Slashdot Mirror
Google And Open Source
Nate writes "Former Slashdot editor, games programmer and consultant Chris DiBona talks about his new work at Google in a brief interview over at Linux Format. Most notably, DiBona points out that Google wants to follow IBM's lead in not attempting to control open source, and he also highlights the reasons why Google will never be a 100% open source company." From the article: "So I don't see the word 'sponsorship' as being appropriate. Because sponsorship also implies stewardship. We don't want to run open source, that's not who we are. I have to tell you, I've admired how IBM has gone about this. They've for the most part not screwed up: they haven't taken things over, they haven't managed to break anything, they've done a lot of good work. We're not going to use that as a model for what we want to do, because we're different companies, but I really want to get code out there, I don't want just... money. Money's not enough."
A lot of projects benefit from IBM's money, but as importantly, a lot of the Linux codebase benefits more from their hardware compatibility. We run a large farm of IBM e-Series servers (x306, x335, x336, x345, x346), and it really, really helps when we can grab the source for drivers straight from the IBM website.
Hardware compatibility: thank you IBM.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
I don't want just... money. Money's not enough.
He can PayPal me any of it he does not want. I could sure as hell use it.
I do admire Google for putting out open source stuff. Okay, cool beans. But when Google says it's not about money, I step back and think for a second. Google is about making money. Sorry to break it to you, folks.
- Adam
The Computations of AdamR
http://www.adamreyher.com
I just want to rule the world! Muhawhahahahahaha!
Any person or company who contributes *anything* to the OSS community is helping it thrive. Google contributes in a variety of ways from actually releasing source code, funding summer of code, and even just existing as an excellent search engine making it easier for OSS developers to search for previous solutions to the problems they are facing.
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
Good luck convincing your shareholders of that...
at the end of the day, the code is what matters. No code = no benefit to anyone.
First: We're not going to use that as a model for what we want to do, because we're different companies, but I really want to get code out there, I don't want just... money. Money's not enough.
Then: We're never going to release PageRank [Google's trademark system for ranking web pages in its search index], we're not going to release things like that, because to release them would ruin them. If you release how you do the ranking function, suddenly every web scrambler in the world screws up the rank and Google search becomes useless. We don't want to do that.
Or, you could release it so others can learn how it works and perhaps come up with improvements or more sophisicated algorithms/systems that are rank scrambler proof.
But that endanger profits right? think of investors, lifesavings etc. Fair enough.
> I don't want just... money. Money's not enough.
What he means is that he wants power, prestige, and chicks!
Seriously, what happens when money's not enough? You go for power (politics), and then you get caught in a scandal with some chicks, and it all comes crashing down. It's happened too many times.
This just in: The SCO Group has launched a lawsuit vs Google after reading on Slashdot that Google plans to follow the examples of IBM in open source. Says SCO CEO Darl McBride, "Clearly this shows that Google has donated confidential SCO code to Linux. Now with these two major companies causing such infractions, the price of Linux licenses has to be increased to $1398." This lawsuit has prompted one Pamela Jones to create a new site entitled Googlaw. SCO representatives have alerted us that they will be employing Maureen O'Gara to search for links between Google and Ms. Jones. Says Ms. O'Gara, "Well, the evidence is right here. Just as Google's offices reside in America, so does Pamela Jones." Google's lawyers could not be reached for comment as they were too busy rolling on the floor in fits of laughter.
I don't want just... money. Money's not enough.
Your soul will suffice.
http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/
extreme example, but lets say i gave 2 trillion dollars to develop linux, it then completely dominated the OS market...... soon after, some fatal flaw that everyone overlooked gets exploited and people die, from hospital machinery malfunctioning, airplanes falling out of the sky or whatevar.
i'd get blamed, at least partially.
Tell him to post a new slashdot poll for old times sake.
Hell, just tell ANYONE to post a new slashdot poll; that most-used-key-combo thing has been up there since LAST Valentine's Day...
ConsultingFair.com
Oh, I thought "Google and Open Source" was going to be the new name for Slashdot.
I should have known that was wrong.. if that were happening, it'd have to be "Google, Apple, and Open Source".
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
His title is "open source programme manager", apparently. I think he's the main one in charge of all that.
It's that money isn't enough. He wants the rest of the Universe as well. However, I would like to offer my services in any experiment to prove whether money really is enough.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
He talks about himself, not what Google is about.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
He never said it wasn't about the money. He only said that money wasn't enough. Money will buy almost everything, so by implication those can't be enough either. It follows that he wants everything money won't buy, as well, not instead of. That, to me, is scary.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"I really want to get code out there, I don't want just... money. Money's not enough." -Chris BiBona
Now in the record books... completely interprets the feelings of all open source programmers, and those who program for the fun of it.
"What happend to just paying for a product without being constantly nibbled to death by Credit Card Ducks?"
It is all right there:
Am I wrong?The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
The very same argument could be used from Microsoft's point of view. We're never going to release Windows [Microsoft's trademark operating system], we're not going to release things like that, because to release them would ruin them. If you release how you do the operating system internals, suddenly every hacker in the world screws up the code and Windows becomes useless. We don't want to do that.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
See, that's the difference between Google and other companies with open source values. Google hasn't released ANY worthwhile open source code and just likes to talk about it.
I agree that no one can own open source software, as it's released from the moment of its creation. However, what Google is trying to say is that they don't want to control or influence open source development. Instead, I think that Google wants to find a way to encourage the current evolutionary process by which many projects are tried, and only the most viable get the critical mass of developers needed for continued growth.
As far as Google's vested interest, I'd say that Google has an interest in identifying promising open-source efforts to integrate into their offerings.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
they haven't managed to break anything, they've done a lot of good work. We're not going to use that as a model for what we want to do,
That doesn't sound promising.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
When theory meets real world, there is always a place where one or the other begins to give. Sometimes this results in a miserable set of conditions for everyone involved, other times there are surprising results that leave benefits scattered about like an over-abundant harvest. It is commendable that Chris recognizes that money is not _everything_ in fact this is the most exciting prospect of all. Someone who is in a position to help the open source community, and to continue to carry the positive benefits of working in the OSS community( what's the good/cool/neat way to describe that?) into the 'professional' world. I believe that there need to be more people who are making a living in as a developer or programmer or even just in the computer industry who are open minded about open source and can see the benefits.
There are naturally benefits from working within an environment where it is more 'closed' as well. Sometimes there needs to be more understanding of that on the OSS side as well. I'm not there, nor do I know for certain but it sounds to me- maybe I'm just pipe dreaming - that employment at Google is the proverbial best of both worlds. If there is a place that follows the Third Way then I look forward to finding it for it seems so dark and desolate to live in one side of extremism or the other.
For some reason my fountain pen doesn't work here.
Exactly. The parent post needs to be modded up. I'll take Googles "Open Source position" with a boulder of salt until they actually release something of value. The so called "Summer of Code" was a joke that cost them virtually nothing. It was nothing but a PR stunt. They've done almost nothing to contribute to the Open Source community. In fact, Microsoft has more Open Source projects than Google. Google likes the PR from the Open Source world, however they've yet to bring anything of value to the table. And yes porting a couple of mediocre closed source Win32 applications to Linux with Wine is a far cry from providing something of value to the community.
It's time for them to either put up or shut up with their constant "we love open source" propaganda. At least with companies like IBM we actually see some code and not just talk.
Google is not open source friendly. They just pretend it to be.. They enjoy all the benefits of open source; they do like "Microsft is evil and they are the open source heroes, angels" but this is not the case.. I even find Microsoft more honest than Google.
All their apps are closed source. They don't even make them cross platform by just using Qt libraries; they're programming only for Windows. They only care MONEY!
What if Picasa were open source? Is it a very special program? No.. there should be no secret algorithm inside.. they could very well open source it..
All their technology is built on top of LGPL'd VFS based GoogleFS.. But I can't see any open line of code around.
Throwing away $1M in Google Summer of Code project is nothing for a company of $140B market capitalization.
Plus, their privacy policy is very debatable!
So this picture explains everything very well I think..
Bill Gates is the biggest donator ever; whatever you say, Bill Gates created amazing technologies, he made us meet with computers.. And the open source zealots still hate Bill Gates but adore Google! I simply can't believe this!
Money is a small small part of our universe and our life. I can't believe that so many people here are so naive to think that money is the most important aspiration.
I don't want just... money. Money's not enough.
Yeah, you want power. The power to control people's lives. Hundreds or thousands or millions of people's lives. Through propoganda and censorship. That's what you want.
And how do you go about getting it? Keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.
Its all about trust, for me. Never about money or power. And I don't trust Google. They're too powerful to trust at this point, like IBM, a monopoly or a government. They would have to fully embrace the GPL or some other form of selfless act to be taken seriously. Free wireless is nice, but so are free cell phones.
With regard to GNU software, I trust the code. The license makes that easy for me. I don't have to trust the project leads or copyright holders. They've already given up their power by using the license. But Google isn't like that. They like the money AND the power.
...generally have plenty of it and, ergo, it was obviously important enough at some point to hoard it in such quantity so as to obviate any need to add to it.
So, if some competing company pays someone to get a job at Google, get the source for the PageRank algorithm, and leaks it onto the internet, then Google is basically toast?
I'm not sure that's something I'd admit to in public...
Both do a lot for OpenSource but not with the same intention. This might shed some light on their images and possibly have some adjusting.
O. Wyss
See http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html
The original page rank worked exactly like this:
The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html [By: Brin and Page]
Of course it has been modified over the years, but yeah, the basis of PageRank has been released already.
If the algorithm is gameable, perhaps that's something they need to think about, because not exposing it does not prevent gaming, as anybody who's used google and the likes for a long time can attest to.
We often say with regard to security that an algorithm that only works if not known to the outside world is a deficient algorithm, and yet that's exactly what Chris is saying here.
I can understand saying 'we can't open-source it right now, because it is too easily exploitable if the details were known, but we would like to move towards an algorithm that is not susceptible to gaming and could be open sourced'.
All of the above assumes that the real reason isn't for business reasons (read $$ and marketing blurbs about secret patented special-sauce algorithms), which it probably is, but if that's the case, Chris should save the bullshit for somebody else.
Ranking pages in search is all about trust. You hop from one trustworthy area to another hoping that good information breeds good information. The best scheme for trustworthy information right now is the collaborative pointing of a large group of trustworthy sources. There aren't schemes independent of pointing to decide, for example, if a certain page is semantically well-related to the execution of your query and provides accurate information in the domain you are interested in. Too much common-sense contextual knowledge is required.
If a ranking algorithm for search based on trust and collaboration is publicized, and people mess with it to the point that collaborative pointing becomes a non-factor, what will you add back in order to end the gaming of search results? I don't think the technology is there yet.
The security through obscurity is necessary because there isn't a generic, viable model of trustworthy information. There are, however, viable models of operating system security. MS hasn't always followed them and would die of embarrassment if they released Windows, but obscurity has still harmed Windows more than it has helped it.
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
Dibona spoke on this topic at SCALE last week. Slides and audio will be up shortly. Keep an eye out on the SCALE website
I'm suprised that no one has taken advantage of the availability of the google search appliance to get insight into the detailed workings of the google backend
I'm glad to see that Google understands that they don't need to be 100% open-source or 100% commercial. Nor does it have to be 50-50. Whatever Google decides is there decision and is their own decision.
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
chris
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
Former Slashdot editor?
That explains why I keep getting duplicate results when performing google searches on these last few days.