Slashdot Mirror
A Bold Essay From Tim O'Reilly
skydryedblue writes "On XML.Com, there is an interview in which Tim says, that The Linux community is far too focused on the battle with Microsoft's current operating system. Some see that the big goal is to develop a competing desktop and compatible desktop applications. And while I think that's a worthy goal and Linux is doing pretty well at it, I see Microsoft much more clearly and strategically focused on what kind of software will be needed to support that next generation of computer applications, and that worries me. "
Many of the posters to date are wringing their hands about whether the linux community should be focused on destroying Microsoft and whether this is a good or baaad thing.
Tim's point is that Microsoft (and the world) is shifting to a new battle field.
The protocols that Web sites provide on top of the internet protocols are becoming just as important as the internet protocols themselves. Many of these are business to business types of interactions but they are still key.
Let me give you one small example. In my publishing business we have to provide electronic catalog information to all the online booksellers. Our webmaster is having conversations with barnes&noble.com, amazon.com, borders.com, and all the independent bookstores who want this same kind of information, and they all have slightly different formats. Now, Allen Noren, the webmaster, is trying to get all the vendors to agree on a standard. But if they don't agree, whose format do you think he's going to implement first?
Realistically some of this will be handled by various XML standards groups (where M$ is very active) and will be relatively open in the sense that no one will want to give their competitors an advantage. However, will they be open to community input? Will the comunity be relevant in this world?
In some cases the community will care less. However, there will be others that will be critical and the comunity better be awake.
I agree that we need to quit playing catch-up and start setting the standards ourselves. But:
> I see Microsoft much more clearly and strategically focused on what kind of software will be needed to support that next generation of computer applications, and that worries me.
Never use "Microsoft", "strategically", and "next generation" in a sentence without a negation. All Microsoft's "strategy" lies in marketing and manipulation. When it comes to applications, they themselves are busy playing catch-up with Sun or whoever else made the most recent announcement. Beyond that they just implement whatever lame idea crosses their minds, without regard for whether the ideas are actually good ideas or not, and so the world is filling up with macro viruses and dancing paperclips. This isn't going to leave anyone in the dust.
Also: I agree that it isn't Linux's natural responsibility to set Microsoft in it's proper place. But if someone doesn't do it soon, there won't be any Linux or anything else, because you'll only be able to buy hardware that only works with patented MS owned software, and you'll only be able to get on a network by running MS owned protocols. So while it isn't Linux's responsibility per se, it's urgent that someone takes them down, and Linux is the only thing around that can make it happen before it's too late.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If he blabbed about Transmeta's company secrets he would be fired faster than kernal patches appear. It's assanine to think because he designed an open operating system that he somehow owes you all of his employer's company secrets. Go hack in peace without a modem so you don't make yourself look like an a$$hole.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Tim's point about Kapor and Lotus 1-2-3 is very salient and timely. Think about it. Linux has reached a point where it threatens commercial products like NT for market space, forces OSS business models into the mainstream, pressures closed-source vendors to provide products for Linux (even if they don't want to participate in the OSS process), and generally returned a great deal of industry power to the hands of the consumer. The computing community is clearly ready for the next step -- the OSS killer app phase.
What is the killer app? Apache? Samba? There's no obvious answer, and Tim touches on this with his discussion of HTML. But he's still a little hung-up on the "web-based infoware" thing. I think the killer app that we're all waiting for isn't an app at all. The Linux/GNU/OSS movement has caused major shifts in the philosophical as well as computing landscape. The killer "app" is really the arrival of portable data. We've so commoditized the applications that it doesn't matter whether you're using Word, Wordperfect, Staroffice, Claris, a web-app, or who-knows-what else. What matters is how difficult it is to share information. Most productivity app vendors have decided to mimic MS Office 97 formats by providing converters, allowing in-format editing of MS-format documents, or using HTML as a native format, but these are only stopgaps. The next hurdle is to apply the OSS philosophy to content (data formats, interchage standards, protocols, translations), not just structure (operating systems, apps, web apps).
We're starting to see this a little, and it seems to be following XML. GNOME spreadsheets are stored in an XML format. User-friendly XML text editors such as XMetal and XML Spy are starting to show up for Windows. Oracle is starting to provide mainstream support for XML-based EDI. Consciously or not, we're beginning to think of common content formats as a global necessity. The problem, of course, is that these standards are typically built by glacially-slow concensus in a private industry forum. For example, the DTD for telecom information interchange that I was briefly involved with is maintained by the Information Products Interchange (IPI) subcommittee of the Telecommunications Industry Forum (TCIF), which is a subcommittee of the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS). [See http://www.atis.org]
Buried in such a hierarchy, it's a wonder that the IPI's Telecommunications Interchange Markup standard (TIM, an XML-compliant SGML DTD) evolved at all. It's success is due primarily to the efforts of a few dedicated individuals. Sound familiar? This parallels the way that Linus et al manage updates to Linux kernel code. We're used to thinking of open source in terms of Linux and GNU software. Tim thinks of it as inclusive of web apps touches on interchange. We need to open that up to specifically include content. If you'll forgive the analogy, I think we've covered the nouns, and we have to think about the verbs -- apply OSS to the things we DO and not just the tools we use or places to do them. Open source organizational clearinghouses and listservs need to start providing for open source development of data formats and standards, not just apps. (Not to say that anyone working on OSS XML tools for Linux should slow down in the slightest!)
Those of us interested in data interchange, which includes anyone who ever shares so much as a text file, need to organize and communicate. If there's no standard for your data, develop one. If there is, contribute, review, and use it. (Think about harnessing all the wasted effort consumed by MS Office file format woes!) Don't let a vendor hold your data hostage in a proprietary format. The momentum behind Linux and other GNU software is driven by quality of the code and openness. Apply that to content, and the world will become a much better place.
Jon
I think not...(*poof*)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
this article is very insightful in many respects. It focuses on problems in the desktop arena that I haven't seen too many other people talk about. Mainly about what would happen in open standards ceased to exist due to a monopoly. I really like the SMTP example; IF M$ could get exchange on every email server or at least a majority of them it could change the protocols just a little bit to leverage everyone else to use their products in order to compete in their markets. Imagine being forced to use Outlook compatible HTML e-mail, horrible. Open source or at least open standards let everyone compete fairly as long as they have as much talent as the competition. In 10 or 15 years I see mainstream computing not existing on the desktop or set top but somewhere inbetween. The web will most likely turn into a big hard drive rather than a huge network, not physically but access to information and applications will be network based because connection speeds are bound to increase logarithmically in that time. You'll probably think less of websites and more of places (I doubt .com's will end up being much more than a trend for businesses). The open source "movement" I guess you would say needs to start working on this sort of development right now rather than waiting to do it in responce to Microsoft or anyone else. O'Riley agrees with me on this, the killer app will be a website or net-application rather than a new kind of spreadsheet. The desktop technology has hit somewhat of a wall because there's not many places left for it to expand to, it has productivity and entertainment, the network is it's last frontier. Linux and open source can keep ahead of this by being the next killer net application or means of accessing information. If Microsoft bullied it's way into the control of netWidgets, everyone would have to use M$ netWidgets and would have to pay them handsomly for their use but if an open source group is the first to release netWidgets in a mass scale to get them universally accepted and providing open standards then netWidgets will not only become the standard they'll remain free and open. Keep the network open.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I believe with atleast Netscape Mozilla 5.0, the open source is showing an adoption of standards, which is a good thing for any market.
But linux, seems to be in a "wholy ware" That is dediced based on how you conform. Whats so different from being a Microsoft Biggot to a Linux Biggot? Bot OS's have there advantages and disadvantages, but someone has a direction.. and i agree, microsoft holds it.
While Redhat, and other distributions have a release map that seems to be 6 months (from previous discussions, i still find that too short of a release cycle) there is *no* roadmap other then directly related to the kernel. There is no beta system to show a developer road map, no enduser solution map, and no training map.. training seems to be specific to distro, which doesn't mean doodoo to an admin (since all distros are familiar) but to a corporation/business specifics do matter.. so with all these certificaitons going, there is no specific cover all certification roadmap.
Like i've express my OPINION before, i believe for linux to be stable, for personall and business use, it needs a long term plan, and short term updates. It doesn't need short term plans and long term updates :) By what i mean, slow down the release schedules, Business like 3 year product life cycles.. that means from 6-7 there should be a good few years to get your monies worth (yeah, yeah, its free. but installation/support in a business environment isn far from free). .1 releases should be minor upgrades or patch releases.. kernel upgrades should have some form of controlled distribution. and distributors should have long term plans in beta. Like redhat 7.0 for example should be in a long term beta.. throw in Xfree86 4.0, kernel 2.4 beta's, the newest kde, the newest gnome, the newest office apps, debug the system as a whole, give endusers/developers something to work with and work from, but most of all, it shows a roadmap of whats to come, and provides ample time for business to ramp up to that product
I love linux, i'm not dissing it, i love open source, its agreat concept. but for business, it needs something i can gurantee my job and and the company can gurantee its data on. not just something i get for free or something i can look at the source at..
I think a lack of focus is inherent in the Linux movement. There are no managers running around telling people what to do. I think this is, competitively, a much better strategy for large base software design because so many people want so many different things....
M$ is very focused, they are a company. I might argue that the individual companies within the linux movement (RH, etc) each have goals and management strategies of the same feel as M$'s. I think that all of the companies together make up this so-called lack of focus. I strongly feel this is a good thing and the reason that other OS's have failed in light of M$ (such as OS/2) is because they were very similar to M$. M$ has a hold on the market, the only thing that will change that (IMO) is a radically new philosophy on software development.
-- Moondog
But, and it's a big but, ignoring Microsoft can't work until they no longer unfairly control the hardware and software markets. If merely being better than Microsoft was sufficient, BeOS would far more successful than it is today. We can and should ignore Microsoft on the day the following can be asserted with truth:
1) Hardware vendors are just as likely to create drivers for Linux as Microsoft.
2) System vendors can't be pressured successfully by Microsoft to avoid using competing products like Linux or Netscape.
3) Microsoft no longer dominates standards thru controlling the OS platform used by nearly everyone.
It would be nice if Microsoft just started playing fair. But I don't expect it. Rather I expect them to lie, cheat, and steal as necessary in an attempt to ensure dominance. Desperation is rarely pretty.
His point about web applications being the future is worth consideration. The advantages in making large databases like Amazon and Yahoo available that way are quite clear. I don't quite see the clarity of that view when it comes to editors, compilers, or games however -- though I could be wrong, I much prefer local programs on my own computer for those.
The other point he makes that is well worth considering is about the open nature of web development. Clay Shirkey did an excellent paper on this subject a while back. You may find many of the other papers on his page of interest as well.
I take issue with the following quote regarding XML and XML-RPC:
It's a bad sign that Microsoft knows more about this than the leaders of the Linux community. They've already incorporated it into a new protocol that they are calling SOAP.
Ok, I'm far from being a "leader" in the Linux community (or any other), but I've been monitoring the XML-RPC and SOAP discussions for a while now. Many of the underlying grammars were clearly written by people who like COM. The data types conveniently mirror COM VT_xxx types. They CAN, however, be implemented in other languages and platforms. (IIRC, Zope implements XML-RPC.)
Personally, I have misgivings about SOAP being used for real cross-platform distributed computing in the future. It just seems to make too many assumptions about data types. XML-RPC seems geared towards replacing CGI -- it specifies port 80 for all communication (which seems a little narrow-minded to me). These may still become de facto standards because they are "good enough" for most cases.
I predict that for the next few years we will see several new XML grammars introduced. In time, we will eventually settle on a few that work best for most people. Maybe SOAP will be one of these, maybe not. Maybe it will be a derivative of SOAP. Maybe it will be something completely different.
Right now, XML-RPC/SODL/XMOP/SOAP have momentum and the backing of Microsoft and a few authors who want to be first on the shelf with "Designing Distributed Applications with SOAP for Dummies" I'm not aware of any alternatives to SOAP right now. Maybe there is no need for one.
If you've gotten this far in my long-winded post, you may want take a look at a few sites relating to XML and distributed computing:
http://discuss.develop.com -- SOAP discussion board.
http://www.xml-rpc.com -- XML-RPC specs and discussion.
My own shameless plugs:
http://www.maiermedia.com/lab/xml/opml.t xt -- My OPML proposal for object persistence in XML. It's crude, but I think it has less platform affinity than SODL.
http://www.maiermedia.com/lab/xml/ opmlsample.txt -- A sample of objects serialized in OPML.
At this point, I've shelved OPML because I don't see any point in competing with the SOAP crowd. If you do take the time to look at it and would like to send suggestions or feedback, my email address is donkpunch@maiermedia.com. I would love to get some input from people who aren't already convinced that SOAP is the best solution. Maybe I gave up on the idea too soon.
Thanks.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
> So yes, let's see Linux better tuned to the desktop, and with more desktop apps.
Agreed. Some of the lame press is starting to say that Linux was designed to be a server. No. It was designed to run on Linus' desktop. It just happens to be a good design, with the result that it also works well in data centers, embedded devices, and supercomputers, as well as on desktops.
All these areas can stand improvements. But let's not get the notion that Linux isn't for the desktop. I wouldn't have anything else on my desktop.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
...the current environment where if you make your software good enough it will either be bought, stolen, assimilated by M$ depending on the day of week (or whatever makes them the most money). This, IMHO, stifles true innovation, basically forcing companies to live in the shadows to survive (much less compete), or at least avoid the attention of the big gorilla. At the very least I advocate Linux as a way to bring competition to the market and ultimately better software to my machine and my friends'/family's. (Note: better software DOES NOT MEAN more features)
+&x
Linux needs to focus on what it does well, and how to improve the things it wants to do well but hasn't reached yet. All this focus on "anti-M$" really tends to take away credibility from the OS and the community.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
I run FreeBSD because I simply want the power and stability of a great OS. I don't run Windows because it's slow, unstable, a huge mess of incoherency and scattered inconsistencies. What I want in an OS is to actually have control over it. Open Source is about control and software superiority. With many people working on a project, it quickly can become best of breed. I have control over the entire OS when I use an Open Source system. If I find a bug, I can fix it.
With Windows I have a bloated monstrosity which, while trying to be everything to everyone, is purely unuseable to me. Things are far too simplistically designed and making things "click-simple" isn't worth any of that. You're trapped in something you can't truly control, can't fix, and can't expand upon. You lose every bit of flexibility that should be possible on a computer when you run Windows.
But, of course, you do have applications which you need on an OS, since after all, what good is an OS unless you have something to run on it? Many apps in Unix are simply much more well-done than those in Windows.
You say you want a lightweight Programmer's OS. Unix is not that. Unix is a system that can be almost everything to everyone witout sacrificing anything. Yes, the "base distribution" over the years has grown, but so has hard drive space and memory availability, not to mention pure speed of the computers. Don't forget that in Linux a distribution is not the OS. The kernel is the OS and the distribution just happens to run on top of it. There are many distributions to choose from , and they're not all going to be bloated past belief or inflexible to configure. You make that choice when choosing between Open Source OSes and distributions.
Also, the bloat is not the same as Windows's bloat. I can speak for FreeBSD, since that's what I run, here. There is a relatively small base system which includes the kernel, utilities, base applications, base data, base libraries and includes. This is the core of the OS. In the base you also have things for developing. development, such as the compiler, assembler, linker, debugger, and various binutils. This gives you flexibility: you have what you need, and nothing too esoteric. I have what I need to rebuild and modify the system to my liking except the source install itself.
After installation, you can install any non-OS components you like from ports or packages. There is just about every type of program an end-user would need, and you install what you want. Sure, because of this systems become different as different configurations are made and programs installed. But the OS is still the same underneath it.
In a closed operating system, you're stuck with what they give you without being able to uninstall much of it. The result is that you have no control over hundreds of megabytes of cruft you'll never use. Windows is appropriate for the desktop because of applications you say? Well, there are good applications for any platform. You're not going to find server applications, for instance, that are better on a closed system than for an open one. Why? When you're serious about your application, you care about the OS and what you can make it do, not the cruft surrounding it. Serious development is better done on an open platform.
Besides, who said Windows is a better desktop in the first place, EVEN just for applications? I am writing this using Mozilla, which still has a bit of a way to go before being truly finished, but is very useable and much faster than Netscape Navigator or Internet Explorer. I run LyX and get professional typesetting, not just dinky "word processing," when I use it and LaTeX. I run OLVWM and have a much nicer GUI than possible on Windows, coupled with the much more flexible XFree86 3.9.16 than Windows's GUI could be. Of course, I'm not tied down, and can change my system's GUI components at will. I have my GNOME Panel and apps, giving me the familiar toolbar (much more flexible though), a CPU meter, a mixer, themeable clock, command-line tool, application menus, and any of various small applications and dockable applets. I have my TiK for my instant messaging needs, exim and pine for mail needs, the GIMP and KIllustrator for graphics, mp3/mod/avi/mov/mpg players, audio applications including the ver-present sox, and my full development system with DDD for graphical debugging.
In other words, I have a full desktop system, and my choice from many other apps should I ever want those. How can you say that Windows or BeOS are the only systems which should be on desktops when it's obvious a better OS than Windows can have everything else you'd ever need, too?
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
When IBM wanted an OS - MS delivered
When users wanted GUI - MS delivered
When Busines demanded std apps - MS delivered
When IT wanted client/server - MS delivered
Tactically, MS has reversed roles:
MS delivers a network - people use it
MS delivers a browser - users take it
MS delivers music - people listen
MS delivers auctions - people bid
MICROSOFT know they are in the *Delivery* business. Linux has delivered an OS - people use it and MS notices... MS is reiforcing its franchise by Golden Handcuffing delivery customers with services.
Linux would do well to consider what & how best to foster delivery services within their own franchise - before they lose that...
/. delivers news/info - Techies love it
RH delivers support - users buy it
(add to list your best business case)
Big IMO over whole message.
Microsoft sees Linux as competition, but the reverse doesn't need to be true.. Linux doesn't need market share or marketing.. That's all money stuff, and linux doesn't care about that right?
What ever happened to Linux being 'our' OS. It does what we need, and if we need more, we'll add that.. If you can figure out a way to make a living supporting it, great..
How is getting every user and journalist to install going to help anything? Great, more clueless people to support.. Those with clues will find linux when they come to need it, and hopefully become useful community members, not just whiney twits..
Let MS take all the market share they want.. Ask anyone who's worked tech support how great that share is..
The markets that I see linux fitting into quite nicely are WebFarms/MID Sized IT Shops That Need Dependable DNS/WINS/HTTP/FTP/Print/CIFS services. The desktop market is a place where end users LIVE. The average end user cannot and will not have the time or the technical know-how to config their systems. The more focus put into making Linux-King O the Desktop, the bigger the foot print, the bigger the overhead, thus defeating its original purpose... A lightweight Programmers OS. We don't want to end up with a 2gig OS! I say we continue to push Linux into the backoffice areas and let BeOS or someone else tackle the desktop. D/
Why does Microsoft have to lose for us to win? Why can't we just be happy in making a great operating system that millions of people can enjoy? Do we have to make it into a competition? Unless you own or work for a Linux-based company, I just don't see the reasoning.
I thought the whole point was that we're not in it for the money, right (obviously)? So who cares if MS puts up anti-linux pages? What's going to happen? It's not like a loss of sales can hurt an Open Source community. So I say: Take a step back. Let Microsoft do whatever the hell they want. I don't care. I'm going to use Linux anyway, and I know most of you out there will do the same. But for the love of god, don't make it personal.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
this is one of the reasons that the linux community gets bad press. because of the anti-microsoft focus, extremeists/zealots/idiots start advocating linux in a non-healthy way and end up giving "the world out there" a bad taste in their mouth. someone needs to read the linux advocacy mini-HOWTO! we are supposed to be ambassadors, not guerillas.
thank god for beos and bsd flavors. alternative operating systems with a leash on their respective communities.
The idea of ignoring Microsoft and just working on building a good alternative is very appealing in theory. It certainly sounds better than being "anti-" anything, you come across as a more reasonable human being, and it's a very commonly voiced idea.
The trouble is that Microsoft don't feel the same way. Microsoft aren't interested in co-existing with alternatives: they want alternatives destroyed, they want Windows on every desktop, and they'll fight like dogs to leave us all with no other choice. They just don't have a very live-and-let-live attitude to the marketplace, and I don't think being nicer would convert them.
When I say I want them defeated, I mean I want them defeated in this goal. I don't mean I want the company to fold, the tens of thousands of employees on the streets, and the operating system unsupported - though it's an appealing image. I simply mean that I want them to turn into another operating systems vendor, another applications writing company, another participant in a marketplace which offers a choice.
For Microsoft, that is defeat. And so if we're trying to create alternatives, if we're trying to maintain a choice, then we're already anti-Microsoft whether we like it or not.
--
Xenu loves you!
Tim O'Reilly said:
Almost everyone who talks about Open Source software wants to know whether or not Linux stands a chance of dethroning Windows.
He's really talking to the wrong people then. As far as I can tell, most people who are talking about Free software are talking about how they can increase the features available with the Free software codebase, and how to handle the software patent issues. Even with the Open Source folks that O'Reilly, the issues seem more geared towards how they can encourage more companies to open their licenses. Most of the Linux people are worried about better supporting an increasingly dynamic hardware environment, and improving scalability and performance.
None of these people are talking about Windows. The media is talking about Linux vs. Windows, some of the users are talking about Linux vs. Windows, but the people who count don't really give a damn about Windows. It's just irrelevant.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Why does Microsoft have to lose for us to win? Why can't we just be happy in making a great operating system that millions of people can enjoy? Do we have to make it into a competition?
MS has to lose because that's what they believe. (MS's attitude is that in order for them to win, everybody else has to lose; and if they don't win, then they lose... ergo in order for us to win, they have to lose.)
I agree that there is a lot of effort by people into "war-waging" (myself included, probably) but this is a natural reaction to being attacked. (And this is what MS is doing - attacking us.)
We have to fight back now, because who knows what might happen in the future (MS is one of the biggest lobbyer's for "software manufacturers rights" - like making reverse engineering of protocols a crime.) If we "let them do whatever the hell they want" then we're signing our own death warrant. What happens when they twist the laws until it becomes illegal to write your own software?
Am I being paranoid? Maybe... this is all conjecture after all... But the issue with it becoming illegal to write your own software has already started (software patents, "look & feel" lawsuits, etc.)
You need to look farther down the road before you say "they can't hurt me." Remember that "they can't hurt me now" does not mean "they can't hurt me ever."
While that is for the most part true, the zealots really do hurt Linux's image. Like the saying, "A few bad apples will ruin the barrel" (or something like that). I know when I really got interested in Linux (mostly from reading /.) I saw how much people bashed MS. And because of that, I wasn't sure if I wanted an OS that might cause me to be an stuck-up *sshole. I've gotten email that said I was a MS b*tch because I asked if IE supported PNG images. Reading and getting things like that doesn't exactly put Linux in a favorable light. But I've also met a lot of helpful people and overall, I'm impressed by the Linux community as a whole.
Yes, this is true, the linux community should worry about making the everything *BETTER* than Microsoft...
I agree, but I'd go even further and change that to:
"Yes, this is true, the linux community should worry about making everything *BETTER*..."
To focus on "beating Microsoft" is a fundamentally reactive strategy that is, I think, besides the point. Personally, I don't give a shit if Microsoft is "beaten". I just want software that doesn't suck.
The cake is a pie
What a very thought provoking and timely speech. I only wish I could have been present to hear it from the man himself. In either case, he brings up many interesting points. The crux of the whole speech revolves around this statement from him, "We need new business models. And those models are not always what you might expect."
In general, we Linuxites have to remember some important things if we are to ever prevail:
1) Money/compensation is a driving force. We can't ignore it.
2) The OSS *can* make money, just not how we expect it to make money
3) We have to support vendors who are more than "hip" to the OSS system. We don't need lip service. We need to seek out vendors that truly incorporate OSS as part of their entire business model. What will this model look like? I can only begin to guess.
4) Keep your eyes on the prize. If, as a community, we succumb to the tunnel vision concept of, "Kill Microsoft!", all hope is certainly lost. As an anecdotal example, look at Apple and their Macintosh fiasco in '84. In many respects, I see similarities in the Big Brother image in their infamous 1984-esque commercial and much of the Linux rhetoric I read here day in and day out. Look what it did to Apple. I imagine if they would have focused on reality a bit and what really mattered, things may have turned out differently.
All I'm asking is a little reality from the community. Read the article, please. Follow your mother's advice about the big bad bully. Ignore him and he'll eventually go away. I suspect this will be the same with Microsoft. The more focus *we* put on them the more press they receive. Let's focus on our own merits and achievements and strive to make not just a better product, but the best product we can.
It *has* been done before... that was the whole point behind Linux in the first place, no?
Tim: blah blah, software should be free blah blah
Me: Why do you charge for books, then?
Tim: Books are different; they cost money to print.
Me: Why don't you offer online versions for free, then, and only charge for the printed ones?
Tim: I still have to pay the authors.
Me: Why can't they work for free, like you want programmers to?
Tim: Authors would never do that.
Me: Would you have a problem with me repackaging a bunch of your books into my own book and selling it for money?
Tim: They are copyrighted.
Me: Why don't you "open source" them?
Tim: Authors would never do that.
It is like Linus going on about Sun's community license... geesh, what a hypocrite - going off on them, while working for the most closed-lipped company in The Valley. Why isn't he releasing the Transmeta details for the greater good? I mean, come on, surely the community at large could produce a better CPU than some proprietary house, right? What is so unique about software?
Personally, I think money will destroy the Linux effort just like it did the home computing industry in the mid-1970s. No one cares about making money when no one else is making it, either. But when you work 3 years and get squat and I work one week and sell your stuff for $1 million, suddenly you start to care. It is just human nature.
MS is irrelevant to Linux. Who gives a crap if anyone besides us uses it? I couldn't care less about MS, RedHat, or any of the other big companies. Go away, all of you! Let me hack in peace!!
Whew! I feel much better now!
Let's face the facts. Hobby-programming for the OSS has always been for the satisfaction of the programmer, not the general user. If this weren't true, projects like Gnome and KDE would have started years ago. You would be hard-pressed to find a geek that wants to satisfy clueless users. Just look at the man-pages in Linux, they're not exactly made for novices. There are no examples, and more thoroughly explanations couldn't hurt. Luckily, someone in the community is always willing to contribute HOWTOs, FAQs and other documents instead of having to help out everybody "in person"! But that is a feature, not the obvious intent of the original creators.
I believe the main direction of the OSS is one of pioneering and experimenting on new technical grounds. This is a rather broad direction, which unfortunately doesn't benefit the consumers right away. It is irrelevant to say that the OSS community lacks a direction as a whole. Since within it, there are many projects that do have a more concrete direction.
Businesses often boast to have long-term plans and directions. If you are going to make a company for example, you have to publicly state a "vision" for your company in the registration papers. But most successful businesses don't stick to their plans when trends are changing. In the worst case, older products are rendered obsolete and unsupported. Or perhaps even worse, smaller companies that suddenly shut down, with the owners starting a new company doing more lucrative business. It should be clear now to everyone that the main goal of commercial businesses is to make people pay you money. Everything else is secondary. If you can make just this goal work, you're a success (by Western standards). But to make money, they have to please consumers, and usually pile up a garbage-bin of features to satisfy them. Unlike OSS.
Admit it. We have always lagged behind the business regarding the general consumer for very obvious reasons! The OSS and business have been on two different playing fields the whole time!
With the emerging of new successful "Open Source" companies, the whole ballgame is taking on a different shape. Some are just distributing and packaging what you can get other ways almost for free. While others will build proprietary software ontop of Open Source technology, like Caldera with CDE. Yet others will offer installations, training and support. There are endless possibilities. But the new trend isn't using Open Source technologies, the new trend is actually recognizing it! In that way, we have won, and it's time for celebration!
But Tim paints us a different picture: Companies will exploit Open Source and make their own proprietary business standards on top of them! Especially when WWW becomes the platform for most future applications.
This is right in the backyard of big companies who want to create web-portals with endless possibilities (for making money). What Ubergeek wants to make a credit-card registration, validator and pay-system in his spare time? So this battle is clearly lost, unless we can get businesses to really understand the human benefits of Open Source. Not just monetary value of staying ahead of competitors. But this requires a fundamental change in our society as a whole, and ourself.
So I think the battle is both won and lost concerning the future Open Source. As long as capitalism and the human mind works as it works today, we're going to be stuck with closed-source and properietary de-facto standards from the industry for a long time. Just in a higher level of electronic service than before.
But don't take me as a pessimist. As industry recognizes their use of Open Source, they will value and support the OSS community. This should also have a positive effect on the people working in businesses: To witness that the concept really works, and is a more fun way of doing things.
Someday I think the people claiming closed competiton to be the most effective way of developing, will have to eat their words.
_Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Summarizing Tim in a single sentence: Chase the dream, not the competition..
Wow, am I glad that Tim took the opportunity of a keynote address to express this pov, and with such conviction.
To focus on Linux vs. Windows is like driving with both eyes fixed on the rear-view mirror. Or like my old track coach said "You'll always run slower if you look behind you to see where the competition is."
The concept and reality of "Internet Speed" will eventually determine the success or failure of products, companies, and their respective paradigms.
While Microsoft is very powerful and very rich, they're also very big. And their culture of software intellectual property and a tremendous dependence on the desktop computing metaphor could very well be their downfall.
For Linux-mavens (or, more specifically, anti-Microsoft-mavens) who only think victory is measured by how many choose Linux over Windows, remember that the computer world is bigger than your desktop.
But anything I write here is soooo much better said by Tim!
Re-read the article. Print it. Post it.
Our revolution isn't about taking power away from the establishment and giving it to us, it's about not having a center of power at all.