Slashdot Mirror
The Open Source Paradigm Shift
Tim O'Reilly has written up a talk he has given about the open source paradigm shift, which he describes as fundamental and long-term changes in the technology world brought on by the widespread adoption of Free and open source software.
Somehow, intermingling "open source" with "paradigm shifts" together... it just seems wrong.
A relationship between open source software and corporations can exist. But to the business suit crowd, could you please leave the bullshit keywords at the door?
I am about half way through and I am totally engrossed. This is a great read. Props to Oreilly
...IBM chose to build its computer from off the shelf components, and to open up its design for cloning by other manufacturers... :)
No they didn't. Compaq had to clean room reverse engineer the IBM BIOS to make the first clones. IBM then brought out the PS/2 with microchannel architecture trying to lock people into their hardware and that didn't work either. Eventually IBM was dragged kicking and screaming into modern times where we all love them for being open.
Shh.
so that's what I did. And what I have here is the best of three attempts to address the subject.
Because the frequency of innovation is increasing and the initial lifespan of any one idea is decreasing, things may reach a point where innovation moves too fast for social forces to have much effect on any technology.
Example Absolutely Chosen At Random For No Good Reason Whatsoever: "Trusted" Computing
If the tinfoil nightmare indeed comes true, and laws are passed making it illegal to not use such a system, do we have enough time to reverse its effects until the rules are set in stone? Remember that Money is an immediate force ("Hey, for $X million, would you make Y illegal?"), and that Reason is a slow force ("You can't make Y illegal because you are breaking right Z!").
Also do remember that for every one of us who want information free, there are three who stand to lose money at free information, and six who just don't give a fuck, as long as they get paid.
What I'm trying to get to is that "open source/free" is nothing special on its own, but when combined with the increasing shrinkage of the scale of time, we may be headed with a direct collision with the other side; and at least one of us will be completely devastated.
Or I could just be feeling grandiose---note my abuse of capitalization and overuse of overused metaphors.
Ironic, isn't it then, that the PS/2 keyobards (and the near-twins on on IBM typewriters, before or after I don't know) are still the best damn keyboards ever made.
away from open source? I remember in school reading about scientists in the olden days sharing research pretty freely. It seems like all this copywrite and patent crap is a relatively new development.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The software market is "collapsing" in the same way that the computer market (think mainframes, minicomputers, and proprietary stuff - atari, commodore, etc) "collapsed" when IBM allowed the PC to become standardized and commoditized. The future is "Infoware," or internet apps like Google, Amazon, eBay, etc.
The "Infoware" that will "win" is that which can leverage the open-source development model - the ones that allow users/anyone to extend their technology for them. Google is a "winner" because PageRank is determined by webmasters, not Google - but PageRank can be copied, so Google needs to diversify (hence Gmail). Amazon is a winner because they leverage customer collaboration and data - their service is better because of user product reviews, "most popular" lists, etc, as well as their open architecture that allows others to customize and use their service in ways they never even considered. Ebay is a winner because the value of their service is in the number of people using it, not some particular technological feature that others can easily copy.
Yahoo is a non-winner because their directory is written and organized by their employees, which is a finite resource. There is no dominant map-serving website (MapQuest, Yahoo Maps, MSN maps, etc) because none of them have embraced the open-source or open-development model.
There's also a bit about how open development is useful for proprietary software too - ASP.NET was made by two Microsoft employees doing a fork of ASP in their spare time, which was okayed by Gates after the fact; proprietary software companies use open-source style collaboration and CVS-type tools within their company.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
From the legal academic viewpoint, why do you have a problem with "paradigm shift"? It's a fine choice of words to describe this situation. It may seem like the buzzwords obscure things but look again - it's just a different way of describing this issue.
And it's not just the "suits" who need "buzzwords" like paradigm shift. It's the academics, it's the lawyers, it's the judges and it's the government. There's an entire world out there aside from the computer industry that is interested in what's happening with open source and bringing them into the argument by using words they understand is vital if you want to get your point across with any success.
Why is moving towards open source equated with making more money in this article? Not so - it makes less every time - not that I don't like Open Source - I love being able to download free (as in beer) copies of Mandrake and Knoppix. And I'm sorry, but people who use Google aren't using Linux any more than people who hit my own web site are using Mac OS X. That's just nonsense! Why is Tim using Amazon, Google and Ebay as examples of being able to make money from Open Source? I think he means to say that they were able to cut costs by not paying Linux companies/developers as much as they would have Microsoft/Sun/Apple/SGI/QNX/etc.. I think Tim is missing the REAL paradigm shift here. He said it himself, but failed to see the forest for the trees. Microsoft made 32 billion last year, verses Red Hat's 126 million. Microsoft lost probably 5-10 billion last year due to eroded market share from Linux (well, fair enough - they deserved it). Am I an Open Source supporter? Yes. Do I hate Microsoft? Somewhat. But please, do not say that Open Source has lots of financial rewards. Open Source forces companies to "embrace and extend" Linux in quite the same way that Apple has with BSD, >. Those who don't, such as Microsoft, are losing market share (such as to Apache, Linux, and OpenOffice). Even funnier is the fact that the big-name Linux companies handle Open Source almost the same way that Apple does (like Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSE, etc.) in that they work with Open Source and give changes back, but they have their own value add (whether proprietary, open, or just a marketed name such as "Red Hat") added to it. No wonder Red Hat has been accused of being the Microsoft of Open Source. Open Source allows people to "steal code", however, it's not too hard for a competitor to copy the way an app works anyways (depending on which app, of course). Not to mention, it takes a lifetime to read and understand a million lines of code, so the BIG projects such as OpenOffice or the Linux kernel are relatively safe.
Who moved my sig?
Let's ignore those paradigmaticly shifting meanings. :)
1-Computers started as big (very big) calculator machines, code were formulaes.
2- then changed to uniform shape and spread among people, the pc era started, code revolved around public APIs,
3- latter communication systems lowered prices and that make possible to connect those individuals machines thru selected servers, that's the internet era, public protocols take the workload,
The next 'shift'? In my opinion, parallel processing at massive scale, (ie, speech recognition, automatic translation enabled phones, etc) that one has been once and again left for tomorrow.
What's in a sig?
Thats great, Linux has great mindshare amongst those who create some of the leading web applications.
However, the reason that it's not going to help in the slightest when it comes to client penetration is that an operating system that works well essentially becomes transparent to the user, who should only be interacting with their task and using the operating system to achieve this. Take for example, the latest SuSE's, Gentoo, whatever, there's penguins plastered everywhere, their nice logo is rammed down your throat left and right, and the constant trumpeting of OSS is everywhere, from readme's to splash screens. You either conform to the view thats presented, or you'll be annoyed by it until you get frustrated.
Right now I'm running Windows XP, I don't need to compile anything, I don't have to subscribe to a mindset, I just have to use the software. The "You use Linux if you use Google" is such bullshit in retrospect, we all use DNS a lot more, and that's mostly run on proprietary Unix and in some cases the BSD's. Noone goes playing that trumpet, do they?
that 30 years ago, source was always given. It was a shift to give only executables. Now, we are seeing the boat rock back. A shift? No, I suspect that it is just a rejection of a different one.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.