Slashdot Mirror
The State of Open Source Software
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Peter Wayner provides an in-depth look at the state of open source software and an overview of the best open source software of the year. 'It's easy to find hundreds of other positive signs of open source domination. If the mere existence of a tar file filled with code from the nether regions of a beeping device that's buried deep inside someone's pocket is all you need to feel warm and fuzzy about "open source," you might conclude that open source development is the most dominant form in the increasingly dominant platform of the future,' Wayner writes. 'But anyone who digs a bit deeper will find it's not so simple. Although the open source label is more and more ubiquitous, society is still a long way from Richard Stallman's vision of a world where anyone could reprogram anything at any time. Patents, copyrights, and corporate intrigue are bigger issues than ever for the community, and more and more people are finding that the words "open source" are no guarantee of the freedom to tinker and improve. Some cynics even suggest that the bright, open future is receding as Linux and other open source tools grow more dominant.' Included in the writeup are the best open source applications, best open source desktop and mobile offerings, best open source development tools, and best open source software for datacenters and the cloud."
InfoWorld promotion has been going on for a long time in slashdot, but seriously now. Milking for link juice and keywords like "best open source applications" and "best open source development tools" straight in the summary? Hooray, SEO spam.
Android is supposed to be open source, but they keep the source codes unreleased for months, you can't actually run your own source on the devices easily and actually making any contributions is almost impossible. All while they claim it's open source to win geeks and other companies support, while said companies also danger themselves in patent lawsuits (which Google nicely "forgets" to tell)
As J. Gruber of Daring Fireball points out, Google doesn't do open source as we would expect. An internal Google memo on Android development clearly states their policy:
This is not how open source is supposed to work. Open source doesn't mean "closed until we decide to make it open". Open source doesn't mean "closed until we and our partners can profit."
VLC, but no ffmpeg, x.264 or MPC-HC? Especially ffmpeg, given that VLCs decoders come from libavcodec.
Among the six links to infoworld.com are 6 + 5 + 8 + 13 + 11 + 8 = a total of 51 pages. I'll forgive people for not reading through the whole article. For me, the problem with a lot of pages isn't having to click next, next, next, as much as that I can't Ctrl+F to find a particular application or genre in the article.
All you really need to extinguish the warm-and-fuzzies is a stiff dose of the fact that an alarming number of the present and upcoming SoC designs at least optionally include pretty aggressive Tivoization features, opaque black-box functions handled by cryptographically verified and non-replaceable firmware blobs, and not infrequently a driver or two that isn't available in source form and makes keeping the kernel current rather tricky...
You can have all the open source you want; but if you can only run it on x86 whiteboxes and select dev boards, you still have a problem.
I love mobile as much as the next person, but for the love of the programming, can people please separate Desktop and Mobile ?!
As I sit here on a Ubuntu workstation, accessing this site with Chrome, with another open window sporting Firefox, I have to ponder if open source is really as ubiquitous as people think.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
It does seem to be pretty common for people to apply the term "open source" to things that aren't. For example, when Schwarzenegger was governor of California, he started a Free Digital Textbook Initiative. I went to a symposium set up by the state about this initiative. Many people at the meeting used "open source" correctly to describe their books. E.g., the book's LaTeX source code was freely available, and the book was under a CC-BY-SA license. But Pearson, a big commercial textbook publisher, sent a representative, who talked about how Pearson was doing books that were "open source." Actually their sole free offering was a consumable biology workbook that was available as a free PDF download. But they heard everyone else saying "open source," and it sounded like good pixie dust, so they started using the term.
Find free books.
Although the open source label is more and more ubiquitous, society is still a long way from Richard Stallman's vision of a world where anyone could reprogram anything at any time. -1 for mentioning open-source and RMS in the same sentence.
My blog
a world where anyone could reprogram anything at any time.
Isn't that more the goal of Free Software (particularly given the changes in the GPL with v3) than Open Source?
Or one could read the contrast another way: "Although the 'open source' label is more and more ubiquitous, society is still a long way from a 'free software' mentality."
The new Hotness is developing closed layers on Open Source shells.
Companies save 7 years on core concept development, but then they slam you for anything that looks like a rectangle with a home button in patent court.
Google is doing the same thing - Android is "sorta open" but seriously no company has the cash to fight them for the 5 years it takes to begin to get noticed.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Imagine you have a customer that is part of a contract that you just won but you have to find/deliver/develop a user interface of some sort for the customer to interact with their daily needs. On the backend you have a database, some other stuff and this and that that will interact with the GUI. Do you write your own GUI using WCF? Do you use QT which is free to distribute commercially?(all you have to do is include the dll/jar/whatever). Do you write your own?
No of course not. Why would anyone want to do that? How about let's go with a piece of crap software that makes a crappy GUI, with VB code running in the background, no documentation online to speak of, only runs on windows(of course), is buggy and the only interaction the "developers" have with this tool is to drag and drop. If a problem occurs, if you need a change in the software then you have to wait on said company to deliver... not to mention that that is extra money to add said feature(s). So what happens when someone else comes onto the project? They have been coding in C#/Java/C++/whatever language forever but it takes them 4 weeks to become even somewhat productive because this tool is so confusing and openly with question was built so that people could use it without doing any programming.
You cannot blame this piece of software for what it is. If it is built so the average joe can use it without programming a single line of code then so be it. You CAN however blame the ignoramous that fell for the hook line and sinker selling pitch on why we should be using said software because using another library or writing your own code would be too "expensive". Never mind the fact that you are totally and utterly dependent on said company to deliver knowledge and answers to questions about software so you fall behind schedule, nevermind that a new "developer" wastes 4 weeks of his or her time learning their way around a GUI instead of actually spending at most a couple of days learning about the software design and nevermind that the GUI is so horribly put together that is doesn't make sense for a coder. Nevermind the fact that the license for this software cost an unknown amount.
Management doesn;t seem to care/notice/know about options that are available and is so short sighted that he would make a decision that would make a team of "developers" want to just get up and leave. People who are management/approve contracts should NEVER make those decisions if he/she has not and/or is not a developer without at least putting together a team of real developers who are going to be working on it.
Open source software would be much further along if developers were allowed to be developers instead of put behind a management sandbox.
Businesses hate competition.
Open source promotes open competition.
Hence businesses hate open source.
Is it difficult to understand?
Most of the Linux kernel development is supported by the hardware companies. The kernel developers may be coveted by these chip manufacturers who want to be sure that they can keep some of the Linux market, but the developers are nothing more than mercenaries.
Priceless. :)
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Good to hear. Go Open Source!