Microsoft could easily compete and win with Linux, by making Windows a better OS.
Ceteris paribus. In principle, everything Windows can do, we can do better, and I assume we will. When the only difference between Windows and open source is the price, how can Microsoft compete? -russ p.s. software patents, but that's a different question for Martin.
The standard litany that we're supposed to tell coders when they ask "How do I make money off open source?" is "well, just sell support." That's fine but if you have to carry the cost of writing the software AND the support, somebody who competes against you by selling just the support will have a lower cost structure. That has to be weighed against your presumative better knowledge of the code having written it yourself. If the code is complicated and hard to understand, that makes it difficult for others to compete against you. But again, that's an example of a perverse incentive. -russ
Regardless of the superiority of Linux to Windows, or vice-verse, it seems to me that the disruptive economic model of Linux cannot fail to displace Windows. As Microsoft itself has proven many time, you cannot compete with free. Do you see any hope for Microsoft? -russ
Your co-workers probably don't want you gone as badly as the HP worker bees wanted Carly to be gone. The nameplate is doubtless gone from her office, it's been scrubbed clean, disinfected, and sprayed for parasites. They probably even dug a hole where her parking spot was, on the off-chance that she'll try to park there. -russ, former HP employee
Maybe now HP will be able to put some resources into its Linux projects, like handhelds.org. I mean, c'mon, Stormy Peters is a sweet girl, but she doesn't have a budget! Give her a few million bucks and free reign to create some whoop-ass love for HP among Linux users, and you'll see HP become the new darling of the open source set. -russ
Well, the interesting thing here is that some people on the Free Software Business mailing list claim that the economic model for open source has a flaw. You get paid for selling support, right? But that means fixing bugs that you, yourself wrote. There's a clear conflict of interest there, right? You make mistakes and then you profit from them. And yet here's Microsoft doing the same thing. So while I agree that it's a flaw, it doesn't seem to be limited to open source software! -russ
Don't forget that US GIS data is generally freely copyable. If your country doesn't have similar services, blame your government for not making its GIS data available. -russ
The work GNU and others have done on software, licenses, etc, has been 100% about creating that infrastucture.
Nope. It's been 100% about eliminating proprietary software. Totally different goal; one which does not require the creation of any free software. I see what the FSF has achieved and how they achieved it. That doesn't mean that the method they chose is their goal! You're confusing means and ends. They're using good means to achieve good ends, yes, but they are separate, which I would like to hear you acknowledge. -russ
Of course lots of people don't mention freedom to run or distribute! Lots of people don't mention that I have dark hair when they say "Russ Nelson". Google for "Russ" and you'll find very few mentions of dark hair. Does that mean that I don't have dark hair? Of course not.
Obviously you've gotten this idea from somewhere -- that open source is not free software. Could you explain where you got it from?
You don't understand the FSF's goal. You should do some more research. Here's just one example: at OSCON '93 in San Diego, RMS interrupted Tim O'Reilly and (CEO of Real)'s presentation to say "It's not free software! Don't use it!" I mean, he stood up, and fucking interrupted them. It was amazingly rude and impolite, not to mention wrong. If you think the FSF's goal is to make software free, how do you explain RMS's behavior? Was he coding at the time? Did he create any new free software by doing this? -russ
In current common usage, if the source code is available, it is open source;
I need more evidence to be persuaded that this is current common usage. Whenever I see somebody who says that, I correct them. I haven't run across any such examples for many months now. -russ
The problem with a cellphone conversation which makes it different from an in-car conversation is that the conversant is not 1) aware that you're in a car, and 2) cannot tell when you need to shut up and drive. We need to develop different phone habits, so that 1) if you're using a cell in a car, you tell people, and 2) if you need the other person to shut up, there is a polite mechanism for making them do so. Obviously, saying "shut up, I'm in an intersection" is not currently polite, but it can become so.
There are precedents in this. The various telephone companies had to teach people what to do when they picked up a phone. It wasn't considered normal to start a telephone conversation with "hello". -russ
that they've been drinking the "kook-aid" as passed out by their leader
I'm referring to a particular position that RMS takes. Nobody is forcing him to be hostile to us. We are, I believe, not being hostile to him. Why does he refuse the favor? -russ
From my viewpoint both the OSI and FSF are very useful and I'd love for them to cooperate instead of compete.
I'd love that, too, but first we have to get RMS to stop misrepresenting us. It's hard to declare peace when one of the parties is still undermining the others. -russ
I really don't think there is any chance that you will successfully change the common usage of open source now with any kind of semantic games.
Open source is free software. Can you name any open source software that isn't? If not, why do you think we need to change the common usage of open source? -russ
Yeah, I think you're right. We haven't actually done anything. That's why the NPR report from Brazil on Monday was about Free Software instead of Open Source. If we had actually succeeded in accomplishing anything, the report would have been about Open Source. -russ p.s. the previous posting was brought to you by the letter S and the word Sarcasm. It's late; I'm tired; try googling for what we've done; really.
To an extent, you are correct. We definitely try not to talk about "free", mostly because of a perception that RMS peed in the pool. He's getting older, and has actually started to carve exceptions in the GPL. There's less of a perception at OSI that we can never say "free". In short, the two organizations are growing closer together in our positions. The real distinction between the two of us is not methodology / philosophy, but instead secular / religious. Free Software is a moral position. Open Source is a practical position. The FSF says that you will be a better person if you traffic only in free software. The OSI says that you will be a happier person if you stick to using Open Source. -russ
No, the GPL has a clause in it that says that if you are giving away code that your recipients cannot give away because of patent infringement, then you can't give it away either.
While this may look like a bad thing on the face of it, it is intended to make sure that a patent-holder cannot pick off users one at a time. -russ
There's a lot of stupid things that Sun could do which are allowed by the CDDL. There is more needed to get the Open Source effect than is delineated by the choice of license. One of the stupid things they could do is distribute code patented by a third party.
There's an awful lot of suspicion about Sun going around, and for no good reason. Anybody know where OpenOffice came from? -russ
You're quite right. "Open Source" is not the greatest choice of terms. Never has been. It is both too descriptive and not descriptive enough. On the other hand, it's becoming well enough known that it could have been "Fribble Frazaram", and people would know what it means. When NPR runs a story on "Open Source", they don't have to define it. -russ
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft could easily compete and win with Linux, by making Windows a better OS.
Ceteris paribus. In principle, everything Windows can do, we can do better, and I assume we will. When the only difference between Windows and open source is the price, how can Microsoft compete?
-russ
p.s. software patents, but that's a different question for Martin.
The standard litany that we're supposed to tell coders when they ask "How do I make money off open source?" is "well, just sell support." That's fine but if you have to carry the cost of writing the software AND the support, somebody who competes against you by selling just the support will have a lower cost structure. That has to be weighed against your presumative better knowledge of the code having written it yourself. If the code is complicated and hard to understand, that makes it difficult for others to compete against you. But again, that's an example of a perverse incentive.
-russ
Regardless of the superiority of Linux to Windows, or vice-verse, it seems to me that the disruptive economic model of Linux cannot fail to displace Windows. As Microsoft itself has proven many time, you cannot compete with free. Do you see any hope for Microsoft?
-russ
Your co-workers probably don't want you gone as badly as the HP worker bees wanted Carly to be gone. The nameplate is doubtless gone from her office, it's been scrubbed clean, disinfected, and sprayed for parasites. They probably even dug a hole where her parking spot was, on the off-chance that she'll try to park there.
-russ, former HP employee
Maybe now HP will be able to put some resources into its Linux projects, like handhelds.org. I mean, c'mon, Stormy Peters is a sweet girl, but she doesn't have a budget! Give her a few million bucks and free reign to create some whoop-ass love for HP among Linux users, and you'll see HP become the new darling of the open source set.
-russ
Well, the interesting thing here is that some people on the Free Software Business mailing list claim that the economic model for open source has a flaw. You get paid for selling support, right? But that means fixing bugs that you, yourself wrote. There's a clear conflict of interest there, right? You make mistakes and then you profit from them. And yet here's Microsoft doing the same thing. So while I agree that it's a flaw, it doesn't seem to be limited to open source software!
-russ
Wouldn't it be better if Microsoft was to fix their bloody insecure software instead??
-russ
"they come up with a suitable open-source license, AMQ could become the Apache of messaging systems."
If they want to be the Apache, then they'll have to use the Apache license too. Effects have causes.
-russ
Don't forget that US GIS data is generally freely copyable. If your country doesn't have similar services, blame your government for not making its GIS data available.
-russ
The work GNU and others have done on software, licenses, etc, has been 100% about creating that infrastucture.
Nope. It's been 100% about eliminating proprietary software. Totally different goal; one which does not require the creation of any free software. I see what the FSF has achieved and how they achieved it. That doesn't mean that the method they chose is their goal! You're confusing means and ends. They're using good means to achieve good ends, yes, but they are separate, which I would like to hear you acknowledge.
-russ
Of course lots of people don't mention freedom to run or distribute! Lots of people don't mention that I have dark hair when they say "Russ Nelson". Google for "Russ" and you'll find very few mentions of dark hair. Does that mean that I don't have dark hair? Of course not.
Obviously you've gotten this idea from somewhere -- that open source is not free software. Could you explain where you got it from?
You don't understand the FSF's goal. You should do some more research. Here's just one example: at OSCON '93 in San Diego, RMS interrupted Tim O'Reilly and (CEO of Real)'s presentation to say "It's not free software! Don't use it!" I mean, he stood up, and fucking interrupted them. It was amazingly rude and impolite, not to mention wrong. If you think the FSF's goal is to make software free, how do you explain RMS's behavior? Was he coding at the time? Did he create any new free software by doing this?
-russ
I'd be happy to respond to you via email. nelson@crynwr.com.
-russ
"Reduce" Computer Algebra System.
Who calls it open source? Besides you, that is.
In current common usage, if the source code is available, it is open source;
I need more evidence to be persuaded that this is current common usage. Whenever I see somebody who says that, I correct them. I haven't run across any such examples for many months now.
-russ
The problem with a cellphone conversation which makes it different from an in-car conversation is that the conversant is not 1) aware that you're in a car, and 2) cannot tell when you need to shut up and drive. We need to develop different phone habits, so that 1) if you're using a cell in a car, you tell people, and 2) if you need the other person to shut up, there is a polite mechanism for making them do so. Obviously, saying "shut up, I'm in an intersection" is not currently polite, but it can become so.
There are precedents in this. The various telephone companies had to teach people what to do when they picked up a phone. It wasn't considered normal to start a telephone conversation with "hello".
-russ
FSF's goal is publicity for the idea of free software. The software it creates is merely a mechanism.
-russ
that they've been drinking the "kook-aid" as passed out by their leader
I'm referring to a particular position that RMS takes. Nobody is forcing him to be hostile to us. We are, I believe, not being hostile to him. Why does he refuse the favor?
-russ
From my viewpoint both the OSI and FSF are very useful and I'd love for them to cooperate instead of compete.
I'd love that, too, but first we have to get RMS to stop misrepresenting us. It's hard to declare peace when one of the parties is still undermining the others.
-russ
Microsoft also distributes free software. What is your point? That neither term is perfect and both are misused? Acknowledged ..... next!
-russ
I really don't think there is any chance that you will successfully change the common usage of open source now with any kind of semantic games.
Open source is free software. Can you name any open source software that isn't? If not, why do you think we need to change the common usage of open source?
-russ
Yeah, I think you're right. We haven't actually done anything. That's why the NPR report from Brazil on Monday was about Free Software instead of Open Source. If we had actually succeeded in accomplishing anything, the report would have been about Open Source.
-russ
p.s. the previous posting was brought to you by the letter S and the word Sarcasm. It's late; I'm tired; try googling for what we've done; really.
To an extent, you are correct. We definitely try not to talk about "free", mostly because of a perception that RMS peed in the pool. He's getting older, and has actually started to carve exceptions in the GPL. There's less of a perception at OSI that we can never say "free". In short, the two organizations are growing closer together in our positions. The real distinction between the two of us is not methodology / philosophy, but instead secular / religious. Free Software is a moral position. Open Source is a practical position. The FSF says that you will be a better person if you traffic only in free software. The OSI says that you will be a happier person if you stick to using Open Source.
-russ
No, the GPL has a clause in it that says that if you are giving away code that your recipients cannot give away because of patent infringement, then you can't give it away either.
While this may look like a bad thing on the face of it, it is intended to make sure that a patent-holder cannot pick off users one at a time.
-russ
There's a lot of stupid things that Sun could do which are allowed by the CDDL. There is more needed to get the Open Source effect than is delineated by the choice of license. One of the stupid things they could do is distribute code patented by a third party.
There's an awful lot of suspicion about Sun going around, and for no good reason. Anybody know where OpenOffice came from?
-russ
You're quite right. "Open Source" is not the greatest choice of terms. Never has been. It is both too descriptive and not descriptive enough. On the other hand, it's becoming well enough known that it could have been "Fribble Frazaram", and people would know what it means. When NPR runs a story on "Open Source", they don't have to define it.
-russ