Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Top Ten Open Source Innovators

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the leading-the-pack dept.

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."

36 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. Gnus by Pikoro · · Score: 5, Funny

    so Some GNUz, IS good gnuz....

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
  2. Innovations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Innovations? by Rachel+Lucid · · Score: 3, Funny

      And while we're at it, Apple isn't innovative. They just made a slick GUI and called it an iPod.

    2. Re:Innovations? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      And while we're at it, Apple isn't innovative. They just made a slick GUI and called it an iPod.

      You're kidding? Apple not innovative?

      What about spaces? Noone saw anything like that before,
      OS X? Noone put a GUI on Unix before!
      Tabbed Browsing? First Javascript debugger? I could go on & on.

      Apple are leaders - the rest of the industry follow ;-)

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  3. huh? by rs79 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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 ?
  4. Venture Funding == Innovation (?!?) by Wugger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What do all these stories of open source "innovation" have in common? They all include prominent mention of how much venture money the companies have raised. I can only assume this publication is Straight Out of Silicon Valley (tm).

    1. Re:Venture Funding == Innovation (?!?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's no wonder venture funding and AJAX go together so well. Both are built of the same nonsense.

      Venture capitalism is mostly just a game for rich Californians to play. They toss a small portion of their money around, just to feel important.

      AJAX is much the same. It's a game that some web developers play. All they manage to do is partially duplicate the word processors and spreadsheet software that we had back in 1987. Except that what they produce runs at a fraction of the speed as the 20-year-old products, even though hardware today is several thousand times as powerful.

      Both are built on a solid foundation of hype and unwarranted publicity. It's no wonder they'd go together so well.

    2. Re:Venture Funding == Innovation (?!?) by tinkertim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree.

      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 .. 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?

      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 .. anyway.

      Flog me if you like, agree with me if you want, do *anything* but take TFA at face value.

  5. Another open source project to keep an eye on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    We recently discovered an open source project that is easily on the leading edge of its industry.

    In my opinion there has been a huge gap in open source software covering the employee payroll and time management industry and TimeTrex seems to have stepped up to the plate in a major way.

    Our company used to spend over $30,000 a year outsourcing just our payroll to ADP and another $5000-10,0000 a year on time and attendance software. With TimeTrex we were able to consolidate them into one package and eliminate those costs and integration headaches in one fell swoop.

    If payroll is a headache at your company, check this project out.

  6. Not impressed with SCALIX by tenchiken · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have been pretty under impressed with SCALIX, which really doesn't do anything that Outlook does. Zimbra I think is breaking new ground, but they really need some serious speed boost to make it competitive with outlook. I do think that if the Zimbra folks get mashups right they will leapfrog Outlook and Exchange, one of the weakest areas out there.

    I think people complaining here are missing the fact that Linux has had a bitch of a time breaking into the enterprise messaging market. That market really drives out Linux IT shops, and replaces them with expensive exchange servers. The larger a company grows, the more you have to make the executives happy. And nothing makes executives happy like blackberries, integrated email and calendaring.

    1. Re:Not impressed with SCALIX by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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)
  7. Where's Bram Cohen? by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Where's Bram Cohen? by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sometimes the innovation is not in what features you add, but which you remove.

      The BitTorrent protocol was such a huge hit not despite its simplicity, but rather because of it. When everyone and their pet hamster can write a client, then it follows that you get incredible diversity in available software for that protocol.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    2. Re:Where's Bram Cohen? by VE3MTM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. BitTorrent does one thing: co-ordinating clients so they can distribute data. Everything else for creating a complete file-sharing system -- search, accounting (enforcing ratios, etc.), authentication, whatever -- can be layered on top of this, but the hard part is taken care of by BT.

      Saying that BT is "incomplete" because it doesn't do stuff like that is like saying that a coffee grinder is incomplete because it doesn't also brew the coffee

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 Whoops, silly middle mouse button...
  8. Calling SugarCRM "open source" is generous by kimvette · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.vtiger.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=22

    Their original SPL was basically a search and replace of "Mozilla" in the MPL, replacing "Mozilla" with "Sugar"

    After another group *gasp* dared exercise their rights provided for in the SPL(MPL), they threatened to sue, pissed and moaned, complained because trademarks were removed (Uh, They HAD to remove trademarks for redistribution of a modifief variant to be compliant with your license!)

    Since then SugarCRM has NOT been open source; it has been shared source. Here's why:

    You cannot derive a new product from SugarCRM; for all practical purposes, the "license" forbids it.

    The license allows you to view and modify the source, and extend to it
    If you contribute code to the core project, you give all ownership and credits to SugarCRM. OK, fine, I can buy that you give ownership to them, but you should be able to be credited in your code contribution.

    If you ever subscribe to the Pro/Enterprise version of Sugar, you agree to waive your rights to use the "Open Source" edition ever again, and are "forbidden" to take your Pro/Enterprise database and import the data into the "Open Source" edition.

    I hardly consider that to be open source, or to be in the spirit of open source.

    If you need a CRM, I highly recommend vTiger over SugarCRM.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  9. In what way are these open source? by doctor.jw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't open source free (as in beer)? The one that caught my eye was "OpenAir" ... which certainly doesn't appear to be in that category (contact us for pricing!).
    j

    1. Re:In what way are these open source? by chromatic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Under the GPL, they are only required to provide source if you pay for the binary.

      It's actually if they distribute the binary to you. They can charge or not. The GPL only governs redistribution of copyrighted works. It's up to you how you redistribute a work.

      --
      how to invest, a novice's guide
  10. Talking of top OSS projects... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...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.
  11. Real OSS = Darwin In Action by queenb**ch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Open Source software tends to work on a very darwinian model. Yes, there are "category killers" (who wants to code up a new text editor?) but for the most part, when a new "category" of open source application start taking off, it generates a lot of interest. You see about a zillion projects form up on Source Forge. Those that are able to actually produce usually get weeded through based on the quality and features. With price being removed as a deciding factor, it becomes all about how good the product is. Those that are good, survive. Those that aren't, don't. Occasionally, the old stand-bys get replaced.

    What I see a lot of is companies, like Second Life (gaming company) who will "open source" part of their product, but not all of it, hoping to garner free work from the open source community. Devs are the backbone of the OSS community. With out someone to sling the code, nothing gets done. Most devs are wise to these tactics, since they're not nearly as new as the marketing poohbahs think they are. Not only does it not draw as well as they'd hoped, but it has a serious backlash. Most devs, myself included, view companies who engage in such tactics with suspicion and refuse to work on the projects even if they become fully open source later.

    The other business model I've seen a lot is that the product is "open source" but some how you can never get the stuff to install or work properly unless you pay for them to host the application. This *always* ticks me off and I usually let everyone I know who might be looking for a simliar package not to waste their time. I love my Tivo, and I don't mind paying for it so don't take this the wrong way. This is what I've dubbed the "Tivo business model". If any of you ever downloaded the Tivo open source project, thinking that you might be able to get a working Tivo out of the deal, you know what I'm talking about. Yes, you could eventually get it working if you hacked away at it long enough or you can just buy the thing and get on with your life.

    IMHO, if you don't have a working project that I can download for free, install on my own hardware, and get working without having to hack the source code in a major way, you're not really an open source project.

    2 cents,

    QueenB.

    --
    HDGary secures my bank :/
    1. Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action by dbIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The other business model I've seen a lot is that the product is "open source" but some how you can never get the stuff to install or work properly unless you pay for them to host the application.

      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.

    2. Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "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.

  12. BUY BUY BUY, now... SELL! by spoonyfork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That list reads more like a pump and dump stock tip email. Who's getting paid here?

    --
    Speak truth to power.
  13. Hmmm by bconway · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can't seem to find ESR on that list. Maybe I missed it?

    --
    Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
  14. Re:Where's P2P? by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 2, Insightful

    P2P certainly did. Using P2P for swarming download amplification? That's another story. It had been tried before, but it took Bram's genius to make it work.

  15. You forgot Digium / Asterisk! by mikespice · · Score: 3, Informative

    They forgot Digium, the Asterisk company. Its hard to imagine a list of open source innovations that doesn't include Asterisk!

  16. Not one of them has come close to RMS. by anwyn · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Not one of these organization has made 1/10th the contribution of RMS.
    • RMS created gcc. Without gcc there would be no LINUX or BSD. Most of the utilities in the article would be impossible without gcc. Who was the original author of gcc? RMS.
    • RMS created most of the GNU utilities without which most of GNU lINUX and BSD would be worthless.
    • RMS was the first to proclaim the need for a free OS platform. He was the first to try to make such a platform a practical reality. (GNU).
    • RMS created the GPL.
    There is no one who has made contributions to the Free software and/or "open source" software communities equal to that of RMS.

    This includes LINUS.

    I realize that RMS can be idealogical, stubborn and hard to deal with, but the fact remains that in spite of this, or perhaps because of it, no one has made as great a contribution.

  17. Re:Print version.. by Sorthum · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Open Source may largely be available for free, but the ads do go to show that the bills still have to get paid. I wish like crazy that there were a better way to make money off of open source rather than charging like crazy for support or constant maintenance. Closed source companies provide craptastic support in many cases, but their licensing is more or less a permit to print money...

  18. Open Source != Free Software by DrJimbo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you understand the difference between "open source software" and "free software"?

    By your description SugarCRM is not free software but it certainly sounds like it is open source. Likewise, it sounds like SugarCRM is keeping to the spirit of open source but is not keeping to the spirit of free software.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
    1. Re:Open Source != Free Software by AlXtreme · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm afraid you are misinformed, and those that moderated you up are misinformed too. SugarCRM certainly doesn't conform to the OSI definition (redistribution of modified versions), and therefore isn't "open source software".


      It is a wide misconception that open source != free software. In a sense, they are two movements that both emphasize different sides of the same coin. There is a problem with the term "open source" being used as a marketing tool for products not adhering to the proper definition, but the same could apply for the term "free software".

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
    2. Re:Open Source != Free Software by AlXtreme · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Haha, an anti-Free Software shill. That's a good one. There's no point to troll, lets just stick to the facts and maybe you'll get a wider perspective on this topic. Or maybe I'll become informed. Or both, which would be twice as good.


      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
    3. Re:Open Source != Free Software by AlXtreme · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is over the top and unfair. The FSF has not called OSS or Torvalds 'heretics'. Your saying so falsely implies that the FSF is filled with evangelical, religious-like zeal. If you have even a shred of evidence to support your absurd implication, please provide it.

      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
  19. We don't need no stinking badges! by scarolan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  20. Re:Open Source? by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · · Score: 3, Funny

    How hard did you look?

    http://sourceforge.net/projects/timetrex/

  21. This is crap by Aaron+Isotton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    TFA is total crap. Out of the 10 projects I've heard of 2 (KVM and MontaVista), and I'd hardly call any of them (except maybe KVM) even remotely "innovative". They just happen to be what venture capitalists think is profitable - virtualization and enterprise "management" software. Actually most of them aren't even real products but "platforms" or "frameworks" which can only be described in buzzwords. Quote:

    [bla bla] software helps project-based organizations quantify the nature of each engagement in terms of the resources needed to complete the project and the final value to the organization's bottom line.

    What the hell is that supposed to mean anyway?

    The real strength of open source is its technological superiority in some fields (e.g. LAMP, Mozilla, some open source kernels), new approaches in development (the "distributed development" model) and some technological innovations (BitTorrent etc), but definitely not in "enterprise software".

  22. 'Innovation' by kahei · · Score: 2, Insightful


    The word 'innovation' has a funny meaning in OS, doesn't it? Zenoss is a Tivoli clone that now "claims it provides 80% of the functionality of the big offerings". rPath is another virtualizer. Sugar CRM is another CFM system. Linux is a copy of Unix. Even Frozen Bubble is a copy of Puzzle Bobble! They couldn't come up with their own puzzle game??

    COM, Java, Civilization -- those were innovative. .NET, Emacs, Populous -- those I'd call incrementally innovative, not big paradigm shifts but definitely 'new content'. The OSS clone that currently seems to have to exist behind (usually about 2-3 versions behind) every successful piece of large scale commercial software -- not innovative. Useful, sure. Worth working on, sure. But innovation is where you do something _new_.

    Yeah, blah blah blah, linux has more innovation in its little finger that Microsoft has in its whole bloated body, I'm a troll, etc etc.

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
  23. Re:Real OSS = Line Items in Action. by turbidostato · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The "private business model" is a red herring because it implies that there's some other viable business model. But in the case of open source it's not"

    And then, old cute Diogene after carefully listening why indeed there's no movement in Universe, put himself on his feet and slowly went away.

    Change Diogene by Novell, or Red Hat, or MySQL AB, or...

    "Make a note that all the suggestions that people have made about how to make money with open source don't really have anything to do with the open part."

    So there's no money on sellings since money always comes from what you sell, not on the selling fact.

    "The "open" in open-source may give many benefits, but making money isn't one of them. And that's by design."

    Even clever Bill Gates thougth there were no bussiness-case in the "Internet thingie"... till the facts showed him his mistake. You better say *you* don't know how to make money out of producing open source software. I myself have earned a life out of it for the last ten years, go figure.

    There's one thing that's true: open source is by no means a basis for a bussiness as profitable as one based upon closed source can be. But that's no wonder: there's no other bussiness -in the whole world, in the whole History, with a profitability potential as the privative software one. Intellectual Property-based bussiness are the most profitable ever, and closed source-software based ones are the more profitable among them. Of course, the problem with such a bussiness is that is terribly unethical and diminishing for society as a whole.