Open Source could use a face lift.
The answer, of course, is nothing. It isn't hard to come up with examples of industry-leading software born of the open source world -- for example, you could argue that there isn't a Web server in existence that's more mature than Apache. |
|
|
Comments (12)
where is this grownup's table?
The "grown-ups" table is, IMESHO, conceptually similar to "adult" movies, most of which are fundamentally very childish. It seems to boil down to "have money to burn, and act like you own the road".
Mark Shuttleworth has money to burn, but doesn't act like he owns the road (watch the video of his Soyuz talk from LCA2005; the guy is definitely legend material!) so doesn't get taken seriously by most of the "movers and shakers". [digression: more fool, them]
Many other "Open Source luminaries" act like they own the road, but they have very little money to burn, so they don't get taken seriously.
William Henry "Trey" Gates III has money to burn and acts like he designed and built the road with his own sweat, but his almost perfect lack of foresight combined with his breath-taking chutzpah have started to get him laughed at in many places, even if sometimes behind his back. The supply of dead presidents and chutzpah have staved this off for a ridiculously long time, but it's still happening.
The final item to flee this particular Pandora's Box is the nature of Open Source: it doesn't need to be taken seriously by "movers and shakers" in order to achieve widespread "market" penetration; I call to witness Apache, BIND, SendMail, PostFix, QMail, EXIM, Samba, PostgreSQL, PERL, PHP, Linux and sundry fellow travellers who all achieved significant "market" share before ever a serious investor knew they existed.
Capitalism doesn't work? Maybe we can put it another way.
The whole issue has much confusion and bad metaphors around it. People simply react when they hear or see these labels. People who value money as a commodity over human life can't deal with others who know they will ultimately come to an end and that nothing they have accumulated will matter. No U-Haul trailers in the funeral procession one might say.
So, if you care about the quality of your life and realize that the game is bigger than any one individual, especially oneself, then behavior modifies. People become interested in making a difference. That's not anti-capitalism, it's about making a contribution and knowing it has something of a benefit to others. It's done without expectation of getting something for it. That's also known as giving.
People think they can cheat and get away with it. But ultimately, we all face the same fate. Open source is not about who has the most applications and who gathers the most money and piles it up. One can be successful with open source as easily as with proprietary software. It's about who can offer value, has the agreement of the world about the value and can have the symbol of value for some period of time.
Some people walk around with their noises in the air in $3000 Italian suits and live on marble floors and don't look at others, ridicule others and pretend to be invincible. So, what, all that and 75 cents will buy you an 8 ounce coca cola.
It comes down to what is considered as profit? A pile of money or an improved community/person.
Unfortunately, several thousand years of human history answer that one.
On a different note...
It's like when the Bible first came out in the common tongue, Previously it was in latin and it was read in latin and the priests had the only "correct interpretation". The appearance of the Bible caused a storm because here it was in English, read it yourself and decide for yourself what it means and what your response to it is. Sort of a bit like open sourcing the Word.
And Windows is encrypted and we have to take it from the mother church what is what and when and how much. And we are taxed for their sins. Except they're our sins because the EULA says so. And Bill periodically issues Papal Bulls.
And along comes Open Source and they're doing the media equivalent of burning people at the stake, attempting to discredit the idea, preaching from the pulpit against it.
But the printing presses (distros/cd-burners) keep springing up everywhere and the code is out and the idea is out and the stable alas, is empty.
One the second, the parallel makes for an excellent metaphor.
Thanks!
It's easy to rip something to shreds without offering a workable alternative. So far, that hasn't happened.
Capitalism works beautifully as an economic system. It requires a functional government doing the things that a government should do (watchdog the environment, adjudicate disputes, promulgate and enforce such laws as needed to protect the interests of all citizens, etc.).
The open source community model provides such an alternative or at least a workable basis for one. I'm not unrealistic enough to think we can just toss the present system out of the window. I only pointed out that the present system isn't working for the majority.
All of which sprang from the feeling that we need people who periodically say things that make us uncomfortable. And that accepting those people and bothering to at least listen and consider what they are saying is more grown up than stifling free speech by insisting on the party line being kept to at all times, or, worse, stifling free speech "lest we upset the sponsors".
To say capitalism works when a monopoly controls the technology market is wishful thinking. I can't buy a DVD and watch it on my computer because of some screwed up law? And if I am suspected of piracy, US Marshalls show up at my door and take all my equipment and records away and I don't see them again for months maybe years.
Hey, I called the FBI once to report computer crime, they took the compromised computer and I got it back eighteen months later and nothing happened. It was then a worthles piece of junk.
Capitalism works occassionally in the present environment. Unregulated, it doesn't work - look at Russia and the mafia. When regulation is bought off - Al Capone, it doesn't work. When politicians become pawns, it doesn't work.
That's not to say that people can't own the means of production. It means somebody is fooling around with people's ownership and basically confiscating the means of production from those who can provide the value in the community.
Bill Gates's vision is for "one world, one net, one program". Doesn't sound to me like he's planning on sharing it with anybody.
If the market is seen as, and is allowed to be, a cut throat place of under handed deals and merciless competition and moral compromise when expedient, then it follows that companies will be the same. This is also true of politics.
The issue of whether or not to keep religion and state affairs separate has been a major one in history. Perhaps we should consider whether to keep business and state apart. It is wrong that companies can influence policy to their advantage and evade the law by abusing the legal system.
Take the recent EU fine for Microsoft. To make things a little fairer the fine should have been paid straight away and put into an account. At the end of the trials, if Microsoft win, they get their money back. The interest goes to help the homeless of Europe. A system like this would encourage better behaviour by corporations and at the same time, reduce the amount of time and money wasted on endless appeals. This isn't likely to happen though, several administrations in this country (the UK) have come into power promising reform and the end of corporate sleaze and the closing of "tax loopholes" and little has changed. Twas ever thus.
A somewhat daunting task is in front of us. To change. To change the economic system so it doesn't rely on a constant stream of profit generated by an endless circle of produce-consume-discard. It can only come from the consumers, via education. And education by example not by dictat. Which in turn means using the media. Where you come up against the influence of the "multi-nationals" again.
I suspect the coming months and years will be most interesting. Can the open source model really invade consciousness to the point where it begins to change society and government?
The more I see the less I think of arguments like this.
Here's what I have come to know:
Organizations with astute IT management -- the kind whose support for logistics helped to turn Wal-Mart into a retail powerhouse, for example -- don't give a rat's ass what Eric Raymond or Richard Stallman or anybody else has to say.
Their concerns are very prosaic:
They need to provide services that will help their company to make money, preferably to make more money more effectively and more cheaply than the competitors.
Open Source software is part of that process. It is malleable, it is flexible. You can configure it and its supporting hardware to fit your business needs rather than your vendors licensing schemes.
Microsoft may or may not be evil. It does, however, tend to charge lots of money for software that is painfully licensed and insufficiently robust for heavy duty enterprise work. That doesn't go over well with people who need to move the enterprise forward.
Let everybody jabber all they want. Until talks starts affecting the bottom line, serious IT folks won't care.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
