Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Not That Open?
mstansberry writes "At the Open Source Business Conference last week, Microsoft's Shared Source mouthpiece Jason Matusow argued the point that open source isn't really open. He said you can't just go changing code on supported Linux offerings without paying extra to companies like Red Hat or Novell. So as Linux is commercialized, it becomes less open. While Matusow made good points during his presentation, many in the open source community are skeptical of the idea at best."
I can't tell what kind of argument he's trying to make. Is he trying to claim that you have to pay money to get patches or new programs added to the distro? Because if your changes are in the distro, RedHat will support it. Do you think MS will arbitrarily support you if you make random changes that don't have review?
If they think it's hard to get code in, that's pure nonsense. As a Fedora Extras contributor (fortune-firefly, and coming soon Nethack: Vulture's Eye/Claw) the process is relatively simple, and the people very supportive and responsive. Now, Fedora Extras is certainly less picky than RHEL, but I can't imagine it being too difficult to get code in. If it's not your own package, just simply a package carried by RedHat, you don't even have to deal with RedHat - you just deal with the developers of that package. If they take your patch, then your patch ends up in the distro.
If he's talking about "you make changes and then expect RedHat to immediately support your changes for you without merging it into the distro", however, that's a pretty preposterous thing to expect. That's not asking for a supportive vendor - that's asking for consultants.
"He's a god; it'll take more than one shot." â" Lady Eboshi, Mononoke Hime
The oddest part is that he is talking about 'open' as if being less open is somehow bad.
Here they go again, saying that Red Hat equals Linux. Hey I got one word for their comparison... CentOS. It's RedHat EL without all the trademarked stuff. And yes, they could make all the changes and offer it under CentOS if they wish. Their big point is that changes to Redhat's codebase isn't going to go back into Redhat's Final Product necessarilly.
So? Roll your own distro. Can you do that with Windows? No. Can I tweak XP and sell it as my own? No. Better yet, can I tweak the codebase for Windows Server 2003 so that I have a company wide distro for our internal systems? Hell no.
I'm sorry but this Microspin Doctor's argument looks to be in beta still. As per usual, I don't expect Microsoft's final argument to be worth anything until the third release.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
I disagree with this statement 100%. I routinely write software that I primarily test by compiling with GCC that works out of the box with ICC v8, MSVC [CL version 6, 7 and 8] and CC from various UNIX'es [e.g. AIX, IRIX and HP-UX]
Yes, GCC supports things like a smart assembler inliner and packed structures. But I ask you, why doesn't MSVC? In this day and age it still uses the "we put code in verbatim with params" model that Watcom made famous in the EARLY NINETIES.
With GCC I can say "pass me these variables in registers" and then mix with C and ASM code in the same routine. GCC will sort out which registers to assign and even alias the variables automatically as possible.
With MSVC it's totally atomic. You can't tell it to alias registers with variables and once you leave your asm block you're totally fucked.
HOWEVER, when striving to write portable code GCC is a hell of a lot more compliant. Where are "long long"s in MSVC? Where are VLA and other C99 keywords?
Speaking as someone who actually works on a diverse set of platforms I'd like to qualify your post as "cheapshot".
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I have a number of production servers to this day still running RedHat Linux 7.2. They are patched and up to date, even though RedHat axed support for RedHat long ago. I spend very little time doing so, because Progeny came to the rescue allowing me to milk another couple years out of otherwise perfectly happy, capable, production servers.
Also, there's the Fedora Legacy project which has picked up RedHat 7.3 as well, providing yet another option for administrators of "axed support" distros.
Let me ask you this - what companies or groups have stepped up to the plate to support Win9x after Microsoft's abandoning of the platform?
I guess Windows is really not that open, is it?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Clinton's defense wasn't a technical fallacy; it was an attempt to mislead by exploiting the logical gaps in the terms of his opponent. The strategy is simple, but you have to be smart and have the force of personality to control your opponent. You look for something that is at least a tiny bit vague in his assumptions or definitions and repeatedly demand he make it more and more precise, until he inadvertently leaves out whatever it is he has in mind that's important to him. Sooner or later, this has to happen because every edifice of human reasoning has at least some rotten timbers in it. You then build a logically unassailable but sophistic argument based on his own definitions that leads away from where he wants to go to where you want to go. If your opponents states, preferably forcefully and emotionally, that an animal is a crow if and only if it is black, then you go on to argue that a black cat is a crow. It's easy to spot the falsehood, but hard to discredit the source of the falsehood if it was yourself.
The argument in this case is closer to the strategy the cigarette companies used on tobacco's addictiveness. In that one you pick an arbitrary definition of your own -- a straw man -- then quickly move on and hope your audience doesn't have time to realize the definition you've used is loaded. You help this process by passing over it quickly, or by referring to it without ever stating it explicitly, and moving on to emotional or inflammatory rhetoric.
The distinction is this: in one case you force the other side to provide you with the faulty definition. In the other you rely on the other side carelessly accepting a definition you supply.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Ok, so you do not want any technical work done in house, because it is not supported. Fine.
The problem of getting locked in to a vendor still remains. When one vendor gives you closed source programs, and then decides that he no longer supports your version, your only choice is to switch to another product. That is a software manufacturer has a monopoly on supporting that software. In open source, any company can support the software...and no one can claim that they will be bad at it because they do not own the code. As the code is publicly available, they can claim that they are as good at supporting the product as the company that sells the software.
Less lock-in as far as I can see is a good thing.
badness 10000