I read the two followup articles. I'm convinced that this is why Open Source will succeed -- rational discussion by intelligent people. No flaming, no personal attacks, just a clear expression of ideas and opinions.
Actually, Fox is considering releasing the source footage under the FCPL (Fox Cartoon Public License). It allows you to view, edit, and redistribute the original footage, but any gags you add must be reviewed for humor and approved by Fox.
Currently the license is in limbo due to the (somewhat obscure) US Cartoon Encryption Restriction Act of 1997. This may make it difficult to redistribute the raw footage outside US boundaries.
ESR, RMS, Bruce Perens, Linus, Alan Cox, and Dorothy The Linux-Hacking Dachsund all had no comment.
Of course they would still communicate! Like any modern techno-savvy company, they would make use of modern business tools like "the paperless office"(tm), "e-mail"(tm), and "the internet"(tm)!:-)
You know, I have sometimes secretly wondered if Mr. Gates even knows the Win32 API as well as Jane Average Visual C++ programmer.
Not a fair shot, I guess. Corporate execs tend to be figureheads. Anybody remember the IBM exec who was cornered and didn't know how to use a floppy disk?
For many (most?) people, the usefulness of an operating system depends on how much software is available for it. Unfortunately, ideology sometimes must take a back seat to getting stuff done.
That's not to say I don't favor free software tools at every opportunity.
OTOH, I agree completely that the philosophy behind free software should be emphasized. If nothing else, it will reinforce to people the idea that free software DOES work and encourage companies to try a different model.
I tend to agree that the traditional software development process is all screwed up.
Closed software companies often seem to have a problem with testing. Often, testers only know what to test because developers told them what to test. They tend to use the product "the right way", without really mirroring the real world. This is why so many products make it to market with problems, even though testing did its job.
IMHO, free software gets a more effective workout because it's beaten up in the real world right away. In the free software world, it's ok to release multiple versions back-to-back. This simply doesn't fly in a closed environment, where version x.x must be IT for at least a few months.
This may be off-topic, but I couldn't help throwing in my $.02 as a Java developer.
I've found GNU/Linux to be an outstanding platform for development. It just "feels right" to programmers. For Java, I think the Blackdown Organization has done an absolutely OUTSTANDING job with their JDK (haven't tried others).
Another factor for Java developers to consider is Microsoft's attitude towards Java. While MS supports Java, I think they clearly do so against their will. I also tend to believe claims that MS has attempted to sabotage Java.
Even if Win2000 was a solid OS, the price difference is noteworthy (as you said). I think a lot of people will still be attracted to a robust server OS that costs MUCH less than the $900 MS charges for a fresh NT license.
Another factor is the Unix-like heritage of GNU/Linux. There is already a significant number of sysadmins who know how to make the OS sing. Why spend the money on an MS-sponsored training course to learn a new OS that will change in 2-3 years anyway?
Geez, I'm getting partisan lately. I need to go back and re-read some TechNet, MSDN and Windows Magazine articles.:-)
Your post reminded me of the first time I installed GNU/Linux. I kept waiting for something to pop up and say, "You have not registered for xxx. Please call 1-800-big-soft with a valid credit card number."
I think the fact that Free Software isues are debated openly makes disagreements SEEM larger.
Has anyone ever worked for a software company where there weren't serious disagreements over direction, features, etc.? Of course not. Can you imagine if members of the press where privy to every meeting in some of these companies? There would be non-stop articles like, "Serious battle at Abobe over licensing", "Microsoft divided over corporate direction".
The Free Software Community does not have one official designated spokesman to give reporters nice quotes that say everyone agrees and is happy. Instead, our discussions are open in forums such as slashdot. Any reporter (especially ones with FUD in mind) can grab an uninformed flame and quote it.
It's important for the public to understand that free software means input from EVERYONE. Of course there will be disagreements. That's a strength, not a weakness.
I see a lot of wisdom in this post. I sometimes imagine myself as someone trying to run a software company and make a profit. In this context, a pure Open Source/Free Software model would scare the bejeezus out of me. Even if I included source code (which I think users deserve), I would want to hang on to SOMETHING that said, "hey, my company wrote this and we want to profit from it".
OTOH, the Open Source Definition is pretty clear to me. I would never attempt to seek Open Source Certification for software that doesn't fully meet the OSD criteria.
You can include source code without an Open Source Certification. I think Open Source advocates would respect a company that included source code without certification and the media sound-bytes it provides. Imagine the quote -- "We include the source code simply because we respect our customers and believe they deserve it."
Slashdot Mirror
I read the two followup articles. I'm convinced that this is why Open Source will succeed -- rational discussion by intelligent people. No flaming, no personal attacks, just a clear expression of ideas and opinions.
Actually, Fox is considering releasing the source footage under the FCPL (Fox Cartoon Public License). It allows you to view, edit, and redistribute the original footage, but any gags you add must be reviewed for humor and approved by Fox.
Currently the license is in limbo due to the (somewhat obscure) US Cartoon Encryption Restriction Act of 1997. This may make it difficult to redistribute the raw footage outside US boundaries.
ESR, RMS, Bruce Perens, Linus, Alan Cox, and Dorothy The Linux-Hacking Dachsund all had no comment.
(Aw shoot. I should've sent this to segfault.)
Of course they would still communicate! Like any modern techno-savvy company, they would make use of modern business tools like "the paperless office"(tm), "e-mail"(tm), and "the internet"(tm)! :-)
You know, I have sometimes secretly wondered if Mr. Gates even knows the Win32 API as well as Jane Average Visual C++ programmer.
Not a fair shot, I guess. Corporate execs tend to be figureheads. Anybody remember the IBM exec who was cornered and didn't know how to use a floppy disk?
For many (most?) people, the usefulness of an operating system depends on how much software is available for it. Unfortunately, ideology sometimes must take a back seat to getting stuff done.
That's not to say I don't favor free software tools at every opportunity.
OTOH, I agree completely that the philosophy behind free software should be emphasized. If
nothing else, it will reinforce to people the idea that free software DOES work and encourage companies to try a different model.
Ok -- when I'm forced to use Windows, I spend most of my time in a Netscape browser. So I call it "Netscape/Windows", right?
Of course, when I use Windows at home I'm either (1) testing Java code or (2) playing Quake. So I guess it's "Java/Windows" or "Quake/Windows".
I would LOVE to see a magazine refer to a computer as a "Java/Windows" computer.
(I'm just having fun here. I actually do use "GNU/Linux" most of the time.)
BTW -- I enjoyed the article. Thanks.
Much respect, AC.
I tend to agree that the traditional software development process is all screwed up.
Closed software companies often seem to have a problem with testing. Often, testers only know what to test because developers told them what to test. They tend to use the product "the right way", without really mirroring the real world. This is why so many products make it to market with problems, even though testing did its job.
IMHO, free software gets a more effective workout because it's beaten up in the real world right away. In the free software world, it's ok to release multiple versions back-to-back. This simply doesn't fly in a closed environment, where version x.x must be IT for at least a few months.
This may be off-topic, but I couldn't help throwing in my $.02 as a Java developer.
I've found GNU/Linux to be an outstanding platform for development. It just "feels right" to programmers. For Java, I think the Blackdown Organization has done an absolutely OUTSTANDING job with their JDK (haven't tried others).
Another factor for Java developers to consider is Microsoft's attitude towards Java. While MS supports Java, I think they clearly do so against their will. I also tend to believe claims that MS has attempted to sabotage Java.
Even if Win2000 was a solid OS, the price difference is noteworthy (as you said). I think a lot of people will still be attracted to a robust server OS that costs MUCH less than the $900 MS charges for a fresh NT license.
:-)
Another factor is the Unix-like heritage of GNU/Linux. There is already a significant number of sysadmins who know how to make the OS sing. Why spend the money on an MS-sponsored training course to learn a new OS that will change in 2-3 years anyway?
Geez, I'm getting partisan lately. I need to go back and re-read some TechNet, MSDN and Windows Magazine articles.
Your post reminded me of the first time I installed GNU/Linux. I kept waiting for something to pop up and say, "You have not registered for xxx. Please call 1-800-big-soft with a valid credit card number."
It IS a new concept for many people.
I'd rather just ignore them.
Whoops, gotta go. I just arrived at the sand/water interface! :-)
I think the fact that Free Software isues are debated openly makes disagreements SEEM larger.
Has anyone ever worked for a software company where there weren't serious disagreements over direction, features, etc.? Of course not. Can you imagine if members of the press where privy to every meeting in some of these companies? There would be non-stop articles like, "Serious battle at Abobe over licensing", "Microsoft divided over corporate direction".
The Free Software Community does not have one official designated spokesman to give reporters nice quotes that say everyone agrees and is happy. Instead, our discussions are open in forums such as slashdot. Any reporter (especially ones with FUD in mind) can grab an uninformed flame and quote it.
It's important for the public to understand that free software means input from EVERYONE. Of course there will be disagreements. That's a strength, not a weakness.
I see a lot of wisdom in this post. I sometimes imagine myself as someone trying to run a software company and make a profit. In this context, a pure Open Source/Free Software model would scare the bejeezus out of me. Even if I included source code (which I think users deserve), I would want to hang on to SOMETHING that said, "hey, my company wrote this and we want to profit from it".
OTOH, the Open Source Definition is pretty clear to me. I would never attempt to seek Open Source Certification for software that doesn't fully meet the OSD criteria.
You can include source code without an Open Source Certification. I think Open Source advocates would respect a company that included source code without certification and the media sound-bytes it provides. Imagine the quote -- "We include the source code simply because we respect our customers and believe they deserve it."
Am I right here?