Slashdot Mirror
Has Open Source Jumped the Shark?
AlexGr writes to tell us that Jeff Gould has a somewhat jaded look at the commercial push of Open Source and what that may be doing to the overall Open Source movement. "I've been a Linux fan for years, but lately I wonder if the drum beating from the big IT vendors in favor of open source hasn't finally slipped over the edge from sincere enthusiasm to meaningless — or in some cases downright hypocritical — sloganeering. The example that brought this gloomy thought to mind was a recent IBM press release touting a 'new open client solution' as an 'alternative to vendor lock-in'. Wow. Imagine that. An alternative to vendor lock-in."
Lots of companies use Open Source to make a buck in some way, and some of them either mis-represent what is Open, or they don't get it at all. I saw an Oracle representative give a talk on "Free Software from Oracle" in Belfast last year. It turned out that he thought Free Software was software they don't charge for. Fortunately, Richard Stallman was out getting a massage, he gave his own talk an hour later. The audience tore the Oracle guy to shreds and insisted that he say "cost-less" instead of "Free" for the rest of the talk. IMO it was a pretty low moment for Oracle.
But what does this have to do with the Open Source / Free Software community? Not too much. IBM and Oracle would say the same thing about "Data Mining" or "Self Healing" if that was the buzzword that would help them make a buck that day. It's just outsiders misrepresenting themselves. Yes, outsiders. Even if IBM participates in Open Source projects, selling Lotus is an outsider activity. The best thing you can do is point it out, but don't blame it on Open Source.
His sympathy for Red Hat being "exploited" is wildly absurd and shows his failure to understand who made the software in Open Source products. Red Hat did not, for the most part, make the system they are selling. People like me did, and Red Hat did not pay us for it. And if you want to use that software in Debian or CentOS, that's fine with us.
Overall, he doesn't show much of an understanding of how Open Source is paid for and where the innovation comes from.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
So IBM announces that Lotus Notes is portable across OS platforms and the author somehow equates this to Open Source, by some twist in logic I can't even begin to understand.
http://www.mhall119.com
I don't think it's necessarily 'jumped the shark' for to do so, it would have had to do something inherently dangerous or stupid as a grasp for attention (like the writers for the Fonz). Rather, I would point the finger at Commercialization of Open Source instead. You can read everyone's views on that from the conversation from Saturday if that helps.
I think the vendors who (they're not fooling anybody here) are in the end loyal only to their shareholders. If their motives overlap with the community's then suddenly it's an open source project. Problem is, that project cannot fail for it would hurt the company's edge and prospective foothold. As a result, you see hilarious press releases like you cited.
Once again, the community is usually in good standing with good intentions until a member (usually a vendor or large company) mangles something. Blame the mangler, not the group working together. They're the attention whores and their motives are not to promote open source but are really shady/hilarious Machiavellian moves to deepen their pockets.
My work here is dung.
I was into Open Source in the old days when they just played small gigs, before they sold out and went commercial. Seriously, TFA sounds like it's written by a whiny emo kid who's sulking because his favourite band aren't cool now that more than 3 people have heard of them.
At the bottom of the
End times?
Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
I may be missing something, but what? If you don't want to work on a commercialized open-source project, ummmm I don't know... How about don't?
Take the source and make hippie-love-fest-2.0 thats the point of open-source no?
Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
Obviously.
The IBM press release mentioned nothing about open source, other than to mention that open source envrionments (in this case, referring to Linux) worked with the announced offering. (The only other occurances of the word "Open Source" in the article refer to the VP's job title.) It did not claim that the offering was open source. The use of the term "open" (as used here) to refer to products that will run on multiple operating environments is not new, and substantially pre-dates the term "open source".
IBM is simply announcing a client offering that will run more-or-less identically on multiple OS platforms. No, this isn't very big news, but it isn't as bad as the article author made it out to be.
SirWired
Jumping the shark has jumped the shark.
Reality has a liberal bias
Nonetheless, for some of us who are old enough to have done business with IBM in the 1970s and 1980s, having them talk about avoiding "vendor lock-in" is a useful test to see if the old irony detector is still working.
I think that as long as the community is able to keep companies on their toes and incapable of creating too much trouble or confusion in the open source market place then I want them contributing. Even if there intentions are disengenous or self serviing as long as an open source project gets a leg up or another industry standard, piece of hardware or killer app gets implemented as open source we all benefit in the long run.
Keeping companies honest, to use Linus's phrase, is probably akin to herding cats but unless all OSS projects everywhere are ready to "just say no" to any and all help, financial or otherwise, from all corporations I don't see how the community at large, or even just one project, can afford to refuse help from big business.
As for IBM talking up the advantages of avoiding Vendor Lockin; yes it's ironic, but IBM does seem to genuinely want to make a busines case for OSS and in my mind isn't just paying lip service. They can't just go all open and altruistic tomorrow though, they do have shareholders after all. So far I'd say they've been pretty give and take about the whole thing though.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
No longer is the common image one of a dirty geek coding away with some beer in their home after work. It's now a corporate sponsored coder in many cases. The populism has been defeated, which is a good thing. Populism usually fails to amount to anything because it expects the world to change for it, rather than for it to compromise with the world.
If "Open Source" has jumped the shark, who's the Fonz?
The rant is lame & is muddling distinctions.
On another note... I know plenty of college students who end up with Lotus on their new laptops because it is a cheaper bundle than MS Office.
So Lotus can now be bundled with Linux machines. Nice.
Baby-steps to the elevator.
Regards.
I confess I don't know what this expression means. Does it have anything to do with Henry Winkler and/or the Fonze?
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
I do think "Jumping the Shark" is the right phrase, it referrers to the original loosing its meaning by becoming generic and contrived. True open source is far from common, at least in terms of a for profit business. The problem is that the corporate world wants some fancy new Jargon to use at the investor meeting - embrace and expand. However if you are looking for a lifetime, integrated solution with a strong relational paradigm and groupwide strategic enabling futures, look no further. OpenSource, or as we like to call it Alternative Source (TM), promises a proactive harmonized opportunity based on a cost competitive re-engineered solution meeting the needs of enterprise with confidence and a logic-based mindset.
What the heck does "Jumped the Shark" mean? This is the first time I have heard this phrase.
If we're going to have a sensible discussion we need to understand the terms - especially those used in the original question that kicked it off.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If Linux was to become more then a hobby OS it needed to get commercial interests involved. The unpaid OS developers can and have done a lot, but they can't do everything.
Naturally, the marketing departments play fast and loose with the meaning of words - they always have. If you are looking for accuracy in marketing then you'll be looking for a long time.
I personally would not be interested in Linux if it decided to stick its head in the sand and play the corporate game. I want something I can use both at home and at work.
Open Source is a buzzword (buzz phrase?), like XML before it. For a time, it will be used to seem "inovative", in tune with trends, all that happy PR speak.
The result will be that people who would have never heard the term will recognize it, but still have no clue what it means. This is the fate of all buzzwords.
It's nether good or bad, it just mean I get to continue to torture sales reps when they vomit up sales speak like, "our Open Source, standards compliant system works only with our exclusive, patented technology. Oh, yeah, you have to use Internet Explorer."
I think of a lot of zero-initial-cost proprietary software that way. If you're not going to pay for it, you'll pay for the limited set of stuff that it's compatible with. It's interesting how many corporations are addicts, and how their management isn't faulted for that.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Who got the idea that closed-source IT companies would prop up open source projects just to promptly kill their own business models? The author is clearly an idiot or a naive idealist.
These companies prop up Linux and FOSS because they want an open platform, that is, a standard platform that's not controlled by any one vendor, so that they can have complete control over their product. If you have a Windows-only app and Microsoft decides to screw with you, you're SOL. Similarly, Oracle wants Linux to free itself from other, competing UNIX vendors (Oracle runs on AIX, but what happens the days that IBM goes all willy-nilly on DB2?). IBM wants Windows gone to increase the market for Linux-based servers (and by extension AIX and others)), etc., but they will NOT kill their own products.
Folks, an Oracle license costs $40000 per processor per year. I'd say "unwise" is an understatement to the idea that they'd suddenly turn around and start contriburing patches to MySQL for nothing.
Even so, this is still for good, because if all this means that open platforms proliferate, it only gives competing FOSS software running top a chance, meaning, everybody wins: Businesses that want to pay through the nose for proprietary product support will continue to do so, and the rest will use FOSS product with or without commercial support. Call me an optimist, but I think that on the long run the FOSS alternatives will end up winning. I don't really care so long as I get to run a high quality Free software stack that has an option for commercial support.
Shark jumps Open Sores.
Open source is just barely starting to mature. That commercial influences are in the mix is a happy thing. Coders will continue to do what they love, and for all of the reasons that have made OSS and collaborative development a good thing.
Any coder-- any human for that matter-- can get burned out. Self-rejuvenation is a good thing and isn't limited to programming, development, and engineering. All of his diatribe points to frustration and stress. The basics haven't changed, but they have matured. Along the way, we get to shape this. He's seemingly feeling powerless against the Big Boys. That's natural, and the basics of doing code because you love it and want to contribute haven't changed. ANYBODY gets to use the code, subject to licensing-- little guys like me, and big guns like IBM and so on.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Open Source Progress will be right back. We're just napping while GNOME and KDE finish providing suitable commodity desktop environments to emulate and replace Windows. Once there is a base, we should be able to site some higher mountains to start climbing again. Sorry we've been so rediculously lame and havent spurned any major revolutions in the past 5 years, we're getting right on it, love open source.
This article is the kind of mindless drivel that makes me not want to ready slashdot.
Check out my sysadmin blog!
What we have here is a dead shark.
So what does "Open" mean? Different things in different contexts.
And while I'm typing... why does RMS think he has the right to define what "Free" means? I can fully understand why the Oracle guy would later use the term "costless". After an RMS rant, the term "Free" would be very confusing; any competent speaker would do the same. GPL sofware is hardly "free" by some dictionary definitions: "not controlled by the will of others". A bit ironic that the "Free Software Foundation" (who supposedly push freedom) feel they have the right to dictate which of the many definitions of "free" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free may be used in a software context. Isn't imposing your will on others anti-freedom?
GPL clearly does impose a will on others in that it is highly selective about what software it associates with. You're free to associate with me so long as you're GPL/straight/Catholic.
And before I am branded as an anti-OSS guy, I've written, and continue to write, heaps too - much of that released under GPL.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The author is simply trolling for page hits. I mean come on the tile gives it away... it is a purely polemical position. Of COURSE Open Source hasn't jumped the shark... please. This guys argument is that because open standards are universally considered a "good thing" the use of such terms in advertising means it not be. Talk about idiocy.
I just bought a Pioneer plasma TV this weekend. Some things of note in relation to this story:
- the TV picture is kick-ass. Great!
- the TV runs Linux. Great, though it is not hackable.
- the manual has a long section reprinting the various GPL and other OSS licenses from their embedded OS. Great!
- the TV has a Home Media Gallery which can connect to a media server and stream audio and video. Great!
- The TV's tuner has audio and video MONITOR OUT jacks. Great!
- However, the audio and video MONITOR OUT jacks are disabled when the TV plays networked audio or video, or when the HDMI input is used for video.
Why? Well, you might be streaming copyrighted material from your media server, and they don't want you to be able to create an analog recording. Never mind that you own the media (as I almost always do), or even own a DRM license (which in other cases I do), or that you yourself may be the copyright holder, or that you can create an analog copy straight off a regular player. No, instead Pioneer is in bed with Sony and Microsoft to lock up my system and prevent me from doing legitimate activities.
So, whether or not any sharks have been jumped, OSS-licensed works are now completely separable from the ethos and community that generated them, and large companies can create Frankenstein-ian combinations of technologies that enforce restrictions that are the antithesis of what OSS licenses are (supposedly) all about---freedom.
Is this new? No. And there is no license violation that I see. But it is mighty irritating.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil
Well for the preachers of the virtues of open source, yes. It has jumped the shark in a sense but also no it has not because every now aand then a new group of apps come along that make even us jump up and pay attention again.
And keep in mind (and I know I'm about to get flaming causes I can feel the heat), we are still a minority when it comes to people outside of IT. Those people still have never even heard of open source, have no idea what it is or what ir means and don't even know that they are already using it and what the benefits are.
However, due to the fact that even politicians in several states now are calling for open voting machines, open document formats and other open processes and formats, it seems that they are beginning to get it and for them, it hasn't even begun to jump the shark. In their world, Fonzy just got his first leather jacket.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Bruce,
With all due respect, it seems to me that all software costs. Your distinction about initial costs would directly apply to F/OSS too.
I used to work for a company where vendors were excited to say "used by company XYZ" or they wanted us to assess whether the product was worthwhile for enterprise deployment. Even assessing the compatibility of those tools costs something - our time ain't free, even if the vendor asks for no money!
You also mention "the limited set of stuff that it's compatible with" My experience with F/OSS as a whole is that it tends to be compatible only with the one use case that represents the itch the author needed to scratch. Of course, it is possible to take the source and scratch my own itch - if I want to invest the labor to customize a hack to solve my problem, but many times it's less time and hassle to pay for the packaged work.
There was a time when I thought "who would pay for a TV show on iTunes?" I found myself in the middle of a "part one of two" episode, and didn't see part two on the program guide in the near future. I started to think about illegitimate P2P downloads, and then realized that for a mere $2 I could save myself the time and hassle of downloading for "free" (copyright violations aside.) My time and my integrity were well worth $2, and that's been my experience with software, too. Many times the "fit and finish" of commercial code is worth much more than the actual dollar cost to me.
All software costs. Sometimes F/OSS costs more, sometimes less. Sometimes commercial software is a better deal than F/OSS. There's room in the ecosystem for lots of business models.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
You might as well ask "Has the automobile jumped the shark?" The answer to that question would be just as informative. Just as the article points out things like Open Source should become the "well duh" part of certain software strategies.
... Jinkies! I gotta get a look at that! ... seriously?
From a marketing perspective the marketing concept of "Open Source" may have jumped the proverbial shark... but from a marketing stand point the Automobile as a new and innovative buzzword concept jumped the shark about the time Speed Racer came out.
Nobody runs around any more and sticks the word "mobile" at the end of things to make them cool any more. When was the last time you heard something like "Banana-Mobile", "Twinkie-Mobile", or "Penguin-Mobile" and thought
Folks, the Open Source - Mobile has left the building.
[signature]
But we sometimes end up in situations where there is no alternative, even if we wanted to move away from one particular company's products and services.
Take the financial industry. We often have to store and manage absolutely huge amounts of information. We're talking data loads here that knock Oracle on its ass. So our only option so far has been DB2. Even then, it just barely handles what we're throwing at it. And no, systems like PostgreSQL, MySQL, and whatever Sybase is offering now probably won't even handle 1/10th of what we'd be throwing at it.
So we do face a form of vendor lock-in. But it's really only because IBM is the only company on the planet capable of supplying us with the products we need to get our job done. Open source software can't really do a damn thing for us.
Does this mean that closed source folks can now sing Happy Days are here again...
I used to be a pretty heavy user of GNU/Linux. But then I kept seeing more and more crap like this. On one hand, we have people on mailing lists, newsgroups or other forums who'd go on and on about how the GPL "maximizes freedom". Of course, they fail to realize all of the restrictions that the GPL imposes. They say that the restrictions are there to guarantee freedom. At first I believed them. But then I realized that they're just full of shit.
So now I tend to use BSD-licensed software wherever possible. Yeah, somebody might create a closed-source product based on some BSD-licensed source code. Good for them! They have the freedom to do that. And I still have the freedom to use the pre-forked code. So we're all better off.
A vendor offers their commercial products for an open source platform! Outrageous!
What do you expect IBM to bundle with their open client? An Outlook Express?
I am not sure about the blogger, but I actually used (and still do time to time) the Open Client. It's not a perfect product, but it is definitely a big step towards an adoption of Linux as an OS platform in a corporate environment. Unfortunately in a corporate world it takes a bit more than a latest Ubuntu release to switch to a different platform.
Open Client does include a "native" Lotus Notes client, so if this is an environment of choice at your company, it might be a huge reason to look at the alternative to a Windows desktop.
With certain exceptions, Open Client does provide a working environment, in which I can do most of my job functions (and I am a developer). Yes, it's not as slick as Feisty Fawn, but good luck trying to make your corporate e-mail, IM and VPN work on your own!
The point of Free Software (and to a lesser extent Open Source) is to achieve source code compatability. Binary compatability is a "nice to have" but it is not essential to allow any user to benefit from the software.
That's not to say that you may save money in the long term by having a provider package your software for you and charge you a fee for doing so - but that's not the point of Free Software.
All software costs. Sometimes F/OSS costs more, sometimes less. Sometimes commercial software is a better deal than F/OSS. There's room in the ecosystem for lots of business models.F/OSS costs you NOTHING to acquire. Whatever happens after that, you still have the software, the opportunity to compile it, change it and distribute it further. If your time is money, then the time spent compiling the software is a cost "to you". If I compile software in the evening at home, there is no financial cost to me.
Microsoft and other commercial vendors love to beat the ROI drum, because they can't win against FOSS on the acquirement cost basis. Funnily enough, only a minority of companies use the ROI metric for their future planning (I think the last figure I saw floating around CIO-type magazines was 31%); the reason is simple enough - most companies are concentrating on solving problems and improving productivity. If existing FOSS solutions fit a companies needs, they will use it. And yes - they may well pay Redhat or Canonical to service those FOSS solutions.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
Boy, I better think twice before asking people to open the door. Somebody might think I'm asking them to break it into pieces and distribute it to the neighbors.
Liberation movements have dealt with this language issue long ago. Call it "Liberated Software" together with "software liberation movement". And FSF should change its name to "Software Liberation Front".
La-dee-da, randomly reading Slashdot stories, BOOM, Bruce freaking Perens gets FP. Only on Slashdot.
I think the real question the article was asking was "Has the Linux-in-business buzz jumped the shark?" I think the answer is unequivocally yes, not because Linux is overrated, but because it is so widely deployed and such a fact of life in business now that trying to sell yourself as "OMG WE DO OSS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS TO MAXIMIFY YOUR CAPITALIZATION POTENTIALIFACTION" is just redundant and useless. Great, you sell Linux solutions. So does everybody else.
+++ATH0
This is a completely meaningless article. It's jaded with itself first of all.
It doesn't really matter what you think of 'open source'. Whether you snigger with hatred, howl in defense or yawn at the recurring fads that surround it: it's perhaps the most singularly influential concept, terror, saviour and slayer facing the conventions of so-called information technology - and even human culture - today.
Pass it on.
Can we mod TFA and this /. article both (-5 Stupid)??? Nothing that guy
says makes a damn bit of sense; and the idea that "open source has
jumped the shark" is about as meaningful as "Shelby serves lucid potatoes before Congress."
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
When thousands of marketers are being supported indirectly by Open Source software, you know Open Source is here to stay. The marketers are simply a manifestation of the larger trend. First they laugh at you, then they attack you, then they join you. The fact that large corporations are spending so much money marketing their Open Source bona fides, using "open" lingo, and trying to outdo each other as Open Source companies is good for the Open Source movement.
Perhaps Jeff underestimates buyers' ability to see past the marketing hoopla. He also seems to underestimate the power of Open Source licenses themselves. Say what you will in your marketing, but in the end you're still beholden to the licenses you're using. Holding companies' feet to the fire is a lot easier when you have a legally-enforceable mechanism.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
It's just a model for software development, a base to step on.
There are more than enough commercial companies willing to "take responsibility" and provide support. Yes: just grabbing some source code from teh internet isn't a replacement for the services a full-blown software corporation may offer to you as a customer.
But who the hell claimed otherwise (except some geeks, that noone listens to).
With more people voting for their favorite singer in the tv-program Idols then in local elections has democracy and the idea of one-man-one-vote finally jumped the shark?
What a load of nonsense this article is. First off he doesn't get the difference between opensource software/code and open standards and then he mistakes an idea for a product.
Hell, it would even be silly to say tv has jumped the shark. Does he even know what the term means?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I want to know when jumping the shark jumped the shark. Certainly it's already happened.
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin
Skipping ahead a few decades, pre-internet, there was PROFS. At first, only management used it. Anyone know where the 'F-keys' came from? The 327x terminals had a row of 'PF-keys', or as the pointy haired managers knew them as 'ProFs-keys'. Some people thought managers had PROFS pedals under their desk so they would not have to use the rest of the keyboard.
Forward a few more centuries in internet time, and the 327x terminal was replaced with the PC and a 327x emulator card. Then IBM bought Lotus. Lotus notes replaced PROFS. Token-ring replaced 327x coax, But the PC required Windows to collaborate with Lotus Notes. The perfect solution, for people that do not deserve a computer, to get them to use one in the corporate/office environment.
I welcome anything that can unlock the business world from Microsoft and get the Linux camel nose into the tent. This is a start. Evolution in progress. Just not there yet.
1011 1010 1101 1100 0000 1111 1111 1110 1110
Um... in spite of Richard Stallman's rather pathetic attempt to redefine the English language, that is what the term "free software" actually means. You cannot legitimately criticize the Oracle representative for using the English language correctly.
It's always amuses to read posts from people who bandy about terms carelessly while invoking the phrase "the English language".
Allow me to put on my pedant hat for a moment. If you're looking to understand a word, you'll have to go a bit farther than picking up a random dictionary and start quoting from it. You'll have first to learn or at least be aware of its etymology before weighing traditional usage against more recent usage against a possibly more specialised usage. Then, of course, you'll have to consider its connotations. If you've done all that, you're now ready to consider the context in which it was said or written, and if you're honest with yourself (and others), the context in which you're willing to interpret it.
Sounds complicated? Life generally is.
Pop quiz. Which of the following suggests or implies that the word "free" means "without price".
a) Free at last.
b) She's free.
c) My dog was free.
d) Free download.
e) I'm free today.
f) Free to use freely.
g) None of the above.
h) All of the above.
If you picked (h), you'd be right. And wrong. That's true even if you parsed the word "price" correctly. Put another way, I know what I mean. Do you?
Richard Stallman understands that the choice of words often defines the terms of a discussion. Irrespective of your feelings towards things of a political nature, his actions are perfectly justified. And "correct".
Back in the '80s and early '90s, Open Systems were the latest good idea the marketing people noticed, and they embraced open systems aggressively... but not by actually opening up their interfaces and protocols, no, what they did was far more radical.
They changed the name of their products!
So you had "MVS OpenEdition" from IBM, and "OpenVMS" from DEC.
This is just more of the same. It has nothing to do with Open Source (still a good idea) or Open Systems (still a good idea) or anything else of substance. It's just the marketing trick of the month. They'll get started on something else next... maybe they'll pick up on silly names for software releases and we'll see Lotus Notes Happy Hippo, or Windows Effusive Samovar.
. . . jumped the shark?
Damn! It looks like they've changed the meaning of Insightful now, too...
It's always been a sort of vague mass of largely compatible concepts. Some people like getting free software. Some people want to have the freedom to modify it. Some see it as an ideal. Some see it as a business opportunity. Some just have an idelogical opposition to entrenched monopolies. It doesn't really matter.
free software has never been opposed to commercial software, and neither has the related concept of Open source. The FSF just wants to ensure people are freeish. They like commercial involvement because it validates the concept.
Suddenly Opensource is mainstream and everybody is whining. This looks like a geek Emo/Indie/ movement.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
(random-buzz-phrase)+(random-trendy-phrase)=(front -page-story)
Look, I can do it, too!
Compiz/Beryl Merger, Where you at?
Ruby on Rails, it's all good!
Sheesh!
PERL:
All of the power of Voodoo with most of the understandibility!
I thought English was one of the few (?) languages that used 'free' to mean 'gratis' as well as 'libre', and that the 'rest of the world' had language support [sic] to distinguish the two concepts.
so let em get this straight
/.
here on
99% of consumers/companies not giving a damn about opensource == bad
now some companies (ibm) decided to use opensource software to make some money == bad
seriously this is exactly the type of attitude/shit that scares people away from opensource
google runs half a million servers on linux and they make a mint, now i dont see anyone calling them evil (oh wait)
I think that there are changes in the nature of things that happen. Steps forward and step backwards, that's the natural way of things. Look at what Sun is doing, they are trying to emulate the success of opensource.
I think there are 3 things that are going on that will make this era kind of difficult for opensource and the community.
A forth thing, possibly, is the whole sense of taboo in the community and "unix culture" has grown bigger than can be maintained. The BSD guys are doing a good job of preventing their community from growing, they don't like to change that much (unless it's a threading model, in which case they'll change it many times with no measurable affect and talk about how much better they've made it ;-) I've been following things like the Fedora parallel init discussion, Apple has done launchd (apache license no less, so it's compatible) Sun did SMF, there are factions that will prevent anything like that from being done in Fedora or Debian simply because they don't want to change. Apple dumped cron and init at the same time and improved upon both without that much code.. XML isn't UNIXy enough. Why use Java or C# when you can use C? The heuristics for
There's only two ways for the media to talk about it. Either "It's days of glory will never get here." or "It's days of glory passed years ago.", without ever actually acknowledging that it ever had a minute of glory to begin with. SEE ALSO: "Linux will never make it on the desktop, it's just a stack of punched cards." and "Linux is too bloated on the desktop, too many features and choices."
That's OK, guys. We'll keep cranking it out, watching our download meters spin, using it and having a blast; you just keep on publishing your FUD. We all know our place!
There's a bright side: Linux can do whatever the Hell it wants and never fear legal action. For instance, even if Linux had a 100% monopoly it'd never see prosecution, because then you would have to admit that somebody actually uses it.
Ummmm, how about, "no"?
Jumping the Shark implies a decline in quality, and milking things far beyond their useful life.
Open Source is more powerful and of higher quality than it's ever been. I can fire up a server with a Debian CD or a Desktop with an Ubuntu CD, more easily and more smoothly than ever before, and have a world of software, both server and desktop just an "apt-get" away.
Things are better than they've ever been. Just become it's been getting some legitimacy, and therefore sloganeering, by some big companies, doesn't invalidate anything.
Lately, after a long examination of web technologies, I've settled on, and have been heavily getting into Ruby on Rails. Getting a full production server environment up and running on Debian was trivial, with MySQL and Apache helping out. Similarly, on OS X, my main development environment now, getting Ruby rolling was similarly easy (both fink and MacPorts did a smashing job of it). Apparently Apple is embracing RoR, and including it in the next OS X release (whenever that may be). Does that mean RoR's jumped the shark? Anything but, it's more powerful and prevalent than ever.
'Nuff said. No offence, but stupid headline.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Hmmm, how about this guy?
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Here's another term you should learn: google.
Thanks. But I asked the question here deliberately, so the answers would also appear here. That saves others the effort of hunting it down individually.
Why should some putatively large percentage of the slashdot readership be required to go web-searching just because the original author and the posting editor incorrectly assumed some non-techie slang term was so well-known as to require no explanation?
Especially when the forum provides a simple mechanism DESIGNED for discussing all aspects of the original posting, of which this is one.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
For example, there's this major media entertainment company where a subdivision of developers started using Red Hat 8.0 versus the corporate culture of Microsoft Windows OS. RH offered performance oriented, easy to access UNIX servers, and a lot of pre-built support for third-party OSS software such as Python for free. These were the days where using anything but Microsoft's Windows stuff was either visionary, or subversive, and independent of Microsoft lock-in.
Said developers create a semi-successful, self-sustaining MMO using such a platform. Roll 4 years later, developers need to switch from aging but rock-solid RH8 to FC4 to support new generations of hardware. Another division decides to jump onto a corporate RHEL4 contract, and said MMO folks decided maybe they want to link in also for cheap prices and free trained support.
Meantime, there's some movement to switch to another OS that doesn't tie the third-party OSS with the core OS. This way developers have free rein to pick and choose what multiple PHP, MySQL, compiler versions they want installed (for instance) independent of RPM hell. The operations team could install some base OS once and not worry about what third-party OSS is locked and blessed only on that OS release.
Movement suggests Debian, Ubuntu, SuSE, or FreeBSD. Such movement is shutdown and buried because it's not conforming to the list of OSs "officially" supported by IT and third-party software vendors. OS selection goes to RHEL4 for the next 7 years even though it does not support PHP5/MySQL5, RHEL5 is now released, and the *BSDs have something magical called Ports.
Red Hat IS the new Microsoft vendor lock-in. How's that for irony.
Well, I don't think they were removed from circulation at that time.
I distinctly remember having a $500 bill to pay for dinner at the
airport's revolving restaurant to impress my date when I was just
starting college, and that would have been fall 1982 - spring 1983.
I didn't even think of the import of withdrawing $1000 in cash from
a bank at that era (the height of cocaine etc...) and how the
teller looked at me funny because of my youth.
Ah.. college days!
E
Version 3 of the GPL definitely meets my own definition of open source jumping the shark. Not to mention the core, vocal minority of regressive fanatics who seem to become ever more fear-based and shrill with every day that passes. I only just witnessed yet another batch of their Marxist vitriol attached to the blog of a staff member of Novell.
The way I see it, Linux basically has two options in front of it. One path involves getting rid of Stallman, the FSF, and the associated fanatics entirely, and moving increasingly closer to being something that could genuinely be called mainstream. The other path involves Stallman becoming completely ascendant where Linux is concerned, (which is what we're moving towards at the moment) the toolchain and kernel adopting GPL v3, and the OS going well and truly back down into the basement. As much as I myself might long for it, realistically I'm also aware that there's more chance of hell freezing over than the first path mentioned above being followed, as well.
Learn something from history people, please...Linux has come as far as it has *despite* the FSF, not because of it. If you have trouble believing that, you only need to look at Stallman's inability to produce a kernel himself before Linux.
I know, I know...I'm urinating into the face of an oncoming hurricane, here...what I wish for is entirely futile; it's never going to happen. If that is the case though, it makes me also wish I knew how to let go. I'm having trouble precisely because I'm also seeing what might be possible if it wasn't for this tiny group of fanatics who cause so many problems, as well as people's unwillingness to tell them to take a fucking hike.
I know there are other people here who feel the way I do; I've seen you write here before. However, I've also seen you being successfully intimidated by the fanatics. The fanatics will try and tell you that Linux needs them; it doesn't. It's actually quite the opposite; they are damaging Linux's credibility and alienating people.
I've also had people tell me that I need to simply migrate to FreeBSD. However, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not leaving; if I can do anything to arrange it, the cult is.
IT vendors in favor of open source ... finally slipped over the edge from sincere enthusiasm to meaningless -- or in some cases downright hypocritical -- sloganeering.
Splipped? When have they NOT been sloganeering? Did I miss the gap?
Table-ized A.I.
My GF told me this story, about when she was a teenager (we are older boomers, so that should date things). There's six kids in her family. Once at Christmas, her dad whips a TEN GRAND bill out of his wallet. He holds it up backwards to all the kids and says "guess who's face is on the other side, and it's YOURS!". None of them got it, he sticks it back in his wallet! (the one he had was Salmon P. Chase, old sec treasury)
You know, everyone in the OSS/Linux/[insert buzzword here] community has been screaming for years that everyone should buy into Linux, etc.
Well YOU GOT WHAT YOU ASKED FOR! Corporations are moving in (that is what is known as TRUE ADOPTION). This is the world all the OSS gimps, geeks, and twerps asked for. Now they have it. So why now start complaining?
And as far as people/corporations profiting off of OSS: 1) People got to put food on the table and pay the rent (how many of you don't have a paying job? If you don't you are what is known as a bum...HELLO!). 2) The people doing the most complaining have NEVER given to the community. They just want free stuff for their own gain. I bet less than 1% of 1% of the OSS community has donated a single line of code.
I'm glad to hear someone finally say it. Freedom has totally jumped the shark. It's soooo "post-Enlightenment" and lame. /sarcasm
OK, seriously, though, I am honestly hopeful that "Open Source" has jumped the shark. It's Free Software, dammit, not Open Source, that is what's important here. "Free" as in "Freedom", not "Open" as in "I Can See It". So, yeah, if this whole "Let's call it Open, because business won't like us if we call ourselves what we are, which is Free" thing goes away, I won't be crying myself to sleep.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
-Tom
Given the contributions that IBM has made to Linux and other open source projects and the fine work that IBM and its lawyers are currently doing to reduce SCO to a small pile of quivering ectoplasm, I hardly think that IBM needs to be held up as an example of a corporation that lacks serious commitment to open source software.
Here's the thing. Linux is free, but windows is cheap. Anybody that has ever looked at an IT budget can tell you that the line-item for licensing Windows is rounding-error compared to payroll. Sun knows it and tries to con people into thin clients. MS knows it, so they flooded the market with windows people to make their software cheap. I live in DC, so YMMV, but if I needed a linux person, I CAN'T FIND ONE. If I need a windows person, I can get one for $45k that will start next week. Quality is another issue, but don't underestimate the importance of availability.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
To me it feels like opensource is to the business world at large what .com was in the late 90s. I see a number of startups and established businesses moving to somehow claim 'open source' without doing anything in the actual spirit of what the phrase should imply. Generally evoking the word 'open' is the cheap way to get there, regardless of anything they do, or proclaiming 'Free' on free-as-in-beer software.
The other thing a lot of companies seem to be doing is actually open sourcing something and have that act be their business plan with respect to some project, often already successful without peer, but no plan on how to actually capitalize on that. I like open source, but when I see a company coming into success with a proprietary product they sell or otherwise make money off of their complete control of something announcing open sourceing and relinquishing control, without a complementing revenue plan, I generally am happy to see the source coming, but wonder about the business sense of those running the company. Too many business plans are starting to look like:
1)Open Source and give away product and full control of the product
2)???
3)Profit!
So between many companies cramming the word 'open' where they can, diluting the meaning in general and businesses that are genuinely embracing open source without a sound strategy (consequently leaving a bad taste in the business world when the inevitable failures come and the open source strategy becomes the scapegoat), I do think there is a danger of 'open source' being considered in general to have 'jumped the shark' from all angles.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
If you consider how many non desktop devices run on 'Open Source' than you can still consider it hasn't reached its full potential. TiVo Inc, Sky+, and the BBC all sell a DVR although I'm not sure what's under the hood. The question is why Dell , Compaq and the rest haven't moved into this lucrative embedded market.
. htmlt e/DM7020.phpl
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT4612631999
http://www.dream-multimedia-tv.de/Bereiche/Produk
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS7385804211.htm
http://freevo.sourceforge.net/about.html
davecb5620@gmail.com
Of course, there was also the shrine to Apollo at Clarus.
Don't forget that the Oracle at Delphi was a shrine to Apollo, who killed the Python.
Also, Apollo helped the Trojans during their war with Greece. He aided the killing of Achilles, who was a student of Phoenix.
Appollo was born in part due to a necklace of amber.
Apollo was known as the god of the sun which is a star, and he also was known as the one who brought the mice to the people.
Much about Apollo is known from the record of him in the Odyssey and the Illiad. In the Odyssey, the sun god was known as Helios.
I know exactly where this guy is coming from. Limp Bizkit start out hardcore and didn't give two shits about mainstream music. They did what they wanted and I loved them for it. Then they accidentally released Faith as a single, not realizing that it was just mainstream enough to make the mainstream kids feel like they're embracing the underground. And Limp Bizkit has been pandering to the mainstream every since. And, therefore, it totally lost its cool.
Sounds like this band, Open Source, is doing the same thing.
That is where your carefuly crafted allegory breaks down completely.
So free, as in free software, has a very particular meaning contextual to the characteristics of software.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.