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?
Just in case the server crashes and burns (like they usually do),I have put up a mirror.h owpage&pid=151 is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_7/acmqueue.com/modu les.php%3fname=Content&%3bpa=showpage&%3bpid =151
The mirror of http://acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=s
Note to Mods: When I post mirrors, it's a best guess. I don't know for certain whether or not the site will go down!
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.
Modded as interesting? You do know that Darwin is already open sourced.....Don't you?
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Darwin is open sourced. You can download it from
i n/
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/darw
Aqua is NOT.
And at opendarwin you can find a x86 port of darwin.
Maybe a little better than seeing all of Microsoft's code open sourced, but don't count on seeing any of Apple's proprietary code. Sure, if we could see the source for everything, right now, we could accomplish awesome things. But what is the incentive for most any software company to release their code when it is almost solely the act of keeping it proprietary that generates their income? If you want to see real changes in commercial software in regards to general openness, then we need to see real changes in the global and local economic model.
I am feeling fat and sassy
Why would you want to cut down soft.dev. costs if an engineer in India costs $400/month?
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.
"investigation, evaluation, adoption, and communication"
Isn't this true for just about every migration plans?
Investigate -- find out if this will do what you want it to do.
Evaluate -- dig deeper into the idea. Get a better feasibility study with numbers and monetary figures. Make cool looking presentations to the higher-ups that sign the checks.
Adoption -- this is where you SLOWLY incorporate the new with the old. Make sure everything is working well. People may have to do double-duty to work with both systems just so they can give it their blessing (that it all works properly). This is where you train a "core" group of support folks from each department so they burden you less.
Communication -- this really should be earlier on, before adoption. Find people who run this stuff already and communicate whether it may work for you too. See if you can get a "we'll help you through it" before you even adopt.
Again, this isn't anything strictly for Open Source. I'm sure there are nuances and cultures, yadda yadda yadda...but a good plan of action helps minimize risk with ANY project.
- Be prepared to become an expert on everything. If you have problems with component X, if no one in the community is interested in fixing it or if you're under time pressure, you'll have to fix it yourself. Also known as the "if you don't have a kernel expert on staff, you will eventually" rule.
- Almost nothing works the first time. OSS engenders infinite flexibility which eventually reaches infinite permutations. The plethora of configuration options to a large project's source can be very daunting. Everything interlocks with everything else for maximum flexibility which means more work up front to understand how the pieces fit together.
- Forget about binary portability. OSS is designed to support source code across platforms in the same way Windows is designed to support binary backwards compatilbity.
- Expect complexity and plan for it. OSS supports every platform under the sun which breeds extra complexity.
- Have lots and lots of patience.
Just my two cents from having developed embedded x86 and ARM Linux for the last two years.
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.
The reference to Slashdot was suprising to me being referenced in the ACM without even a footnote because not everyone in IT knows about Slashdot, especially your average .NET programmer:
Marketing. First and foremost, your marketing people will (or should) want to have a prepared message about your use of open source, even if it's only to respond to any questions that may come up. Make sure that they also know enough to make correct assertions about it, or you may find yourself paying the price on Slashdot when one of them makes an embarrassing public gaffe about who provided the technology or attributes it to someone else.
BTM
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
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
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
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.
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.