The Success of Open Source

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:10AM from the program-already-in-progress dept.

JoshuaDFranklin writes "When confronted with the reality of Open Source, academics often ask what processes allow it to happen. In his new book The Success of Open Source, Berkeley professor Steven Weber answers that question. He presents a clear, logical picture of how Open Source development works in a variety of projects, and comes to the intriguing conclusion that the process may be generalizable to other areas of production. The results, he argues, would 'make the consequences of the first-generation Internet seem quaint.'" Read on for the rest of Franklin's review. The Success of Open Source author Steven Weber pages 320 pages, 5 line illustrations publisher Harvard University Press rating 9 reviewer Joshua Daniel Franklin ISBN 0674012925 summary Weber argues that the success of Open Source is due to a production process than may be generalizable to other arenas.

Weber is an academic and makes no apologies for it. He is not presenting an exciting new business plan, advocating a particular method of software development, or calling hackers to revolution. He is simply describing his findings after extensive research of the Open Source development process and drawing conclusions from them. As such, this book may not appeal to everyone in the Open Source community. However, Weber's ideas are timely and informative for anyone who wants to explain or advocate Open Source. He likens his work to The Machine that Changed the World, the story of Toyota's production method (224):

That book made two simple and profound points: The Toyota "system" was not a car, and it was not uniquely Japanese. The parallels are obvious. Open source is not a piece of software, and it is not unique to a group of hackers.

The first part of The Success of Open Source is a historical case study that examines the origins and social development of the Open Source community. It begins with Unix and hacker culture. For those who have read Steven Levy's Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution and Peter Salus' A Quarter Century of UNIX, there is little new material here, but Weber offers a new and interesting perspective on the events. For example, he offers the insight that "hacker culture" existed before widespread network connectivity, drawing into question whether cheap bandwidth is really essential.

From there, he covers the development of the BSDs, Apache, and Linux, focusing again on social structures. He describes diverse events such as the messy expulsion of Theo de Raadt from the NetBSD core, the creation of Apache by an informal group of interested developers, and the establishment of Alan Cox as de facto Linux networking lieutenant. Weber draws from an impressive array of firsthand accounts, including mailing lists, websites, conference speeches, and personal interviews.

I get some interesting trivia out of this, such as Larry McVoy's original Unix is dying troll (98). Unfortunately, since Weber's narrative is mainly topical, it is occasionally redundant in telling one story from multiple social angles. Other claims are close to flamebait, such as suggesting that Richard Stallman is an example of a "failed leader." (168)

For the second half of the book, Weber moves on to Explaining Open Source in the terms of his discipline, political economy. He sees two broad categories of principles to the Open Source process: Microfoundations, including individual motivations and the economic logic of the collective good; and Macro-Organization, solving the problems of coordination and complexity. (133) While I doubt each reader will catch every academic nuance in these chapters, Weber is thankfully sparing in his use of specialized vocabulary and writes his overall argument in clear, easy-to-follow logic.

This section also contains the most insightful observations in The Success of Open Source. While there are too many to list here, one is the concept of Open Source Software as antirival. As more copies are made and put into use, value increases as a result of a larger market and the small percentage of users that contribute bug reports and possibly patches. This turns the traditional "free rider" problem into an advantage.

Though Weber does not mention this in the text, one can see part of this principle in proprietary vendors' providing free downloads or turning their backs on rampant piracy. It also does not take a great leap of logic to see application of the antirival model to other fields such as music or academic research.

As is customary in social science literature, Weber uses his conclusion to both recap his argument and to raise questions for future direction of research. What is the best organization method for property distribution, as opposed to the current methods based on exclusion? How can the Open Source production process be used effectively to improve prospects for the developing world? What is the best way for closed, hierarchical systems to interact with open, network-based ones? While some of the issues involved are offtopic for this book, hopefully future work will examine these questions in depth.

Though Open Source has been mentioned in many recent works, The Success of Open Source is the first academic book that focuses on the Open Source community as its object of study. It gives a readable, thought-provoking, and occasionally funny account of what Open Source is and means, making it an extremely valuable resource for those who want to engage and discuss these issues on an intellectual level. As Weber states, his positive, constructive outlook "may not be fully satisfying, but it's not a bad place to start." (272)

Joshua Daniel Franklin is a graduate student at the University of Washington's Information School. This review may be redistributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License. You can read the table of contents, preface, and an excerpt of the first chapter of The Success of Open Source at the Harvard University Press website. The reviewer's website has an list of errata. You can purchase the The Success of Open Source from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, carefully read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

122 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Easy on the hyperbole, pal by goldspider · 2004-05-17 07:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

"The results, he argues, would 'make the consequences of the first-generation Internet seem quaint.'"
Open source is great and all, but isn't this statement a bit over the top? It almost sounds like he's trying to sell something. Just MHO.

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
1. Re:Easy on the hyperbole, pal by Random+BedHead+Ed · 2004-05-17 07:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You never know. The strength of the Internet has always been in providing access to information - more than in selling things or distributing media. Those things work, but getting information to the masses has always been the Internet's strong point. Who would have thought that this same medium would allow people to collaborate and build an operating system? Without the internet it wouldn't have happened, and now that operating system is a crucial part of what runs the Internet. We might look back on the development of the Linux kernel and other open source software as one of the strong points of the Early Internet.
2. Re:Easy on the hyperbole, pal by Erratio · 2004-05-17 07:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think you're just interpretting it as over the top, perhaps getting a little too defensive. Looking at the incredibly brief history of the Internet and the already widespread impact of the increasingly virtually instant propgation of information, all the things we're doing now will seem primitive 10 years from now (and open source is of course inextricably linked with that). He's not denouncing the importance of the progress so far, he's just saying that it grows exponentially and as grand as things may seem now, they will be dwarfed in no time.
  
  --
  I don't try to be right, I just try to make people think
3. Re:Easy on the hyperbole, pal by scmason · 2004-05-17 07:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If we consider the fact that writing is never a neutral endeavor, then he is trying to sell something. He is trying to sell his idea and insight. At one time, a couple of hundred years ago a few people tried to sell the idea of open (free) capitolism, and it worked. The argument on open source is not just about whose operating system supports the most digital camera's. It is an attempt to convince the world that there may be a better method than the one that exists. It is NOT an attempt to overthrow the capitolist system, but a way to improve the current system through open standards.
  
  Thank you for your ear.
  
  scm
  
  --
  "I am a patient boy. I wait I wait I wait. My time is water down the drain..." Fugazi
4. Re:Easy on the hyperbole, pal by nova20 · 2004-05-17 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for your ear
  You're welcome. Can I have it back now?
  /nova20
5. Re:Easy on the hyperbole, pal by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 08:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  IMO, the only people shocked by the success of open source are those who are deluded enough to think that people only do things for money. The sort of person who puts a monetary value on everything... is likely to be the sort of asshole who screams "COME ON! TIME IS MONEY!", whenever she doesn't get her way.
6. Re:Easy on the hyperbole, pal by Frizzle+Fry · 2004-05-17 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  He is trying to sell his idea and insight
  
  He's also trying to sell his book. Books that claim that things are world-changing and hugely significant are more likley to sell than those that discuss small but significant shifts in how things are done.
  
  --
  I'd rather be lucky than good.
Come together, right now.... by AKAImBatman · 2004-05-17 07:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
I have a question. Why should Open Source software and closed source software be at each other's throats? Shouldn't the two be cooperating more than fighting? Here's the advantages I see to each of them:

Open Source
- Spreads the cost of software across a large number of parties
- Encourages interoperability and standards support
- Prevents the wheel from being reinvented every day
Commercial/Closed Source
- More time focus on usability
- Quick response to critical issues
- More resources to throw at high quality software
These advantages are not mutually exclusive. Thus I might use Apache as my webserver because of its tremendous standards compliance and support, while I'll use Oracle for its scalability, performance, and corporate support. Instead of deciding that everything should be open or closed, let's focus on making things open when it makes sense, and supporting things that are closed when it makes sense.
--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
1. Re:Come together, right now.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 07:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Why should Open Source software and closed source software be at each other's throats?
  because they're different and opposite in philosophy
2. Re:Come together, right now.... by Allen+Zadr · 2004-05-17 07:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I find your example of Oracle/Apache quite funny, being Oracle comes with two Apache products, httpd and tomcat.
  I, also, use Oracle, but that's because of an interoperability requirement that was pre-existing to my ability to put Linux across my server base. Otherwise I'd have used PostgreSQL.
  
  --
  Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
3. Re:Come together, right now.... by Dr.+Shim · 2004-05-17 07:27 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  In other words, "for religious reasons..."
  
  --
  People discover the meaning of life between getting piss drunk and the following hangover.
4. Re:Come together, right now.... by joggle · 2004-05-17 07:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why should everything I write be open source? I mean, come on, some of the stuff I write is aweful and I'd hate for anyone to have to deal with it.
5. Re:Come together, right now.... by tcopeland · 2004-05-17 07:28 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  > while I'll use Oracle for its
  > scalability, performance, and corporate support.
  
  There's probably a size/performance metric floating around here too. For database under a terabyte, PostgreSQL is probably fine.
  
  The question then becomes - how much data will I be packing into this database? If it's only a few hundred GB or so... PostgreSQL may be sufficient. And the customer will save a lot of money... good times.
  
  --
  The Army reading list
6. Re:Come together, right now.... by AKAImBatman · 2004-05-17 07:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  because they're different and opposite in philosophy
  
  Says you and Stallman. The Apache people seem to think otherwise. And I'd say that they've done an exceedingly good job of making their point. As have the Mozilla people.
  
  Stallman's philosophy is that every piece of software in existence should be free. That raises the question of who's going to pay for all the R&D, usability studies, artwork, customer support, etc? In Apache's case, a large number of interested corporations and individuals have helped foot the bill for a greater cause. Same for the Mozilla project, save that Netscape/AOL ate a large portion of the bill. RedHat, SuSE, and other commercial entities continually help foot the bill for GNOME, KDE, the kernel, dev tools, and other desktop development.
  
  And yet, SuSE (wisely) held onto YaST and SAX long enough to give themselves an edge over the competition. If it was open source to begin with, what would SuSE's advantage have been?
  
  The ideas are not mutually exclusive. Only the desire to not work together makes them mutually exclusive.
  
  --
  Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
7. Re:Come together, right now.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  no you moron.
  closed source exists only to make money. period. thats all that companies want out of it.
  all companies ever want to do and will ever want to do is increase their profit aka shareholder value. open source deflates this by making them less profits and hence the two will always be incompatible.
8. Re:Come together, right now.... by AKAImBatman · 2004-05-17 07:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I find your example of Oracle/Apache quite funny, being Oracle comes with two Apache products, httpd and tomcat.
  
  It actually makes my point more than anything. The fact that Oracle supports and ships these open source products along with their commercial products shows that the two can and should work together. Take the best from both worlds instead of fighting to have one community with all the power.
  
  --
  Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
9. Re:Come together, right now.... by Allen+Zadr · 2004-05-17 07:34 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  US$15,000 for a single CPU instance of Oracle.
  But, they won't sell it to you without software updates support for the first year.
  That's some serious dough... but the good news is that if you don't run Oracle in a commercial/production environment, you can download and develop against it for free. So, really, Oracle also tries to benefit from the OpenSource mentality. If no OpenSource project supported Oracle directly, then Oracle wouldn't be nearly as popular. So, they let you download and run it (and have allowed this for over 6 years).
  
  --
  Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
10. Re:Come together, right now.... by MikeFM · 2004-05-17 07:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'd have to disagree and include you closed source under opensource.
  
  There is no deadline so there is plenty of time to focus on usability. I might agree if you say that because closed source software has deadlines it forces usability to be addressed sooner. Sadly I don't see many closed source projects that have very good usability so that reasoning evidently doesn't work out very well.
  
  I get much quicker times on support from most opensource. I can ask a question on a mailing list or irc and almost instantly have an answer. If there is a patch needed then often I can have that patch within a couple hours. For that kind of service with closed source you usually need to spend a lot of money and even then you're often out of luck.
  
  As far as resources I think it depends on the project. If expensive equipment is needed then a company will be more likely to find the money for that equipment quickly. As far as man hours and a wide range of cheaper equipment though the community-oriented nature of opensource wins.
  
  --
  At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
11. Re:Come together, right now.... by skifreak87 · 2004-05-17 07:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's quite simple. If my business sells closed-source software and that's my main way of profitting, I don't want you finding alternatives, or using OSS which interoperates flawlessly. As m$ has shown w/ word processors, ability to interoperate w/ the current status quo is a huge selling point. As a company that sells software my goal is to sell as much as possible. Format lock-in becomes a good thing, I don't want you looking at any alternatives or anything that interoperates that isn't mine.
  
  For a dominant company, there is no advantage I can see to anyone but the consumer to interoperating w/ competing software (competing in the non-monetary sense in this case) and some possible disadvantages if there software is better than mine.
12. Re:Come together, right now.... by AKAImBatman · 2004-05-17 07:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm certainly not arguing that PostGreSQL is a poor database. I use it myself and love it. But everything that I named (scalability, performance, corporate support) all offer certain advantages in many corporate situations. PostGreSQL evens the playing field by allowing small competitors to have many of the same capabilities but without the same scale.
  
  --
  Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
13. Re:Come together, right now.... by javax · 2004-05-17 07:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Are you working for Apple or what? =)
  
  But serious: They (Apple) are playing this game very well - they released Darwin, support OpenDarwin, Konqueror, Fink, etc. while keeping their crown jewels (Quicktime, Quartz, Cocoa, ...) locked away.
  
  And what do we get out of this hybrid approach? The best Desktop Unix ever. Lets hope more companies choose this approach!
14. Re:Come together, right now.... by AKAImBatman · 2004-05-17 07:59 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There is no deadline so there is plenty of time to focus on usability.
  
  It took Mozilla five years to reach a usable product. Opera did it in two. There is a certain advantage to customer facing commercial software. At the very least it plugs a market demand until the software becomes a commodity. It also blazes a trail so that commodity software like Open Source can do it right.
  
  Sadly I don't see many closed source projects that have very good usability so that reasoning evidently doesn't work out very well.
  
  Adobe Acrobat, Photoshop, RealPlayerOne, MSAccess, Quicktime (Sorenson), and iTunes are all examples of commercial products that people pay money for, and would like to have ported to Linux. While Open Source alternatives exist for some of them, they are either comparatively immature or have certain legal encumbrances that prevent them from being introduced into a commercial distro.
  
  I get much quicker times on support from most opensource.
  
  How long did GNOME 2.0 go without a way to add or remove menu items via the GUI? 2.0-2.4, that's how long. Open Source addresses things faster if it's in their interest or meets their ideals. That's not a criticism, but a fact of how it works. Money talks, and the potential loss of a support contract will often make software houses bust their butts to solve problems and add features that would normally be considered "boring".
  
  --
  Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
15. Re:Come together, right now.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  Quick response to critical issues
  BLAHH HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA
  whew
16. Re:Come together, right now.... by Allen+Zadr · 2004-05-17 08:03 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Here's a question
  Besides MS CO - is there another example of a proprietary software company being "at the throats" of OpenSource?
  Then, even Microsoft has opened an OpenSource project. Perhaps they actually do work together more often than not?
  
  --
  Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
17. Re:Come together, right now.... by Jane_Dozey · 2004-05-17 08:34 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Actually, no.
  Many closed source developers don't work for large corporations. In fact, a good many work by themselves. They only want to pay the rent, and software is a good way for them to do so.
  Also, just look at the amount of closed source "free-ware" that you can download. There's a huge amount, and none of the writers get paid for it. It's just not open source. Many of the motivations are they same (such as bragging rights and the possiblity of a jump start to a career).
  You're looking at it with a very narrow view of the two models and don't seem to get it.
  Lots of people write software, not all of it is closed source and not all of it is open source, but as long as it's quality software it shouldn't matter what license it falls under (unless, of course, the license impacts the end user to a higher degree (MS anyone?)). Use the best tool for the job, and if you insist on being so religious about your distinctions I suggest you start writing better tools that the closed source competition.
  
  --
  Silly rabbit
18. Re:Come together, right now.... by MikeFM · 2004-05-17 08:35 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Opera became a usable product faster than Mozilla did but it wasn't nearly as ambitious and IMO isn't nearly as usable as Mozilla now. Both Firefox and Thunderbird are excellent. Opera isn't horrible but it could be better, especially since, as you said, it was out ahead.
  
  Adobe Acrobat, Photoshop, RealPlayerOne, MSAccess, Quicktime (Sorenson), and iTunes are all examples of commercial products that people pay money for, and would like to have ported to Linux. While Open Source alternatives exist for some of them, they are either comparatively immature or have certain legal encumbrances that prevent them from being introduced into a commercial distro.
  
  But do any of these programs have good usability? Not in my experience. I haven't used iTunes so maybe it's the exception. RealPlayer and MS Access rank, IMO, among the worst user interfaces ever forced on the public.
  
  I'll agree that Gnome 2 had (has?) some problems but a lot of them stemmed from the commercial interests involved in it. A lot of arrogance has gone on that wasn't a problem for Gnome 1. How many users have any chance at getting their desired features added to the current version of a commercial software product they are using? Sure money talks but you'll find it a lot easier to hire someone to add a feature to an opensource product of your choice than to add the same feature to most commercial products.
  
  --
  At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
19. Re:Come together, right now.... by RAMMS+EIN · 2004-05-17 08:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ``Stallman's philosophy is that every piece of software in existence should be free. That raises the question of who's going to pay for all the R&D, usability studies, artwork, customer support, etc?''
  
  This is strikingly similar to the main argument in support patents (and I mean any patents, not just software patents). I used to agree with it, until I sat down and thought about it more thoroughly. Here's my view:
  
  You ask who pays for research (development, support, etc.)?
  Answer: The people who have an interest in it. As it stands, that is corporations: by innovating (developing new products, giving better support, etc.) they gain an edge over the competition. If they can protect their invention with a patent, they can even exclude (or collect royalties, licensing fees, etc. from) competitors, allowing them to make even more money. Ultimately, this is said to benefit the consumer, as they get better products.
  
  What set me thinking is the flaw (as percieved by me) in the patent system. The idea is to reward companies for doing (and supposedly funding) research. Now, consider one such company inventing something and patenting it. This grants them a monopoly on their invention, even if another group comes up with the same invention independently (and thus, supposedly, having done just as much work for it). I find this unfair and objectionable.
  
  So let's see if there is a solution. I think we want R&D to continue, service to improve, etc. etc. Now, it's corporations funding these things, and then, in return, being granted some privileges, even in cases where this is not completely desireable. These companies ultimately present the bill to the people who benefit from the investments (after all, companies want to survive, too). But what if these people funded it all in the first place?
  
  What I envision is a system where funds are collected and pooled (like taxes), so that they can be spent on R&D and the like in a manner that all can benefit from. With the results available for everyone to use, there can be competition, and the market forces can work for us all instead of for the select few who control the patents etc.
  
  --
  Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
20. Re:Come together, right now.... by Vaevictis666 · 2004-05-17 08:43 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "And yet, SuSE (wisely) held onto YaST and SAX long enough to give themselves an edge over the competition. If it was open source to begin with, what would SuSE's advantage have been?"
  More interestingly, if they had been open source and available for the other distros earlier, might YaST have become a standard?
  And in all seriousness, if the only advantage your distro has is in the toolkit chain, might your efforts be better spent not worrying about the distro as a whole and instead focusing on those toolkits that they might be used by a wider audience?
21. Re:Come together, right now.... by AKAImBatman · 2004-05-17 08:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There's a flaw in your counter-argument. You're equating software development with patents. However, keeping source code closed does not in any way prevent a competitor from developing the same technology simultaneously. Thus the advantages of funding R&D while turning a profit still hold true.
  
  What I envision is a system where funds are collected and pooled (like taxes), so that they can be spent on R&D and the like in a manner that all can benefit from. With the results available for everyone to use, there can be competition, and the market forces can work for us all instead of for the select few who control the patents etc.
  
  This is communism, and it won't work without becoming just another pool of public money for governments to mismanage. The US has actually had a system in place to encourage funding for R&D. That system is academic research. Many companies pay a "smart guy" at a university to do a large amount of legwork for them at a low cost. This information is then usually available to the rest of the industry. Companies then turn around and complete the development of this research into a full product or technology.
  
  --
  Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
22. Re:Come together, right now.... by AKAImBatman · 2004-05-17 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  YaST is a "glue" type of product that gave SuSE a competitive advantage. Releasing it as a commercial product would only have created one more difficult to install binary that would make your life easier if you could only get it installed.
  
  The alternative would have been to be a technology licensor, and attempt to license it to RedHat and Mandrake. My guess, however, is that SuSE would have met with a "DIY mentality" and been shunned.
  
  --
  Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
23. Re:Come together, right now.... by jgardn · 2004-05-17 09:15 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  PostgreSQL has been known to support well over a terabyte recently. We're looking at PostgresSQL 7.5 now, which may have PITR, two-phase commit (the foundation of replication and other features), Win32 compatibility, and several other things.
  
  I'll admit it doesn't have the replication, PITR, clustering and other features that Oracle has that enterprise users need, and even if we do get them in 7.5, it won't nearly be the quality that Oracle has, but it can handle as much data as you can fit on a disk effortlessly.
  
  Give it a few more years, and PostgreSQL will have everything Oracle will have (the useful bits at least), plus it will be just as or more reliable. PostgreSQL is looking at dominating the database market eventually. If Linux is any example of what is possible, expect some serious action in PostgreSQL.
  
  I think this year you are going to see more serious enterprise features being developed by interested 3rd party corporations for PostgreSQL. It has a strong foundation, and it is quite easy to build on. I know. I've studied the source. Expect serious replication as the killer feature this year.
  
  --
  The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
24. Re:Come together, right now.... by bladernr · 2004-05-17 09:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  What I envision is a system where funds are collected and pooled (like taxes), so that they can be spent on R&D and the like in a manner that all can benefit from.
  This is exactly the R&D system used in the former Soviet Union. A good friend of my was a physicist there and worked, of course, for the state, and told me how it worked. A certain portion of proceeds collected from other ventures went to R&D. Of course, the "public" owned the output, because the public did the investment.
  The USSR invested amazing amounts of money in R&D, and had some good results (for those that don't know, a USSR scientist came up with the stealth technology the US makes such great use of). However, by any measure I've seen, money invested in research produced less results in the USSR than in the US. Also, in spite of patents, etc, the US public gets the greater good (see health care statistics - mortality, fertility, life expectancy - in the US as compared to the USSR in the same time periods).
  The collectivization of R&D sounds good on paper, but the "real world labrotories" of the USSR, N Korea, China, and so on, have had poor luck (even resetting for factors like development level). Countries with privatized R&D (US, Western Europe, Southeast Asia) seem to get more bang for the research buck.
  
  --
  Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
25. Re:Come together, right now.... by tcopeland · 2004-05-17 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  > you are going to see more serious enterprise
  > features being developed by interested 3rd
  > party corporations for PostgreSQL
  
  In my mind this is due - at least in part - to PostgreSQL being under the BSD license. It seems to make contributors less leery than other licenses.
  
  I know that I've had significant contributions to PMD from folks who said that if it were GPL'd they wouldn't be contributing - but since it's BSD, they did.
  
  --
  The Army reading list
26. Re:Come together, right now.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 09:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You paint a false dichotomy when you pair "Commercial" with "Closed" against "Open." This error is the classic mistake of someone who does not understand Free or Open software. Closed source can be non-commercial -- just look at all the free for download stuff on the net, not shareware, not donationware, not pirated, just free. But not open.
  
  On the other side, lots of open source is commercially developed -- IBM's commited $1B (american billion) to open source development.
  
  The only real dichotomy is Free (with the capital F) versus proprietary, and those two are definitely antithetical for reasons completely not on your list of "pros" for "Closed Source." They may be able to get along as neighbors when they have to, but they will never be more than uneasy allies at best and usually outright competitors.
27. Re:Come together, right now.... by RAMMS+EIN · 2004-05-17 09:35 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  ``You're equating software development with patents.''
  
  Ok, perhaps I tried too hard to make my arguments seem broadly applicable. The case runs mostly against patents (not copyright, which I see as a Good Thing). However, some of it could also apply to other cases. One of those is software development: if many parties build on a shared base, they all benefit from improvements to it, as do their customers. I think that pooling funds for such projects (GNU could be an example) makes sense. That said, software development is often done as a hobby, meaning that no funding is strictly necessary.
  
  Shipping sources to customers gives these customers additional benefits, such as the security that the code can be supported even if the original supplier ceases to do so, and the ability to flexibly adapt and improve the code. This adds value to a product, and I would think it reasonable if companies could charge more for an otherwise comparable product if it comes with source.
  
  As for your statement about communism; yes, my idea shares certain characteristics with it. However, the main reasons that (so-called) communist systems have failed is that they tried to make things work without rewards, and power was concentrated in the hands of few, with no real checks in place.
  
  In my suggestion, there is an incentive for people to contribute. Those who do research (development, etc.) get paid. Those who pay get better products.
  
  The system I have in mind does not prohibit checks and does not necessarily concentrate the power in the hands of few. Different interest groups can run different funds, so that if one group fails, the rest still work. Group members can be represantatives of various parties, they can be democratically elected, you name it.
  
  Academic research, yes, that's a Good Thing. Just like you said, it's often comparitively cheap, the results are available to anyone, and a lot of interesting things have come from it - I would almost say that the major advances in computer science have come from academia. Someone said that anybody who believes that academic research can or should be replaced by corporate research deserves to live in a world where this has taken place. I find that a very good saying.
  
  --
  Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
28. Re:Come together, right now.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  Amazing how well they've brainwashed you guys. You must be loads of fun at a party.
29. Re:Come together, right now.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 09:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Forgot to list why they will be competitors - completely different economic models:
  
  1) Proprietary software relies on knowledge hoarding and is rooted in the concepts of scarcity to increase value.
  
  2) Free software relies on knowledge sharing - the more you give it away, the more it is worth, which is part of the "economics of plenty."
  
  Since it is human nature to want to share good stuff with your friends, the scarcity approach is ineffective in a world where the cost to share or copy approaches zero while the cost to (artificially) enforce that scarcity increases in magnitude. You can fight human nature, but in the long run you can not win. With Free software (and any other Free digitizable product) you are now capitalizing on human nature instead of fighting it.
  
  In the end there can be only one and Free Software is destined to dominate due to basic principles of human nature and economics. It won't be an easy path since so much of the world's wealth is invested in the concepts of economic scarcity and will fight tooth and nail to maintain an unviable position rather than accept fate and move forward, but eventually they will have to do just that or self-implode as the marketplace leaves them behind.
30. Re:Come together, right now.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  And just who is "they?" What angle is "they" working? What benefit is there to "they" in succesfully "brainwashing" me?
31. Re:Come together, right now.... by AKAImBatman · 2004-05-17 09:50 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  As for your statement about communism; yes, my idea shares certain characteristics with it. However, the main reasons that (so-called) communist systems have failed is that they tried to make things work without rewards, and power was concentrated in the hands of few, with no real checks in place.
  
  Actually, I should use the more correct term. What you propose is "socialism". A dash here and there isn't necessarily a bad thing, but funds like Social Security show how badly a government manages these things. The real problem is that such concepts are very idealistic and tend to fail when hit with the real world. For example, your suggestion raises the following questions:
  
  1. Who decides what projects get money?
  2. How do they decide how much money to give?
  3. How do they prevent pie in the sky projects (e.g. a "real soon now" warp drive) from eating up the budget, year after year?
  
  In the market, you have to show a return on money spent, so the first is solved. The second is decided based on the return formula. The third is handled by cost overruns. If a project gets too expensive with little chance of success, it gets killed.
  
  Academia handles pie in the sky stuff more elegantly because a project can continue as long as it can find relatively small amounts of funding. And if other scientists/engineers believe the project to be a dud, it will live and die by the team originally assigned to it. That's not to say that there isn't tons of wonderful stuff that "should have been" or "could be", but there are times when things should be left alone and revisited with more knowledge and experience.
  
  P.S. Why is parent marked as Troll?
  
  --
  Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
32. Re:Come together, right now.... by RAMMS+EIN · 2004-05-17 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Now that's interesting. If my approach has been tried and failed to perform as well as what we have now, I don't think we have a reason to try again.
  
  Still, there are lots of circumstances that influence the result, other than just the system per se. The soviet system lacked rewards based on performance and ways to control those who were in control. The countries you mention also started out with much less wealth than the west, and had many internal conflicts and tensions. These seem to me more likely explanations of why research failed than the fact that the projects were funded publicly for the benefit of all, rather than privately for the benefit of one company.
  
  Of course, I could be wrong, and your post indicates that. I am still not convinced, though. Maybe I should do some research...results publicly available, of course. :-)
  
  --
  Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
33. Re:Come together, right now.... by RAMMS+EIN · 2004-05-17 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  1. Who decides what projects get money?
  2. How do they decide how much money to give?
  3. How do they prevent pie in the sky projects (e.g. a "real soon now" warp drive) from eating up the budget, year after year?
  
  These are all very good points that need to be addressed in any system. You mention how market mechanisms work to address them in the case of private research. My take is that these issues can be adequetely addressed in publicly available research, too.
  
  First off, if the right decissions can be taken in one system, so can they in another. True, government organizations have goofed up all over the place, but so have companies. The difference is that companies, and especially the people that were responsible for the goof-up, will pay for their mistakes. Mistakes in government organizations are often not addressed adequately, which is a problem that needs addressing in its own right.
  
  I don't know how excactly the decissions would be made in a system where research is public. Government leadership is only one possibility. A board consisting of experts in the field is another. Members could be represantatives from various companies in the industry, or consumer interest groups. All these have different consequences, strenghts and weaknesses.
  
  I'm not saying it will work better, just floating some ideas and see if they can be turned into something meaningful.
  
  --
  Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
34. Re:Come together, right now.... by AKAImBatman · 2004-05-17 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  The soviet system lacked rewards based on performance and ways to control those who were in control.
  
  Not quite true. If you got into the graces of the Communists, you could get a really nice high rise apartment and have lots of money. Otherwise you had to live dirt poor. So there was an incentive to do well.
  
  --
  Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
35. Re:Come together, right now.... by shaitand · 2004-05-17 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  ok except for one thing, SUSE failed and was ultimately bought out cheap.
  
  Redhat on the other hand open'd all of their useful "glue" and it's used widely and Redhat remains the leading commercial Linux distribution.
  
  The theory is nice, but the end results aren't working in your favor.
36. Re:Come together, right now.... by jgardn · 2004-05-19 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, people are wary of PostgreSQL because of its BSD license. If Red Hat makes significant contributions, some other company can take the contribution and incorporate it into their own proprietary version of PostgreSQL without contributing their changes back.
  
  PostgreSQL is a rather strange project in that it is license agnostic. Ask about licensing on the lists and the core contributors say, "No one cares as long as you don't try to screw us." The general feeling is that people behave like it is GPL in that everyone works on the core product and no one is seriously trying to make a competitive proprietary one.
  
  --
  The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
37. Re:Come together, right now.... by tcopeland · 2004-05-19 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  > some other company can take the contribution
  > and incorporate it into their own
  > proprietary version of PostgreSQL
  > without contributing their changes back.
  
  Let 'em. No harm is done to PostgreSQL, and a programmer who is more familiar with the code is liable to contribute bug fixes and features and such in the future. It's the story of OpenSSH's success.
  
  > Ask about licensing on the lists and
  > the core contributors say, "No one
  > cares as long as you don't try
  > to screw us."
  
  Hm, that's interesting! I haven't been mingling around the PG folks for too long, so I haven't picked up on that vibe yet. Pretty cool, thanks for the thoughtful post.
  
  --
  The Army reading list
Steven Weber? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 07:23 · Score: 0, Funny

I wondered what he was doing after the untimely demise of "Wings" (or "Flying Cheers" as some called it.
Re:Link to book by Allen+Zadr · 2004-05-17 07:26 · Score: 3, Informative

Yeah, there was a Barnes and Noble link directly in the Article - at the same price as Amazon. I thought I'd point that out lest anyone think that your Amazon link is somehow superior to the BN link that's already in the article.
Yes, it's at the bottom, and nobody reads the entire book review.

--
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
Development of the BSDs, illustrated by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 07:32 · Score: 0

The development of the BSDs is handsomely illustrated here.
The traditional "free rider" problem by stevesliva · 2004-05-17 07:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

This turns the traditional "free rider" problem into an advantage.
How exactly? What forces the free riders to assume the cost burden of open source development? Is there an open source tax that I'm not aware of?
IANAE, but AFAIK traditional free rider problem would involve a public good that everyone can exploit provided by some subset of the population that has some sort of cost involved in providing that good. Open source development is still costing the developers something, regardless of the fact that it may be for the greater good.

--
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
1. Re:The traditional "free rider" problem by ornil · 2004-05-17 07:53 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  IANAE, but AFAIK traditional free rider problem would involve a public good that everyone can exploit provided by some subset of the population that has some sort of cost involved in providing that good.
  
  IANAE either, but it seems to me that the important advantage of open source is that it makes no difference how many free riders there are, since the only additional cost to the developers is bandwidth, which is cheap or even free (if you use sourceforge, or something similar). So even if one out of a thousand users contributes something, and there are millions of users, things are going quite well, despite 99.9% free riders.
2. Re:The traditional "free rider" problem by Chris+Burke · 2004-05-17 08:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  As more copies are made and put into use, value increases as a result of a larger market and the small percentage of users that contribute bug reports and possibly patches. This turns the traditional "free rider" problem into an advantage.
  
  The idea is that as your usage base grows, some small percentage of that base will become active contributors, as opposed to just free riders. In other scenarios not involving open source the opportunity for a free rider to become a contributor may not exist, or be limited to bug reports. Basically, with open source increasing your market share can also mean increasing your development force.
  
  I'm not sure that turns free riders into an "advantage" per se, but it does help explain how open source projects scale. Clearly, giving "free riders" a chance to not be free riders if they have the talent and time is better than making it impossible for them to contribute.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
3. Re:The traditional "free rider" problem by twalk · 2004-05-17 08:53 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The hard cost to developer's is equipment and bandwidth (but they'd likely purchase that stuff anyway...).
  
  The soft cost to developer's is the time that they spend. Time isn't free. If you spend time developing OSS, then you don't have it for anything else. This is call an opportunity cost.
  
  What can be worse for developers in general, is having managers get the idea that development doesn't have a cost. If that idea becomes common among managers, then salaries among working developers will take a BIG hit. (ie, you can't keep giving away something for free and still expect people to think it has great value... Also, when judging value, people almost always look at the up front cost, and not the expenses after that.)
4. Re:The traditional "free rider" problem by cduffy · 2004-05-17 09:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What forces the free riders to assume the cost burden of open source development?
  
  Self-interest, of course. If I use an open source product and want to fix a bug or add a feature, I either report the bug or feature request to the developer (providing, in effect, free QA resources) or do it myself (providing free development resources).
5. Re:The traditional "free rider" problem by bladernr · 2004-05-17 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  What can be worse for developers in general, is having managers get the idea that development doesn't have a cost. If that idea becomes common among managers, then salaries among working developers will take a BIG hit.
  This is already going on, and the result is relentless cost pressure on corporate development. If you are a CIO, and can get full operating systems for free (Linux), how do you justify the budget for some small business application and its team of developers?
  Answer: you can't. You offshore, thereby reducing cost.
  I've said this before on /. and gotten flamed, but I'll say it again and brace for pain: the same instinct that makes many people use OSS is the instinct that makes CIOs offshore programming jobs. I'm not saying which I believe is right, but human nature is to want something for nothing (or cheap). A few humans are willing to pay more for social good, but not many.
  
  --
  Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
6. Re:The traditional "free rider" problem by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 09:52 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I agree... but it is faulty management logic driving bad decisions. Most management people and too many ordinary folks don't understand "for the greater good" esp. in a production and/or economic sense. Software developers do. Why? Simple, it is a *complete* waste of one's time, effort, and energy to completely at every corner have to reinvent the wheel for essentially NO OTHER REASONS than legal ones (i.e., ownership, copyright, etc.). Programmer's benefit from sharing *and* being altruistic so long as it promotes sharing.
  
  Altruistic? Yes, absolutely, there is real cost to the programmer, but, if he/she (and therefore increasingly his/her employer, etc.) can contribute to a shared pool which costs time, effort, energy, & money, to a shared pool that saves reinventing even more and more wheels, then that is better, much better than proprietary non-sharing models. This is *why* open source esp. things like the GPL *will* be successful.
  
  OTOH, BSD-like licenses do not force sharing to occur if you release modifications. And, over time, fewer and fewer wares will be released under BSD licenses than GNU and others.
  
  On the commercial front, legitimate business deals are founded in fair-trade between parties. The GPL is fair-trade. BSD is one sided, hoping you'll contribute back. I respect and admire those and many other attempts at solutions.
  
  Which ones are better depends on human nature and how we interact social more than any technical reasons that may or may not exist in the real world.
  
  A huge challenge for all of us is to dispense with the temptations (and ultimate ills) of greed.
7. Re:The traditional "free rider" problem by LMCBoy · 2004-05-17 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that the meaning of this passage in the review was unclear. My take on it was that, if you have *active* users who are contributing feedback, bug reports, even patches, then they are not really "free riders" at all; they are co-developers. In a way, OSS is an economic system that is (partly? mostly?) decoupled from the traditional monetary-compensation paradigm. The code is the currency. Silent users are the "free riders"; those who participate are "paying" for their ride.
  
  --
  Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
8. Re:The traditional "free rider" problem by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  Who said anything about users becoming contributors? I thought the issue was about the Free Rider principle being 'anti-rival', as the reviewer and Weber(?) said, which is roughly:
  
  (1) Piracy: A pirate will keep using a pirated copy of my expensive software rather than a cheap rival.
  
  (2) When (s)he gets a job, the company will purchase legitimate copies.
  
  (3) Profit!
  
  Now, substitute free copies for educational use, non profit use, etc. Free downloads everywhere. Without considering the side-effects of being able to HELP EDIT the source, a free item is likely to follow it's user into a corporate setting, thus denying rival software any chance at being used. Thus, anti-rival. That is a much stronger market force than gaining developers from the user base.
9. Re:The traditional "free rider" problem by Chris+Burke · 2004-05-18 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Who said anything about users becoming contributors?
  
  The review did. I quoted it, the two sentences after the introduction of the word "antirival".
  
  You're right about seeding the market with free copies, even pirated ones. However this is specifically about open source, which doesn't always imply free-as-in-beer, and has unique yet related advantages of its own that are worth mentioning.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
Good point, but... by soloport · 2004-05-17 07:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not sure they are at each other's throats. Open Source seems to be ok with closed source software. Where the hurt begins is with the fear closed source companies have of Open Source.

Based on fears alone, a lot of FUD is used to "fight fire with fire". It's like a common spousal spat that occurs when one spouse feels threatened by statements the other has made, which were entirely misinterpreted -- but were interpreted as such only because the defensive one has some unfounded fear on the subject.

The attacks fly until the defensive one gets their assurance that their worst fear won't happen.

When the FUD flies, the Open Source community reacts. Naturally.
1. Re:Good point, but... by Timesprout · 2004-05-17 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  What is this spouse of which you speak? I have spent most of my life immersed in geekdom and have never encountered a spouse. What is it? What does it do? Does it run Linux?
  
  Please stop trying to confuse /. readers and choose more appropriate analogies in future.
  
  --
  Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
  What truth?
  There is no dupe
2. Re:Good point, but... by AKAImBatman · 2004-05-17 07:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Open Source seems to be ok with closed source software.
  
  Then why can't I get a Linux kernel driver that isn't kernel version specific? Or software binaries that don't require me to fight with the version of GLIBC I have? Or a software packaging method that doesn't require me to chase down 5000+ dependencies just to install a video player?
  
  Open Source doesn't like the idea of commercial anything, and commercial anything often fears shrinking profits and lost business opportunities. However, the two sides of the coin can accomplish more by working together. Where would the Internet be today if the original TCP/IP stack hadn't been under the BSD license?
  
  --
  Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
3. Re:Good point, but... by soloport · 2004-05-17 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure about "doesn't like". Your examples sound more like "rapid release" syndrome. Think of how many moving targets other operating systems throw at VARs (answer: very few, with very infrequent releases).
  
  The stability you are seeking may be realized by installing Linux once and leaving it alone for a few years (patches and bug-fixes not withstanding).
  
  For example, we have been running Red Hat 8 for more than a year. Everything just works, including Quake III and The SIMs, natively and QuickBooks, Quicken, MS Office and Adobe products through Win4Lin. On one box, Red Hat 6.2 has been running for about three years.
  
  On most of our systems, though, the very latest Fedora Core 2 is being installed, today and tomorrow. That's because the latest and greatest features are just too appealing!
4. Re:Good point, but... by AKAImBatman · 2004-05-17 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Can Adobe create a single binary that installs, works, and takes advantage of Windows 9x, NT, 2000, and XP? Can Adobe create a single binary that does the same for RedHat 7.x-Fedora Core 2.x, SuSE 8.x-9.x, and Mandrake 9.x-10.x?
  
  Can 3Com release a WinModem driver that will work for all Linux 2.x kernel versions?
  
  These are conscious decisions by Open Source companies and programmers to make it difficult for Close Source software. Binary drivers are particularly sticky on this point, as Linus has stated that he wants to only promote drivers with the source available. But why fight? Linux is so close to being a pretty good OS, but it's so far because it won't make the leap to play nice. Either everyone plays by the OS rules, or the OS community will take its toys and go home.
  
  It does cut both ways. And it's a sad state of affairs. :-(
  
  --
  Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
5. Re:Good point, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  How the feck is that OSS fault?
  
  Can Realtek release an 8019 driver for WinXP? An AGP driver for Win95 (retail)?
  
  Does Closed source not work with Closed source (your reasoning for this argument), or is it that Closed source leaves you with what the writer will give you?
6. Re:Good point, but... by AKAImBatman · 2004-05-17 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Can Realtek release an 8019 driver for WinXP? An AGP driver for Win95 (retail)?
  
  You're confusing things. 3Com makes WinModems. Therefore they should be able to release a binary driver for Linux. But they can't. You know why? Because binary drivers are specific to the version of the kernel.
  
  Your reasoning about 8019 and AGP are flawed, because they are core hardware components that are built according to open industry specifications. If RealTek released a motherboard with the new MXM feature, you're damn right I'd expect them to produce a driver.
  
  --
  Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
7. Re:Good point, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  I believe the poster's point was that 3Com should be able to make a driver for each kernel version (or key stable ones). It need not necessarily be supported (i.e., continually "beta"), but, just having the driver would be a good thing; --even for 3Com.
8. Re:Good point, but... by AKAImBatman · 2004-05-17 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  I believe the poster's point was that 3Com should be able to make a driver for each kernel version (or key stable ones). It need not necessarily be supported (i.e., continually "beta"), but, just having the driver would be a good thing; --even for 3Com.
  
  1. Recompiling and QAing for each kernel version is money out of 3Com's pocket.
  2. What happens if I build a custom kernel? (Hint: It breaks permanently.)
  
  --
  Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
*BSD product support specialist. Man ! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 07:36 · Score: 1, Funny

Speaking of *BSD, I once had to make a technical support call to them. Here's the guy they have answering the phone these days. He told me he had to go into the vault to find the answer to my question. He put me on hold, and then the line went dead.
1. Re:*BSD product support specialist. Man ! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  I can't see why. Phone companies have been upgrading their systems to prevent that sort of thing.
  Oh yeah, BSD is dying.
Excellent use of /. mods. by Chris+Burke · 2004-05-17 07:39 · Score: 5, Funny

"...interesting perspective on the events."
"...Larry McVoy's original Unix is dying troll"
"...it is occasionally redundant in telling one story from multiple social angles."
"This section also contains the most insightful observations..."
"Other claims are close to flamebait..."
"However, Weber's ideas are timely and informative..."
"and occasionally funny account of what Open Source is and means,"
"While some of the issues involved are offtopic for this book, ..."

Now the only question remaining after this review is whether any portions of the book may be over or underrated. Also, knowing if the author has a karma bonus would help in what is otherwise a tie of positive and negative mods.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
1. Re:Excellent use of /. mods. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 10:41 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  "...Larry McVoy's original Unix is dying troll"
  
  I hope I see this one in metamod. McVoy's paper was not a troll, but a cogent summation of the state of Unix in 1993. People forget where Unix was going in the early '90s, before Linux and the *BSDs took off. Basically nowhere good - proprietary fragmentation was killing it.
  
  It's also interesting to note that what happened is basically what he suggested as a way out, being a loose standardisation on free software.
Applications to business by Sean80 · 2004-05-17 07:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've thought long and hard about how the ideals of Open Source could impact businesses. Primarily of interest to me has been the concept of "intrinsic motivation" wherein people are about a thousand times more likely to be motivated to do something if they choose to do it themselves, rather than being told to do it. Open Source then obviously has a massive advantage over the traditional business model in terms of motivation, because I can simply log on to Sourceforge, and choose to participate in a project which interests me personally, without having been told to do it.
I'm not aware of any statistics in this area, but I'd love to see them - for example, just how much more productive is somebody working on Open Source than in a traditional business setting? Further, can this model be made to work in a business setting at all? Take a simple example of a business which allows its employees to work on whichever projects they choose. The company designates a specific set of projects, and you are allowed to migrate at will to those which most interest you. What would be the end-game of this strategy? Would programmers, for example, congregrate around the most "interesting" projects, even if those projects weren't the best for the financial health of the company? Would other projects die for simple lack of interest? What guarantees do we have that the optimal solution in terms of "interest" would be the optimal solution in terms of "making money"?
Of course, the Open Source model really points to a future where corporations are largely irrelevant, and everybody participates in an extremely organic, dynamic model where we all act as free agents, working on the projects which most interest us. But, don't even get me started on that topic.
Nonetheless, I can't find anything which is more intelectually fascinating than these topics at the present time. Anthropic cosmological principle! Bah!
1. Re:Applications to business by The+Raven · 2004-05-17 08:18 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Perhaps if companies paid 'contract wages' based on the perceived value of a project, but allowed employees to work on any project. Employees with a current excess of funds could work on enjoyable 'low pay' projects, while employees at short ends would work on the less fun 'high pay' projects.
  
  I can see many potential issues with this, such as the hassle of time tracking and the likelyhood of abuse, but think of the morale issues... rather than being stuck endlessly in a project you detest, you can 'take a break' and work on a low paying fun project (or fun for you). People who enjoy less fun tasks, like documentation, would get paid for their interest in valuable, but not glamorous, tasks.
  
  It's kinda like auctioning off 'work'. The more employees who want to do a certain task, the more you pay for it (in lower wages).
  
  --
  "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
2. Re:Applications to business by TekGoNos · 2004-05-17 08:28 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  > just how much more productive is somebody working on Open Source
  
  Well, this is impossible to mesure. As programming is mainly a creative activity, you cannot mesure productivity per hour.
  A programmer doesnt only work while typing in a text editor, but also in the bus/his car, while thinking about how to resolve a bug. And this "off-the-keyboard" activity is impossible to track accurately. Especially as a motivated programmer will probably have more "off-the-keyboard" activity then a payed drone who doesnt identify with his programm.
  So to compare productivity, the best you can do is compare people who work full-time and compare productivity per day. As people who work full-time on an open source project are most likely paid to do so, a true comparision between the occasional volunteer and a payed employee is impossible.
  
  However, a comparision between employeea who choose their project freely and normal employees who were ordered to do one would be interesting.
  
  > a business which allows its employees to work on whichever projects they choose.
  
  Google allows (and encourages) it's employees to work part of their time (10% IIRC) on whatever they want.
  Almost everything Google offers (beside standard search) actually started as such a "pet project".
  
  --
  I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.
3. Re:Applications to business by wobblie · 2004-05-17 08:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's old, and it's called syndicalism.
4. Re:Applications to business by wwwojtek · 2004-05-17 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, the Open Source model really points to a future where corporations are largely irrelevant, and everybody participates in an extremely organic, dynamic model where we all act as free agents, working on the projects which most interest us. But, don't even get me started on that topic.
  ...and (other than anti-corporate religious belief) how is it different from a free market economy where people choose to work on whatever most interests them provided that someone else is willing to pay for it?
5. Re:Applications to business by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  People who enjoy less fun tasks, like documentation, would get paid for their interest in valuable, but not glamorous, tasks.
  Hey my fun thing is your boring thing! 'Tis what makes the world go 'round!! :-) :-)
6. Re:Applications to business by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  In one sense, not much different. In other sense totally different. It differs in onwership, proprietorship, how the costs are covered and how the gains are allowed to be rendered.
  
  So, you see there is a huge difference...
7. Re:Applications to business by Spoing · 2004-05-17 11:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  Primarily of interest to me has been the concept of "intrinsic motivation" wherein people are about a thousand times more likely to be motivated to do something if they choose to do it themselves, rather than being told to do it.
  
  I'm big on that too. I even emphasise that people really *don't* do what you tell them most of the time and have to be internally motivated.
  For example, kids;
  Using candy or goodies as an external tool is manipulation that leads the kid to expect to be bribed in the future. The mainupulator becomes the manipulated.
  Yelling or threatening a kid doesn't do anything but scare the kid. It can be effective, but causes resistance -- plus the kid won't talk to you if they think it will lead to being yelled at.
  Having personally interesting activities leads to enthusiasm...but there are few of them.
  Encouraging and supporting *desires* will motivate anyone to do the other things they don't want to do but may have to.
  The thin line is that it's easy to bring out the carrot or the stick and these motivate the parent to continue to use them in the future. Neither are as effective in the long term or in even most (any?) situations as supporting what the person actually wants to do anyway!
  (IMNSHO: Adults are older, more experienced, versions of kids.)
  --
  A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:Link to book by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 07:46 · Score: 0

I suppose that's true.
However, in truth, I have my own reasons for dis-approving of free Amazon advertising. (Not that I approve of free B.N. advertising either, but I just really hate Amazon).
--
Allen Zadr (A.C., due to offtopic)
Re:where is the original article? by ClippyHater · 2004-05-17 07:54 · Score: 1, Informative

It's a book review!

The original article can be found at here, among other places.

I know, I know, it was (probably) a joke. It's just that the "Insightful" moderation I saw got to me.
Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 07:55 · Score: 0

In addition to your IP address, they also track your UID if you post anonymously while logged in. I believe this tracking is in place to help stop crapflooders.
Sadly, decent, honest trolls or even posters with unorthodox opinions get modded down and lumped togethor with crapflooders under the name 'troll', and then get their IPs banned.
Different viewpoints... by Lodragandraoidh · 2004-05-17 07:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

I find it exceedingly niave to make broad assumptions about any one methodology as the 'one' methodology. Perhaps we have an inate xenophobia that prevents us from accepting different systems without judgement (look at religeon if you want some examples of how destructive this can become).

The reality is more complex than most of us can comprehend. Additionally, external issues outside of the applications themselves also hold sway (boycotting particular companies due to questionable business practices, for example).

It is not an all or nothing proposition. As time goes on the environment changes, and some activities become more effective than others.

Commerce will not disappear, neither will groups of people working freely for a common goal, without expectation of compensation.

--

Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Re:Link to book by SamSpectre · 2004-05-17 08:01 · Score: 2

Anonymous Coward's link was provided so that he/she could make some revenue off people buying the book via that link.
My Summary by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 08:23 · Score: 0

Here's my summary of the story:

"supply meets demand"

BAM! 3 words

jesus... these academians wonder about reality when even when it's right in front of them.
I've had a lot of experience with this! by Ratfactor · 2004-05-17 08:24 · Score: 1

All of the oozing and bleeding goes away after a while. Then you're left with just the smell... Success!!

Oh... Success of Open Source. Whoah...never mind.
Referral link by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 08:35 · Score: 0

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067401292 5/srtcr-20/103-2222221-1071813?dev-t=mason-wrapper %26camp=2025%26link_code=xm2

Looks like the paid-to-peddle-Amazon trolls are coming back.

Those who want a referral-free link can use this one:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/06 74012925
Consider open source in publishing, food & pha by ebusinessmedia1 · 2004-05-17 08:48 · Score: 5, Informative

The concept of open source is now thoroughly out of the box, and already moving into areas beside IT. Here are a few examples:

1) ""Researchers in Australia and India are sidestepping agriculture patents held by the likes of Monsanto and DuPont to develop competitive technologies and foods (such as a high-protein potato) that are, by design, open and unrestricted. In pharmaceuticals, India is skirting patents to create generic AIDS drugs that are orders of magnitude cheaper than those made by the transnational drug companies ..."
http://www.mediajunk.com/public/archives/200 4_01.h tml

also,
http://www.wacc.org.uk/modules.php?name=N ews&file= article&sid=815

2) The California Open Source Textbook Project www.opensourcetext.org has been created to provide open source printed books for K-12 students in California, and eventually the world.
www.opensourcetext.org

3) MIT's OpenCourseWare project has been created to provide free university curriculum to students
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html

4) Wikipedia is a great example of open source content with it's many open source projects
www.wikipedia.org

There are many other examples, currently, of cooperative efforts to share intellectual capital.
Easy measure by G3ckoG33k · 2004-05-17 08:55 · Score: 1

Use dollar, money talks, even for open source.
the first generation internet was/is open source by evil_one666 · 2004-05-17 09:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Open source is great and all, but isn't this statement a bit over the top? It almost sounds like he's trying to sell something. Just MHO.

Over the top? not at all...
The first generation internet was open source, and that was precisely why it was widely adopted and subsequently "suceeded". Many "internets" had been tried before but failed basically because they werent free (as in beer) for everybody to use and free (as in freedom) for knowledgable people to make improvements and give back to the community.
Well.... by Kjella · 2004-05-17 09:15 · Score: 1

I have a question. Why should Open Source software and closed source software be at each other's throats? Shouldn't the two be cooperating more than fighting? Here's the advantages I see to each of them:

...you only hear about them when they clash. Nobody is talking about McDonalds vs fine cuisine, and if there was some new form of low-end food nobody would compare that to gourmet food either. You hear about OSS clashing with POTS (plain off the shelf) software.

Basicly, OSS is eating away at established markeds from the bottom (say Microsoft would be able to "sell" you basic features over and over by including them in bigger and bigger packages like Office 97->2000->2003 etc.) Competing with OSS, they have to actually make unique and specialized features, that they can only sell to those that actually need them.

OSS is also a chain reaction, which they fear. Imagine OSS does 99,5% of what a company needs to do. So they write the other 0,5% (as OSS, not their core business + they get community support and maintenance). Now suddnly some other company went from 99,2% -> 99,5%. So they write another 0,5%. Suddenly the snowball is rolling.

They fear it because they don't know how far it'll go. I don't think anyone does. Microsoft is huge but they're but one company. If every fortune 500 company, foreign government, international organizations starts thinking "hmm, if we just add a touch here and a touch there, it'll do for us" they in total dwarf any R&D investment Microsoft does.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
1. Re:Well.... by AKAImBatman · 2004-05-17 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  OSS is also a chain reaction, which they fear. Imagine OSS does 99,5% of what a company needs to do. So they write the other 0,5% (as OSS, not their core business + they get community support and maintenance). Now suddnly some other company went from 99,2% -> 99,5%. So they write another 0,5%. Suddenly the snowball is rolling.
  
  From a market perspective, this is a good thing. Lowering the barriers to entry forces companies to produce more innovation and cheaper products to keep ahead of the competition. Every company would *like* to have a monopoly, but monopolies inherently cause development to stagnate. Take phone companies as an example. AT&T had a monopoly and was able to keep rates the same with practically no need to technological development. The Feds suddenly allow competitors and Fibre Optics, DSL, lower prices, etc. develop.
  
  --
  Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
2. Re:Well.... by Tony-A · 2004-05-17 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  OSS is also a chain reaction, which they fear. Imagine OSS does 99,5% of what a company needs to do. So they write the other 0,5% (as OSS, not their core business + they get community support and maintenance). [Emphasis added]
  
  Point made but you're missing the shift in equilibrium.
  They write the other 0,5% for what they need to do.
  They write another 5% for what they want to do.
  
  The equilibrium point of what is worth writing and how well it is worth writing shifts. It's a slow and persistent process.
  They fear it because they don't know how far it'll go. I don't think anyone does.
  OSS is not a cheaper replacement for existing software. (Although it does succeed at that). OSS is the only means of producing software that would otherwise be exhorbitantly expensive. My guess is that the TCO of Linux is greater than that of Microsoft Windows, but the Linux will be doing stuff that simply is not economically feasible with Microsoft Windows.
so that's what Gorby meant by assymetcic response by iamr00t · 2004-05-17 09:55 · Score: 1

Heh, Soviet response to SDI is to slowly take over software market and then spread communism into all areas of human live! Slow and easy revolution :)

I can see it now...
"If you are licensing under GPL you support communism!"
err... that's purely freudian... asymmetric ;-) by iamr00t · 2004-05-17 09:57 · Score: 1

mine is a terrible thing.
Antirival? by Randym · 2004-05-17 11:08 · Score: 1

While there are too many to list here, one is the concept of Open Source Software as antirival. As more copies are made and put into use, value increases as a result of a larger market and the small percentage of users that contribute bug reports and possibly patches. This turns the traditional "free rider" problem into an advantage.
Do you mean the 'network effect'? If so, why not call it that? "Antirival" -- sounds like a bug spray.

--
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
How to succeed in Open Source by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 12:58 · Score: 0

...write a book about it.

Seriously, if you have a comfortable socialist subsidy (like being in a university), spending all day writing free (as in beer) software makes sense. But if you are in the Real World, you best not waste your time like that (unless software is your "hobby" away from some other paying career). Oh, and if your "paying career" is delivering software-services, you had best stay away from creating open source as well, because 50 million Indians are coming to take your current paying job away from you and you need to be focused on finding some other way of making money before you become a statistic. (Or you could just go back to school and get that socialist subsidy thing going.)
Business? by Mex · 2004-05-17 13:10 · Score: 1

Well, it isn't much different from, for instance, a business where workers can contribute ideas (and are rewarded for it)...
Link to Chapter 1 - Introduction by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 15:07 · Score: 0

Pdf version Link to google's html version
My experience by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 15:08 · Score: 0

I contribute to Apache projects regularly. Of all the jobs I've had since 1997, only one had good track record of solid well-documented code. Most of the others were crap, even though all of them had clear coding guidelines. My current consulting gig is at a MS centric shop and I have to say from first hand experience Microsoft shops tend to have bigger quality issues. Poor design, bad implementation, no documentation, no unit tests and absolutely no pride in what they build.
In contrast, more than 75% of the projects on Apache have good documentation and most people test their code thoroughly. If proprietary code was 1/4 as good as Apache code, i would be happy. Instead, 80% of my job is cleaning up other people's garbage. And no it doesn't mean everyone at MS shops suck. Of the programmers at the current gig, less than 5% know what they are doing. The others code C# like they're using VB. The end result is god aweful code that isn't extensible and has to be thrown away to add features. but hey it keeps microsoft rich.
[corrected]Link to Chapter 1 - Introduction by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 15:22 · Score: 0

corrected links

Pdf version

http://brie.berkeley.edu/~briewww/people/SWChapt er 1final.pdf

Link to google's html version

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:crqCDE1P_Y4 J: brie.berkeley.edu/~briewww/people/SWChapter%25201f inal.pdf+%22success+of+open+source%22&hl=pt&ie=UTF -8
Sounds like a novel version of... by mateub · 2004-05-17 17:16 · Score: 1

Eric S. Raymond's Homesteading the Noosphere. Am I the only one who likes this essay more than The Cathedral and the Bazaar? Don't get me wrong, I like both essays, but Cathedral was primarily about one person realizing the promise of open development. Noosphere was his plunge into the why of it. Raymond argues that open source operates as a gift culture, where status comes from giving the best gift instead of acquiring the best toys.
Sounds like the academic world is starting to think along the same lines.
adeu,
Mateu

--
"And we're happy here, but we live in fear, we've seen a lot of temples crumble..." - Concrete Blonde
Weber is PolySci, not tech by water-and-sewer · 2004-05-17 19:14 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm surprised the reviewer of this book didn't take the time to look into Weber's history. He's not a tech guy; he's a professor of political science. Not long ago I downloaded a draft paper of his called "The Political Science of Open Source" which seems to be a draft for this book - the themes overlap nicely. Weber is working at BRIE, the Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy. The paper is here.

--
If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
Re: closed source projects [with] good usability by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-17 20:21 · Score: 0

Adobe Acrobat, Photoshop, RealPlayerOne, MSAccess, Quicktime (Sorenson), and iTunes are all examples of commercial products that people pay money for, and would like to have ported to Linux.
Adobe Acrobat . . sucks RealPlayerOne . . sucks MSAccess . . . . .sucks Quicktime . . . . not necessary iTunes . . . . . .not necessary Photoshop . . . . OK
You're 1 for 6

gewg_
Re:har har by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-18 01:42 · Score: 0

When I fuck donkeys they scream.