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."
on what your definition of "open" is. Same defense, different Bill.
An objective evaluation from the leader in open source.
Come on... Microsoft!??!
It's a Microsoft spokesman saying it, it MUST be true!
sigfault. core dumped.
...if you're running something like RedHat Or Novell. Of course, for those running Gentoo, or Debian, or Slackware, or Peanut, or whatever, it still holds.
libertarianswag.com
His entire argument is that if you make changes to the source code, Red Hat support won't debug your modifications for you as part of their basic support package.
I can do whatever the hell I want with GPL'd open source, short of refusing to share my changes when distributing binaries to other users. Microsoft has all these licenses, but AFAIK they've released nothing of worth under any of them. I can't view or modify any significant Microsoft source without signing an NDA and paying millions of dollars, or risking serious prison time.
The key word here is "supported", you can't expect Redhat, Novell or even Microsoft to support your modifications.
If you don't want official support from any vendor, you modify away - and support it yourself.
Microsoft software isn't all that closed. There are always open holes to exploit.
sarchasm
It's open. You just can't force someone else to change their codebase. If you really want to change it you make and maintain a patchset or your own seperate version of the codebase. Look at how many different kernel sources you can get, yet very few of those patchset ever get applied to the "real" kernel at kernel.org.
The point is you can do whatever you want with the code, but you can't force someone else to use it. I mean think about it. Imagine a code repository where every developer could write anything and it was fully open. It would never build. Code that is good enough usually gets accepted upstream, that darwinistic process helps open source, not the opposite.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
"But if a customer modifies the source code, [Red Hat] can't help you [without charging you extra]. They have to lock things down to provide value," Matusow said. "As open source becomes commercialized, it becomes less open."
Perhaps. But even so, the end user remains free to make changes. Even if the license (oddly) prohibited redistribution, supplying the source code to software with the software itself will always be better that not. Closed source is a dead end. End users have no choice, they must rely on the vendor to issue security patches and fix software.
This is not to say that every user will be tempted to change his/her software. The majority of users will be content with what is, and may not even be aware that the source is available. The freedom still exists, however.
This slashdot-related signature is a stub. You can help kihjin by expanding it.
Many distros only come only with open source programs by default. Which you can go yourself and change without paying anyone anything.
And the Linux kernel is also open. Just don't expect your changes to necessarily go into effect on the 'official' kernel. Just like the MS's shared source code will have 1 official version and then whatever the customers changed out there which they can't even share with each other because they signed NDAs and whatnot up the wazoo just to see the code. Unlike Linux.
MS, stop attacking Linux and mind your own business. You have less and less credibility when you keep attacking Open Source in general with your FUD and your customers are catching on. It's better to salvage what dignity you have and shut up. If and when you stop spreading FUD, your credibility might go up and you can stop spending billions advertising yourself and attacking others. But then, that would totally go against the grain of what is a marketing company, not a software engineering company.
That's a new meaning for the phrase "lock things down" that I hadn't heard before. I don't believe redhat locks anything down. The customer might be responsible for fixing problems with their own changes, but that wouldn't affect the support that redhat provides (i.e. so long as the problem was not caused by a customer change).
In effect, it's more FUD from M$. They really appear desperate now, grasping at any possible argument against Open Source. I didn't see the M$ spokesman telling the audience that Microsoft would support its own software which had been altered by customers.
So Mr Matusow, please explain again, how a license which allows customers to do more than your license allows is bad for those customers? That's like the RIAA claiming that 20-more years of copyright post death of author is good for the consumer.
That's not really the point. First of all you CAN alter the source if your need is desperate enough. Thus if some app needs your change you can weigh the pros and cons of blowing support vs getting the enhancement. - CHOICE. Secondly, if Red Hat dies and goes broke you have the source. Thirdly, you can make your enhancement and submit it to the maintainer and with a bit of luck it will come out in the next version of RedHat as the official supported version. Fourthly, somebody else might scratch the same itch and submit the patch which comes out in the next version.
What TFA is saying (while being overly general) is that when you move outside of the box to an unsupported configuration, you lose support -- and if you want support, you'll pay through the nose for it.
What the article doesn't say, is that M$ has the exact same stance. You run 3rd party software with Microsoft Exchange, you lose support from Microsoft on not only Exchange, but probally your install of Windows 2003 Advance Server. Go read your EULAs from top-to-bottom, and you'll see what I mean. For any Microsoft product.
God I hate people slinging FUD around.
da w00t. mtfnpy?
For a while, I ran Red Hat.
Why is Bob Young posting as AC? Come on, Bob, show some backbone - we won't be that hard on you!
"He's a god; it'll take more than one shot." â" Lady Eboshi, Mononoke Hime
The point of contention is open source vs. standardized distribution. Once you make a modification, your code base is no longer the "standard" distribution, be it RedHat, gentoo, or Slack. Therefore you really can't get support for it, free or otherwise (what, are you going to post on a forum "well, I tweaked this and this..."). So as Linux pushes towards standardization effectively the open-ness is still there and available to you but is marginalized in the sense that once you make changes then you aren't standard anymore.
It's not a distribution thing its a philosophical thing.
To make an allusion to a situation I have at work: we use a framework for development, and I have a tweaked copy I use for a pet project. But I don't dare ask for support on it, because I made modifications to the code beyond the specifications of the code. I can do that, because I am a developer and have rights to the codebase, etc. but then its no longer a standard. I can't expect it to support other applications built for the main framework and vice versa, etc...
But in truth he makes a point - the core of the OS in general doesn't need to be messed with, most tweaks and alterations do/should occur at the application level.
Just my 2 cents worth,
-everphilski-
Scientist just discovered that air is not completely free! Researchers at Phillips Morris institute have completed a study that calculates the number of millicalories required for each breath of fresh air. This study is demonstrates that the air you breath is not entirely free but requires expenditure of energy and coordination of dozens of different muscles. This study is being release just prior to the companies announcement of a new product that uses a rechargable battery operated turbo-enhanced tobacco injection system.
And i suppose its possible to change the code for a small fee in Windows then? Not? STFU then.
Ofcourse RedHat cant support somebody elses code, the programmer changing the code might as well be a monkey and there is no way RedHat can magically fix things if an idiot sits down and hits the keyboard with a pillow. What you can do is send those fixes upstream and if the fixes are good it will get incorporated into the next release.
HTTP/1.1 400
Redhat wont go the extra mile to support some code that they have supplied and I have modified.
Wow that's preposterous.
What next? Ford wont honour my new vehicle warranty if I modify the engine?
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
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.
OK -
first off, the argument went like this:
Say you're running SAP or some other large enterprise system. Say it's running on Linux. The fact that it's Open Source doesn't gain you much. You're extremely unlikely to be able to change things as companies like SAP, Oracle, etc. all specify exactly which versions of some of the various fiddly bits of Linux they support running their application on. If you deviate from those supported configurations - they don't support it.
And guess what - it's true.
Oracle isn't into supporting you bump-reving your kernel, and your upgrading to the latest c lib. They'll test a working stack - identify known issues (and work-arounds) - and that becomes a "known good" configuration. So - while you can do whatever you want with the source, that doesn't mean that other people are obligated to support it.
In any case - it's sort of a straw man argument. The fact of the matter is (and he even pointed this out) for the most part most people just use software. They aren't interested in actually modifying it in any way (substantively speaking). They aren't going to look at the source code, change it and re-compile it. Only 1% or 2% of software users are in that class. So realistically the fact that you can modify the source isn't such a huge advantage in practice. Other people have cited here what the real benefits are: Freedom of choice - you can still choose to make the change and support it yourself, and security - if the company supplying your software goes away, you still have the source...
And I see a lot of people reiterating the following OoC (Out of Context):
"But if a customer modifies the source code, [Red Hat] can't help you [without charging you extra]. They have to lock things down to provide value," Matusow said. "As open source becomes commercialized, it becomes less open."
What he meant by that - and clarified - was that Red Hat has supported configurations, and other software vendors upstream (Oracle, SAP) have supported configurations. They "lock things down" (not in the literal sense, damn us programmers are always soooo literal - I'm suprised more of us aren't fundies) to provide value - is simply saying they limit the scope of what they support... Deviations from those known configurations are not generally well supported. I'm very curious about how well Red Hat supports the following on the current set of it's "Enterprise" edition:
1> Downgrade a core component such as the C Lib, or similar library or set of system utilities that a lot of the system relies on.
2> Upgrade a core component as above.
3> Crossgrade a component like the file system to a different one.
Once that's been done, I'm also wondering what kind of support you'd get out of a company like Oracle or SAP...
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.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
An IT manager may look at this argument and conclude there is no advantage to open source solutions, in that there is no point having solutions that are not supported. The manager may conclude closed source is a better choice; while no self-modifications can be made, at least the system is supported in its entirety.
At the end of the day, your average IT manager needs to desperately separate him or herself from the technology. Otherwise, they get completely snowed under doing technical work that should have been delegated. When there is an option to pay for support, most will take it. The argument is powerful in that it contends as there is no option for support of changes, so there is no ability to make changes. So why buy open source as opposed to a fully supported Microsoft product?
Very smart implication, I think anyway.
Few if any competent companies would expect that they can modify the source willy nilly and then expect direct support on what _they_ have done from the distribution vendor. I mean, if you have an understanding of the process of software development and have spent 5 minutes reading about the Open Source movement, then you'll understand that it is a completely impractical, if not irrational, way of working.
When has this approach ever been promoted by the Open Source community? This sounds like only something a PHB could arrive at, following a methodology of gleaning an understanding of OS while walking by the cubicle farm and overhearing casual conversations.
Seriously, to me it seems like Microsoft sat around a table brainstorming for potential negative aspects of OS that they could market to suitably gullible people. I guess they feel sufficiently threatened to roll with even the weak results of that session. I hope the audience laughed at the guy, and told him to go back to counting the cash piles back at Redmond.
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.