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."

Comments

InfoWorld and Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Google's idea of open source isn't right

[jmcbain]

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:

• Do not develop in the open. Instead, make source code available after innovation is complete
• Lead device concept: Give early access to the software to partners who build and distribute devices to our specification (ie [sic], Motorola and Verizon). They get a non-contractual time to market advantage and in return they align to our standard.

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."

Re:Google's idea of open source isn't right

[inhuman_4]

I always thought opensource meant the user gets access to the code , not just the binary. IMHO there is nothing wrong with google keeping the code under wraps while its under development. As long as the user can get the code when the device is released I dont see the problem. What is going on with honeycomb where they release the device but not the code I am unimpressed with.

Re:Google's idea of open source isn't right

[kangsterizer]

Your argument is correct but not precise enough and you'll get attacked by some g-drones ^^

What is meant to be said here, is that Google _ALREADY_ released the product and did _NOT_ open-source it. That's HoneyComb and it's been out for quite a while.
Basically, it's like saying ID software games are all open-source cause they open source the engine like 5 too 8 years later. Aka bullshit. (note: ID software is actually honest and very clear about their practice and I can only acclaim their behavior - Google instead uses that as marketing weapon)

Then there's the opensource "spirit". The RMS opensource. The open source that has _also_ open development behind. The open source like Mozilla does, for instance, where nearly everything is open and anyone can just come in and chime. The open source like the Linux kernel does. That's proper open-source.
Call it what you want.

Re:Google's idea of open source isn't right

[Microlith]

This is not how open source is supposed to work.

It's not how Free Software works, for sure. It's also not how community projects work. It's how insular, isolated projects with a strongly expressed NIH syndrome work.

Android is not Open Source though. The AOSP is. The AOSP is the offal of the Android project that Google used to draw in fans of open source, Free Software, and Linux. And yet at the height of Android's popularity they proceeded to leave the AOSP and community out of Honeycomb, and we have no idea whatsoever they'll do with Ice Cream Sandwich when it comes out on devices.

This is one reason that I shudder when people suggest that Android should be the basis for a desktop Linux, to the exclusion of all the other infrastructure not controlled by Google that, lacking any major architectural flaws, needs good usage testing and a designer's eye.

Re:Fifty-one pages

[UnknownSoldier]

Agreed. Here's all the one page summary ...
[ not karma whoring since I've been maxed for _years_ ... ]

= Applications =
* Apache Lucene and Solr
* Drupal
* Openbravo ERP
* Pentaho BI Suite
* SugarCRM
* WordPress

= Desktop and mobile =
* 7-Zip
* Google Android
* CamStudio
* Google Chrome
* LibreOffice
* Oracle VM VirtualBox
* PDFCreator
* Pidgin
* PortableApps.com
* TrueCrypt
* VLC

= Application Development =
* CakePHP
* CoffeeScript
* Git
* Apache Hadoop
* Hudson and Jenkins
* jQuery Mobile and Sencha Touch
* MongoDB
* Node.js
* Web2py

= Data Center & Cloud =
* Eucalyptus and OpenStack
* Gluster
* Talend Open Studio
* Vyatta
* Xen
* WSO2

--
Can I get my 10 mins back, please.

Re:Google

[anubi]

Yeh, I remember the day I bought a new timex "datalink" watch. I had high hopes and dreams of what I could do with that watch, being I could "talk" to it with nothing more than a LED.

I bought three of the things.

I remember well the frustration I encountered when I tried to find out aboutl the protocols needed to talk to the watch. I had all sorts of microcontroller projects I wanted to use it with... at the time, all 6502 based. Microsoft was involved. That's when I began to get a real sour taste in my mind every time Microsoft was mentioned. Microsoft had gotten big, and no longer thought well of those of us trying to find other ways of using their products.

Now, please tell me why keeping the protocols under tight wraps helped Microsoft or Timex? Did they really think I was going to copy their watches? Geez, there is no way I had any intention of getting into the watch manufacturing business! I just wanted to horse around with the darned thing and have fun seeing what I could do with it. To me, that was the fun of having the watch in the first place. If I can't do anything with it, I might as well buy a Porsche as a lawn ornament.

I ended up, five years later. throwing the watches away, two still in the original packaging. Junk. The only benefit I got was a lesson to be very wary of my intentions to see potential in products when the manufacturer is going to do their legal darndest to make sure I can't horse around with it. Its like going to a restaurant and having the chef come to my table and make sure I "enjoy" the meal exactly as he deemed. A shake of salt could bring a lawsuit.

I have seen books on how to program Androids at the bookstore. That, by itself, has biased me strongly towards the purchase of an Android phone when I get ready to buy a "smart" phone. The other phones look too much like a "datalink" to me.

Re:FTA:

[wrook]

No offence, but before you start criticising, it would help if you understood the issue. RMS uses the words "open source" himself. I have emails from him to prove it. What is at issue is that there is a distinction between "open source" and "free software". Originally ESR started using the term "open source" as a replacement for "free software". He (probably correctly) felt that the word "free" was confusing. However, at the same time he created a definition of "open source" that was different from "free software" while insisting that they were the same. The FSF is concerned with the freedom of all subsequent users to use the software for any purpose, modify it for their needs and to redistribute their modifications. "Open source" discusses the development practice of allowing other developers to view and modify the source code. There is no implication that all subsequent users will be able to modify the code.

An equivalent term would have been fine at the time. The problem was that ESR ignored the only thing that the FSF was interested in. At the same time, he championed many useful and pragmatic practices that have value in their own right. Thus one movement became two.

It is quite reasonable to say that the practice of producing open source software is becoming more and more mainstream, but that the issues of software freedom have not taken hold to the same extent. I doubt there would be many people who would disagree with that statement or find it objectionable. Open source development practices are a definite step forward. But for those interested in software freedom, there is still a long way to go. In some ways the open source movement has taken up a lot of the technical issues that the free software movement used to deal with. Personally, I think it is more important for free software advocates to concentrate on social rather than technical issues (and, in fact, I think that is being done).

Re:Hmmmm

[arbulus]

The thing with FLOSS is that you see the development process. You see the bastard kids. You see the failed ideas. You see the brainstorming-throw-shit-at-the-wall development until they reach a rev where everything works. You don't see that with closed development processes. You just see an end product and never see the "failed" bin.

The positive in that is that someone might like rev 3.2 that you threw out. And they can take that rev, fork it, and have a product that loads of other people love as well. It gives people freedom and choice that the closed systems deny you. People may hate Unity and GNOME 3.0. So someone comes along, forks GNOME 2, keeps it alive, and people are happy. And maybe by version 1.5 or 2.3, Unity gets really good. And maybe by 3.6 GNOME gets really good. KDE 4.0 was unusable. But the latest release is really great. The whole process lets people have the choice of using what they like instead of being told what to use and how to use it.