I'm not really expecting a response, since I imagine his mailbox is swamped about now. This will be compounded by the fact that he is apparently away (got an autoreply to my email) and won't be checking email until Nov. 10.
Amazing, something that actually made me de-lurk on Slashdot...
Here is my letter to this guy:
From: Kevin B. McCarty <kmccarty@nospam.Princeton.EDU> To: howard@princeton.edu Subject: Your article in Syllabus (perspective from a Princeton graduate student)
Sir:
I am a graduate student in the Princeton University Physics Department. I came across your article regarding open source software on Syllabus Magazine's web site, in which you do a grave disservice to Princeton University's reputation of technical excellence. Allow me to elaborate.
You say, with a tad of sarcasm:
"These folks [open source software developers] are some of the same great people who are supposed to be working for you anyway, plus a smattering of teenagers too young to work at Redmond, hackers, virus creators, and a menagerie of others with whom you will feel great pride in entrusting your IT infrastructure."
I am interested, then, in how you feel about the Princeton University web servers at www.princeton.edu running Apache, the most well-known open source web server. Apparently [1], Apache has more than 2/3 of the web server market share on the Internet, so someone must trust these people. Of course, the fact that source code is available for open source projects may have something to do with this trust. By the way, how many open source viruses have you seen? (Microsoft Word macros don't count.)
"We may have to give up project planning, quality control, coding standards, accountability, version control, and support, but it's FREE and we get the ability to modify the source code ourselves, something that is extremely dangerous to do, was discredited decades ago, and few people do anyway."
Really? Who discredited the ability to modify source code? Did I miss a Congressional report or something? I apologize for calling you dead wrong, but in fact the Linux kernel [2], one of the most successful open source projects in existence, has been continually updated and improved since its first release in 1991, all by people with an interest in changing source code. These "dangerous" modifications have strangely made Linux and its BSD Unix cousins more stable than any release of Windows. The open source software development process is self-regulating: stable, good software survives, while low-quality efforts are ignored and drop from the face of the Internet. It is too bad that mediocre commercial software does not do the same, since it is too well-supported by people who will not consider using anything they are not required to pay for.
"We either pay commercial software developers, pay to build it ourselves, or pay the even higher price to manage and maintain FREE open source software."
I don't suppose you are aware of the existence of companies who provide support for open source software. Believe it or not, it is possible to buy a support contract from most major Linux distributors, e.g., [3]. It is even possible to ask (politely) for FREE support on open source message boards, such as [4], where you will usually get far more helpful responses than the standard Microsoft "Have you tried rebooting? Reinstalling?".
"Another way to get free software is to have students develop our critical systems," and "You can also get free software developed by having your users develop it for you."
These are ridiculous straw man arguments. No sane system administrator would tell his/her students or users to develop their own softwa
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the correction.
I'm not really expecting a response, since I imagine his mailbox is swamped about now. This will be compounded by the fact that he is apparently away (got an autoreply to my email) and won't be checking email until Nov. 10.
Amazing, something that actually made me de-lurk on Slashdot...
Here is my letter to this guy:
Sir:
I am a graduate student in the Princeton University Physics Department. I came across your article regarding open source software on Syllabus Magazine's web site, in which you do a grave disservice to Princeton University's reputation of technical excellence. Allow me to elaborate.
You say, with a tad of sarcasm:
"These folks [open source software developers] are some of the same great people who are supposed to be working for you anyway, plus a smattering of teenagers too young to work at Redmond, hackers, virus creators, and a menagerie of others with whom you will feel great pride in entrusting your IT infrastructure."
I am interested, then, in how you feel about the Princeton University web servers at www.princeton.edu running Apache, the most well-known open source web server. Apparently [1], Apache has more than 2/3 of the web server market share on the Internet, so someone must trust these people. Of course, the fact that source code is available for open source projects may have something to do with this trust. By the way, how many open source viruses have you seen? (Microsoft Word macros don't count.)
[1] http://www.netcraft.com/
You say:
"We may have to give up project planning, quality control, coding standards, accountability, version control, and support, but it's FREE and we get the ability to modify the source code ourselves, something that is extremely dangerous to do, was discredited decades ago, and few people do anyway."
Really? Who discredited the ability to modify source code? Did I miss a Congressional report or something? I apologize for calling you dead wrong, but in fact the Linux kernel [2], one of the most successful open source projects in existence, has been continually updated and improved since its first release in 1991, all by people with an interest in changing source code. These "dangerous" modifications have strangely made Linux and its BSD Unix cousins more stable than any release of Windows. The open source software development process is self-regulating: stable, good software survives, while low-quality efforts are ignored and drop from the face of the Internet. It is too bad that mediocre commercial software does not do the same, since it is too well-supported by people who will not consider using anything they are not required to pay for.
[2] http://www.kernel.org/
You say:
"We either pay commercial software developers, pay to build it ourselves, or pay the even higher price to manage and maintain FREE open source software."
I don't suppose you are aware of the existence of companies who provide support for open source software. Believe it or not, it is possible to buy a support contract from most major Linux distributors, e.g., [3]. It is even possible to ask (politely) for FREE support on open source message boards, such as [4], where you will usually get far more helpful responses than the standard Microsoft "Have you tried rebooting? Reinstalling?".
[3] http://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce/
[4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/
You say:
"Another way to get free software is to have students develop our critical systems," and "You can also get free software developed by having your users develop it for you."
These are ridiculous straw man arguments. No sane system administrator would tell his/her students or users to develop their own softwa
I submitted this as bug 139277 to bugzilla.mozilla.org. Feel free to follow up.