Gartner Says Open Source "Impossible To Avoid"

alphadogg writes in with a Network World article that covers a Gartner open source conference, in which VP Mark Driver seems to be going out of his way to be provocative. "You can try to avoid open source, but it's probably easier to get out of the IT business altogether. By 2011, at least 80% of commercial software will contain significant amounts of open source code..." After this lead-in, in which open source seems to be regarded as some kind of communicable disease, the rest of the article outlines a perfectly rational plan for developing an open source strategy.

Comments

sounds good to me

[bakamaki]

You won't hear me complaining, 80% sounds great.

Re:sounds good to me

[moderatorrater]

The problem that I see is that the 80% isn't necessarily meaning that more code is going to be open source, just that more of it's going to get used. Look at the network stack for vista to see what I mean.

Already here.

[Aladrin]

The article says that some say that day is already here. I agree.

Try to do -anything- on the web without having to deal with Firefox, Apache, PHP, etc, etc... Good freaking luck. Even Safari uses open source components, so there goes all compatibility with Mac as well. (Meaning you can't test it on Mac, because then you'd be dealing with open source.)

Now, try to have a successful business without the internet. Sure, it's possible on a small scale, but I can't name a single business I deal with that doesn't have at least a 'contact us' page on the internet with a phone number.

And that doesn't even get into interacting with other companies that happily use open source in their daily functioning.

Re:Already here.

[hackstraw]

The article says that some say that day is already here. I agree.

Try to do -anything- on the web without having to deal with Firefox, Apache, PHP, etc, etc... Good freaking luck. Even Safari uses open source components, so there goes all compatibility with Mac as well.

I could quote more, but I would bet that almost 100% of the sane people on the planet would agree with both the parent post and the linked article.

I'm just confused as to the point of the article. This article seems as relevant as saying air in the Earth's atmosphere contains 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, 0.03 percent carbon dioxide, with trace gasses and this is impossible to avoid.

Is there something I missed? Is open source a problem or something? I don't understand the point here.

Re:Already here.

[fwarren]

You do realize that Dell is already being queezed on the laptop front?

They are good at what they do, they can turn a profit on desktops. Laptops, have a smaller profit margin on the low end. It is really hurting them. MS being 10% to 25% of cost on systems. It would not hurt Dell to be able to sell without Microsoft.

Dell is still a big name. Nvidia, Western Digital, etc, all have warehouses within a few blocks of where Dell puts systems together. Dell does not keep but 6 or 7 days worth of parts on hand. They just call Nvidia and they drive a palet of parts on a forklift a few blocks to Dell.

Dell moves enough stuff, that if the choice between selling to Dell or not selling to Dell is LINUX drivers not OPEN SOURCE drivers. I think companies will either go open source or binary drivers with open-source hooks. Dell still has the clout.

Re:Already here.

[nmos]

I can't imagine Dell requiring open-source drivers. Even if to support their Linux offerings.

The problem isn't the lack of drivers, it is what the Chinese will do with an open-source driver.

I really don't understand why Dell would care. They arn't hardware designers, just system integrators using (mostly) comodity parts.

Hardware manufacturer spends lots of time (read: money) developing software-instead-of-hardware approach to make a given computer peripherial lower cost to the consumer.

While I'm sure there are exceptions for the most part I'd say I'm happy to see those pursuing that approach go. Forget Linux etc. even on Windows these types of hardware tend to be the buggiest pieces of garbage available and are the first to become obsolete when a new version of Windows, or even sometimes a service pack, comes out. What's wrong with hardware makers competing based on making better hardware?

You release the hardware specs (or better yet, a real working driver) and you now enable somebody to duplicate all that work in a couple of weeks just reusing (yes, stealing) the software. No R&D time. Much, much cheaper product.

Well, they still have to duplicate the hardware which is IMHO a lot harder than copying the software, be it open or closed.

Re:Already here.

[Just Some Guy]

I can't imagine Dell requiring open-source drivers. Even if to support their Linux offerings. [...] You release the hardware specs (or better yet, a real working driver) and you now enable somebody to duplicate all that work in a couple of weeks just reusing (yes, stealing) the software. No R&D time. Much, much cheaper product.

Yes, I can hardly imagine Dell wanting to see their suppliers in a price war. I'm sure it would break their heart if all their components were suddenly "much, much cheaper".

It is a disease, and that's why it works!

[BobMcD]

Of course Open Source is a communicable disease. All freedom is. That's why they call it freedom, and that's also why those in control fear it so much.

DUH!

I fault YOU, dear comment submitter, for attaching a negative connotation to it. There's nothing wrong a viral idea, and there's nothing wrong with admitting that an idea is viral. There is something wrong with being ashamed of perfectly decent things.

What this says, in my view, is that 80% of the developers that are, um, developing will see freedom as beneficial. And in my world, that ROCKS!

Consider the Source

[FatMacDaddy]

This is the Gartner Group we're talking about. The only thing that amazes me is that anyone still pays them any attention at all. I still have some presentation materials around here somewhere where they warn that 30% of US businesses will fail due to Y2K problems.

Re:Sounds right

[ttapper04]

Just like any good idea. Open source just might be the right way to get the best product to the end user. If that proves to be true then nothing can stop it. Gallaleo was right, the Earth goes around the Sun, nothing could stop the idea. Of coarse this hinges on weather open source really is the best way. I do not have the answer to this.

Open source in commercial software?

[EricR86]

By 2011, at least 80% of commercial software will contain significant amounts of open source code

If these predictions are correct (which they probably aren't) how do these products stay "commercial"? If at least half of that Open Source software is GPL covered, then %40 of that commercial software will have to be open as well.

Re:Open source in commercial software?

[Orange Crush]

If these predictions are correct (which they probably aren't) how do these products stay "commercial"?

For mostly the same reasons I just bought lunch at the cafe downstairs. The salad I'm eating is fully "open source" and I have plenty of know-how and experience to make my own salads by growing the component vegetables in my garden and bring in my own lunches for little if any money.

For my money, I get "ready to eat" convenience taking only a few minutes of my time and full product support--if it's not to my liking, I can take it back and get it fixed.

Open Source != written by anti-commerce hippies. The software may be free, but there's plenty of money to be had providing and supporting solutions.

"Strategy" is Not Rational

[Erris]

Making an "open source strategy" is silly. No one has an "EULA" planning session where they try to make general guidelines for what kind of non free screwing they will and won't take. They consider the options available and take the best. This is a panic by non free software vendors and their pawns. The same people who used to tell you to always use the "best" tool for the job realize that the best tool is often a free one. Open Software planning sessions are a waste of time designed to heap FUD on free software. The time waste itself will put you at a competitive disadvantage, using the wrong tools will too.

It's never been rational to ignore free software. Every significant non free program has roots in some kind of free software. The people telling you to ignore free software have been plundering it themselves all along.

Re:"Strategy" is Not Rational

[PHPfanboy]

Making an "open source strategy" is silly. No one has an "EULA" planning session where they try to make general guidelines for what kind of non free screwing they will and won't take.

Much as you might find it silly, many companies *are* doing it.

If they are not going with "Zero Indemnification" policy of Microsoft, they need to know what sort of open source licenses they will use, what sort of support packages they feel their businesses need. An example: in the UK, Financial Services companies **must** have support contracts on all software which is not built in house, otherwise their auditors make them put money aside to insure against the risk. Should your company use GPL software or only BSD license? What if you make and sell software like System Integrators do and need to supply your own support agreements?

I would love to call it silly and say no one is doing it, but when top Global companies are doing exactly this (I'm dealing with the people who are doing it on a daily basis), you're just ignorant.

And as for saying that open source planning sessions are just to heap FUD on Open Source, you're plain wrong. Often we (open source companies) push for them to make sure customers do have a policy for how and where they use open source, otherwise they'll just take whatever Microsoft or Oracle push to them - nobody likes to change, it's a right pain. But we (open source companies and other interested/stakeholder individuals) need to push for these battles, because we win. I'll ignore your last paragraph which is just utter nonsense.

Re:"Strategy" is Not Rational

[jc42]

> >Every significant non free program has roots in some kind of free software.

>I thought it was the other way around - free software has its roots in creating free alternatives to non-free software.

Actually, of course, it's both ways. But free -> private happens a lot more than private -> free, for fairly simple and obvious reasons. The non-free, private software owners generally don't let us see their source, so building on their achievements is difficult (and lawsuit-prone). The free, open-source software developers make their stuff available, so anyone can build on it, making life easy for the private developers. And they tend not to sue, partly because it's difficult to prove that someone has used your code unless you can see their code.

I've always liked the comparison with the rest of the science/engineering enterprise. Historically, scientific and engineering methods have been developed independently over and over again, in every society. But most of this has been dead-end development, because new discoveries and techniques are kept secret in "guilds" and other similar organizations. The big explosion in science and technology in Europe a few centuries ago wasn't due to discovery of new research methods. It was the result of a population that developed an "open publication" ethic. This made it possible for researchers and engineers to build on each others' knowledge. Isaac Newton expressed it well with his famous remark that "If I have seen farther, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants". (Actually, what he really wrote was "Pigmaei gigantum humeris impositi plusquam ipsi gigantes vident. ;-) And historians have pointed out that he even did this in that sentence, which is a variant on things said by others in previous centuries.

But we still have a problem with private, proprietary information. Many people support this, for various reasons. But it is almost always a dead end, because it prevents others from building on your development. And, as has happened over centuries in the rest of science and engineering, the future will belong to the software people who are willing to open their code for others to build on. Reverse engineering is possible, but it's expensive to "reinvent the wheel" all the time. It's usually easier to take something that someone else has developed, and extend it to do what you need. And, if such extension are made available, the result tends to be something that's much more useful for everyone.

But this isn't a concept that software people just invented. It's the entire basis of modern science and engineering. Without open publication, we'd still be back at the level of 15th- or 16th-century technology. And, as others have observed, private software tends to be low-quality parodies of something that the open-software crowd did years ago (but the commercial world never noticed). Either that, or the private developers just take the open software and use it without attribution, something that I've personally seen over and over in lots of corporate contracting jobs.