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.
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
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 jsut want them to put up a copy of their web server.
i want to play with it and see what it can do
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
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.
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.
MSFT give almost nothing back
I beg to differ. Microsoft has given you all this exploitability... could you ever have imagined being able to take over a computer through a JPEG? What about all the worms we have? They would have died had Microsoft not given us all these security holes! Honestly, shame on you...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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!
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...
I'll probably get slapped down for this, since this is the Linux section of Slashdot and I know you guys don't usually like to hear about the good points of Microsoft, but why should MS give anything back? They don't owe you guys anything. They're a business, they're in it to make money. There's nothing wrong with them embracing concepts from everywhere either, because that's what you do if you want your company to stay profitable.
Sure, some of their business practices have been a little less than pleasant, but in most cases by the time the courts made their decision it was irrelevant anyway - can you imagine now getting an OS without an internet browser, or some form of media player?
And I call time on the "barely servicable, shoddy software" part too. I use XP, quite happily, without any major show-stopping problems. My system stays on almost constantly for weeks at a time, without any noticeable performance degradation caused by doing so. I would say that aside from faults with drivers, which MS has no significant control over, and third party applications, which again MS can't control, I've not had any problems at all. I've certainly never had a BSOD under WinXP. I could draw some comparisons with Linux here where several of the distributions I have tried haven't even managed to INSTALL successfully much less be usable (and I'm not on about small distros here - I'm on about Slackware amongst others).
Yes, Microsoft have made mistakes. Want to bet Google will be making some too?
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
It's true that Google is a for-profit company, but it's clear that they have other goals that push them along.
There's a vibe that I get from that company that they care about making the internet useful. Also, Google employees get less than industry standard pay and they dont' complain - they enjoy doing what they do.
Yeah, they like money, but the care about more than that.
World Changing - News for Humans, Stuff about our planet
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.
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.
If Google ends up sticking it to us all, we really can't say we didn't see any warning signs. However, I welcome this change from past trends. We now see a company influencing their bottom line by way of actual product enhancement. For this, I/(we?) thank you Google.
*me now hides under rock from Big Google of Christmas future*
Meh
"I don't want just... money. Money's not enough." could be understood to mean "We want all the money we can get AND ..."
shouldn't bother the shareholders much.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
it's abt money, not abt code. google's whole business was based on ads. they will do whaterver it takes to sell ads becasue wall street demands that. if earnings take a hit, wall st isn't going to give a damn about their contributions to open source. just not sure how this all fits together.