Think Tank Report On the State of Open Source

AlexGr writes to recommend an account of a meeting a couple of months back of representatives from more than 100 software companies discussing the state of open source software. The outcome is outlined in a 16-page report, 2007 Open Source Think Tank: The Future of Commercial Open Source (PDF). Among the surprising conclusions: participants noted a growing similarity in methods between open source and proprietary software development. They predicted some kind of convergence, where the best of both approaches gets adopted in each camp.

Comments

This article is nonsense...

[jkrise]

For instance, at last year's Open Source Think Tank meeting, participants were expecting open-source software to achieve greater predominance. However, licensing and support issues have slowed the adoption of open-source solutions at the enterprise level.

Licensing and Support issues with 'Closed Source' software is precisely what drove enterprises to Open Source! Enterprise care a hoot about GPL v2 and GPL v3 wars.. they aren't interested in redistribution.. just that the Damn Thing Works (TM) !

Re:This article is nonsense...

[Zonk (troll)]

For instance, at last year's Open Source Think Tank meeting, participants were expecting open-source software to achieve greater predominance. However, licensing and support issues have slowed the adoption of open-source solutions at the enterprise level.

Licensing and Support issues with 'Closed Source' software is precisely what drove enterprises to Open Source! Enterprise care a hoot about GPL v2 and GPL v3 wars.. they aren't interested in redistribution.. just that the Damn Thing Works (TM) ! Seriously, how can anyone read this and find it more acceptable than this?

Surprising?

[dour power]

Among the surprising conclusions: participants noted a growing similarity in methods between open source and proprietary software development. They predicted some kind of convergence, where the best of both approaches gets adopted in each camp.

Why is it surprising that developers (open or closed source) have adopted the useful parts of each others' development models? They don't exist in vacuums...

Re:Surprising?

[jkrise]

Why is it surprising that developers (open or closed source) have adopted the useful parts of each others' development models? They don't exist in vacuums...

Once upon a time, Open Source developers were called all sorts of filthy names... like gypsies, hippies, communists etc. etc.

Now that 'Enterprise Customers' have adopted these software systems into their networks, the Closed Source world would like to inform you that they have changed... since it's now apparently fashionable to be a hippie.

Can I be a Think Tank too?

[CarpetShark]

Who declared these people a "think tank"? Most of the people on slashdot think about Open Source/Free Software sometimes. Bill Gates does as well. Is HE an "Open Source Think Tank"?

Re:Can I be a Think Tank too?

[rucs_hack]

Does that mean we get a real Tank? Can I be in a think tank too?

Re:Can I be a Think Tank too?

[sayfawa]

You may be onto something. Everytime some stupid internet or patent law is close to being passed, we can summarize the prevailing thought on /. and submit it to the media as coming from an official think tank. We just need some sophisticated sounding name that won't be immediately associated with /.

Re:Can I be a Think Tank too?

[El_Muerte_TDS]

We just need some sophisticated sounding name that won't be immediately associated with /.

How about: National Enterprise Research Devision
Or: Global Electronically Evaluation Kommittee
Maybe even: Digital Organization of Reviewing Karmawhores

Some interesting points about Novell/MS

[Franso6]

Or the 'official' reasons for the deal (FTFA):

"(...)
Microsoft was represented by Sam Ramji, Director of Open Source Technical Strategy, while Novell was represented by Justin Steinman, Director of Marketing Linux and Open Platforms.(...)

(...)
From Microsoft's perspective, the deal it struck with Novell was driven mainly by customer demand. Sam described how its Interoperability Executive Council, which includes 30 top CIOs demanded interoperability between Windows and Linux, as both must coexist in the enterprise and neither will completely displace the other."(...)

(...)
From Novell's perspective, its motivation for the deal was primarily the need to differentiate itself in a meaningful way to gain share versus Red Hat. As number two in the market, Novell recognized that it simply could not gain significant share without a "game-changing" event. (...)"

Re:Some interesting points about Novell/MS

[morgan_greywolf]

Interesting! Mod parent up!

What people have to realize is that Microsoft is not a company with one cohesive strategy anymore. They fight battles on a number of different fronts ... it's spreading the company thin and people are scratching their heads wondering why Vista was late or why it didn't deliver on promises.

The bottom-line as to why the deal with Novell is simple: Microsoft may have a monopoly on the desktop, but in the server space it has nothing even close. There are very few Microsoft-only shops these days; most enterprise customers don't want to put all their eggs in one basket and very wisely so. So they adopt a mixed-platform strategy and CIOs rightly realize that the only thing causing any problems in interop between Linux and Windows is Microsoft, so they make demands. Novell wants a piece of the action because it believes that doing so will differentiate SuSE from Red Hat and put/keep them on top of the enterprise Linux market.

And unless you have a monopoly in a particular space -- the customer is king.

The needs of vendors

[mangu]

FTFA: "establish an OSI-approved open-source license that better meets the needs of commercial open-source vendor"

How about meeting the needs of users? Any vendor is free to adopt any licence they want, it's up to the market, i.e. the buyers, to decide if that licence is acceptable or not.

All in all, the whole article seems like an intent to spread FUD against the GPL.

Sponsored by...

[Anonymous Coward]

This year's "platinum sponsors" were Microsoft and Novell.

Source: http://thinktank.olliancegroup.com/ostt2007report. pdf

Nuff said.

Also...

[b1ufox]

1. The cost of starting an Internet company plummeted by over 80% from 1996 to 2004. This trend was largely enabled by open source software and powerful, cheap hardware.

2. IM is the preferred method of communication (with friends) for those under 25 by a wide margin and email is the preferred communication method for those over 25 by a significant percentage. This represents a major generation gap in communication modes.

3. User generated content is vastly increasing in both supply and demand, driven by such popular online properties as MySpace, FaceBook, YouTube, blogs

o Written content: 55M blogs today, up 800% in past year

o Visual content: homemade videos, mashups

4. Traditional media is losing authority with the younger generation, who are increasingly turning to "open" media for advice about music, products and services.

5. Companies are following these trends

o Adopting corporate blogs, especially by CEOs

o "Always-connected" management

o Rise of SaaS

o Virtualization of workforce

o Outsourcing

o Mobility solutions

How is this all related to Open source and its effects? I don't seem to get the point here.Is it just me or ridiculously off agenda?

What a waste of time ?... my time offcourse :-)