Slashdot Mirror


Is Media Attention Bad for Linux?

Ender_Stonebender writes "Yahoo's Internet Report news page has an interesting article on why why media attention could be bad for Linux development. They have a byline saying it's from salon.com, but I can't find it there. "

4 of 90 comments (clear)

  1. Is someone not paying attention? by ajs · · Score: 5
    Open-source hackers are accustomed to hearing the likes of evangelist Eric Raymond declaiming authoritatively upon the whys and wherefores of open source, but there's a paucity of hard data to work from.

    While, I think the idea of a survey of Open Source data-points (e.g. employment, work habits, motivation, etc) would be great, I don't get this. If you actually read Eric Raymond's writing, most of it is based on real-world experience with the projects that he has worked on and those that he has had direct contact with. Netscape, for example, provides a wealth of data in their release of the Mozilla source. How much work can be harnessed from the community? Look at the changelogs....

    Same goes for things like GNOME. We know exactly how fast a given sized group of hackers can put together a large Open Source software effort, because we've seen it.

    What we don't have numbers for, and I don't think that a survey can establish this any better than ESR can, is this: what happens if your company wants to create an Open Source effort around your product? Answering that requires the answers to these questions:
    1. Do you have a product that will entice developers to work on it?
    2. Are you willing to spend time and energy in the beginning to assure the developer community that you're for real, and actually care about what happens to the code?
    3. Is there a competing effort (or reason to create one) that more developers will be interested in?

    For example, if Sun opened up the source to their C++ compiler, I'm sure the GCC/EGCS folks would enjoy getting a look at how Sun handles some of the SPARC optimization, but I can't see a lot of developers clustering in to help Sun develop their product. It's just not technically interesting enough. It's not portable, it has less than 5 language front-ends and it just doesn't have the clout in the community that GCC has.

    On the other hand, if Adobe were to open up the source to Illustrator, and really convince the community that they wanted to jump in with both feet, the way Netscape did, they would have a huge developer interest.

    In the end, Open Source is not so much a "phenomenon". This is the way software worked pre-80's. Hiding source seemed to make about as much sense to most people as trying to hide how a lightbulb works. Now, we're coming full circle, and people are cluing in to that. The "Open Source Phenomenon" is just a bunch of people trying to figure out how to make the intervening 20 years of industry make sense....
  2. Overanalyzation by the industry? by Foogle · · Score: 4
    Are we seeing some overanalyzation here in the computer industry? For some reason everyone wants to be a techno-pundit and give the definitive answer to why things work the way they are. Sure, this is helpful, but with the amount we're getting now, it's just overkill.

    I care as much about OpenSource/Linux as the next guy, but I'm sick of reading journalists and web-publishers telling us why something is the way it is. Here's the truth: Stuff happens in complex systems and to try to explain it using two or three examples (like Linux and Apache to explain Open Source) is silly. The computer industry is complicated and I guess I'm just tired of all this hoopla over stuff.

    My point? If you like something, and you believe in it, then do it. Write the code you find useful and use the programs you like. Stop worrying whether Linux will overtake Microsoft. Don't lose any sleep over how the Mozilla project is doing. Use what works, and work on what doesn't -- Or don't. But talk is cheap and predictions are even cheaper.

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  3. It's actually quite simple by Laxitive · · Score: 4

    As far as I can see, there is _nothing_ to analyze about open source coding. It can be explained in a simple demonstration:

    A: Hey, check out this (algorithm/program/driver) I wrote.
    B: That's pretty cool, can I take a look at it?
    A: Sure [mails foo.tar.gz]
    B: oh man, that's a lot of global variables you're using there
    A: I know, gotta get around to fixing that
    B: here have this patch, I've managed to kill about half of the globals [mails foo.patch]
    A: that rocks, thanks!

    scale, repeat

    -Laxative

  4. What really sucks about media attention ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4
    The thing that really sucks about Media attention is that most of them have no idea what they're talking about. There are exceptions -- Petreley, Leonard, etc., but most journalists have never even seen Linux run.

    I've worked for the last four years as a developer for media institutions, and I've seen how they operate. I've seen positive stories written about Linux, and I've seen negative stories written. However, I've seen very few stories written by people who know Linux.

    I don't like journalism, and I don't like writting. But, I feel that it's important that I do write about Linux in the press, only because there are so few people that know what they are talking about. And to be honest, I don't see the situation changing -- not too many journalists are going to be picking up Linux any time in the near future. And, I honestly believe that when and if the initial hype over Linux dies down, the fact that few journalists know Linux will ultimately hurt the system.

    So what's the solution? Well, I'll continue to write pieces occassionally for publication. And, if you can write, I suggest that you write articles as well. It's easy -- did you write good essays in English? If so, you can probably write for publication. Write a piece -- it's easier if it's something you believe in -- and contact the editor of some magazine. Ask them if they'll read your article. If it's any good, they'll run it. It's also easier to get published on the Web (and possibly more effective) -- paper's expensive.

    Cheers,
    Travis