Open Source After 12 Years

GMGruman writes "12 years ago, seven people in a room coined the term "open source" and launched what initially seemed like a quixotic exercise. Today, open source is mainstream, with original believers such as Red Hat worth billions and superpowers such as Oracle buying in. But open source has changed along the way, says InfoWorld's Peter Wayner, and may change more in coming years."

Comments

12 years?

[multimediavt]

Try more than 15 years since the movement began. When the history ain't right I don't bother to RTFA.

Re:12 years?

[RedK]

The Open Source Initiative, founded by Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond was founded in 1998, 12 years ago as of 2010. This is what the article refers to.

Re:12 years?

[cstacy]

I've been hacking since 1974, and the concept and practice of open source was not new when I started. (I don't think we had a name for it, way back then. But I also think the tag "open source" is somewhat older than 15 years.)

Re:12 years?

[Oriumpor]

Halloween was 1994 wasn't it? I mean, even if you only take into account attempts to monetize Linux the OSS movement started to become popularized at least 16 years ago. RMS wrote the Gnu manifesto 25 years ago, one could argue it all started then....

Re:12 years?

[Ephemeriis]

Try more than 15 years since the movement began. When the history ain't right I don't bother to RTFA.

Yeah... That's what I was thinking... Maybe they're talking about the official OSI or something?

Open Source has been around for a lot longer than 12 years though...

Re:12 years?

[Ephemeriis]

The Open Source Initiative, founded by Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond was founded in 1998, 12 years ago as of 2010. This is what the article refers to.

They may have coined the term, registered the domain, and made it all official...

But I was using open source software before 1998. And referring to it as "open source", too.

Re:12 years?

[mrjatsun]

> RMS wrote the Gnu manifesto 25 years ago, one could argue it all started then

no. before GNU, there was "open source" code ;-) From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bsd
      "first Berkeley Software Distribution (1BSD), which was released on March 9, 1978"

I'm sure there was open source code before that too..

Re:12 years?

[houghi]

I would say it started with copyright law, as that makes a clear difference between open and closed source. That would lace it in 1709. No copyright, no difference between open and closed source.

Re:12 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

I started doing my code work/security checking in 1989 and even back then there were still many things that had source available..by the time the internet started gaining in popularity in 1993 there were many things that had open sourced codebases w/ huge license disputes already under way (DIKU and subsequent muds that spawned from it w/ or w/o permission according to the license, etc)

Re:12 years?

[Jahf]

There was also "coke" (as in the colloquial term in many places for any soda) before "coca-cola", bandages before band-aids, gelatin before jell-o, tissues before kleenex, trash cans before dumpsters, the internet before the Web, and searching online before Googling.

The point being that the article refers to the -branding- of free software as Open Source (ignoring the later splits between those communities ... and the fact that 99% of us completely disregarded the socio-political arguments).

Even the term "open source" existed prior to Open Source as a brand, something that is making this /. thread even more confusing, but was FAR less common than "free software". And software that follows the common ideas of free/open has, as you point out, been around much longer. However that doesn't invalidate the article. It just points out how much better this article could have been -and- proves just how successful the Open Source nomenclature has been.

Re:12 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trade secrets don't depend on copyright. The source code for the vast majority of embedded software would be closed source with or without copyright.

Re:12 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been hacking since 1974, and the concept and practice of open source was not new when I started. (I don't think we had a name for it, way back then. But I also think the tag "open source" is somewhat older than 15 years.)

i started out in the early 80s i remember those days with fond memories i still play with old systems im trying to get my hands on a commadoore pet

Re:12 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

The first of the Halloween documents was dated August 2008. http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html

Re:12 years?

[panda]

In my day, we just called it "software."

Re:12 years?

[crankyspice]

There was also "coke" (as in the colloquial term in many places for any soda) before "coca-cola"

Um, citation needed. Coca-cola was originally descriptive (coca leaves and cola beans); "Coke" stems directly from Coca-Cola. http://supreme.justia.com/us/254/143/case.html; http://lawschool.courtroomview.com/acf_cases/10003-coca-cola-co-v-busch.

Re:12 years?

[Alrescha]

"I've been hacking since 1974, and the concept and practice of open source was not new when I started."

This.

SHARE (www.share.org) was formed in 1955. It's goals were to share information among IT professionals. At least one of the subgroups, VMSHARE, had been sharing code (on tape) since 1973.

A.

Re:12 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try again shithead. From the first line of your link:
{ The body of the Halloween Document is an internal strategy memorandum on Microsoft's possible responses to the Linux/Open Source phenomenon. I received it in late October 1998 and published it at the end of that month.

Re:12 years?

[Abcd1234]

There was also "coke" (as in the colloquial term in many places for any soda)

Yeah, your little parenthetical doesn't mean what you think it means.

The use of the term "coke" to mean "soda" is a uniquely southern thing, and is almost certainly the locals adopting the term "coke" to mean "soda", rather than the Coca Cola company coopting the term (the explanation I've heard is that Coca Cola ran an ad campaign along the lines of "just ask for a Coke", and, well, people did... 'course, I can't find evidence for this, so it may be apocryphal).

Re:12 years?

[WWWWolf]

no. before GNU, there was "open source" code ;-) From Bsd

And even before that, it was pretty much natural state of the software due to several reasons - software wasn't as portable as it is now, software wasn't seen as a "product" (if you wanted to make money off computers, you sold fully built, ready-to-use systems to big customers - remember, people off the street weren't buying computers), and the legislation regarding software copyrightability was murky. Compared to the modern licenses, the early Unix licenses look... complicated. So did the licenses to a lot of other software at the time.

Re:12 years?

[drcheap]

Trade secrets don't depend on copyright. The source code for the vast majority of embedded software would be closed source with or without copyright.

You are absolutely correct. Mod GP +1 ignorant.

Re:12 years?

[guruevi]

This is InfoWorld, the people that keep sending you 'free' magazines because you work in the IT business. They are written by idiots who get the specs for their stories from whoever paid for the advertisement. Off course open source is older than 12 years or even the OSI organization. Back in the 70's and 80's everything that was not AT&T's Unix was open source.

Re:12 years?

[Teancum]

In the annals of marketing, I have yet to find somebody who has been able to document how Coca-Cola was able to transform a word from an entire language to have a drastically different meaning.

What I'm talking about is the word "cola", which in Portuguese means "glue". I'm talking the Elmer's variety here and everything related to it, where you can still go to a store in Rio de Janeiro and pick up a bottle with that word in large letters for fixing your furniture or pasting two pieces of paper together.

Somehow the Coca-Cola company didn't want to come up with another word for their product when marketing in Brazil and Portugal, so instead they dumped an ungodly sum of money to convince both countries that the dark colored beverage was something worth purchasing and drinking.

The "coca" part wasn't so big of a deal, although the reference to the cocaine leaf is certainly still with the name even in that language. I just wonder how people drinking the bottles of glue first thought of the idea until after this marketing campaign.

I'm sure a similar marketing effort could have been done with "free software", but "open source" certainly seems to have a nice marketing angle and isn't nearly so threatening to major corporations. Unfortunately it is also co-opted by companies like Microsoft and others who claim to release software under an "open source" license but where all that happens is that you have the ability to read the source code and that is about it.

Re:12 years?

[Teancum]

On the contrary, any software that can "run" can be decompiled and reverse engineered, where it is copyright alone that protect its further dissemination. Trade secrets depend upon those who are making or producing a product to "keep their mouths shut" and not spill the beans about whatever it is that they were doing. Sort of like handling classified materials in the military where potentially there is a death penalty hanging over your head if you discuss what you are seeing. For trade secrets, while not as severe, it can ruin your life financially and destroy your ability to get any more work in that industry. If you don't mind being a manager at Taco Bell, go ahead and disclose trade secrets. That job at Taco Bell might not even be available for you either if you do that too.

Once the "secret" is disclosed in public, it simply can't be stuffed back into the dark. Some people have tried real hard to do that, but you can't force a 3rd party to agree to contract terms they never signed in the first place.

Patent law can help a little bit, but the original GP was spot on that open source/free software only works because of copyright law. Hardly ignorant, I'd call that stinking insightful.

Re:12 years?

[Russ Nelson]

And very few people listened to you and also called it open source. Sucks to be in the dustbin of history, doesn't it?

Re:12 years?

[SlaveToSoftware]

I agree that the headline and snippet are unclear.

12 years ?

[unity100]

12 years ago there was linux. and even before that, there was stallman. and a number of hairy guys together with him. the movement goes way back.

obligatory : get out of my lawn

Re:12 years ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you guys even able to read? How about using your skill and reading the _first_ fucking sentence in TFA? Maybe the _entire paragraph_ if you still don't get it.

Re:12 years ?

[Mongoose Disciple]

RTFA!

Seriously, is it that important to get an early post in that no one who read even the first sentence of the article would write?

Re:12 years ?

[aliquis]

12 years ago there was linux

There also where Linux 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 years ago ..

Re:12 years ?

[Shikaku]

You must be new here, good sir. We don't read the article and sometimes not even the summary, we just post words and hope it's modded up.

Re:12 years ?

[The_mad_linguist]

See, watch:

1) I, for one, welcome our Open Source dupe overlords, but do they run Linux?
2) ???
3) Natalie profits, naked and petrified and covered in hot grits.

Re:12 years ?

[rick_campbell]

I think that people read the article and found it lacking. If the article were entitled "The Open Source label after 12 years", or "12 years of rebranding Free Software", etc. you would see less reaction. This article attempts to promote the label to be the thing itself, but the thing itself is much more than 12 years old.

I would ask you -- and the authors of the article -- to focus more on the underlying issue and less on the superficial wording issues.

Re:12 years ?

[Stratoukos]

See, watch:

1) I, for one, welcome our Open Source dupe overlords, but do they run Linux?
2) ???
3) Natalie profits, naked and petrified and covered in hot grits.

Yeah! With frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!

Re:12 years ?

[Scarletdown]

See, watch:

1) I, for one, welcome our Open Source dupe overlords, but do they run Linux?

Well, they certainly aren't running HURD.

Now imagine a Beowulf clusterfuck of these guys... er on second thought, can we get some brain bleach here please?

Re:12 years ?

[Abstrackt]

... we just post words and hope it's modded up.

That's how I write the progress reports I give to my boss!

Bad title

[cb88]

I nearly thought this was an annoucement of some 12 year old piece of software going opensource... which might acutally have been noteworthy. Open source is a much older concept than 15 years anyway for crying out loud the Linux kernel is older than that. GNU started in '83 and Linux in '91.... way before 12 years ago.

reading over the article

[nimbius]

Being of the church of Stallman, this article feels like lip service to open source, with an apologists focus on oracle and an all-around marginalization of the GPL in favour of the BSD license and supposed adoration of Larry's new pay model for traditionally open source apps.

that having been said, ill be blagging this on my gopher site if anyone needs me.

Re:reading over the article

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Being of the church of Stallman, this article feels like lip service to open source, with an apologists focus on oracle and an all-around marginalization of the GPL in favour of the BSD license and supposed adoration of Larry's new pay model for traditionally open source apps.

that having been said, ill be blagging this on my gopher site if anyone needs me.

New pay model?

Wasn't SCO was charging for their open source software more than 10 years ago? I've managed to actually blot out the name of the package though.

Stop calling it "FOSS"

[Anonymous Coward]

For the love of god, please stop calling it "FOSS" (or worse, "FLOSS"). Just use the term "open source" -- it was deliberately crafted to appeal to the masses. The term "FOSS" sounds weird at best, off-putting at worst.

Re:Stop calling it "FOSS"

[marcosdumay]

The term "open source" may have be deliberated crafted to appeal to the masses, but it is also undeliberately crafted in a flawed way, so that it could be interpred on two ways, and one of them is damaging to FOSS.

By the way, if you want to know what the damaging interpretation is, you just have to ask Microsoft.

Re:Stop calling it "FOSS"

[firewrought]

The term "open source" may have be deliberated crafted to appeal to the masses, but it is also undeliberately crafted in a flawed way, so that it could be interpred on two ways, and one of them is damaging to FOSS. By the way, if you want to know what the damaging interpretation is, you just have to ask Microsoft.

What is the flawed interpretation and how have you seen Microsoft use it? It seems to me that OSI was fairly successful in defining the term, marketing it, and preventing Microsoft from directly bastardizing it (e.g., as with the whole "shared source" initiative). We would be in much worse shape if they had chosen the ambiguous "free software" or the unmarketable "libre software".

Re:Stop calling it "FOSS"

[shutdown -p now]

By the way, if you want to know what the damaging interpretation is, you just have to ask Microsoft.

Can you give any examples of Microsoft using the term "open source" differently from how OSI defines it?

Do you realize that it is, indeed, precisely why MS uses different terms, such as "shared source", for its source-available-but-not-really-open stuff?

Re:Stop calling it "FOSS"

[david_thornley]

The problem is that "open source" has a natural meaning: software where you can somehow see the source code. This meaning has nothing to do with anything you can do with the source code. Further, since "Open Source" can't be trademarked, it's possible for people to use "open source" as a descriptor for software that neither Stallman nor Raymond nor Perens would consider free or open. I've seen enough questions on Internet forums that show that even software people have problems with this phrase, often wanting an "open source" license for non-commercial applications only.

FOSS has no obvious meaning, so people aren't going to get it wrong without having some clue that they might not understand it.

Re:Stop calling it "FOSS"

[Russ Nelson]

Oh, you mean the Microsoft who has produced Free Software? You know, software that you can get at zero cost.

The fact is that both Free Software and Open Source are flawed terms. Grow up and deal with it.

Allow me...

[TheCarp]

12 years ago, seven people in a room coined the term "open source", in an attempt to rebrand the much older "Free Software" movement, and launched what initially seemed like a quixotic exercise, to convince corporate drones who can't look past the CYA service contract, without having to admit that good work can be done by people without a profit incentive, and the whole world is not beholden to their stock market god.

Re:Allow me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, convincing the corporate drones is an important part of changing the world as we know it. Can we just respect the "Open Source Initiative" guys for making progress on that particular front?

Re:Allow me...

[meatpan]

TFA is a reminder that the metrics we use to assess the impact of open source software are old and outdated. How does a market cap reflect the new value of commercial software, which has had to raise the bar to beat features and performance of the 'free' competitor. How do you quantify the benefit of open source to the actual open source developers? The latter is arguably intangible, but significant. Someone can simply google my name and see production-level code I've written, support messages I've posted in forums, and conference presentations I've given. There is true economic value in this output, but how do should it be quantified and aggregated?

Re:Allow me...

[Abcd1234]

12 years ago, seven people in a room coined the term "open source", in an attempt to rebrand the much older "Free Software" movement

Huh?

To say the "open source" movement was an attempt to rebrand "free software" is to completely misunderstand history. The movement to create the OSS brand name was all about broadening the tent to include licenses and models beyond the narrow vision held by RMS.

See, prior to OSS, "Free Software" meant the GPL. That's it, that's all. As such, anything under that banner was, quite understandably, considered dangerous by commercial companies building closed-source applications (cue flamewar about the viral nature of the GPL).

OSS was an attempt to broaden that view, including the BSD and MIT licenses, among many others, and to open people's eyes to more than just the GPL orthodoxy. And it worked. We now have a wide variety of licenses to choose from... the aforementioned BSD and MIT licenses, the Perl license, ASF, MPL, CDDL, etc, etc, not to mention the good ol' GPL. All of these fall under the OSS banner, but only one of them is "Free Software" (tm).

Re:Allow me...

[interval1066]

'seven people in a room coined the term "open source"...'

Still, seems like the term has been around longer than that. I remember installing my first slackware installation and that was back in '94, and I seem to recall the "slackware" was synonymous with "open source", and both terms were in use. But that's going back a bit and my feeble mind imagines pink elephants explaining how to mount fs' on Ubuntu these days so I dunno...

Re:Allow me...

[khallow]

TFA is a reminder that the metrics we use to assess the impact of open source software are old and outdated. How does a market cap reflect the new value of commercial software, which has had to raise the bar to beat features and performance of the 'free' competitor. How do you quantify the benefit of open source to the actual open source developers? The latter is arguably intangible, but significant. Someone can simply google my name and see production-level code I've written, support messages I've posted in forums, and conference presentations I've given. There is true economic value in this output, but how do should it be quantified and aggregated?

You estimate the change in future earning value and use that as your "metric". That's how it's done now.

Re:Allow me...

[Anonymous Coward]

The movement to create the OSS brand name was all about broadening the tent to include licenses and models beyond the narrow vision held by RMS.

Nonsense. Free != copyleft, and the FSF never claimed it was.
OSS really was about convincing the suits to use free software.

Re:Allow me...

[Abcd1234]

Nonsense. Free != copyleft, and the FSF never claimed it was.
OSS really was about convincing the suits to use free software.

What? RMS and the FSF have *always* pushed the view that "Free" == copyleft/libre/speech/etc. That's their entire raison d'etre, ffs.

Seriously, what alternate dimension are you from?

As an aside, that's *not bad*. In fact, it's a very good thing. After all, Stallman, the GPL, and the FSF revolutionized the way people viewed free software. But the "Open Source" definition *does* have a place and a purpose.

Re:Allow me...

[TheCarp]

Does that translate to "You pull numbers out of your ass"?

Re:Allow me...

[kobaz]

See, prior to OSS, "Free Software" meant the GPL. That's it, that's all.

Free software has been around since the beginning of computing. The GPL is only a recent invention. What makes you think that free software means GPL in any form whatsoever?

Re:Allow me...

[BitZtream]

See, prior to OSS, "Free Software" meant the GPL. That's it, that's all. As such, anything under that banner was, quite understandably, considered dangerous by commercial companies building closed-source applications (cue flamewar about the viral nature of the GPL).

So I'm guessing ... and I'm going to go WAY OUT on a limb here ... that you weren't doing anything computer related back during the time before Linux became popular and before GNU existed.

Prior to OSS, GPL didn't exist. I know. I was there, and so were many others who were happy to use open source software. I was copying source from magazines well before Stallman started spewing his hot air out.

Public domain was used for source starting when?

You seriously need to get an education on how all this stuff worked out before you start telling us old foggies how things happened before you had ever touched a keyboard.

Re:Allow me...

[TheCarp]

As someone who has had many dealings with corporate drone types, yes. Yes I give them quite a bit of respect for the success that has been had. Very little is easy about explaining things to people who neither understand nor have any particular desire to understand.

They are just all so used to the model of having a salesman blow rainbows up their ass about the product, and then spending exorbitant amounts of money to get it all setup and configured and then for ongoing support. I have heard managers say, on many occasions, "we don't want to be going to forums for support".

What they miss is that we already use a lot of this stuff, some of it we do pay service contracts for, and most of those, we don't use. Why would we? We seldom have problems, and when we do, we fix them pretty easily.

Trying to explain this is like trying to talk paint into staying wet. Kudos to them for every inch of headway that they made but... to pretend like "Open Source" was just made up 12 years ago is not really true... it was a re-branding of what people had already been doing.

Re:Allow me...

[Abcd1234]

I was copying source from magazines well before Stallman started spewing his hot air out.

Ah, so you weren't spending thousands of dollars on compilers for mainframes? You weren't using closed operating systems on closed hardware? It was all open source roses and daisies and everyone was happy and contented?

Wait, no, it wasn't like that at all.

Yes, there was software that was free. RMS and the FSF populared the capital-F capital-S term "Free Software", codified in the GPL. Later, after the FSF and the GPL had been around for a decade or more, the term Open Source, capital-O capital-S, was created as an alternative to capital-F capital-S Free Software.

I know, you old fogeys like to forget context, and prefer to remember your lovely days entering BASIC source into your trash-80. But that ignores the real context which triggered RMS to begin his work on the GPL and the FSF, and the subsequent work on OSS that followed.

Re:Allow me...

[david_thornley]

I don't have documents that old, but back in the day Stallman was pushing the GPL because GPLed software stayed free, not because it was the only free software. Since then, the FSF has published, on its website, some of Stallman's writings on the point.

Stallman has defined what Free Software is (it's his term, I guess he gets to define it), and provided a list of Free Software licenses (along, of course, with notes on which are copyleft licenses and which compatible with the GPL). You can go look it up.

Stallman's view on the terms is that he was explicitly fostering a social movement for Free Software (one of his oddities is that he considers non-Free Software to be immoral), and believes the Open Source movement to be fostering a technical movement, which is much less threatening to business but doesn't serve his ends nearly as well.

Re:Allow me...

[khallow]

Does that translate to "You pull numbers out of your ass"?

Sometimes, yes, it does. But you don't pull just any number out of your ass, you pull the best number. :-)

Re:Allow me...

[rick_campbell]

It is simply wrong to state that prior to OSS, "Free Software" meant GPL. There were significant Public Domain projects, e. g. Fahlman's CMU Common Lisp, and code with what we would now call BSD-Style licenses, before the GPL ever existed.

Even Stallman admitted at the time that Public Domain was *also* Free Software though he debated with people like me who felt that if GPL is Free then Public Domain is Freer Than Free. CMUCL's decision to go Public Domain meant that it served as a Reference Implementation to foster a Lisp software industry while also providing all of the other benefits of Stallman's flavor of Free Software, without the restrictions.

Re:Allow me...

[cstacy]

I know, you old fogeys like to forget context, and prefer to remember your lovely days entering BASIC source into your trash-80. But that ignores the real context which triggered RMS to begin his work on the GPL and the FSF, and the subsequent work on OSS that followed.

Actually, the context that myself and others are recalling predates the invention of the microprocessor, and it was FORTRAN and stuff on (IBM and other) mainframes. In my case, this was followed by being a hacker at the AI Lab with RMS, so I'm pretty sure I have all the contexts quite correct, and that my memory is intact. Open source has been around for a long, long time.

TRS-80, heh. Kids today!
NGOML

Re:Allow me...

[rick_campbell]

Sure, that's right. Stallman burst into existence complete with a copy of the GPL in hand. All of the rumors about the tons of work that he did for free software development before starting the FSF are complete fabrications. The code that he worked on before the GPL simply doesn't exist.

Puhleeeze. The alternate (to you) universe to which you refer is "reality".

Scott Fahlman once told me that Richard Stallman convinced him to make CMU Common Lisp public domain . . . and then later decided that it would be better with restrictions (GPL).

Re:Allow me...

[rick_campbell]

Even Richard Stallman, after writing the GPL, agreed the Public Domain software was also Free Software. The GPL was not the only codification of Free Software, even by RMS standards.

BTW, TRS-80s came out well after I started programming, thank you very much. :-)

Re:Allow me...

[Anonymous Coward]

> See, prior to OSS, "Free Software" meant the GPL. That's it, that's all.
> As such, anything under that banner was, quite understandably, considered
> dangerous by commercial companies building closed-source applications (cue
> flamewar about the viral nature of the GPL).

Certainly the FSF's GNU project didn't see it that way, they list a big whopping list of non-copyleft licenses as being free software.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

(This isn't revisionism either, they endorsed the non-copyleft X as being a future part of the GNU system way back in the 1980s for example)

Copyleft is a tool to promote freedom, but not a necessity, non-copyleft licensed software that meets the four freedoms criteria remains free software as long it it is passed around under such terms -- its only when someone co-opts such software, disregards the golden rule, and doesn't pass on the same freedoms to subsequent users that non-copyleft programs become non-free.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html
"""In the GNU Project we usually recommend people use copyleft licenses like GNU GPL, rather than permissive non-copyleft free software licenses. We don't argue harshly against the non-copyleft licenses--in fact, we occasionally recommend them in special circumstances"""

Perhaps what you mean is that there was a widespread misconception where free software and copyleft were conflated and that the term open source eliminated this.

But as a matter of technicality, there have been very few licenses interpreted to not meet the FSF's free software guidelines (as evidenced by the big horking list) that have met OSI's open source criteria, and I'm not even aware any on the reverse...

Thanks,
A proud, self-identified, *free software* user of a system running mixed copyleft and non-copyleft *free software*

Re:Allow me...

[ziggyzaggy]

Yes, our BSD Unix came with the source and multiple compilers, just for the asking.

The TRS-80, hah, that was late 70s. The PDPs first came out in 60s.

I tellz ya, deez cute but iggernit young punks.....git yer tricycle off mah lawn!

Re:Allow me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol @ abcd1234, pwnd by Bruce Perens

Re:Allow me...

[TheCarp]

Now your ass is a quantum computer? :)

Re:Allow me...

[khallow]

I was thinking more an oracle of... um... remarkable precision.

Re:Allow me...

[TheCarp]

The Oracle at Corn-Hole.

Red hat worth billions?

[Musically_ut]

The last time I checked, it had just touched the $1 billion mark.

The article too says just that.

Re:Red hat worth billions?

[Juan Rey]

revenue ( 1 billion ) => profit => worth (>8 billion)

Re:Red hat worth billions?

[betterunixthanunix]

In terms of its market capitalization, Red Hat is indeed worth billions of dollars.

Re:Red hat worth billions?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's market cap. Share price x number of shares outstanding. It is not the value of the corporation.

Re:Red hat worth billions?

[MyLongNickName]

Profit > revenue? Wow, I'd love to have that kind of profit margin.

Re:Red hat worth billions?

[trickyD1ck]

Most of the time, market capitalization is a good approximation for value.
Source: http://www.amazon.com/Valuation-Measuring-Managing-Companies-Finance/dp/0470424656/ref=dp_ob_title_bk chapters 15 through 18.

Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[spun]

So what the hell was I using in 1996? Before Bruce and Eric started "promoting" themse... I mean, open source, other people like Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds were actually writing it.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[Mongoose Disciple]

First paragraph of TFA:

It is now just over 12 years since seven people sat down in a conference room in Silicon Valley to fix what they saw as the marketing problem with the words "free software." Most people thought that the word "free" meant only that no one had to pay. It seemed they didn't have an attention span long enough to try to grok what Richard Stallman was saying when he kept repeating, "'free,' as in speech."

So basically, this story is more about a revolution in branding than a revolution in software.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[amorsen]

Free Software.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[AndGodSed]

I think there is a distinction between "open source" as a descriptive of the kind of software you are using, and "open source" as a descriptive of what group or movement the software belongs to.

Open source as a movement might have been named 12ish years ago, but open source software is much older than that.

Wasn't BSD open source way back? (sorry if I remember incorrectly)

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[Stormwatch]

You were using free software. According to Richard Stallman, the difference is philosophical, although in practice they achieve the same results: the production of more free software.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[melikamp]

None of this redundancy/infighting would probably happen if English just had two nice different words meaning "costless" and "not enslaved", like "gratis" and "libre" (Sp.) or "besplatnoe" and "svobodnoe" (Rus.). Sometimes I think that going with "free" was a misstep on Stallman's part, but at the same time, I cannot think of a good alternative.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[Abcd1234]

So what the hell was I using in 1996?

Free Software.

Yes, Free Software != Open Source.

What, have you been living under a rock for the past 14 years? How you miss the whole OSS/FOSS/FLOSS bullshit over the last decade and a half, exactly?

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[oscartheduck]

You're correct in just about everything you're saying :) The article is about the branding change that was calling "Free Software" by a different name. Software released under licenses compatible with the Open Source definition, though, is much older.

If you're ever looking for further information on this stuff, the book "Free as in Freedom" has a little on the further history of Free Software from the RMS viewpoint.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[LordSnooty]

And if the prior 12 years should teach you anything, it's that branding and marketing is what sets nearly all widely-used software apart from the rest.

Maybe the question should be, with 12 years of open source branding, and with well-marketed products like Ubuntu, why have we not advanced further?

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[Troed]

Open Source has a huge market share - where it counts: Mobile Internet Devices (some still call them smartphones).

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[drinkypoo]

TFA does not support the summary. The submitter does not understand the history involved. Christine Peterson is one of at least three people including Bruce Perens who claim to have invented the term "Open Source", in spite of the simple fact that the term appears in the media and in press releases prior to that date. They did not invent the term; they co-opted it. TFA does not state that the term was "coined" at this meeting, although it does strongly imply it. This would be a false and revisionist view of history, but you can't saddle TFA's author with explicitly expressing it, only with failing to disambiguate. This may have been a deliberate choice on their part, since the actual origins of the term are themselves ambiguous.

Further, TFA makes no predictions, and thus can be roundfiled after being stamped "I've had all these thoughts before and they weren't particularly insightful."

GMGruman is either an ignoramus who speaks without knowing, or a follower of the OSI.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[VortexCortex]

Sometimes I think that going with "free" was a misstep on Stallman's part, but at the same time, I cannot think of a good alternative.

Freedom-ware?
Unrestricted Software?
Software of Liberty?
Free-range Software?
User-Empowering Software?
Non Captive Software?

IMO, the biggest problem is that "closed software" doesn't sound as bad as it should...

Untrustable Software
Black-Box Software
Shackle-Ware
Hood-Locked Software (a car reference).
System Enslaving Software
Freedom-Hating Software

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[crankyspice]

Open source as a movement might have been named 12ish years ago, but open source software is much older than that.

As much as I want to disprove this, I can't (admittedly, I'm not trying very hard, I'm at work...) I found some uses of 'open' in proximity to 'source' but not the specific popular combination of "open source," prior to 1998. E.g., "the X Window System was conceived from the start as an open system. This means that the developers maintained independence from any manufacturer-specific policy and also that the complete source code is available for free." Linux, Unleashing the Workstation in your PC (1997), p172.

It feels wrong, it seems like "open source" is a term (definitely a concept) that's been around for forever. (I'm 33, and started using Linux, compiling free software (including the NCSA http daemon) etc., at age 16, circa 1993)...

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[commodore64_love]

>>>English just had two nice different words meaning "costless" and "not enslaved"

It does. Free and liberty. I would have called "free software" as "liberated software" to avoid confusion.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[spun]

It is not even a revolution in branding. The whole free software/open source debate is only an issue in the heads of certain uber-nerds who should really be doing something more constructive with their time. Nobody else cares what we call it.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet BSD predates the FSF, and BSD never was "free software" since it doesn't "guarantee" the key points in the GPL (the part that makes it eternally "free")... and what leads to all the flame wars and back then it even had that advertising clause (a more technical issue I admit)... Regardless, open-source software of numerous other examples existed long before the FSF (which was 1984), so to try to argue that non-libre open-source didn't exist in 1996 is plain ignorant, the GP is not the one living under a rock.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Maybe the question should be, with 12 years of open source branding, and with well-marketed products like Ubuntu, why have we not advanced further?

Because unlike RMS, most people who are using FOSS really do care more about free-as-in-beer. Also, most people can understand that while FOSS has its success stories, there is little evidence that it inherently produces better quality products. FOSS has been at its most successful, in terms of size of user base, when providing "good enough" and free-of-charge products. It has also found success in server rooms and software houses, where the technically knowledgeable people using it value the typical strengths of FOSS projects and can tolerate their typical weaknesses.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[BrokenHalo]

Sort of. A few weeks ago, I bought a Sony/Ericsson Xperia X10 Mini Pro android phone on the understanding from my telco that wireless tethering is perfectly acceptable. I have since discovered that this is not possible, since SE have gone to extreme lengths to block any kind of root access to the phone.

In fact, I can live without the tethering. I do like the hardware, but I really want to get rid of all the crapware the telco has loaded on it. I'm seriously considering returning the product as defective, since it doesn't meet the conditions under which I bought it.

I don't care if rooting the device voids the warranty (I'm an adult and I can live with that) but an open OS that has been locked down by the hardware manufacturer is no longer open.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[mcvos]

The software being open doesn't help you much when the hardware has been locked down. The EU needs to create a rule that every piece of hardware should be explicit about whether it's open or closed. Even when the majority is closed, we'll be able to find the few that are open and reward them by buying them.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[Troed]

disclaimer: I work for Sony Ericsson ;)

Sorry to hear that! If there were conditions communicated to you and then not fulfilled (either by your carrier or from us) then you should absolutely let them/us know. Tethering isn't officially supported in Android 2.1 though, and when it comes to "rooting" (which would be able to get you tethering on that version and earlier) we need to fulfill our obligations to all our customers which include the carriers as well.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[ksd1337]

You were using Free Software.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[melikamp]

Yeah, but "liberty" is a noun and "liberated" connotes that it was enslaved at some point and later liberated, which would be misleading most of the time.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you tried z4root?

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=833953

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[spun]

Everyone keeps saying that, but the term "open source" predates the damn Open Source Initiative by a good many years. That is why they were unable to secure the term "Open Source" as a trademark, making their organization rather useless.

The OSI has always seemed like a ploy by Perens and especially Raymond to claim a position of influence and control they do not deserve. Meanwhile, the real hackers continue to write free and open software, and the people continue to use it, without having any clue as the the activities of the Open Source Initiative.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[dougmc]

So basically, this story is more about a revolution in branding than a revolution in software.

Likely, though really, the term "open source" itself, used as we use it today, is older than that too. For example, this Usenet post is from 1996.

    CALDERA® ANNOUNCES OPEN-SOURCE CODE
                              MODEL FOR DOS

  DR DOS® + the Internet = Caldera OpenDOS

          PROVO, Utah Sept. 10, 1996 Caldera® Inc. today
announced that it will openly distribute the source code for DOS via ...

and it's not the only reference to the term I can find.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[Anonymous Coward]

Because none of the marketing aimed at me is relevant at all. Open source doesn't need to be pushed in my direction. I don't prefer it, or avoid it. Instead I avoid what is far removed from it: locked, proprietary, buggy, secret security hole riddled and expensive software. If there wasn't anything for me to avoid in lieu of open source, then I wouldn't have to.

Here's my very boring assessment of how much marketing reaches me:

I never buy assembled computers, I never will. I don't have or want a cellphone. I avoid Pop Rock and everything related to it. And I don't watch TV.
So, the few obvious things that can appeal to me would be advertisements for: Computer hardware (not games), fuel, and food. Advertisements for those would have to be billboards or online, otherwise I wouldn't see them.

I actively search for computer hardware, but rarely. Advertisements for that might catch my eyes, but car fuel and foods I buy are mostly determined by travel distance. My appetite is influenced to a small extent by what I see other people buy.

This is a pretty honest description. You might be saying, "You get more relevant advertising than you know, it's just soooo subtle. *smirk*". My answer to that is the images hit my eyes and the sounds are heard, but the only thing that results is my disinterest and/or irritation 99% of the time. The annoyance versus entertainment is already bad enough to make me avoid TV entirely, what's next? Do people have to go vigilante and start lighting marketing execs on fire, for you to take a hint? Or would that be seen as advertising to the death, by the exec, for brand X lighter fluid?

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically, this story is more about a revolution in branding than a revolution in software.

Right, I'm so glad that that they cleared that up and Open Source Software is not merely looked at $free everywhere outside the OSS blogosphere. So revolutionary. /yawn

"1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Rationale: By constraining the license to require free redistribution, we eliminate the temptation to throw away many long-term gains in order to make a few short-term sales dollars. If we didn't do this, there would be lots of pressure for cooperators to defect."

Emphasis mine. How does that not scare everyone? With a little responsibility, you can actually get PAID for work you do. Amazing. Or, you can work for free with no responsibility or obligations (end users _love_ that, BTW), to advance this cause. The cause of Open Source software. Does anyone else see the false dichotomy here? You can't sell or license Open Source software because it wouldn't be grass root enough, or what? Giving it away for free is a promotional gimmick.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[rick_campbell]

Public Domain. That's what those of us who argued against the GPL from the outset suggested.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[jackspenn]

You were using "free software". You're welcome.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[spun]

I recall seeing the term "open source" around long before Eric and Bruce tried to hijack the movement from Stallman.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[drinkypoo]

Yep, that's the oldest reference in "print" that I could find, too. It's too bad that so many of the web content of the time has vanished.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[drinkypoo]

They didn't even try to get the trademark. The first time they imagined it they should have done it, they might have succeeded. By the time they had the idea again it was far too late.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[harlows_monkeys]

Stallman writes and promotes "free software", not "open source". He considers the distinction very important. Calling what he does "open source" is probably as big an offense in his eyes as saying "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux".

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[Anonymous Coward]

And servers, web software, programming tools...

As the good ol' meme says, 'the list goes on'.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[Teancum]

Based upon my own experience and the environments that I have worked in, I generally find most FOSS software to be pretty good and generally good enough to get the job done, but often is lacking against the top software in its category.

After years of being tethered to MS-Windows, I finally made the leap a while ago to Ubuntu Linux. My experience is that it is about as stable as Windows '98 was for me all those years ago, and frankly that is pretty impressive for what is mostly an all-volunteer project. It does lack the final little bit of polish that I expect from professional operating systems and still doesn't hold a candle to very stable operating systems like VMS that I still use as the ultimate standard for a stable operating system. Perhaps that one is a bit unfair because it is comparing different things, but comparing Linux to Windows certainly is appropriate.

Yes, I get the "so fix it" issue around Linux, which is why I think I've purchased my last copy of Windows if I can help it, but my point is that there still are stability issues in the open source software including base issues with the stability of the applications under Linux. I've encountered the "blue screen of death" equivalent far too many times to simply dismiss the issue as something isolated to a single application.

A similar kind of issue comes with programs like Inkscape and GIMP, which are fine image manipulation tools, but seem to be just a few steps behind the major software packages like Photoshop. For casual use where you can't or really don't want to afford the software license for something like Photoshop, the other programs certainly are "good enough", but I don't know if I'd use them as a professional artist, and I don't know too many artists who are using them when I ask what software packages they are using.

In short, It isn't really so much "free-as-in-beer" free that is the issue, but if the thing works in the first place at all and will get the job done. Software like Apache certainly gets the job done, and if you are running a web server I think Linux with Apache and a strong database engine like PostgreSQL or MySQL certainly beats out any similar system with the same hardware.

The largest advantage I find to FOSS products in general is the end-of-life issues, where open source software often has at least somebody working to maintain the software unless the "market share" is so small that it is completely abandoned and not worth maintaining. More significantly, if there is a "mission critical" need to use some software or product, you can do your own maintenance if necessary or at least cheaply hire out the needed changes without having to go through nasty legal negotiations. Nothing is more frustrating to me than finding some piece of equipment that I am using where I need to either replace a driver or do something with the equipment to interface it with something else and then be told "sorry, but you have the old software and we can't support you anymore." That never happens with FOSS products, at least with my experience.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[dbIII]

The gimp problem has been that when they try to get graphic designers involved they've generally said things like "I'm not touching it until it is exactly like photoshop right down to the menu layout". There are better things to do than reverse engineer photoshop so we have a program that works for its original aims - simple graphics and graphics for web pages.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[BrokenHalo]

Yup, it doesn't work with the current firmware. :-{

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[Phil06]

Open Source is where you share your source code. Free Software is where you tell other people they should share their source code.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[WorBlux]

Of course, It's a loss leader, what you sell is support and writing code upgrades, sense that programmer knows the system inside and out, he can charge a lot more for his future work on the software once it is past beta. Redhat is now a billion dollar company. Y

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[WorBlux]

Liberware? Humaneware?

For closed software: Bend-over-and take-it-Ware?

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[commodore64_love]

If I'm switching from Microsoft Office or Media Player or IE -to- Openoffice or VLC or Firefox, then that's exactly what I'm doing:
  - Liberating both my software and myself. So I think "liberated software" makes sense versus "tyranny software" like MS operates to control/chain the user.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[Russ Nelson]

Hi, drinky. Still being an idiot after all these years. Yes, you can find a very small number of instances of "open source", but it wasn't widely used (as it is now), it didn't have an explicit definition (as it does now), and it didn't have a cadre of people dedicated to promoting it (as it does now; points at yours truly).

The fact that you hate Open Source; that you hate the OSI; cannot change the fact that we created Open Source as it is used now.

In short, STFU, stupid.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[drinkypoo]

Hi, drinky. Still being an idiot after all these years.

Yes, I see you're keeping the faith. Wait, you meant me? Grammar? You fail it. Irony intended.

Yes, you can find a very small number of instances of "open source", but it wasn't widely used (as it is now),

It wasn't as widely used as it is now? That's not a very good argument. The term "Open" was widely understood to mean more or less what it is understood to mean now, then. At least, people in my circles did. Perhaps it was different where you hung out; I grew up in Santa Cruz, which was a haven of new technical development and homes a school with what was at least then an excellent computer science program.

it didn't have an explicit definition (as it does now),

Since it has numerous definitions now, either despite or perhaps because of the OSI's efforts, this is another red herring.

and it didn't have a cadre of people dedicated to promoting it (as it does now; points at yours truly).

You mean, themselves.

The fact that you hate Open Source;

Actually, I have nothing against Open Source, and have repeatedly spoken against the idea that all software must be Free Software, although I do believe and have repeatedly stated that supporting non-Free software is working against your own interests. The problem is that it can also be working for your own interests. For example, every time I try to use an ATI card on Linux I cry. (Actually, every time I buy an ATI card for any purpose I realize it's like the "Taco Bell" syndrome, except I got over that one.) So I'm supporting binary-blob drivers by buying nVidia again and again, but I'm also getting working video. Clearly I understand pragmatism.

that you hate the OSI;

I despise its many despicable actions. I am glad beyond all accounting that the OSI did not choose to trademark "Open Source" when it had the opportunity, ironically because I don't want to see it taken away from the people.

cannot change the fact that we created Open Source as it is used now.

That is pure, canned bullshit. I appreciate your attempt to echo Al Gore for what it is (hamhanded at best, but still amusing) but the differences are numerous. The simple truth is that the term "Open" was understood to mean "practically interoperable through availability of information" and at the time the right to engage in reverse engineering was not in question; if you didn't want to be reverse-engineered you applied for a patent. Even today the DMCA explicitly guarantees the right to reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability, so even in one of our most restrictive pieces of IP legislation the concept of Openness of technology is positively enshrined.

In short, STFU, stupid.

If you just wanted to prove that you can be as rude and dickish as I can be when irked, then you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble and just posted this last part, instead of proving that you are more interested in propaganda than fact. If you're one of Open Source's most athletic supporters, then it's in trouble.

Thank you for this opportunity! Honestly, it's nothing I expected. Perhaps you should see your health care provider about your current dosages.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[jon3k]

Linux was only as stable as Windows 98? Wow. Troll of the century. What exactly is the linux equivilent of a blue screen? A kernel panic? Maybe you forget how bad windows 98 was, but using it for a couple of days without rebooting and it not crashing was basically a miracle.

Re:Yeah, 12 years since the hucksters came

[Teancum]

The Linux equivalent was the computer freezing up, capturing the mouse, and doing all sort of weird things to me that wouldn't happen under even Win 2k. Applications weren't isolated from one another and some other weird artifacts. Perhaps the fault of the GUI instead of the kernel, but still it is a problem related to the operating system. I admit it wasn't bleeding edge system I was using as I could have used a fair bit more RAM and some other things to help mitigate some of the problem I faced, but I am calling it like I see it.

No, I don't forget how bad Windows 98 was, and how Win 98 really was an improvement over Win 95, which itself was a fairly decent improvement over Win 3.1. The really horrible operating system was Windows version 2, and how Microsoft got past that one I still don't know.

There still are some rough edges that need to be pounded out of Linux, which is my point. Millions of people purchased Windows 98, including even in commercial production software studios. I might even put at least the version of Ubuntu Linux I'm using at a grade above Windows 98, but still inferior to Windows 2000. BTW, I rank Windows XP and Vista to be inferior to Windows 2000 in terms of quality, so that is to me a pretty high bar to pass. Windows 7 appears to be a better operating system than Win 2k Pro, but dang if it didn't take Microsoft long enough to get there and Linux has been able to do nearly the same on a minor fraction of the budget that Microsoft took to do the same, even if you count hours spent by volunteers to develop Linux as "in-kind" donations.

Where Linux has a huge advantage for me, however, is the fact that the source code for nearly everything I do on it is freely available and that I can tweak the things that go boom in the night, particularly if it only impacts the particular set-up of computer hardware that I happen to be using. Software freedom is the much bigger deal, and the fact that I don't feel like slime every time I get presented with EULA's that I have to "agree" to when I install the software. I have no problem in agreeing to the terms of the GPL, particularly in contrast to Microsoft's EULA. I can also rip the guts out of any "digital rights management" and other malware introduced by the main-line operating system if I don't like it.

Don't get me wrong, there are things I like about Linux that make it way better than Windows, but I am saying that some attention needs to be paid on increasing the stability, particularly for the GUI applications. It does leave me wanting at the moment. I can't run my Linux laptop for more than about two days without rebooting, something I currently find a bit sad as it is claimed to be doing much better. When running Linux in terminal mode that certainly isn't a problem, but then again I'm not using it in terminal mode either.

Try more like 27 years

[Anonymous Coward]

The GNU Project, started in 1983 by Richard Stallman, had the goal of creating a "complete Unix-compatible software system" composed entirely of free software.

And all that took is a basic Google search. Either call the article "Open Source Initiative after 12 years" or don't bother writing summaries anymore because this one is just flat out wrong.

Re:Try more like 27 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman would eat your keyboard if he saw you describing GNU as Open Source.

Re:Try more like 27 years

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Stallman would eat your keyboard if he saw you describing GNU as Open Source.

Even more reason to do it. And don't forget to call the entire operating system Linux while you're at it.

Re:Try more like 27 years

[Oriumpor]

Stallman Eats his Keyboard, sounds like a few million hits on Youtube.

Re:Try more like 27 years

[kthreadd]

Last time I checked YouTube used Linux servers, therefore, GNU/YouTube to be exact.

Re:Try more like 27 years

[gmhowell]

Unless he found something tastier between his toes.

thank bill gates for OSS success

[alen]

tens of millions of devices run ^nix only because in the 1990s MS screwed up with IE and Windows 2000/2003 and tried to push everything into the kernel. as the mobile device market was just being born then, the manufacturers turned to ^nix because it was so modular and you could grab small bits and pieces for your product.

Windows is still used on desktops and laptops but look around you and everything runs ^nix

Re:thank bill gates for OSS success

[jedidiah]

Thank Bill Gates for making crap?

I'd rather not. I would rather just be free to use something better.

It doesn't even have to be Free Software really. Although Free Software is almost the only thing that can resist a monopoly.

Re:thank bill gates for OSS success

[dkleinsc]

Windows is still used on desktops and laptops but look around you and everything runs ^nix

The thing that OSS contributed, though, was that the ^nix that was being run on all these things was freely distributed and pulling in the best ideas from every person or organization willing to contribute, rather than some devices running AIX with all the stuff IBM's engineers had thought of, while some other devices were running Solaris with all the stuff Sun's engineers had thought of, while still others were running SCO Unix with all the stuff old-school SCO had thought of, etc.

Re:thank bill gates for OSS success

[Hammer]

I was not just that they screwed up IE and Windows...
The fact that it was screwed up and expensive was the real reason that ^nix and OSS caught on. Much of the free stuff was just as screwed up in the early 90-ties...

Re:thank bill gates for OSS success

[alen]

but what the last 10 years have shown us is that even free has a cost. most of Apple's products are based on OSS software and yet apple still spends a lot of money on product development. same with HTC, Moto, the old Linksys and others. unless you want to be a brand X wifi router seller making the cheapest product you have to extend the original code and that costs a lot of money.

where MS screwed up is that back in the days when the linux kernel was 8MB the Windows kernel was something like 10 times that. flash was expensive back then and this is why mobile devices went ^nix. if MS had a similar sized kernel then it would have been cheaper to just license Windows and all mobile devices would be running Windows. you'd have to pay MS but there would be no dev costs like you have with android phones and you just sell a product

What I wish for in the Open Source world

[h00manist]

First, I wish there were more people in organizing, coordination, mediating disputes. Like any human activity, too much time is wasted due to disputes and/or insuficcient coordination. Projects are abandoned, good people get frustrated, tired, upset, split, and end up duplicating efforts. I don't know of any group coordinating growth strategies, recommending methods to talk to new enthusiasts, how to *better* explain the ideas to new people, how to help people with common questions effectively, not just supplying a convincing answer, but actually resolving, or if not possible, taking note of the issues, and where to take them for proper addressing.
Second, I wish there were more encouraging, funding, advocacy, promoting and educating strategies. Funding, especially, seems to suffer from old models. The Humble Indie Bundle strategy, Summer of Code, and bounties seem like innovative ideas that are working.

For example, the main competition for open-source actually seems to be pirate-ware. People always consider open-source when faced with actually paying for software. What strategy should open-source take with this? None? Open standards, as well as standards in general, seem to greatly help open source. How can projects better incorporate them? I guess I'm saying more studies of strategies, and recommended guidelines for developers and users, seem like they could help a great deal.

Re:What I wish for in the Open Source world

[jejones]

Good point. I recall long ago in high school state history being told that Governor Edmonson put an end to Prohibition in Oklahoma... by enforcing it. How can we put an end to the strategy of turning a blind eye to piracy until the target population is hooked?

Re:What I wish for in the Open Source world

[bzipitidoo]

I think the business model has been and still is the biggest problem. How do you earn a living doing open source software? Solve that, and all the rest of those problems are as good as solved.

Sure, we have Red Hat going with the "Software As A Service" model, and grudgingly supporting their red headed stepchild, Fedora. And the "Ad Supported" model of which Google is the current king. Sun's approach was the "Loss Leader" method, for where the real money was: hardware sales. And of course the pretend-its-a-physical-good model and sue and slander everyone who won't play along as pirates, as the music industry, MS, and many others have done. And I suppose RMS's model which really is the "Free Beer" model-- they'll just figure out the icky details of pay later. Apple's way would seem to be Rent Seeking with Style-- rebrand Free BSD, add lipstick, and sell it. Then there's Patronage, government or private, which isn't too common. Perhaps Ubuntu is the best example of that. Arranging government patronage is politically difficult in the US-- about the only way it can be done is as part of a military or security effort, and it certainly can't be called patronage, or the deficit hawks will rip it apart. Otherwise it has to be private. University supported is another messy way.

None of these models are entirely satisfying. We need more software engineering than we have, do we not? If so, then all these models together are failing to deliver enough software engineering to achieve our goals.

Re:What I wish for in the Open Source world

[Kjella]

To put it bluntly, it's a bazaar not a commune. For the most part people don't pool their time, take consensus on what the community wants and turn that into an overall plan and direction for the project. It's more that every individual works on what they want - or in the case of employed people, what their employers want - and where the project is going is simply the sum of where the individuals are taking it. That you often have a project leader or core group does not really mean they have much authority to speak on behalf of all the contributors, they're usually free to work on something else or not at all or to continue to voice their dissent. Every time people try talking behalf on everyone it ends up with a lot of "That is not what I want" and "That is not how I want to do it", you can't communicate consensus when there is no consensus. You just live with the disputes until they're so bad things start forking off.

For example, the main competition for open-source actually seems to be pirate-ware. People always consider open-source when faced with actually paying for software. What strategy should open-source take with this? None?

Pretty much. Pirates typically pirate top-of-the-line versions since they're not paying anyway, which makes the feature gap pretty big. It's important that free software is there if you look at the legal alternatives, but OSS isn't going to compete with a "free" Adobe CS5 Master Collection any time soon. The Humble Indie Bundle won't compete with a PC loaded with pirated AAA games. At best you can try positioning yourself to say it's free and legal to try, you can always change your mind and get something else later. That may work for say OpenOffice and maybe a few more, but I don't think you'll see many switching anyway.

Re:What I wish for in the Open Source world

[serviscope_minor]

You seem to have missed one of the major sources of fuding, if not the most major source. People and businesses want the softwarefor some reason, so they work on it or pay others to work on it. See e.g. IBM.

Re:What I wish for in the Open Source world

[Ash-Fox]

You seem to have missed one of the major sources of fuding, if not the most major source. People and businesses want the softwarefor some reason, so they work on it or pay others to work on it. See e.g. IBM.

I was unable to make a business plan work when it came to software like games. When it came to games, people generally won't pay for support for games, so the support model does not work in this instance. Trying the whole sell GPL-licensed software didn't work out, because people just gave away copies to their friends and didn't care enough to buy the original from the original maker. Donationware wasn't a very workable model either. Perhaps you can suggest a better method when it comes to content like games which is compatible with licensing like GPL?

Re:What I wish for in the Open Source world

[Anonymous Coward]

Business plans are not one size fits all. Games probably need different business plans than a web server, for example.

One way that development of Free Software can be funded is that an organization that uses a particular Free Software program (one organization of many that are using the program) finds that there is something they want it to do that it does not yet do, and they assign some of their own programmers to add that feature to the program (or pay someone to do that for them) and contribute that new code to the project maintaining the program. The organization that paid for the enhancement benefits, since they felt they needed the enhancement. Other users who could use the enhancement benefit without spending anything. When those other users fund other enhancements, this user benefits from that other work without spending anything for it. For N active user/developer organizations, each organization gets about N times the bang for their buck. Of course there are freeloaders who benefit but don't contribute, but that doesn't take away the benefit the active group gets.

This is how a lot of Linux kernel development is funded. I believe this is how a lot of Apache development was funded (and maybe still is). It is not the only way to do it, but it is a good fit for a project that is used by many large organizations. I believe there are lots of potential Free Software projects that could be funded this way, if only a critical mass of using organizations would recognize the benefits they would gain by cooperating in development of a particular Free Software program.

Not all Free Software project could be funded this way, but that's okay. They do not all have to work the same way. Some relatively small projects can be done quite successfully with unpaid hobby contributors. Others that are mostly of interest to individual users, not to large organizations, might be funded in small steps using something like Kickstarter. I'm sure there are many other ways. We will find them, in time. Slow and steady (or even slow and uneven) can win the race in the long run, and I think that is what will happen in the long run with Free Software. There probably always will be some proprietary products around, but I think their number will diminish quite a bit in the future.

Re:What I wish for in the Open Source world

[Anonymous Coward]

To put it bluntly, it's a bazaar not a commune.

Exactly right. Freedom is messy, with loud disagreements, inefficiencies, and often doesn't make sense. Centrally-planned efforts look clean and rational, and all too often fail to produce a useful result. They can even seem to be successful for a while, but often break down in the end.

Freedom gives the better results in the long run.

Re:What I wish for in the Open Source world

[Ash-Fox]

Business plans are not one size fits all. Games probably need different business plans than a web server, for example.

Reiterating what I essentially said.

So far, from what I can tell. All the suggestions given don't really work for games.

Re:What I wish for in the Open Source world

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I wasn't really trying to suggest a particular method that would work for games, plus there probably is not just one method that would be appropriate for games. I was just pointing out that there are many approaches, and I meant that to imply that there probably are still other ways that could work for at least some games.

Actually, the approach of using Kickstarter or something similar has worked for funding development of some creative works, if I remember correctly. So it has at least some potential for working for funding development of a game, assuming the folks proposing the project have a good reputation from a previous game which potential contributors can use to persuade themselves that supporting the project might be worthwhile and which the folks proposing the project can use to raise awareness of the proposed project.

I don't mean that the Kickstarter approach is the only or best way, just that it is a plausible approach that has worked for development of some other creative works that are at least somewhat similar. Mike over at Techdirt discusses issues about how artists can make a living in an environment where their work gets shared freely. The possibilities abound, and new ideas are constantly being tried. Not all of the ideas work for every artist. Each has to experiment until they hit on something that works for their unique situation.

12 years later...

[jonathancarter]

12 years later, and people are still confused between what Free Software, Open Source and FLOSS means. The movement seems to have had added more confusion than what they tried to solve. I wouldn't really call that much of a success. Also, the OSI haven't really done much more than set up some definitions and approve some licenses. While that in itself can be quite valuable, they seem to get a lot of credit for things they had absolutely no part of.

Closed Source is a newer thing

[Ant P.]

Open source code wasn't originally a feature, it was taken for granted. The perverse idea of "proprietary" software only gained a foothold much, much later.

Re:Closed Source is a newer thing

[illumin888]

This is actually a really important distinction. The whole Free Software movement was not a new revolution... it was an attempt to recover what was being lost and corrupted by greed.

WELL WE USED TO PUBLIC DOMAIN THINGS !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, with all the ego and bluster afull, it's 'open sores' or whatever.

Public domain is the ONLY FREE software. PERIOD !!

Go cry over your feelings elseehwere !! This is slashdot, where only real men (and some real, realy ugly chicks) are. OK, there are no ugly chicks on slashdot. There ARE NO CHCKS AT ALL on slashdot. There, fixed it before you !!

Then don't listen to NPR

[LWATCDR]

The other day NPR stated that "Even North Carolina where the first shots of the Civil War where fired".....
It was South Carolina....
Yea when they can not get even get history at the level of a third grader right you do have to wonder.

Re:Then don't listen to NPR

[Mongoose Disciple]

Yea when they can not get even get history at the level of a third grader right you do have to wonder.

Where's there a third grade that covers the Civil War in that level of detail?

And really, who can tell the Carolinas apart? :P

Re:Then don't listen to NPR

[LWATCDR]

Florida.
I mean really Fort Sumter? The place that Civil war started?

Re:Then don't listen to NPR

[gmhowell]

What show? All NPR, like all OSS, is not alike.

Re:Then don't listen to NPR

[LWATCDR]

one of there news briefs. Frankly it was just an error but rather disappointing from any news service. I found it very disappointing for NPR as I expect more from them.

Re:Then don't listen to NPR

[Anonymous Coward]

> I expect more from them.

Such as the differences between THERE and THEIR, WERE and WHERE?

Read your postings.

So. Very. Wrong. Must look to gcc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman started gcc 20+ years ago. Witout that and his GPL, this "movement" wouldn't exist.

Reminds me of a story from "Soul of a New Machine"

[david.emery]

You know, the one about the Data General ad in response to the press release how IBM "legitimizes the minicomputer", that said "The bastards say welcome..."

I give Perens & Raymond a lot of credit for 'legitimizing' the term, but certainly the concepts and the execution had been going on MUCH longer than "the last 12 years."

A lot of government contracts in the '70s and early '80s (and probably before that) came with source code and you could grab lots of it over Arpanet/early Internet if you had access. What I think Richard Stallman did was promote the -economic philosophy- that you should (a) always get source code ("free beer"); (b) have the right to modify that source code and redistribute the results ("free speech").

So we need to keep a couple of things straight:
      1. 'access to source'
      2. 'free (as in beer) software'
      3. 'free (as in speech) modification and redistribution of software'
      4. 'community development/maintenance'
These are usually combined into the term "open source", but they are 4 distinct aspects of that term.

Way back when

[rossdee]

I don't know how long ago open source software came to the PC , but in 1986 I was using an Amiga and there was free software with source code included on the "Fish Disks" library.

Re:Way back when

[Frankie70]

Even on the PC, I had Nibbles with QBasic source code on MS DOS before I had ever heard of Stallman.

Re:Way back when

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but you didn't have a term for it and a little mascot. So now these new kids think they've done something revolutionary when the fact is that there has always been open source software.

I guess some people need a cause to lean on.

Free sharing far pre-dates RMS

[toby]

RMS ignited the modern revolutionary era of free software with his extraordinary legal invention, the GPL - but anyone informed in this area knows that the idea of freely sharing source code, for many of the same benefits underlined in the GPL and open source licenses, dates back at least to the 1950s and IBM SHARE.

Re:Free sharing far pre-dates RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS ignited the modern revolutionary era of free software with his extraordinary legal invention, the GPL - but anyone informed in this area knows that the idea of freely sharing source code, for many of the same benefits underlined in the GPL and open source licenses, dates back at least to the 1950s and IBM SHARE.

AFAIK, RMS wrote the GPL because this idea of sharing started to get eroded in the '80s (at least to RMS' eyes).

He saw more and more code being locked up (where previous it was shared), and the GPL was a mechanism to ensure that it stayed open.

Re:Free sharing far pre-dates RMS

[slyguy135]

The catalyst was actually The Copyright Act of 1976 which brought software under the copyright regime, and Stallman's travails at the AI Lab at MIT with Symbolics. A good source is the well-written and fascinating http://www.faifzilla.org/, and particularly Chapter 9 (http://www.faifzilla.org/ch09.html).

Re:Free sharing far pre-dates RMS

[orasio]

RMS ignited the modern revolutionary era of free software with his extraordinary legal invention, the GPL - but anyone informed in this area knows that the idea of freely sharing source code, for many of the same benefits underlined in the GPL and open source licenses, dates back at least to the 1950s and IBM SHARE.

Well, RMS says so in every talk he can. He talks about a beautiful world in which you could fix the software you worked with. Then, some crazy company came with an NDA in order to give the source code, and free software was born.

Actually OpenSource was coined back ...

[Super Dave Osbourne]

in the early 90s by a fella named Matt Moran in Denver (student in from Fort Collins). He along with others like Chris Miner were NeXT consultants and started an open source company called of all things OpenSource.com. This company quickly went out of business due to Matt's terrible business plan and poor leadership skills. Others came and went in the company and as we know NeXT changed its business plans monthly, as a result nobody was able to figure out if the Steve Jobs Bukkake was coming or going. So, OpenSource was 'coined' a long long long time before the seven claimed it was.

Rosen book and usage of open source term

[joneshenry]

On page 4 of Kenneth H. Rosen, Richard R. Rosinski, James M. Farber, and Douglas A. Host, UNIX System V Release 4: An Introduction, 2nd Edition, the subsection titled "Open Source Code" has the following first two sentences:

"The source code for the UNIX System, and not just the executable code, has been made available to users and programmers. Because of this, many people have been able to adapt the UNIX System in different ways. This openness has led to the introduction of a wide range of new features and versions customized to meet special needs."

The book by Rosen et al. cited above is has year of copyright 1996. There is apparently an earlier edition from 1990. This is no ordinary book by obscure authors--it was considered as one of the "bibles" for its subject at its time and would have been familiar to many. Already in the above description there are the crucial concepts of the importance of source code availability and adaptability.

25 years ago Bill Joy used the term Open Source

[rick_campbell]

25 years ago, this issue of Computer Chronicle quoted Bill Joy (at the 13:53 mark) saying that "Open Source" is one reason reason that Unix "will be popular with scientists and engineer for some time."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-167233195342018803&q=computer+chronicles#

Re:So. Very. Wrong. Must look to gcc.

[rick_campbell]

He used to emacs (older open source, also largely due to rms' efforts) to begin that gcc project.

But many people would prefer that the GPL never existed, favoring less restriction, e. g. BSD style or outright Public Domain. Scott Fahlman, who's CMU Common Lisp was developed in the Public Domain said that it was RMS who convinced him to do it . . . and who later circled back to try to get CMUCL to use the restrictive GPL. Fortunately, saner heads prevailed and the vast majority of the CMUCL code base is in the Public Domain and still under active development today.

Oracle is not a superpower

[aeoo]

Today, open source is mainstream, with original believers such as Red Hat worth billions and superpowers such as Oracle buying in.

Can we please chill with the rhetoric? Oracle is not a superpower, for fuck's sake. Secondly, Oracle's relationship with open source is not entirely clear. Oracle currently seems to be at odds with at least some open source initiatives. So I wouldn't be saying that Oracle is "buying in" if I were in your place.

You're kidding

[Bruce Perens]

Free Software licenses and Open Source licenses are the same licenses to this day. RMS has always accepted BSD as a free software license. There are some licenses that are not GPL-compatible but still considered to be Free.

Nudging users to open source - by themselves.

[h00manist]

Maybe the question should be, with 12 years of open source branding, and with well-marketed products like Ubuntu, why have we not advanced further?

Yes, I think that's the question, and it needs attention. Open source is great - so why isn't it advancing faster? Netbooks were a great opportunity, as well as low-cost boxes with Linux preinstalled to reduce costs, to reach Joe User.

1) I remember lots of people asking me to isntall XP on their preinstalled Linux box. (It broke my heart - but it was my job.) These people knew they wanted windows - and they didn't even know what an OS was! Why? I asked them. "I tried to install X program, and I couldn't, so I called Joey, then Peter then Nacho who know computers, and they all told me I need this Windows thing so I'm tired and getting it."
Lesson learned. People are set in their ways. They are used to their old software, their old ways, plus their training knowledge of their software. Heck - I myself know some Word and Excel, but not OpenOffice. Windows runs these programs, installs this way, has these interfaces, Linux works quite different, or just can't run the stuff. Often these programs were simple, but they wanted *that* program, not a equivalent one. Msn messenger, Office, MS Paint, some game. Lesson learned.

2) I wanted to run Aircrack. It only really ran on Linux. I didn't have a Linux box, or any Linux people around. I kept looking for a way to run on Windows. Finally, I found BackTrack. Heck, I finally downloaded and ran Linux at work and at home. I was using it every day. Why? Because there was software I needed which only ran on Linux. I had to run Linux, period. I used a lot of open source software, but always on Windows. Why? Because I could. There was a Windows version. I didn't have to switch to another OS, partition, reboot, figure it out, etc. I already knew windows, it was running already, there is a Windows version, I'll use it and be done with it. Lesson learned. People use the software to solve their problems fast, and if switching to another OS takes longer than using a version for their OS, they most likely won't switch. So switching to your open-source OS, installing it, has to be fast. Very fast. I think Ubuntu Wubi was the best thing ever. Heck I think Wubi should install any Linux distro you want.

3) People come to me, or walk around, looking for a CD to install Windows, Office, Autocad, whatever. There are people selling these pirate software cd's everwhere. People are going nuts installing USD$10,000 worth of software on their computer, and spending about $10 in blank cd's. Talk about paying for it, and suddenly they start looking for "free" alternatives, and soon learn about the ideas of open source. So, "free" pirate-ware is actually promoting commercial software, and beating and competing with free, open source, software.

4) Look for software to solve a problem, and you'll find lots of Windows versions, both free and payware. Very few Linux solutions. Developers are creating free Windows software, and giving it away! Why? Well, they most likely use Windows. Their friends and clients too. They want to solve problems for themselves, their friends, clients, and everyone. Whether it's for sale, or free, they are making software for the OS they and most people run. So there's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. But they don't usually consider making it open-source, even if they don't even plan to sell it. So there's a cultural problem too. Compilers could to made that offer to automatically post the code online. But none of them do. Online culture is still growing. 5) Booting an OS usually requires a CD, or a hard drive. Where to get a CD? With someone who already has one, who will give you what he already has. You can't get a os-free computer to boot from a website and install an OS, which would encourage them to run whatever software they find online. The boot sector is taken up be an OS, that monopolizes it. Once that boot sector is the

It's a beautiful thing though

[Anonymous Coward]

Just off the top of my head, it gives a lot of potential without the overhead or up-front cost of commercial software. And to me, that's a beautiful thing.

I can get an OS (Various flavors of Linux)

I can get an Office Suite (Open Office)

I can get a decent selection of browsers, media players, and email clients.

I can get 3D rendering software (Blender) and 3D modeling software (Wings3D).

I can get 2D image manipulation software (GIMP, Inkscape).

I can get desktop publishing software (Scribus).

I can get audio editing software (Audacity)...

And I can even get music making software (Ardour and LMMS).

I just wish that some would become a little more user friendly. (Gimp & Blender) They are making progress in that regard, so I must exercise some patience. Most of the other open source is quite user friendly though to the point where you don't even need to read a FAQ or other documentation. (Ubuntu, Open Office, Wings3D, and LMMS) And there are times where I wish the music software side had more developers since the progress seems to move at a glacial pace compared to the OS and graphics software. Not that the quality is bad or capability lacking, it's just that there are so many areas left unpolished compared to their commercial counterparts. (Clean up the rough spots to make workflow 10x faster, and there'd be little or no point in spending money on that type of software.)

The only area I find sparse is gaming, which keeps me on Windows. Either the games themselves feel unfinished and too quirky, or the nicer ones just lack much in the way of content such that you could play through the whole thing in about 3hrs.

Most GitHub repositories are NOT open source!

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing the article mentions is "1.49 million projects at GitHub", however GitHub does not require people to select a license like other forge sites do. Consequently, the vast majority of repositories on GitHub do not have any license specified! Regardless of whether code is public, if a license is not explicitly specified then the code is simply copyrighted and does not qualify as open source.

ugg boots clearance first taken up

[Anonymous Coward]

Harry grunted in his sleep and his face slid down the window an inch or so, UGG Boots Clearance making his glasses still more lopsided, but he did not wake up. An alarm clock, repaired by Harry several years ago, ticked loudly on the sill, showing one minute to eleven. Beside it, held in place by Harry's relaxed hand, was a piece of parchment covered in thin, slanting writing. Harry had read this letter so often since its arrival three days ago that although it had been delivered in a tightly furled scroll, it now lay quite flat.

Dear Harry,

If it is convenient to you, I shall call at number four,UGG Boots Clearance Privet Drive this coming Friday at eleven p.m. to escort you to the Burrow, where you have been invited to spend the remainder of your school holidays.

If you are agreeable, I should also be glad of your assistance in a matter to which I hope to attend on the way to the Burrow. I shall explain this more fully when I see you.

Kindly send your answer by return of this owl. Hoping to see you this Friday,

I am yours most sincerely,

Albus Dumbledore

Though he already knew it by heart, Harry had been stealing glances at this missive every few minutes since seven o'clock that evening, when he had first taken up his position beside his bedroom window, which had a reasonable view of both ends of Privet Drive. He knew it was pointless to keep rereading Dumbledore's words; Harry had sent back his “yes” with the delivering owl, as requested, and all he could do now was wait: either Dumbledore was going to come, or he was not.

Re:You were using free software

[tal_mud]

GPL v1 goes back to 1989, so free as in Libre clearly existed way before the "open source" branding. Of course in actuallity RMS was pushing free as in Libre *way* before GPL v1

Commenting on something YOU said Mr. Perens

[Anonymous Coward]

2 of the BEST things I have ever seen posted on /., came from you:

"I have been offered the online-perception-management services I'm talking about while managing at HP and Sourcelabs. If you are not aware of companys concern for their online perception and what they do about it, and won't take my word for it, there isn't much point in arguing about it with you." - by Bruce Perens (3872) on Friday July 30, @09:27PM (#33092398) Homepage Journal

SOURCE -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1738364&cid=33092398

and

"It just takes one Ubuntu sympathizer or PR flack to minus-moderate any comment. Unfortunately, once PR agencies and so on started paying people to moderate online communities, and to have hundreds of accounts each, things changed." - by Bruce Perens (3872) on Friday July 30, @03:55PM (#33089192) Homepage Journal

SOURCE -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1738364&cid=33089192

---

It took a lot of courage on your part I feel, to post that on your part, and imo @ least? It makes you an HONEST man who isn't afraid to speak his mind, & the truth, in the same set of sentences...

APK

P.S.=> Mod me down off topic on this one, I could care less (as I don't have "karma points" as an AC poster), I just wanted to speak MY mind in regards to what Mr. Perens has posted here in the past... I am in total agreement with it, because it's just reflecting what goes on in say, politics (with "lobbyists" & what-not)... apk