense) due to a fundamental design choice. Microsoft products treat DATA and CODE as one and the same - the result being that there is no seperation between them, and content can be active. In almost all unix systems, the exact opposite choice is made.

That's why you don't see it happen on unix/linux systems - design decisions.


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?
How many people are in your office? That you hear the opinions of on a daily basis? The kernel mailing list alone has 100x the number of *notable* people I encounter on a daily basis - its about scope, volume, quality, and im

13) OSS == Jobs, MSFT et al. != Jobs

[fruscica]

A Small Business Administration study found that nearly 77 percent of the 6.9 million jobs created from 1990 to 1995 were created by small businesses.

Open source software lowers capital barriers to market entry.

Proprietary software vendors will not create jobs for Americans:

"Technology companies are seeing a rebound in business, but top executives this week said any jobs added to meet growing demand will likely be in countries where labor is cheaper than the United States."

Reuters
February 27, 2004

So, ON THE WHOLE, OSS expedites job creation, MSFT et al. do not.

When I had this discussion with MSFTie Rob Scoble, he wrote:

>Microsoft money does create jobs. 5000 in the
>past year alone (mine was among them).

And I replied:

This not a counterargument, because 'Microsoft money' is an aggregate of revenues from BigCos and SmallCos. My supposition is that money from SmallCos can produce more jobs if it stays in the hands of SmallCo execs/owners.

Also, when BigCos pay license fees to MSFT the net effect on American jobs creation is nil, statistically, as money moving from a BigCo to a proprietary IT BigCo is not money that becomes more likely to create American jobs as a result.

Q.E.D. :-)

You're both right - wrong argument.

[GAVollink]

Before Sept 11, 2001, most of the world was indifferent to the US. Some of the world hated us, and Great Britain was on our side.

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?

Re:You're both right - wrong argument.

[sbaker]

I hate to worry you - but the British Government is on the side of the US. I think it's wrong to assume that the British people are.

It's definitely not just the war.

The US stance on world affairs in general - failure to go with the majority of civilised countries on Kiyoto, the land mine treaty, the international war crimes tribuneral, etc, etc. The inability of the US to rein in pollution. The abandonment (unilaterally) of the ABM treaty, forcing things like the DMCA down other countries throats, not supporting the UN (not even paying their share of the UN fees even!)...heck - the failure to adequately deal with Microsoft!

All of these things chip away at Americas' world standing.

The trouble is that these things are massively under-reported in the US media. I live in the USA - and I find it quite hard to find out about any of these things on TV or the radio without going to sources outside the USA.

I think the average American would be truly horrified at the stinky reputation their beloved country has pretty much anywhere outside their own borders. But they DON'T see that. All they are told is that a few Arab terrorists hate them...and the French.

Re:You're both right - wrong argument.

[soliptic]

and Great Britain is on our side

No. Tony Blair is on your side. The majority of sane British people think Bush is one of the biggest retards ever born, never mind definitely the biggest retard ever to hold office.

(Case in point, the other day he appeared on BBC News saying "There is no middle ground between good and evil". WTF? Even 8 year olds have a more sophisticated weltanschaaung than that! Somebody send the man to a high school Ethics lesson. Even 12 year olds, when presented with a classic 'moral quandry' scenario, notice within about 5 minutes that there is almost nothing but middle ground.)

OTOH, the majority of sane Brits probably also have a general affection for the American people, culture, etc, and an appreciation that democratic capitalism is the worst system - except for all the others. This was the same feeling before Bush, the same during Bush, and will be the same after him.

Re:You're both right - wrong argument.

[stor]

The US government funded the Taliban. So if there's no middle ground, I guess all Americans are terrorists.

Cheers
Stor

Re:Argh! Linux is not free!

[RoLi]

Yeah and Windows 2003 Server doesn't cost 5000$, unless YOUR TIME IS WORTH NOTHING, what was your point again?

Unfortunate...

[LilMikey]

It's unfortunate yet brutally honest that 'anti-American sentiment' and 'outsourcing' are both on the list.

No actually, I don't have to love it.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

All of his reasons are trivial. They do not prove or even attempt to support a position. 103 words simply isn't enough. The devil is always in the details.

"can anyone use fewer than 103 words..."

[s88]

Yes I can. But unfortunately it requires using a lot of words like "adduce".

Re:Not Impressed (100 Words or Less)

[Jerf]

That doesn't say the same thing. Andresson clearly invokes the concept of "carrier" as a "transmission vector" in the disease sense; the Internet spreads the use of open source in an infectious manner. (It's not a disease, of course; a lot of non-diseases have disease-like spreading characteristics.)

Your reformulation merely states that the Internet happens to transmit bits that are open source, without the "transmission vector" aspect. It also carries other things.

Ain't English grand? This is why I end up being so verbose, so often; if I want, I can condense many of my multi-page essays down to one dense paragraph, but I prefer that more then a handful of my readers understand what I'm saying. (Which still may not happen often, but what can you do?) You can see a lot more of this in the other Slashdot replies too; 103 words is nice, but by the time everyone is done misinterpreting and projecting onto them, one wonders if a 103-page essay wouldn't have been called for. (Of course, more words means more opportunities to misinterpret; argh!)

Re:Open source benefits from anti-American sentime

[Dread_ed]

Here is an interesting excercise for you.

1) Study up on just where american troops have been stationed outside the US, how long they have been there, and in what numbers.

2) Study up on why they went there in the first place. Then check out why they have stayed.

3) Imagine the USA withdrawing all their troops and support from those areas now.

4) Imagine what would have happened had we not stationed them there in the first place and maintained a presence there.

It is more than just "involvement" in the second world war, as you put it. It is a continuing effort to sustain countries that are notoriously unstable and susceptible to outiside attacks.

As for our current actions, I am of the feeling that the governemnt has not been completely honest with the American public, however it is not just this administration that has done it, and I don't think it has been dishonest in the same way that everyone else thinks they have been.

In addition, I feel that the political public (those that vote and those that participate in the media machine that tries to influence all the one who do not vote) is so overwhelmingly occupied with attaining special rights and considerations for themselves and their groups that they do not have the time or mental capacity to undrstand the real resons why the USA would want to have a strong military presence in the Middle East.

Even saying the words "Long Term Strategic Planning" would get most people's eyes to glaze over. Stating that the Soviet Union had achieved global dominance through strategic warfare would get you blank stares and you would have people ready to refute you who did not even understand strategic warfare. And if you said that the welfare of the USA depended on breaking the decades long pattern of ignoring strategic warfare, counter-insurgency, and "wet" intelligence work, you would have people lined up around the block to shout you down.

Fortunately, not everyone listens to these voices. Fortunately there are some people who have studied the history of the world through the eyes of the military, and with a view for keeping this country viable.

The most heinous tragedy is that the people who live here are more concerned with whether or not their network television show will be cancelled than whether or not their country will be around in the next 50 years. They revel in their ignorance and are more ready to listen to people from other countries than they are to their conscience.

It's even simpler than that...

[JavaSavant]

Open source will succeed if and only if can do the same things that closed source propietary software can at lower cost. It's not an issue of politics or thriving off of anti-American sentiment, it's simply an issue fo whether or not it's a worthwhile investment for your PHB. Let's stop with this BS about all the ideological reasons why open source WILL succeed, and start coming up with ways to better it's chances of actually SUCCEEDING.

You can't pontificate the future of open source, you can simply dangle the carrot of success by figuring out ways to make it more appealing to the largest number of people.

Re:Open source benefits from anti-American sentime

[strike2867]

Are you trying to say there is no censorship in America. What do you call Fox News?

I just read an article on Chinas abortions. Youre right that is pretty bad. My argument still stands on an economic level though.

NOT "Anti-American"

[16K Ram Pack]

NOT even "Anti-Bush"

NOT even "Anti-Microsoft".

What's really at play is that some economies may prefer to see their money on government systems spent on local companies.

What's better for your economy? Spending money on foreign jobs, or your own jobs? Even if it costs fractionally more, some of that fraction will be returned as taxation/local spending.

I Reckon I Can Do Better...

[nathanh]

... but let's see if I'm the only person that thinks that way.

Reasons why Open Source Will Boom:

• Open source gives everybody access to the same software.[1]
• Countries not ruled by the USA will choose open-source.[2]
• OSS will grow faster than any other software.[3]
• OSS raises the bar.[4]
• OSS will fill every niche.[5]
• No vendor lock-in!
• Enthusiasm![6]

[1] This allows a small company to use the same software that the "big boys" are using. This means a company can pick the support, training and developer options that suit their budget and needs without sacrificing themselves to inferior software, or locking themselves into proprietary crapware. Small companies will have improved options for support, reference material, third-party add-ons, etc. It's going to be great news for small companies. It also means that amateur developers can train themselves on the proper software. No more piracy to keep yourself abreast of the latest software. No more "Education" versions or crippleware. It's all the real deal, baby!

[2] If Australia buys 1,000,000 Windows desktops (Windows + Office) then that's half a BILLION dollars going overseas to the USA. Imagine how much money is flowing into the USA from the rest of the world, thanks to the USA led dominance of the software industry. This has a bigger effect on smaller and poorer countries. Countries who recognise this economic impact are naturally going to encourage local software development but what software can compete with Microsoft? OSS can! Better to pay a local to improve OSS than send the money overseas! We're already seeing this argument appearing in briefing papers from the New Zealand government, the German government, the Peru government, etc. Governments will be sneaky about this; they'll impose tariffs and legal obstacles to encourage OSS (and perhaps locally owned proprietary software as well).

[3] The gigantic developer base possible with OSS means it will grow faster than any other software. We're already seeing this happen. Linux was 1 developer in 1991. 100 developers in 1992. 1,000 developers in 1993. Current estimates (including userspace projects like GNOME and GNU) are upwards of 100,000 developers. Not all of those developers work fulltime but it doesn't matter because the growth is accelerating. GNU/Linux got to where it is today with far fewer developers. It's going to be a wild wide from now on in. In 5 years time I think it will be obviously ludicrous for a proprietary company to "compete" against popular OSS projects like Linux. The only way to recruit enough developers to be competitive will be for companies to cooperate via OSS licensing.

[4] Incredibly important. Software is getting harder to write. In the 70s a single talented guy could do it in a year. Woz built the Apple I by himself. In the 80s, you needed dozens of people to build something cool. The Macintosh had 80+ people in the team and it took 5 years, though admittedly Burrell and Raskin and Hertzfeld and Atkinson were key figures in its success. A modern OS like Longhorn has 1000s of developers and takes 6+ years even though they aren't starting from scratch. A small startup can't start from zero; they need to license software from Microsoft or WindRiver or they'll never complete in a reasonable time. This reinforces the dominance of Microsoft and WindRiver. Great for the companies in control. Terrible for the startup. Rather than spend money on new and exciting things, they're wasting money on licenses so Bill Gates can buy another extension to his $50 million mansion. OSS gives every startup the same headstart. Companies don't need to start from zero! They can start from a working FREE foundation. They can invest in exciting new technology. "If I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants".

[5] Open Source allows the users to grow the software in unplanned directions. OSS will fill every software niche, even ones t

Re:Open source benefits from anti-American sentime

[rokzy]

the way I see it:
the common property parts from socialist economics. the private property parts are from capitalist economics.

most economies are a mixture of socialism/capitalism. pure US capitalism died in 1929 and the US has been proped up by socialism ever since.

in poor taste

[Anonymous Coward]

are you talking about open source software or terminal cancer?

I can summarize it...

[deviator]

why it's seemingly "taking so long" to gain momentum: inertia, and it's harder to configure & use* (because there's no incentive to make it easy).

why it'll ultimately prevail: it has no acquisition costs. In business it usually always comes down to money.

(* The majority of "enterprise-grade" open source software I've used lately *is* more difficult to configure, at least, than win32-based stuff that installs with "setup.exe" But the open source stuff is more secure & cross-platform & extremely modular. :)

point, counterpoint

[Loundry]

America's commercially-powered government and responsibilities means its true nature isn't one of protection of people, but protection of money.

Money, in and of itself, cannot be "protected". What is being protected is individual property rights. Individual property rights impede wealth redistribution, and that is why they are hated by Leftists.

It all stems from that. America is insular because Americans want American money in America.

No, I think America is insular because it is surrounded by two politically insigificant neighbors and two oceans. The oceans have loaned to Americans much of their sense of self-reliance. I'm not talking about the American Government, I'm talking about Americans. People keep confusing the state with "the people" and it spawns all sorts of idiotic ideas (such as "The French hate Americans").

Al Qaida are after the US because the US put its troops in Saudi Arabia to launch planes into Iraq yet never took them out

That may be part of their motivation. Another part is that the US sends millions of dollars to Israel every year, and that is a thorn in the side of many Jew-hating Muslims. Another reason is that Jihad (which means "holy war" and meant that for centuries until recently when apologists have tried to redefine it as "struggle") is built into the religion itself.

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".

This is part of almost every culture. It is not a wholly American phenomenon. I think what makes the Americans' cultural pride seem worse is the fact that America runs the world (for now).

The only thing America is better at than the rest of the world is impregnating incredibly baseless patriotism into its citizens, and gun crime.

I don't think that other nations need America to form their own patriotism, and I am interested in what you would consider to be "non-baseless" patriotism. Gun crime is part of American culture, but remember that America has more than one culture (just as France has more than one culture -- ask the Euskadi or Bretons), and some sub-cultures are more prone to gun crime than are others. To examine that question is not politically correct, so it doesn't get talked about much.

I think the one thing that America does better than other countries is capitalism. I believe that it is unbridled capitalism which has made America the most powerful country in the world. That, and a strong military and smart leaders which allowed us to put military bases in other countries -- the ramifications of which elude most Americans' NASCAR and College Football-soaked brains. Bread and circuses, anyone?

America isn't about freedom, liberty or justice - it's about stock, shareholders and dividends.

I agree with you that America isn't particularly in love with freedom any more. Look at drug seizure laws (bye bye 4th amendment), forced self-incrimination on tax returns (bye bye 5th amendment), the FCC (bye bye 1st amendment), the list goes on and on. I know that individual property rights probably make you mad. They make a lot of people mad. "Why should someone else have so much when I need so much?" Such is the basis of Leftism. How do you measure need? (Answer: you can't. It's based in emotion.)

I think that's what pisses most people off.

I think what pisses most people off is that America is on top, and they don't like American culture. A culture that one dislikes does not deserve to be on top, right?

It would be like if Jesus came back and decided to be a slave trader.

Argument by analogy.

No! Legislation can kill OSS!!

[tstoneman]

The most dangerous opponent you can ever have is someone who has nothing left to lose.

This is the exact problem that the governments of the world face when they go up against terrorists, especially terrorists that are willing to kill themselves.

In a similar vein, this is w2hat Microsoft and all the other for-pay software companies face when they go toe-to-toe with OSS developers. There is a multitude of college and experienced kids that are willing to donate their blood, sweat, and tears and completely give away their effort for free. New open-source developers are recruited everyday, just like suicide bombers.

How can a company, even Microsoft, beat them over the long haul? Technically, they can't because OSS will last forever, and bad quarters, accounting scandals, or corporate greed can't take them down.

The only way they can is through legislation, like forcing software providers to assume liability security violations, and patents.

If we let legislation pass that would force companies to assume liability for security violations, then all OSS is doomed. Some people have suggested that OSS projects be exempt from such a law, but do you really think that Microsoft's lobbyists would allow for that? If individual programmers were liable for security problems, this would definitely kill OSS.

The second issue is patents, and companies like Microsoft could very well corner the market on some key piece of software that would squeeze out OSS developers. Although it seems all-but-inevitable, Europe neeeds to do whatever it can to avoid getting US-style patent laws that patent both software and business processes, otherwise OSS will be mired in more lawsuits and less programming.

Open Source and anti-corporate sentiment

[randall_burns]

What I'm surprised wasn't mentioned here is the role of anti-corporate sentiment in promoting Open Source. Any company, big or small can support Open Source products. No company can really control the direction of Open Source development. According to the polls I've seen, 60-70% of Americans think larger corporations have too much power-Open Source has the potential to break some of the major strongholds of corporate influence in America and the world.

Whether you agree or disagree with anti-corporate sentiment, this may be a bigger issue than anti-American sentiment. I think Andreeson missed it because he's too close to the corporate world.

Really?

[deischi]

1. "The Internet is powered by open source."

But the internet does not stop at apache and sendmail. What most users see as "the internet" is a mail client and a web browser: Outlook and IE.

And even if all the web servers in the world would use Apache, that does not make a single user switch from IE to Mozilla.

2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."
3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."

I don't see why that should give open source a big break through. But I agree that only the internet makes open source really possible.

But in the same way it also helps closed source development.

4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."

Why?
I am sure that an unix based system is more secure than windows by design. But why does that prevent an open source email client from executing any worm/virus/...?

And even more: Who cares? For most users (including me) any worm that does not delete the hard disk is only a minor problem (like catching a cold - not very nice but also no big deal).

5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."

When first reading this statement I through: YES.
But when thinking about it for some time: No.
That would apply to all software - open source or not. Opera and The Bat! are not the standard browser and mail client.

6. "Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."

So does working in any job - unless you want to be fired really soon (except if you are in a position to fire everyone else first).

7. "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."

So closed source means standing on the shoulders of open source standing on the sholders of giants?!?

Or does closed source and open source each stand on one sholder?

8. "Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."

Servers are still expensive and Windows also runs on AMD ;-)

9. "Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."

Really?
I would guess the are using linux as operating system - but the actual "application" is very closed source, and without the right hardware quite useless.

Or does anyone think there will be a community about the latest updates for the software in your waching machines.

10. "There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."

I would say that most companies developing software are not software companies. And especially those companies don't want to give their competitors any more information than absolutely necessary.

11. "Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."

So they port some of their software to one open source operating system - some years ago they might have done so for some other *ix. But still they want to sell something (hardware and/or software - which is not open source).

And does that make them use open office, mozilla and apache?

12. "It's free."

Most PCs offered today for home users include so much software they don't need to by any extra (except games of course) - and that for a price ofen less then the sum of the individual hardware components.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain

[oldstrat]

1. "The Internet is powered by open source."
2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."
3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
6. "Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."
7. "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
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."
11. "Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."
12. "It's free."

What Marc left out is ---
13. "I'm using it to offshore firstworld jobs to the third world, and I'm damned proud of it" Mar. 22, 2004 Toronto Star Article

Andreessen is not a friend to techies, He's our Benedict Arnold