Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google And Open Source

Posted by Zonk on from the so-happy-together dept.

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."

13 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Money's not enough ... but it sure helps by b0r1s · · Score: 4, Interesting


    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
  2. Money by saboola · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Money by biocute · · Score: 3, Funny

      The way I read it:

      I don't want just... money. [I want power and control too]

      Money's not enough. [It's never enough, I want more]

      --
      Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
  3. No one can own open source. by BigZaphod · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  4. Release pagerank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Release pagerank by realmolo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't be stupid.

      EVERYTHING gets cracked. If Google released PageRank, then they'd be starting a "war" with the search-engine abusers. A never ending war. Yeah, having it be "open-source" means that the community could constantly update it to prevent the latest abuses, but the people doing the abuse would just find new holes, since the source would be available.

      Sometimes "security through obscurity" is the right thing to do.

    2. Re:Release pagerank by m50d · · Score: 3, Interesting
      EVERYTHING gets cracked. If Google released PageRank, then they'd be starting a "war" with the search-engine abusers. A never ending war.

      Like that doesn't happen now.

      Yeah, having it be "open-source" means that the community could constantly update it to prevent the latest abuses, but the people doing the abuse would just find new holes, since the source would be available.

      They would find holes anyway. The choice is between bad guys finding holes and good guys patching them, or just bad guys finding holes.

      Sometimes "security through obscurity" is the right thing to do.

      Not if you're relying on it. Because it isn't real security at all.

      --
      I am trolling
  5. Sponsorship doesn't imply stewardship by ortcutt · · Score: 4, Informative
    sponsor (verb, trans): provide funds for (a project or activity or the person carrying it out)
    Nope. Nothing about stewardship there.
  6. Open Source, Schmopen Schmource... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 3, Funny

    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...

  7. hardware limitations by slackaddict · · Score: 4, Insightful
    FTA, he states that some of the software would be useless to release unless you have "more than a hundred" servers in a datacenter. That's really not that many boxes nowadays. Besides, I don't need more than a hundred physical machines when all I need is ten decent machines and VMWare or Xen to run ten virtual servers each.

    --
    ConsultingFair.com
  8. new name by syrinx · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  9. I thought Page Rank was open source?? by filesiteguy · · Score: 3, Funny
    Okay, I'm confused. I thought Page Rank was an OSS project.

    And then there are other things. 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.
    Now, if you recall, Google publishes EXACTLY how the Page Ranking works: http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html/

    It is all right there:

    As a Google user, you're familiar with the speed and accuracy of a Google search. How exactly does Google manage to find the right results for every query as quickly as it does? The heart of Google's search technology is PigeonRank(TM), a system for ranking web pages developed by Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin at Stanford University.
    Am I wrong?
    --
    The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
  10. Hypocritical? by Swamii · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From the article,

    And then there are other things. 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.


    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