Open Sources 2.0

dpilgrim writes "O'Reilly has just released a successor volume to 1999's "Open Sources", entitled "Open Sources 2.0". The table of contents reveals contributions from a number of open source luminaries, including Mozilla's Mitchell Baker, Samba's Jeremy Allison, and Sleepycat's Michael Olson. There's also an essay co-authored by Slashdot's own Jeff Bates. The sample chapter is the introduction, and includes an entertaining riff on the parallels between the open source community and the Burning Man community. This volume is edited by two of the original three editors, Chris DiBona (former Slashdot editor) and Mark Stone, together with Danese Cooper. You might want to compare this with the original "Open Sources", whose entire text can be found online."

Comments

It takes a community...

[fak3r]

This book should be much more relevant now that the 'dot-com' hype has disappated and people can see the fruits of real community supported development. When you see how poorly properitary software companies are run (I'm talking about the ones I('ve) work(ed) for); things like that are not tolerated in OSS. If push comes to shove (I'm looking at you XFree86) a fork may develop giving users a true option that could become superior to it's ancestor. The burning man ref seems a bit off, as that's not people being realy, it's a vacation. OSS is real in that real work gets done by someone everyday (unlike me at my job...)

Burning Man?

[fatboy]

Could they elaborate? I thought "Burning Man" was like the west coast version of Bonnaroo. I don't see how "hippie fests" have anything to do with developing great software. But then again, I don't like hippies.

Re:Burning Man?

[bobbyshade]

that's cool, we don't like you too, but beyond that non point...burning man is for rich yuppies and pseudo artists. mostly drunk folk that are as far from the hippie dogma/ethic as folks can get. these people spend $20,000.00 to build edifices that they then burn down. when was the last time you heard of a hippie landing his beechcraft at a love in? http://www.deepwoodsband.com/ an americania band in the AlteredNative genre

Re:Burning Man?

[Tom Christiansen]

I thought "Burning Man" was like the west coast version of Bonnaroo. I don't see how "hippie fests" have anything to do with developing great software. But then again, I don't like hippies.

To pretend that Burning Man is "like" any one particular thing is like unto converting first a long and intricate novel to a flash-bang Hollywood movie, that movie then to a trailer clip, and finally, that little clip to nothing but a simplistic sound-byte. Just like some data-stream lossily compressed into an inpoverished palimpsest of the original, this final sound-byte, so devoid of depth and detail, cannot help but be misleading, be deceptive--and ultimately, therefore, insulting.

For even a Burner who purports to represent Burning Man as "like" any single thing and then leaves it at that without elaboration is guilty of this sort of reductionist marketing (read: lying) crime. As for a non-Burner who does this, why, this is even worse, nothing but a foreigner speaking out of hearsay and ignorance.

Either go to the Burn, or don't even try to start to describe the experience. You have absolutely no clue.

This hippy thing is really quite curious. To be a "hippy" changed from a positive thing to a negative one, largely depending on one's birth year. Children born near the start of the 60's think of "hippies" as simple and kindly folk who have no trek with DDT, killing, or cruelty, with meaningless rules required by mindless, goose-stepping obediance to their fathers' fathers' fathers' notions of Victorian prudence and propriety, a people who can't always be bothered to shave precisely when and where they're told to.

Yet for those who were born sometime in the late 70's or beyond, a "hippy" seems in contrast to be more apt to conjure notions of unwashed beggars in ragged but colorful clothing who as before can't be bothered to shave when and where they're told to. They have no connection to the Beat Generation, just dirty spongers seeking a life without ties--of all sorts.

Personally, I do find it peculiar how often the latter-borns point out superficial cleanliness as some negative determining factor. What about the people? Perhaps these prudes, so quick to judge their fellow, need a sobering turn at Outward Bound with a backpack and a week in the wilderness--or a bit of time spent in 90+% of the world outside their fairytale bubble of extreme hygiene.

A couple weeks past this last Burn, The Economist had an article largely pooh-poohing the gift culture at Burning Man, much more so than that newspaper has ever decried the open source movement. One thing they got right, though, is seen here:

Normally, behind any hippie event, there are various corporate sorts or hairy entrepreneurs filling their boots with cash. But at Burning Man all buying, selling or advertising was banned. The 3.75-square-mile (six-square-km) site was strictly a commerce-free zone, with two exceptions to prove the rule: first, you had to buy a ticket to get in (which could cost $300 for the whole week and paid for the site, the Portaloos and a few basic amenities); and, second, at the central camp you could buy coffee, tea and ice. Everything else had to be given away. Even bartering is discouraged.

To be freed for even a brief spell from the constant crush of the unending, ubiquitous advertising and consequent grovelling and lying that plague our society really is a refreshing change, a respite from tyranny and deception. No one ever asks what "you do for living"; sometimes, though, they ask you what "you live for doing", which seems more important.

As for the cost, try renting a hotel for 8 days: you'll be spending more than the cost of a Burning Man ticket ($175 - 2x that last year) most anywhere and anywhen in the United States today.

The "gift culture" thing really is shared in common between the open source culture and Burner culture. If you don'

The book has been slashdotted...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also an essay co-authored by Slashdot's own Jeff Bates. The sample chapter is the introduction, and includes an entertaining riff on the parallels between the open source community and the Burning Man community. This volume is edited by two of the original three editors, Chris DiBona (former Slashdot editor)

Does this mean it's full of typoos, dupes, articles with links that don't reference the actual article, and pictures of goatse?

And do you have to type the word in the image to read the book?

(mind reading capcha="bullocks")

Re:Let it be Known!

[Otter]

Microsoft's complete denial of the Open Source phenomenon is almost amusing. The Apache web server has, at the time of writing, more than 50% of the web serving market according the Netcraft survey ( http://www.netcraft.com/survey). When you look at advertisements for Microsoft's Internet Information Server (IIS) you see them tout that they own over half the market in web serving--over half the commercial server market, that is.

I believe the claim about the "commercial server market" refers to business-operated web servers, not to commercial server software. If I'm correct, "almost amusing" would be the introduction making such a silly error.

In fact, reading the introduction -- the whole thing is idiotic. It opens with an anecdote from The Double Helix that not only misspells Max Delbruck's name repeatedly but ascribes a view to Jim Watson that's contradicted by the quote they use. In general, the notion of Watson as a non-competitive sharer is preposterous to anyone who has read the book.

Essay Draws Parallels to Knighthood

[bokumo]

The essay/introduction does draw parallels between Burning Man and open source software, but large portions of the essay were devoted to descriptions of what happens at Burning Man with only tenuous connections made to open-source software.

I thought the parallels drawn between the open source movement and the feudal concept of knighthood were far more insightful and appropriate.

Wack

[Anonymous Coward]

It's completely wack when a book about the "open-source" movement is only sold and not available online for free.

FREE reading re: OSS

[BlueRayMan]

For FREE reading re: OSS: http://opensource.mit.edu/online_papers.php

(answering my own question)

Credits:

I found the link to http://opensource.mit.edu/ on this page:

Matthias Stürmer wrote a thesis available from his site,

http://stuermer.ch/Master_Thesis.html

"Open Source Community Building" (PDF format)

http://stuermer.ch/dcs/users/1/OpenSourceCommunity Building_MStuermer.pdf (1142.9 kB)

I'm sure his server can handle the attention, judging from the few replies I got to my post. : )