Slashdot Mirror
Evaluating Open Source
CowboyRobot writes "Jordan Hubbard cofounded FreeBSD and now oversees the Darwin implementation of BSD for Apple. He describes open source as 'finally being openly acknowledged as a commercial engineering force-multiplier and important option for avoiding significant software development costs.' And thus, companies need to know how to evaluate open source engineering as an option for them. In a new article titled Open Source to the Core, Hubbard goes through a typical open source adoption process."
at the expense of?
did you forget to take your meds?
It points out a number of stumbling blocks that you might get into and walks you through them.
It has a few paragraphs on dealing with the various liscenses, and on the effort you should put into giving back to the open source community if you use some of the code.
I can see this as a great opportunity to both mainstream developemnt and provide more options. Id software being able to more between mac/windows/linux on their releases is a good example of this.
The sad thing about open source is there isn't really any marketing control.
Linux hasn't really taken off into mainstream unti IBM started throwing it's weight and marketing Linux.
If someone could figure out a open source way of marketing and marketing studies to fuel product development, then we'll see a new era.
Slashdot is fine for learning new stuff. A lot of people find interesting articles to post here, then even more comment on them, and every thread always has even more interesting links. It's a force multiplier that way, and you get a lot of great anecdotals, too. Yes, you might have to wade through the trolls, and along the way you might get sidetracked, or enjoy some joking, etc, but all in all it's pretty good. That's why it's popular, it fills a niche and does it well. And it's pretty well customisable, you get the content you want, and you can set your threshold where you want. Price is right, too.
I like the idea of Darwin, a free Unix-like OS specifically designed to work well on a Macintosh, and had hoped that it would be developed as a real and useful BSD but from what I can see, it is simply the core of Mac OS X and no one seems to be interested in making it useful OS on its own right.
Maybe things have changed since the last time I tried Darwin but there are a few problems with it, such as:
1. No partitioning/formatting options during install
2. No way to setup Airport
3. No way to add users/groups without knowing arcane NetInfo commands
4. Some commands do not make use of the full console dimensions; probably because no one wants to fix Termcap.
5. No security announcements lists or patches.
6. No binary releases have being generated since 7.0.1.
Furthermore, I have seen people who wanted to use Darwin as a server (on a remote Macintosh) told to use Mac OS X Server instead. It seems to me that this is the wrong attitude, that people should actually want Darwin to be useful as a server and and a Unix workstation. It is a shame.
Back in 60s and 70s, the era of huge collaboration that gaves us UNIX, Internet etc, everything was open sourced. Of course, the targeted audience who participated tended to be those in academia (outside the corporations that developed them). Guess what? Open source softwares was then and there and yes, it was viable enough to be an academic experiment and commercial at the same time. I think the only thing different now is that we have the same revolution with a wider audience and a sensibility that will sustain open source movement for a long time to come.
Activists United
Because fewer Indians cost less than more Indians. Duh.
Unknown host pong.
Alright lads, we're going to get people to develope this for us, open source style... then we're going to charge for it. We'll make millions for pretty much free.
Sounds like that to me... isn't the point of open source to "Give a little back to recieve alot". A "One for all, all for one" approach to software?
--- [Insert intresting Sig here]
Maybe because:
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
The language used has NOTHING to do with how good of a programmer you are.
If anything, the time savings offered by microsoft's very good development tools allow you to focus on a better architecture and UI.
It lowers the barrier of entry. Small local businesses can thrive in an environment like this, and anyone is eligible to obtain the necessary knowhow and skill to get a job or start a business in the field.
I have pretty much one criterion in my mind regarding economics in the USA. If it ups the barrier of entry: automatically bad. It divides the haves and have-nots into perpetually irreconcilable camps. If it lowers the barrier of entry, any perceived "loss" or "recession" is due to the fatcats getting outdone by nimble startups or their own customers. In other words: automatically good.
Lowering the barrier diminishes corporate power; diminished corporate power means diminished corporate influence on government; and that means more power to the REAL PEOPLE.
While I would say "B", as I'm assuming you would, I don't know that you're right for the reasons you might think you are.
While I'd agree that a Python/Debian/Postgre/Apache developer is probably more adept, I don't think it has to do with the language. It has to do with the fact that (generally speaking, of course) OSS people are more heavily self-taught amateurs-turned-pros. To me, that displays a passion for the craft that others might not have (though to be fair, many MS-based developers are self-taught too, albeit on systems that are much less in-your-face from a learning perspective... OSS developers have to spend a fair bit time learning the systems first, before the development skills, while MS'ers don't necessarily). Add to that my opinion that autodidacts have skills that are generally more flexible and adaptive, and "B" is definitely preferable.
But the differentiator is not the language. In reality, while B is better than A, a developer that can excel at both A and B is better than either an A or B; a truly gifted develeper isn't limited by language. Overall, B is more desirable to me because I know a B has likely invested more time and passion in learning and honing their skills, not because they know <insert language here>.
The language doesn't make you a good programer but the environment does make a difference.
It's much easier to be a bad programer and get away with it in a good environment. While I wouldn't call Python, Debian and PostgreSQL/Apache a bad environment. If you are able to set it up and program in that environment it means you have to have a certain level of skill. On the other hand to setup ASP.NET, Win 2003 and MSSQL/IIS doesn't require anywhere near as much skill. That doesn't mean that the program isn't as good but it does mean the skill range is larger.
Eg. If you compare someone who can just do VB with someone who can do C++ and VB you'll find that the C++ person will often be better. Why? Because C++ is harder than VB which means more people can program VB which means your more likely to find someone that's not as good if you look for VB.
That's why there are alot of Crap VB programs around which is good. Lots of people learning and it's easy to throw a program to gether but it's also bad lots of people that can throw a program together think their good. Compare that with C where it's alot harder to throw a program together an while some of them as still bad most of them a better than the VB ones because it's harder so you have to be better to get it to work. Drop the C programer back to VB and they can still write good code just faster.
I don't think that's such a sad thing. It'll be actively marketed in one way or another as long as someone sees a way to make money from it. IBM has found such a way (or believes that it has), but even if it stops then linux and open source will still be there for me to use --- complete with all of the enhancements that IBM provided.
I realise that it's not exactly what you're referring to, but in the past week or so I've been hearing Microsoft commercials on the morning radio, definitely peak time on high rating stations, that directly target open source software.
I don't recall the exact wording but the commercials definitely say something along the lines of "you may think there are free software alternatives, but there are really hidden costs." This is where I am locally (New Zealand), but I understand that Microsoft has been taking similar approaches in other places.
From the tone of the commercials, I honestly can't see how Microsoft could be doing anything but shooting itself in the foot with this type of campaign. One of the main barriers to open source is that people haven't heard of it, and another is that people don't see it as something that's worth seriously trying to use. It's a credit for open source whenever anyone hears that Microsoft is afraid of it, because that implies that lots of other people actually are using it and successfully.
> Shop A: Pays $65K for a VB and ASP .NET developer to work on Win 2003 and MSSQL/IIS.
>Shop B: Pays $65K for Python developer to work on Debian with PostgreSQL/Apache.
>Who do you think will get the better programmer?
IMHO, it's anyone's guess... You've neglected a multitude of other variables: understanding the business, usability, clear design, ability to get things done, etc.