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."
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.
ConsultingFair.com
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
How unreasonable is that? I too want (at least) one thing from each group. I want food: that's from the money group. I want to earn respect from my peers. That's from the not-money group (at least, if you have the right peers). Why is that scary?
Linux IT Consulting and Domino Development in Michigan
It follows that he wants everything money won't buy, as well, not instead of. That, to me, is scary.
Why is that scary? There are many wonderful things that money won't buy. Some of the things that mony won't buy, such as love, may be scary; I don't understand finding it scary for people to want things that money can't buy. Money can buy sex, it can even buy somebody who says that they love you, but money cannot buy real love. Money cannot buy personal satisfaction, money can't buy you time, money can't buy your health (although it helps). I believe that the reason that many people who have money aren't satisfied and feel that they need even more money is that they don't realize that money doesn't buy the things that they are really missing.
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
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!
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