Slashdot Mirror
Has Open Source Lost Its Halo?
PetManimal writes "Open-source software development once had a reputation as a grassroots movement, but it is increasingly a mainstream IT profit center, and according to Computerworld, some in the industry are asking whether 'open source' has become a cloak used by IT vendors large and small to disguise ruthless and self-serving behavior. Citing an online opinion piece by Gordon Haff, an analyst at Illuminata Inc., the article notes that HP and IBM have not only profited from open-source at the expense of competitors, but have also boosted their images in the open-source community. The Computerworld article also mentions the efforts by the Microsoft/Windows camp to promote open-source credentials: '[InfoWorld columnist Dave] Rosenberg is more disturbed by the bandwagon jumpers: the companies, mostly startups, belatedly going open-source in order to ride a trend, while paying only lip service to the community and its values. Take Aras Corp., a provider of Windows-based product lifecycle management (PLM) software that in January decided to go open-source. Rosenberg depicted the firm in his blog as an opportunistic Johnny-Come-Lately. "I'm not impressed when a company whose software is totally built on Microsoft technologies goes open-source," said Rosenberg, who even suspects that the company is being promoted by Microsoft as a shill to burnish Redmond's image in open-source circles."'"
I think its a case of "bad apples" spoiling the good ones.
Whether fair or not, a lot of open source projects come across as being incomplete, UI nightmares, geek-tool-only, and large organization unfriendly because of support issues.
Not every open-source project is that way, but when I worked at HP that was the case. You mentioned open-source and managers would run to update your file as a trouble maker. When you got a manager to approve a demo, you'd have to work twice as hard to explain why this was a good alternative, why the weird UI wasn't an issue, and how the tool was self supporting or support could be done easily "in house". However, if you hadn't told the manager that it was "open source" and that it was "off the shelf", you could get by without the massive sales job.
Why?
Because too many open source projects are:
It's a perception problem. No matter the platform, OSS has an image problem that may be rightly deserved.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Heaven forbid people make money on building products around a free piece of software while working within the guidelines of use and distribution of that software.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
I agree, it is a good thing that businesses use OS software and that money also get involved in this.
To me the example of how Daniel Robbins, the man who made Gentoo Linux and did a fantastic job at it, ended up with a huge depth because he put all his time aside for the development of this OS stands as a very good example. He ended up being hired by MS for some kind of Open Source analyzing group because they offered to pay his depths for him if he would accept the job offer. Thankfully Daniel Robbins and his family was able to life a life with few enough expenses to make Gentoo a living project that when he left the project was able to live on and is still thriving.
I remember how the we as a community tried to raise the money to pay Daniels depths, we were able to raise something like 10000$, but having devoted all his time for Gentoo for years his depth was 20 times that high.
It is great when companies hire developers and pay them for doing what they do best, instead of Microsoft being able to hire the best guys of the business to do nothing valuable, because they have to make a living somehow.
So lets get more money flowing in the Open Source community and lets have more paid developers, I have a hard time seeing the evil in that.
A side note is that Daniel the way just on his way back as a Gentoo developer after he left Microsoft again, as far as I understand because he did not feel he was really listened to.
Not to sound like Stallman here, but there have always been two camps - those who think software should be Free as in "we should be able to do what we want with the code for moral/ethical reasons" and those who see practical benefits as in "when people can do what they want with the code everyone benefits."
I would expect most businesses are part of the open source camp, not the free software camp, and open source was always pragmatic. That's WHY it appeals to people where Free doesn't - because there's a definite concrete benefit.
Businesses as they exist in the US are by and large about making money, not upholding principles. Some businesses do both, but look at Google ("do no evil") and how they delt with China. Capitalism has its limits, and one of them is being socially aware - awareness of community responsibility and discharging that responsibility is always a short term loss for a long term gain (i.e. pay more to properly dispose of waste, lose the profit you could have gotten by keeping the $$ and dumping it in the river, but long term preserve the environment and the health of the people around you, avoid litigation and community ill will). Capitalism sucks at long term anything, which is why government needs to be different from and independent of corporations. That's why framing the free/open proposal as "you get a benefit/save $$ from doing this" rather than "you're morally obligated to do this - it's the ethical thing" is effective. It just so happens that releasing free software has immediate benefits AND benefits society, so PR can say the company is doing both. Sure, the ACTUAL reasons they did it might not deserve a halo, but getting outraged over them not being "genuinely committed to the ideals of Free Software" is as pointless as it is futile, in the business world as it exists today.
If people do the right thing, it's not very helpful to wonder if they did it for the wrong reasons. How can we know for sure, and what could we do about it even if we did know for sure and don't like their reasons? Insist they do the wrong thing?
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
With Open Source they are trying the same tactic, but the situation differers. Sure Open Source companies can make money. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe they even get free development as a result of being Open Source. Great. Let them sell support packages. But what will happen in the long run with open source is the reverse of OpenGL. If Microsoft Embraces Open Source, business will eventually be able to support Microsoft Products with an Open Source infrastructure. I don't need M$ Word anymore because Open office runs on Windows. Or Linux. It reads older formatted Word documents better than Word does. (because the open source communities have incentive to provide this functionality, and Microsoft has dis-incentive.)
C# and .net didn't and won't ever roll Apache and Java. M$ can support that platform and provide the tools in .NET that open source is slow to develop; like accounting software. I don't believe that Microsoft being a single company that operates though the lens of a Monopoly can possibly compete with thousands of developers adding in features they need in the way they need them. Look at Apache, Eclipse and NetBeans. The success of these products has spawned hundreds of other products that aren't even in adolescence yet, but already compete feature for feature with their commercial counterparts.
M$ is going to have to come up with a few new tricks if they want to win this war.
-Todd
Put down the sig, and step away from the computer.
Well, if you like older games, the Bungie team started out with Marathon, which was in many ways a precursor to Halo, and is now Free for Mac, Linux, and Windows.
You'd think that the availability of Eclipse and Netbeans would drive non-free Java IDEs out of the market. However at my company IntelliJ IDEA is the most popular IDE despite its non-zero cost. After using both I would be satisfied with Eclipse, but I'm glad my company got me a copy of IDEA. Apparently companies are willing to shell out cash for software that is only incrementally more useful than free alternatives. See Windows vs. Linux, MS Office vs. OpenOffice, etc.
How can you differentiate between a hardware bug and a clever enough DRM? Hint: you can't.
Does GPLv3 require manufacturers like Tivo's to solve the halting problem before they can use the code?
For me, the fact that OSS is no longer considered a grassroots movement is a good thing. Now we can actually make the distinction between OSS and FOSS. OSS is an important concept, and it's been around since the beginning of Unix. OSS simply means that source code is included with the license. If you want to show integrity, OSS is the way to go. It allows your client to independently verify your work. Given the amount of spyware and rootkit stories we hear, you'd be silly to trust any ISV who *didn't* provide source code with their product. But you can still have your client sign an NDA, use a license that prevents redistribution, etc. OSS was and still is a workable business model.
FOSS is still a grassroots movement, and will continue to be. The reason is simple; FOSS builds on concepts of OSS to perform a public service. FOSS is about freedom, which requires integrity in addition to a whole bunch of other grassroots goodness.
So no, OSS hasn't lost it's halo (assuming it ever had one) because it's always been about openness and integrity. If it weren't, it wouldn't be OSS.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
you're right, nobody in open source is upset by this. the only people who thing that 'open source' has 'lost its halo' are the people who typically don't use opensource software in the first place. doesn't matter WHO contributes to open source, as long as they follow the rules, then no harm is done. before Intel and IBM decided to contribute (for free) companies were making money using open source software. Loads of companies use OS stuff in their commercial offerings and make heaps of cash. This article is no more than journalist shit stirring. I'm suprised this makes it past the mods.