Slashdot Mirror
Top Ten Open Source Innovators
42istheanswer writes "Open source is so much more than Linux these days. A lot is happening beyond the popular operating system. Open source models are thriving in CRM (SugarCRM), messaging (Scalix), and systems management (Zenoss). Datamation has identified ten leading commercial open-source innovators and the projects they are working on in their article, Ten Leading Open Source Innovators."
SugarCRM, Scalix and Zenoss are hardly innovative. Equivalent technologies have been around on IBM's various mainframe systems for nearly 30 years now! Sure, they didn't have flashy GUIs like they do today, but the core concepts were well-established decades ago.
The big battle is usually getting those core concepts to a level where they're applicable, especially on the relatively limited 1960s and 1970s hardware. That's the hard work. Tossing on a GUI, and running on systems equivalent in computer power to 250 S/370s isn't much of an innovation.
"Open source is so much more than Linux these days"
Maybe I'm just old and cranky but I find this really annoying given that my own involvement with what is now called Open Source predates Linux by 15 years.
If it'd said unix I think it would have been more meaningfull. Linux schminux.
Need Mercedes parts ?
If you're talking leading INNOVATORS, Bram Cohen and BitTorrent are notably absent. BitTorrent is IMO absolutely the most novel and fascinating idea that was released straight to open-source. Their funding also ranks up with the other people mentioned. So why were they omitted?
...do you guys realise that an open source project received an Academy Award this year? I find it weird that it hasn't been reported much in the geek news outlets.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
There are a number of groupware packages for Linux, ranging from the trivial to the fairly comprehensive. True, none of them are "there", I don't know of any that are included on any mainstream distribution, and those that I've seen are trying to copy Exchange rather than go to first principles, identify what is actually needed, and then implement wrappers for compatibility. (You can't win a race by following in someone's footsteps. If they know where they're going, the best you can do is come second. If, as often happens in IT, they haven't a clue as to where to go, the more likely outcome is to get totally lost.)
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)
One of the oldest examples of this is the venerable PBS queueing system from NASA and other government agencies which was handed over to a commercial organisation to host. Theoreticly to get the source code you email a contact on a website. In my case this was replied to within a week by a salesman who attempted to sell me the commercial variant for about two months - this was no good to me becuase I had patches to add to get an expensive commercial product to work with it and the people who had extended PBS had never heard of the application I wanted to use with it. After a couple of months and repeated polite requests I still had nothing - and I was polite because I had got hold of a fork produced by people that hit exactly this problem (which had developers of the software I was using on their mailing list) so after the first two weeks was merely curious as to how different the original was.
I am not a US citizen so there wasn't much point complaining of this blatant misuse of a taxpayer funded project and the company granted the distribution rights not sticking to the distribution agreement. - and after two months I was bored with the whole thing and happy with the fork that actually would work for me. Eventually the vendor of the software I was using referred people to the new project (torque) apparently due to the behaviour of the people with the distribution rights of the open source PBS queueing system and then later because it was a much better solution in every way.
"Translation: if you're trying to make money off it, it's not Open Source."
Retranslation: if you try to bastardize the expression "open source" so you can use it as a buzzword atracting people to your old privative bussiness model, then no, to my eyes it's not open source no matter the distribution license of the bare source code.
I agree.
.. you would not be in any position to write such a waste of disk space, in my opinion anyway. Why can't the motivation to create things be simply that .. make neat stuff and enjoy the fact that you made life just a little easier for someone else?
.. anyway.
Why does anyone have to be 'the best' or 'most innovative' ? This doesn't make free software authors strive to reach sume inane dumbass lists, it makes them pissed (or some I'd imagine rather happy) that once again their efforts didn't get them the attention others are receiving.
It also makes people want to get involved in OSS for what (some think) and (I think) are the wrong reasons. Crappier code [ could ] be the result.
Funding as everyone knows is a double edged sword. Corporate and investment interests often can and will butt heads with the principals of free software developers. I'd rather live on ramen noodles again than deal with 'suits' saying 'we're giving too much away, we need to save some for a commercial release. Yes yes, we need to bait them into getting the commercial version' Ahem, Qlusters? My god if QRM were any more 'baitware' you could go fishing with it.
For practically every need you could have there is free software to fill it. How can you single out only 10? More importantly, why would you? Doesn't this effectually leave you wearing blinders?
Unless one has downloaded, compiled, installed and used 90% of free software across all platforms
Why does *everything* alwas have to boil down to money and its commercial use? I think I'm not ranting about OSS anymore, I think this is turning into the world in general. But the two are getting a little too close for comfort, compared to how it was
Flog me if you like, agree with me if you want, do *anything* but take TFA at face value.
I have an installation of SugarCRM "Open Source" on my laptop that I am using for evaluation purposes. I attempted to install a plugin created by a developer, and somehow it modified the code that displays the SugarCRM logo image on every page. All of a sudden, I was completely locked out of the system. I could no longer log in, even to disable the plugin that I had installed. The error message "Please replace the SugarCRM logos" kept popping up every time. So I Googled around a bit and found this article about "Badgeware":
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=867
Apparently this "feature" was added into the code to try and prevent companies like vTiger from doing exactly what the parent poster said - exercise their rights under the "Sugar Public License". You can't even post the word "vTiger" on their forums without it being censored:
http://sugarcrm.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20207
There are lots of companies trying to jump on the open source bandwagon, but not many that actually stick with a "real" open source license like the GPL.
I try to see both sides of the FLOSS-coin. If you want to define Open Source, you'll have to start at the source of that term. ESR, as we know, is the main proponent, with people like Bruce Perens and Linus who hopped on at the start. He is one of the people behind OSI, and the OSI definition is as close as you'll get to a formal definition of "open source". A few lines that Linus once said aren't enough as a formal definition. And by this definition and comparing this with (for example) the DFSG, what is Open Source is Free Software. SugarCRM is neither.
The Linux kernel is licensed under the GPLv2. Linus' opinion on the hoops Tivo has set up for it's users is irrelevant, IMHO. According to the GPLv2, users are allowed to use the Tivo-modified kernel source in exactly the same way as the vanilla source. What Tivo allows its users to do isn't relevant to Linus because Tivo adheres to the GPLv2. The question then becomes: even if he didn't agree with Tivo, does it matter? He wouldn't be able to do anything about it, because the GPLv2 doesn't state anything about the openness (or freeness) of the device the free software is running on. Ergo, even if Linus was a FS-proponent, he wouldn't have been able to do a thing about it.
The point I'm trying to make, is that the statement of OSS ?= FS depends both on what you are comparing and your definition of OSS and FS! If you simply look at the law, the rights in both definitions, then they are equal (if they are not, feel free to put me on track). If you look at the philosophy, they emphasize different rights. Saying OSS != FS is just as misinformed as saying OSS == FS (and note I didn't state the latter). It's a matter of what you are comparing, rights or philosophy.
Now having said this, I find both terms to be vague and ambiguous so I tend to FLOSS myself. But I must admit that I write code to reach a technical goal and not a philosophical one, and am perfectly happy with the GPLv2 license. Once the GPLv3 has been tested in court I'll try to wrap my misinformed head around it. In the mean time, my answer to OSS ?= FS is simple: Mu. The question needs to be unasked.
This sig is intentionally left blank
Having met Stallman and his evangelical method of presenting Free Software first hand, I don't have a doubt that he sees what he's doing as a near-religious crusade. He might make jokes about his saint-hood, but I sometimes wonder if he's started to believe in them. I sometimes wonder if Open Source would exist at all, if it weren't for his preaching.
I don't see anyone prevent anyone else from making a license, but I do see people like yourself unwilling to deal with criticism ("All Lies! We are the true religion! Our God of Freedom will bring salvation!"). The zeal of certain individuals does more harm than good, in my opinion. I don't have a doubt that the GPLv3 will someday be finished, I see the reasons the FSF is making it and I agree with some of them. I might even consider using it myself. But until that time, I stand by my opinion that FS ?= OSS depends on what you are comparing in both camps.
And SugarCRM still is neither
This sig is intentionally left blank