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!??!
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!
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.
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?
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.
Except that everything that Red Hat makes is open source. Even its defensive patents can be used by any open source project (Red Hat gives irrevocable patent permission to any OSS project). The guys point in the article was that if I make a customization that isn't pushed upstream then I have to maintain that customization... no shit. That is true of any software or distro. The difference is... the source is open, I can go to Red Hat's ftp server right now and get the source for everything they've got and make as many changes as I want. The beauty is, if the patch might be more general than to just my specific needs, I have the option of pushing it upstream and if it is valuable enough to whatever project then it will be merged. If it doesn't have mass appeal then of course I'll have to maintain it, you aren't going to get the masses to maintain something specific to your company. Even if the upstream patch is rejected, if I damn want to I'll release my own version of the product (just like Whitebox or CentOS took all the source to Red Hat and released their own version). Lets see how fast Microsoft stops me if I take their source using their shared source license, make a change or two and start a new project called "Steve's SQL Server" and let anyone download it for free. This article is nothing but FUD being cranked out by the good ol' MS FUD machine. If they put as much effort into their software as they did their FUD then the software industry would be flipped upside down.
Regards,
Steve
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...
"Ford wont honour my new vehicle warranty if I modify the engine?"
Ford will honor your new vehicle warranty if you modify the engine as long as the problem cannot reasonably be connected to the engine.
For example, if I install a high-flow air filter and a few months later the brakes stop working, Ford will honor my warranty. If I install a high-flow air filter and the cylinders break, Ford might be less willing to fix it under warranty. It would be up to Ford, by the way, to show that the damage was due to the modification and you can take them to court if you don't agree. Depending on what happens, it may not be worth it.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is the federal regulation in this case.
This may be off-topic, but it's a common myth that if a person modifies their car, they lose their entire warranty. It's not true.
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.