Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming Businesses GNU is Not Unix IT Technology

How to Misunderstand Open Source 318

Posted by timothy from the in-light-of-recent-events dept.
Sam Hiser writes "This article intends to clear up some misconceptions about open source software development practices. It can help developers, IT and business managers transition from a closed development environment to an open one characterized by shorter time-to-market and lower costs. The author, Tom Adelstein -- an experienced CPA, code developer, project manager and consultant -- makes clear the notion that Open Source Software bears a mark of professionalism."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How to Misunderstand Open Source More

How to Misunderstand Open Source

Comments Filter:

  • See also ESR's Prudential Interview (Score:5, Informative)

    by eddy ( 18759 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @09:00AM (#7617402) Homepage Journal

    See also ESR's Prudential Interview [catb.org].

    • Re:See also ESR's Prudential Interview (Score:5, Interesting)

      by nickos ( 91443 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @10:48AM (#7618091)
      This [newsforge.com] is good too. The last paragraph reads:

      "We're rapidly heading for a world where computers are as common as pens or soccer balls -- and computer skills are as common as basic literacy or ball-kicking ability. And in that world, with or without an organized free software movement, I doubt that even 1/10 of 1% of all the people who "know how to program" will be able to get full-time jobs creating computer software."

      • Haha (Score:5, Interesting)

        by xant ( 99438 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @12:23PM (#7618961) Homepage
        Good one. Knowing how to program isn't a skill anyone can just acquire by being exposed to computers. After all, implementation hiding is one of the principles of interface design. So people exposed to the interfaces of software are being shielded from how it works internally, and they aren't going to absorb that knowledge. And even if they were exposed to the guts all day long, programming has a conceptual foundation in mathematics and needs a great deal of patience and practice--practice developing your memory to hold long logic chains mentally until they come to fruition in the software, practice knowing what patterns work and what don't, practice building disciplined habits.

        That said, I've always argued that anyone can become a computer programmer. But the skills are not the sort of thing you pick up just by using a computer all your life. You have to seek out training beyond that.

        I do agree with his point about the service model of software development. It's just not going to be anywhere near as hard as he claims it will be to get a job that way.

  • Our process (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @09:08AM (#7617439)
    I work for a medium-sized group of developers that is financed by one of the leading academic institutions in the East Coast.

    We have 6 developers, employ 18 project managers, and approx 25 sales/accounting folks. We find that our developers are used more efficiently by proofing any submitted code from our open source projects. The role of the project managers is to ensure communication with the other contributors all across the globe, streamline client requirements, and create documentation.

    A ratio of 1:3 between developers and project managers is ideal. It took us about three years to determine a formula that worked within our company. We find it extremely important that our developers are free to code and code only. The project managers will do all the tedious work surround programming, such as documentation, attend meetings, debugging, research, and even participating in social activities.

    We generate a revenue stream of over $20 million (AUS) last year and were able to clear a handsome profit.

    Which is nice.

    • Re:Our process (Score:5, Interesting)

      by selderrr ( 523988 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @09:31AM (#7617572) Journal
      The project managers will do all the tedious work ... (snip)

      You are so lucky te be able to create a structure like that. My guess is that 99% of the development units around the world have the same programmers vs. managers ratio, but have a net result of managers dumping work & shit on the developers' head. A slashdot poll would no doubt result in 99% of us calling managers 'crap' and only 1% (or less) calling them 'useful for levelling the workload'

      On the other hand : work without managers is a waste too, since you'll get the clients in your neck, which is even a bigger pain.

      • Re:Our process (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 1iar_parad0x ( 676662 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @09:44AM (#7617630)
        The reason most project managers don't do this is because they have the title "manager". They feel they're supposed to manage. Unfortunately, they try to manage the programmer, not the project. They also don't understand the development process. Frankly, the problems lies with upper management who've never written a line of code. Maybe the project managers should be given the titles of sales consultant or customer handler. Heck, the best project managers I've seen refer to themselves as "fecal matter" handlers. Okay it's been sanitized for the kiddies.

        Business majors don't want to think of themselves as equal with the people who develop the product. Heck, they certainly don't want to be seen as doing some programmer's busy work. Why we all know that programming is "blue collar" work anyway. It probably doesn't help that the average programmer really can't relate to the issues of sales either.
      • YHBT. HAND.

      • You are so lucky te be able to create a structure like that. My guess is that 99% of the development units around the world have the same programmers vs. managers ratio, but have a net result of managers dumping work & shit on the developers' head. A slashdot poll would no doubt result in 99% of us calling managers 'crap' and only 1% (or less) calling them 'useful for levelling the workload'

        I propose we have a meeting to discuss creating a task force to explore this issue. Ultimately, I'd like to

    • So your programmers "just code" and your managers are "free to participate in social activities".

      Don't you think your programmers might want to do something social once in a while? You know, just like real people?

      • Oh god.. most hilarious post I have read all day. Though probably for all the wrong reasons.

        You make out like the parents management are keeping his coders locked under their desks in cages, and only letting them out once a week so they can hose down the cage and put some fresh newspaper in.

        I think he means like customer facing social events, such as negotiating contracts etc - not going down to the local bar for a few frames of pool and a jug of beer!!

    • We find it extremely important that our developers are free to code and code only. The project managers will do all the tedious work surround programming, such as documentation, attend meetings, debugging, research ...

      This is what Brooks, in The Mythical Man Month, called a "chief programmer" team. Coplien talks about a "mercenary analyst" who's similar to one of your project managers.

      Fascinating, and potentially very, very cool.

      You don't have a New Jersey office, do you? :-)

  • With all due respect, how many of these are needed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @09:08AM (#7617441) Journal
    It seems we get a fairly regular drip-feed of "No look, this is what it REALLY is" articles in the computer press, and yet people still don't "get it".

    What's wrong with what's happening here ? Is the coverage in the wrong area ("preaching to the converted") ? Is the message simply being disbelieved ("TANSTAAFL") ? Is the lobbying by the closed-source community simply better (all those expense accounts...).

    I think all of these articles make good points (all that I can remember reading, anyway), but unless they start to make a difference, they're just hot air :-(

    I suppose there's always the argument that you need lots of fresh meat at the sharp end before the grinder (mainstream press) starts to notice any difference. If it's simply that it's a slow process, then by all means chaps, carry on :-)

    Simon

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • What's wrong with what's happening here ?

      I think the article had it just about right: people simply don't understand open-source. It used to be that unless they researched themselves, or were personally involved, that they probably knew nothing about it. But now, as companies such as Microsoft are beginning to see products such as Linux as increasing threats on their market share, the average consumer is hearing something--and it's coming from Microsoft. Needless to say, that's not going to be positiv

    • The message is complicated (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @10:46AM (#7618067)
      It seems we get a fairly regular drip-feed of "No look, this is what it REALLY is" articles in the computer press, and yet people still don't "get it".

      What's wrong with what's happening here ? Is the coverage in the wrong area ("preaching to the converted") ? Is the message simply being disbelieved ("TANSTAAFL") ? Is the lobbying by the closed-source community simply better (all those expense accounts...).

      They don't "get it" because the message is simultaneously complicated and unusual. Think about it. It's really hard to explain to a random business person how open source makes sense. ("Why would I give stuff away?...") More importantly the argument for open source is powerful, but it's not simple. When you are trying to convinve people, simplicity of the message matters.

      This is something I've noticed with companies. As a rule of thumb the ones that can explain in a few words what they do, tend to do pretty well. Microsoft sells software, IBM sells computers & services, Wal*mart is a retailer, etc. When they try to get fancy it's much harder to communicate to investors and customers why they should care about you. All those fancy "exchanges" we saw during the dot com boom? Really tough message to get across.

      While they have other advantages, message simplicity is one reason the RIAA is so effective in lobbying against filesharing. Their message (correct or not is beside the point) is summed up in one word, "theft". I haven't heard anyone make an equally coherent one word counter argument. Not for lack of trying trying either.

      Open source to some degree suffers from the same problem. It's hard to explain concisely and coherently why it's good. Not for lack of trying mind you. Think about "free as in speach/free as in beer". That's an explanation that we almost always have to explain. Not good.

      We make fun of them a lot but this is what marketing folks are (supposedly) good at. They spend enormous amounts of time trying to figure out how to get exactly the right message across in the most concise manner possible. And it's really, really hard to do well. It's an art form in some ways like making really tight reliable code. The really good stuff takes a lot of time and smarts to come up with, but is amazing to watch when it works.

    • I suppose there's always the argument that you need lots of fresh meat at the sharp end before the grinder (mainstream press) starts to notice any difference. If it's simply that it's a slow process, then by all means chaps, carry on :-)

      I was once told by a co-worker that at my employer, you had to say the same thing 7 different ways to 7 different groups before you would begin to be heard -- and this company was only 2000 people. Getting the message to the entire business community is orders of a magn

    • The reason people still don't get it is because this is just an article. People aren't heavily influenced by what they read in the newspaper. Heck, most people don't read the whole newspaper, they just read the parts that interest them.

      What OSS needs is marketing. Take a project like Mozilla Firebird. I guarantee if you turn http://www.mozilla.org/products/firebird/why into a tv commercial and air it during the superbowl that IE will be sitting in the #2 seat the day after. But we can't get marketing bec
      • The other problem is that people resist change simply because they don't want to have to go through the effort of changing or learning something new. Those people suck and I consider them worthless. Constantly change for the better. If changing something in your life will improve it in a significant way then do it. If not, then what's the point? Living the same unchanging boring life every day? I mean, sure it's just software so maybe I'm going a little far here. But when I switched to Firebird I was able t

  • Beer (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gxv ( 577982 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @09:09AM (#7617445)
    Still a lot of companies thinks: "If it's free it cannot be woth much".
    This is basically free as a beer/free as a speech paradox: They have to understand that it's not about price but it's about values.
    But even if they do - it hes to be 10 times better than MS Crap to beat their MS Marketing.
    • "But even if they do - it hes to be 10 times better than MS Crap to beat their MS Marketing.
      "

      But thats becoming increasingly hard. Stuff like Windows 2003 really DoesNotSuck(tm), so beating it becomes a matter of price, not just features like it used to be. The only thing we'll always have is the freedom -- The ability to have total control over your enviroment.
    • They have to understand that it's not about price but it's about values.

      I'm sure Kenneth Lay, Martha Stewart and Hilary Rosen would understand.

    • Re:Beer (Score:2, Interesting)

      by 1iar_parad0x ( 676662 )
      Well, there's also a steep learning curve and it's hard to find competent IT people to manage *nix solutions. I've been developing and administrating with OSS 3 solid years (plus 2 years of mixed Windows and OSS). Plus, add the fact that the HR people don't know how to fill positions properly. Oh, you've only had 10 years with Unix; sorry we're looking for someone with Red Hat experience.

      However, try to find a competent Unix Sys Admin. You know, somebody who understands firewalls enough to code a rule

  • Not free (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @09:17AM (#7617490)
    We felt we got a free puppy too. The management of our shop actually concluded that Redhat Linux (EE) was more expensive to install and maintain in the short term than Windows 2000/XP. We haven't used it long enough to study any long term effects.


    The reasons?


    1) Installing software correctly (apache, mysql, sybase) is a time thief. Installation is sooooo much more straightforward in Windows.

    2) Propagating changes in configuration (and new versions) is a hell in Linux, especially Sybase and Oracle products.

    3) Less documentation (usually) from commercial vendors.

    4) Worse support (usually) from commercial vendors.


    We're hoping to see long term effects in stability. The problem is that NONE our eight Windows 2000 servers has ever crashed...


    That said, Linux is so much cooler.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Not free (Score:2, Interesting)

        by mosschops ( 413617 )
        I would love it if there was some way to save all the configuration from one machine into a file, and then be able to load that file on another machine (at least for the same distro) and have it configure everything the same way at once. And i'm not talking about doing this manually, I want a program to find all the config files, take the options, put it into an xml doc or something, and then be able to reload it.

        For the most part you just need to save and restore the /etc branch to give the same system s

    • Re:Not free (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fuzzybunny ( 112938 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @09:47AM (#7617641) Homepage Journal

      Good points, well stated, mod parent up pls.

      Let me give a counterpoint to this. I'm putting together an incident response team for a major bank here--we deal with vulnerabilities, security-related system outages, and investigations. I also have a fairly wide background in architecture design and implementation, and systems engineering and administration. So, having gotten that out of the way, a few statements. Flame away, but these are generalizations, based on opinion and experience:

      Windows boxes are usually a lot more straightforward up front. This is a fact. No amount of whingeing about webmin, apt-get/ports and whatnot will change this (although FreeBSD ports just rock.) To install, you put a CD into a drive and click some buttons.

      The real problems are twofold. First, as complexity rises (we're talking 30,000+ workstations here plus god-knows-how-many Windows servers) your ability to keep an overview of things like patch deployment, user rights, software versions, etc. becomes a nightmarish time-sucker. MS have made some steps in the right direction with things like SUS; nonetheless, I've always found software update implementations as well as user rights tracking, among many things, to be horrendously kludgey in pure Windows environments. I realize that a lot of this is usually due to crappy procedures; nonetheless, the common answer to something like a fucked-up desktop PC is to have it collected and re-installed. Great.

      The second is, and I'm sorry to say this, security. It is absolutely true that I cannot just "jump in" and fix code in, say, a Linux kernel, when a hole is discovered. Just based on experience, though, I have yet to see a single worm hit a Solaris (yes yes I know, open source) or Linux environment with anything approaching the ferocity of what we've seen in the Windows world.

      The last point I keep making is one that everyone knows, but management do an ostrich (stick yer head in the sand, pretend nothing's happening) anyway; that is, in a complicated IT environment (managers, listen up) you simply do not get around hiring a bunch of really smart people and paying them a lot of money. It is illusory to assume that simply because your software installs at the push of a button, your IT is stable and reliable.
      • Reasonable and balanced discussion on slashdot? Stop the presses! Ok ok ... one point I would like to add to this "install is easy/hard under windows" is that software in *nix environments often doesn't require any kind of "workstation install" at all. Licensed software is almost always through a license server, preferences and settings are created in $HOME the first time the app is run, and so forth.

        That said, there's nothing quite like the manageability of a well run windows domain, with update status

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @10:04AM (#7617749)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Not free (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I would have to disagree with you. An experienced Linux admin is able to install the common stuff (such as apache, mysql, etc) easily, and it is pretty straight forward. Furthermore, news groups provide tons more help for any given opensource application. To state an example, I know first hand that installing and getting QMail to work properly is much more intuitive than trying to install and configure Exchange with all its hundreds of configureation options hidden everywhere.

      If you are finding that suppor
    • That is, until you get infected with a virus/trojan/the latest script kiddie exploit.

      If you want a pretty GUI to make changes to the system, get webmin.

      Propigating changes in Linux is simple. You edit the config file, send the process HUP or restart it using the initscripts.

  • here's one misconception (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jeffy124 ( 453342 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @09:21AM (#7617520) Homepage Journal
    that we're all hobbyists and only do OSS in our spare time (the description often made in news articles).

    Not necessarily the case, especially with the more major OSS products. Companies of various sizes have staff writing and contributing OSS code as their full-time job, and many university students also contribute as part of research projects. Even CmdrTaco could fall under the category of a small-company contributer for his work on Slashcode.

    The hobbyist argument is often made in FUD from MS to try and say that "we have professionals working for us, who does OSS have?" We should answer with somehting like "Redhat, IBM, Sun, Novell, ..." and so on.....

  • How to Misunderstand Closed Source (Score:5, Insightful)

    by A coward on a mouse ( 238331 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @09:27AM (#7617551)
    Copied my post on the same topic at OSNews...

    I'm reasonably certain that this comment will be poorly received here (at Slashdot as well as OSNews), but I just can't keep it to myself, so oh well.

    Truly, the author does a good job of dispelling one piece of FUD kicking around regarding open source software, specifically the belief that most open source software is written by wild-eyed loners without any concept of planning or design.

    Other than that, the article is, umm, not so good. Nearly everything he says about closed source processes describes "big company" closed source processes. I work for a small closed source shop and his description of the open source development process is very *very* close to our process. It sounds as if his only closed source experience was with IBM, which is quite possibly the most extreme example of a process-bound company one could imagine.

    Since analogies and similes are so popular on this thread, I would suggest that he what he is saying is like saying that vehicles made in Japan are more responsive than those made in America, using as examples a Japanese sports car and an American diesel locomotive.

    Anybody who has worked in or with a smaller, more nimble closed source shop will see his description of the "closed source process" as bullshit. Many of these people will conclude that the author is a crank and proceed to ignore the good point he does make about the professionalism of many open source projects and companies.

    The same applies to the stuff about standards. Closed source shops can and do adhere to open standards; I know we make every effort to do so in my shop. Many many open standards were originally developed by closed source shops cooperating to facilitate communication between closed source products and to offer the market choices in how to combine them. I know this is hard for some open source zealots to believe, but many closed source shops know that offering products based on open standards can help improve adoption of new technologies; when the tide comes in, all boats rise, ours and the competition's both.

    Don't get me wrong, I think open source software is a Good Thing; I use it daily (Mozilla, OpenBSD, Knoppix, blah blah blah) and push it whenever I get the chance. I just don't think this article is about what the author says it's about and I don't think it will appear convincing to anybody that isn't already convinced.

    PS - It also doesn't help that in an article about professionalism in the open source world he flubs "stock in trade" and "give way" in the opening sections.

    • Re:How to Misunderstand Closed Source (Score:5, Informative)

      by FatAlb3rt ( 533682 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @09:55AM (#7617696) Homepage
      I work in a lab of 23 people for a government contractor. The author's description of a closed source envirnoment is VERY much like ours.

      The name of the game here is process. Don't get me wrong, process is good, but when it gets in the way of logical decision making, process is bad. And management's knee-jerk reaction any time there's a problem ... add another step to the process. [rant mode elevating] Only half our lab are actually developers - 1 mgr, 4 sys admin types, 3 leads, and 2 process nazis. I've seen my coding time over the last 3 years go from around 50% to about 25% due to process "improvements". The rest of my time is spent in meetings, reviews, and documentation. You want that bug fixed? Well, you're looking at a month turnaround minimum. Yeah, it was a one-liner or two-liner, but we've got to cost the anomaly report, potential revisions and reviews for the requirements doc, the design doc, hand code over to CM, wait a week for them to build it and admin to configure, retest (sorry, that's full testing, we don't trust regression), test report, and acceptance meeting - each meeting has a three-day lead in which the documents must be released for review prior to the meeting. Any action items must be completed prior to moving to the next step in the process. Oh yeah, don't forget to do the paperwork associated with the original anomaly report...gotta get concurrence from the originator that your fix is legitimate. Oh, they're on vacation? Ok, hunt someone else down, explain the problem, show how to duplicate it, and if you're lucky they'll give you a thumbs up. Otherwise, give them time to look at it... Gotta get that CMM level 3, ya know.

      When's 5:00?

    • Re:How to Misunderstand Closed Source (Score:4, Interesting)

      by PaschalNee ( 451912 ) <[pnee] [at] [toombeola.com]> on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @10:05AM (#7617761) Homepage
      I agree with your comment. What the author calls the 'closed development model' is actually the waterfall model. He does not seem to understand that many close source companies (big and small - don't knock us big companies) use open standards and agile/eXtreme (non waterfall) development models.
    • If you are a 'small' company, then you are probably not doing any significant business to begin with. Additionally, if your development process is so close to the open source model, then why mince words? If something looks, feels, smells and tastes like another - then they must be the same thing.

      Finally, most of the software we use, both generic and for special projects comes from the 'big boys' because the perception of management is that big = good. From firsthand experience, I have seen that this is

  • The biggest misunderstandings (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @09:30AM (#7617570)
    This article intends to clear up some misconceptions about open source software development practices

    The biggest misconception is that Apache is indicative of all Open Source projects and that Microsoft is indicative of all Propriatory software providers. The fact is that every project is different, you can't lump them all together in one neat package and say "this is how all these work".

    The second biggest is that if you don't like a feature or bit of functionality within an open application you can just literally "jump in" and hack the code. This completely ignores the fact that even if you can code, most products are insanely complex and it'll take you several months to truely understand how it works, how it's put together, how the pieces interract and how you should go about working with it.

    • The firm I work for was re-evaluating proprietary terminal emulation software. Knowing that I could get the source for x3270 from the web, I downloaded a copy, thinking that I could port it to Windows in short order.

      And then I looked at the source. The first problem was that a port would require me to port not just the software, but the libraries used as well. And even then, I'd still have to figure out the build process - there are literally hundreds of files.

      Yes, I suppose if I was paid minimum

      • Bad example. OSS is more prevalent in the Linux / FreeBSD world, where the kernel itself follows the same model. Porting to Windows is another kettle of fish. The source being open means that you can port if you want to, but you could have run it on a linux server very quickly indeed, and then used something like PuTTY to allow everyone to use it from a central point. Sure, it's complex because it's not Windows, but those people who go for Linux reap benefits of cost of licences to offset the time lost gett
      • How far do you think you'd get porting a proprietary terminal emulation package?

        In any case, while I'm not familiar with that package (there are terminal emulators that run on windows, you know), projects with file counts in the hundreds are far from uncommon, and knowing how to familiarize yourself with the build system is a key part of being a programmer. You sound like someone whining about not being able to code because it's "too hard".

        Porting an application to a totally different platform is rarely a

      • Well, for one thing you were able to look at the source and see whether it was viable to port to Windows or not.
        OK, in this case it wasn't possible. But you were able to find out at (I assume) no more financial cost that the overheads on downloading the source code.

        Besides, OSS not being used isn't necessarily indiative of whether it's being looked at. 'Cos the thing about Open Source is that you don't necessarily have to pay/register/whatever for the "privelege" of seeing whether it fits your corproate

    • most products are insanely complex and it'll take you several months to truely understand how it works, how it's put together, how the pieces interract and how you should go about working with it

      Oh the irony... because the more insanely complex it is, the more likely it is to be either badly coded, or badly commented. I was looking at a popular webmail component recently, and saw that the variables weren't particularly well named, there were nowhere near enough comments, and certainly not enough good in

    • The process for an application change in the proprietary world and open world is the same:

      1. request the change
      2. wait (possibly send money)
      3. test
      4. deploy

      The problem with the proprietary model is there is only one organization that is capable of modifying the application for you, then they set the price instead of a fair market price.

      Joe

  • How to Misunderstand Open Source (Score:4, Funny)

    by wrinkledshirt ( 228541 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @09:32AM (#7617579) Homepage
    How to misunderstand open source?!?

    That's an easy one.

    Just listen to what Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates or Darl McBride have to say on the matter.

  • Professionalism??? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by vacuum_tuber ( 707626 ) * on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @09:41AM (#7617617) Journal
    "...makes clear the notion that Open Source Software bears a mark of professionalism."

    Oh. That must explain why so much of OSS is broken and has documentation that is incomplete and often actually erroneous, not to mention the almost endless nested dependencies that often break on install, making the install of the top-level item incomplete and hosed.

    "Professionalism" my ass.

    I detest closed software but professionalism is precisely what is lacking in OSS. The prevailing rule seems to be, "Close is good enough!"

    • That may be true for small projects with a limited set of users and a relatively low profile. Could you say the same thing for projects like Mozilla, KDE, GnuCash, OpenOffice, Scribus, KDevelop or even the kernel itself?

      • The One KEA wrote:

        That may be true for small projects with a limited set of users and a relatively low profile. Could you say the same thing for projects like Mozilla, KDE, GnuCash, OpenOffice, Scribus, KDevelop or even the kernel itself?

        The Linux kernel is widely and highly regarded, and stories of Linux systems running without crash or reboot for 6 months, a year, even more, are common.

        Mozilla? I turned to it when eBay dicked with their formats and brain-dead MSIE refused to save as HTML. Mozilla

    • If your package management system is broken, don't blame the authors of unrelated software. Debian (and from what I hear FreeBSD and Gentoo) get it right. People bitch and complain about tons of dependencies, while all I did was type "apt-get install gnucash". And yes, that was in "unstable". Anti-aliased fonts in Mozilla? A nice ncurses prompt set it all up for me.

      Alternatives are one of the greatest strengths of Open Source software. Instead of complaining about the ones that don't work, use the on

  • Misconceptions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) * on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @09:48AM (#7617649)
    From the article:

    His organization has started transitioning from a closed model to a standards based model


    Anyone who starts from the premise that closed-source precludes the use of open standards won't have much of value to say on the matter. I cite Sun as a key example - an almost entirely closed-source company that has one more than almost anyone else to drive open standards.

    Slashdot needs to start evaluating articles on quality and not just on how well they conform to the approved "open source is good" party line.

  • Misconceptions... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BJZQ8 ( 644168 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @09:52AM (#7617671) Homepage Journal
    I was at a conference yesterday where I heard several misconceptions about Linux...first off, the main presenter told everyone that Linux was "open for the world" and "anybody could get in and see your code." I thought that was just wonderful. He didn't want to hear it, but my contention would be that's like looking at a house, but the realtor/builder says "you can't inspect the foundation though...just trust us!" Wheras Linux is more like a house that you can inspect, take apart, rebuild whatever way you like. Of course, though, Microsoft products are "more mature" and "suited to a professional environment." Sheesh. All of the other attendees nodded their bobble heads in agreement.

    • I think that is one of the better analogies I have heard to date.

      Software is a *lot* like a house. And open source gives you the ability to open it up, modify it and rebuild it anyway you want if you know how to do it. For example, in my house I can easily change a light bulb, or replace the lock, or even build a bookshelf or deck, but would need help to add on an extra room. The same goes with open source. I can go in an change small things, but can't change larger things without help.

      Closed source still

  • Spill chucker works... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...need grandma chicken.

    has started giving weigh

  • Back-asswards (Score:5, Funny)

    by richie2000 ( 159732 ) <rickard.olsson@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @10:08AM (#7617791) Homepage Journal
    Misunderstand Open Source? Bah. I want to understand Miss Open Source [newsforge.com].

    (I bet you thought that link would be to something else. ;-)

  • I'd take this guy a bit more seriously if he had bothered to spellcheck his bloody article.

  • Too pretentious (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Junks Jerzey ( 54586 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @10:25AM (#7617897)
    That sums up open source in a nutshell, unfortunately. In reality, there's very little to say about it. Some open source software is great and everyone recognizes this (Apache, Python, Perl) and much more is crap. Ditto for commercial software. Lots of the so-called benefits of open source aren't really as amazing they seem. Ditto for commercial software. What it really comes down to is software that is truly better will stand out. This is why Perl and Python have become so entrenched. Other times it isn't at all clear why a commercial or open source product is better than its competition. This is the bottom line about Linux on the desktop. As much as many zealots want to push the superiority of Linux, it's hard to elucidate--even to other techies--why it's so much superior to alternatives (one side talks about security and the UNIX philosophy; the other side talks about fewer driver headaches and applications that work with much less fussing). When such arguments turn into "open vs. closed" then it comes across as a dodge, an empty way to win an argument.

    • Re:Too pretentious (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ShonFerg ( 652824 )
      I think that hits on something that's apparent with Open Source. Open Source seems to be really good at creating the technical underpinnings of larger systems... things like programming languages, web servers, Operating Systems, and especially cross-platform libraries. There's really no one else out there who will spend the time to make their libraries cross-platform.

      Still, I think Open Source developers shouldn't assume that releasing source code to the public is going to be a magic bullet, or even wise

  • What is this article?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GoofyBoy ( 44399 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @10:35AM (#7617977) Journal
    From what I understand before this article;

    OpenSource is a philosphy of saying "Look at this neat-o code I/we created. You can use it, learn something from it or improve it but just follow this license (which generally keeps with the same philosphy.)"

    From what the article says:

    OpenSource is a process which is collaberative. And by its very professional and methodical nature, is better than ClosedSource.

    I say that the later is a wrong definition of OpenSource. It doesn't address issues like "Free Speech" or "Free Beer" and talks about things like developement processes and takes a very narrow view of what "open" means.

  • Convince me to use Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HomerJayS ( 721692 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @11:27AM (#7618392)
    Maybe I just don't get this whole Open Source model thing, but one major thing was not addressed in the atricle.

    Suppose I am a for-profit business that offers some non-unique service. I need some software to provide my core business services to my customers.

    I need the software and I need it now (so I can't just wait for 'someone else' to develop it and realease it into the wild). My only alternative is to commission (aka pay IT consultants to develop the software).

    Since I am paying for the development costs (even code monkeys need to be fed), why should I develop the software under the GPL and release it to my competitors as soon as it is complete?

    Would I not essentially be subsidizing my competitors businesses?
    • Since I am paying for the development costs (even code monkeys need to be fed), why should I develop the software under the GPL and release it to my competitors as soon as it is complete?

      In this situation, don't give it to them for free. You can still use the GPL, but you should distribute it only in exchange for a payment which is significantly higher than half your development costs. See the section on Expensive Free Software [freestrategy.info] in the Free Software Business Strategy Guide.

    • Maybe I just don't get this whole Open Source model thing, but one major thing was not addressed in the atricle.

      Suppose I am a for-profit business that offers some non-unique service. I need some software to provide my core business services to my customers.

      I need the software and I need it now (so I can't just wait for 'someone else' to develop it and realease it into the wild). My only alternative is to commission (aka pay IT consultants to develop the software).

      Since I am paying for the developme

  • Professional means:
    Coding to a standard; does open source have a reviewer who can compell every project/fix to adhere to the coding standards
    UI to a standard; ditto
    Documentation to a standard; ditto
    Providing tests which go into a test suite that is used to assure no regression; ditto
    Release management that assures that standard functionality, load, longevity, security and stress tests are run before the product goes out; ditto

    The wornderful anarchy that is the open source movement is one of its strengths,

  • Could someone answer my questions? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jolshefsky ( 560014 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @12:24PM (#7618969) Homepage
    I thought, "great ... this will finally explain this 'open source' thingy completely." Unfortunately, I still have the same questions as when I started. I know it's kind of late in the game (i.e. this comment will probably get buried in the Slashdot world) but I thought I'd take a crack anyway.
    1. Why is it called "open source?" To me, this means that the source code--the "source"--is available for review and use by anyone--hence, "open." The article seems to be comparing the waterfall model of software development with a colaborative model, calling the former "closed source" and the latter "open source."
    2. I gather that there are some (most?) open-source projects have a licensing agreement that says that if you use the project as part of your own that you have to publish the source to the public. Is this true? I assume this is true in some cases, and if so, isn't it a pain to align all the licensing agreements (i.e. you can't use a project that requires published source code and a project that only provides binaries in your own project because the licensing conflicts, right?)
    3. It seems that if the owner of a project publishes the source code for the project, they can't make money. Or, at least, they'll make less money ... especially if they create some clever way of doing things that people will immediately "borrow" as soon as they see how it's done. Does this have anything to do with "open source?"
    4. If you're a programmer, how do you make a living making open source programs? It seems they're all given away for free, so "no money in, no money out," right?
    Thanks.

    • Re:Could someone answer my questions? (Score:5, Informative)

      by LemonYellow ( 244336 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @01:11PM (#7619450)
      If this is a troll, I apologise for my naivete. Anyway, here are your answers:

      1) The article suggests that open source methods are useful even in a closed environment. You're right; If the code isn't available then it isn't open source.

      2) 'License alignment' can be a problem. The premise is that you only get to play the open source game if you play by the rules; If you want to use the products of others' hard work, you have to make your own code available. Projects which rely on closed binaries can't use code licensed under the (restrictive) GPL at all, but may be able to use code with less restrictive licenses (like the Lesser GPL.)

      3) Plenty of companies make money from open source code, they just don't make it from keeping code secret. Usually the money is to be made by adding convenience (shrink-wrapped software with a nice installation routine, say) or services (such as support.) Of course, they don't have the same development costs as companies which are closed, as they can build on the work of others rather than starting from scratch.

      4) Most programmers (AFAIK) work for companies where the end product isn't software. They are in-house programmers developing internal systems, or the company uses software to sell hardware, or the company uses software to sell support. Companies which go open-source will surely have a business plan which will take into account the loss of revenue in software sales. The money is to be made elsewhere.

  • Free markets are about freedom (Score:4, Insightful)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @12:46PM (#7619231)

    Open source will win over Microsoft in the marketplace for the same reasons that capitalisim won out over communisim. Because economies are not about markets, or social orginisation, but about freedom. When you have freedom then the markets tend to take care of themselves as people tend to use those freedoms to look out for their own best interest.

    If you look at copyrights more like a government regulation on how people use and distribute information, and less like a free market property right - then the reason why GNU/Linux is taking off becomes obvious as well as the reason why it will win over Microsoft and other closed software inspite of their half-trillion market cap.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Close