Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Books Media Software

Open Sources 2.0 50

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the required-reading-test-next-thursday dept.
dpilgrim writes "O'Reilly has just released a successor volume to 1999's "Open Sources", entitled "Open Sources 2.0". The table of contents reveals contributions from a number of open source luminaries, including Mozilla's Mitchell Baker, Samba's Jeremy Allison, and Sleepycat's Michael Olson. There's also an essay co-authored by Slashdot's own Jeff Bates. The sample chapter is the introduction, and includes an entertaining riff on the parallels between the open source community and the Burning Man community. This volume is edited by two of the original three editors, Chris DiBona (former Slashdot editor) and Mark Stone, together with Danese Cooper. You might want to compare this with the original "Open Sources", whose entire text can be found online."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open Sources 2.0 More

Open Sources 2.0

Comments Filter:

  • It takes a community... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fak3r ( 917687 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:30PM (#13866013) Homepage
    This book should be much more relevant now that the 'dot-com' hype has disappated and people can see the fruits of real community supported development. When you see how poorly properitary software companies are run (I'm talking about the ones I('ve) work(ed) for); things like that are not tolerated in OSS. If push comes to shove (I'm looking at you XFree86) a fork may develop giving users a true option that could become superior to it's ancestor. The burning man ref seems a bit off, as that's not people being realy, it's a vacation. OSS is real in that real work gets done by someone everyday (unlike me at my job...)

    • Tim O'Reilly has become a hypster himself (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Check this out, from his "blog":

      And yes, Google's introduction of page rank was absolutely a milestone in this evolution of the web, but what was once an isolated stroke of genius is now being understood as one of the keys to the new paradigm. There's a set of "Web 2.0 design patterns" -- architecting systems so that they get smarter the more people use them, monetizing the long tail via a combination of customer-self service and algorithmic management, lightweight business models made possible by cooperati

      • You know, he has a pretty good track record of spotting trends and then capitalizing on them by getting books out about them

        Yes and everybody does this, and it's called Marketing. Technology itself is subject to fashion, trends, exactly the same way as any other culture or subcultrure; Ajax is an excellent example, hip and hype drive searchers and loboratories to new trends, now jargon, this is the way knowledge is structured. Eugene Garfield at the SCI (Science Citation Index) and people who have studied t

  • Let it be Known! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by quadra23 ( 786171 )
    The Full Description [oreilly.com] is available. Haha, I really get a kick out of the section titled Read the Source, Luke. Then there's quotes such as, In the web server space, Microsoft's complete denial of the Open Source phenomenon is almost amusing. The Apache web server has, at the time of writing, more than 50% of the web serving market according the Netcraft survey ( http://www.netcraft.com/survey [netcraft.com]). When you look at advertisements for Microsoft's Internet Information Server (IIS) you see them tout that they own

    • Re:Let it be Known! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Otter ( 3800 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:50PM (#13866144) Journal
      Microsoft's complete denial of the Open Source phenomenon is almost amusing. The Apache web server has, at the time of writing, more than 50% of the web serving market according the Netcraft survey ( http://www.netcraft.com/survey [netcraft.com]). When you look at advertisements for Microsoft's Internet Information Server (IIS) you see them tout that they own over half the market in web serving--over half the commercial server market, that is.

      I believe the claim about the "commercial server market" refers to business-operated web servers, not to commercial server software. If I'm correct, "almost amusing" would be the introduction making such a silly error.

      In fact, reading the introduction -- the whole thing is idiotic. It opens with an anecdote from The Double Helix that not only misspells Max Delbruck's name repeatedly but ascribes a view to Jim Watson that's contradicted by the quote they use. In general, the notion of Watson as a non-competitive sharer is preposterous to anyone who has read the book.

      • On the off chance that "Delbruk" was actually a variant spelling by Watson, I checked the quote in the original -- nope. The Open Sources editors simply copied a block of text, misspelled Delbruck's name three times and then kept mispelling it elsewhere. And that's on top of the fact that their larger point is dragging James Watson in to support a vision of potluck communal science that's contrary to everything that motivates him in the book.

        The real jewel in there, though, is:

        Industry can have a negative

      • This volume is edited by two of the original three editors, Chris DiBona (former Slashdot editor) - nuff said?

  • Burning Man? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fatboy ( 6851 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:35PM (#13866045)
    Could they elaborate? I thought "Burning Man" was like the west coast version of Bonnaroo. I don't see how "hippie fests" have anything to do with developing great software. But then again, I don't like hippies.

    • Re:Burning Man? (Score:2, Funny)

      by tnk1 ( 899206 )
      Could they elaborate? I thought "Burning Man" was like the west coast version of Bonnaroo. I don't see how "hippie fests" have anything to do with developing great software. But then again, I don't like hippies.

      It's because all OSS programmers are socialist hippies.

      Duh.

      Naked bike race anyone?

    • It might have something to do with personal hygene, or lack thereof. But definitely no parallels when it comes to naked women running around.

    • Re:Burning Man? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bobbyshade ( 906085 )
      that's cool, we don't like you too, but beyond that non point...burning man is for rich yuppies and pseudo artists. mostly drunk folk that are as far from the hippie dogma/ethic as folks can get. these people spend $20,000.00 to build edifices that they then burn down. when was the last time you heard of a hippie landing his beechcraft at a love in? http://www.deepwoodsband.com/ [deepwoodsband.com] an americania band in the AlteredNative genre

    • Re:Burning Man? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I like hippies in direct proportion to how long ago they bathed.

      Pretty hippie-chick, not wearing a bra, carrying a bag of pot she wants to share, bathed this morning: LIKE

      Greasy hippie with 5-day beard, bathed last month before his "soul-seeking journey", not wearing shoes: DISLIKE

    • Re:Burning Man? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by agnosonga ( 601770 )
      If you think of burningman as just a big "hippie fest" then I can see why you would be confused by its appearance in the book. But even though it resembles many "hippie fests" (ie the Oregon Country Fair), it has a major unique quality that does correlate to the open source community: its economy.

      Unfettered from monetary exchange, however, most denizens of Burning Man gravitate toward a gift economy. Acts of giving range from the mundane to the extravagant: the accordion player who serenades those in th

    • Don't knock Burning Man until you've tried it [flickr.com]

      An absolutely NSFW link.

    • Re:Burning Man? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tom Christiansen ( 54829 ) <tchrist@perl.com> on Monday October 24, 2005 @10:06PM (#13868540) Homepage

      I thought "Burning Man" was like the west coast version of Bonnaroo. I don't see how "hippie fests" have anything to do with developing great software. But then again, I don't like hippies.

      To pretend that Burning Man is "like" any one particular thing is like unto converting first a long and intricate novel to a flash-bang Hollywood movie, that movie then to a trailer clip, and finally, that little clip to nothing but a simplistic sound-byte. Just like some data-stream lossily compressed into an inpoverished palimpsest of the original, this final sound-byte, so devoid of depth and detail, cannot help but be misleading, be deceptive--and ultimately, therefore, insulting.

      For even a Burner who purports to represent Burning Man as "like" any single thing and then leaves it at that without elaboration is guilty of this sort of reductionist marketing (read: lying) crime. As for a non-Burner who does this, why, this is even worse, nothing but a foreigner speaking out of hearsay and ignorance.

      Either go to the Burn, or don't even try to start to describe the experience. You have absolutely no clue.

      This hippy thing is really quite curious. To be a "hippy" changed from a positive thing to a negative one, largely depending on one's birth year. Children born near the start of the 60's think of "hippies" as simple and kindly folk who have no trek with DDT, killing, or cruelty, with meaningless rules required by mindless, goose-stepping obediance to their fathers' fathers' fathers' notions of Victorian prudence and propriety, a people who can't always be bothered to shave precisely when and where they're told to.

      Yet for those who were born sometime in the late 70's or beyond, a "hippy" seems in contrast to be more apt to conjure notions of unwashed beggars in ragged but colorful clothing who as before can't be bothered to shave when and where they're told to. They have no connection to the Beat Generation, just dirty spongers seeking a life without ties--of all sorts.

      Personally, I do find it peculiar how often the latter-borns point out superficial cleanliness as some negative determining factor. What about the people? Perhaps these prudes, so quick to judge their fellow, need a sobering turn at Outward Bound with a backpack and a week in the wilderness--or a bit of time spent in 90+% of the world outside their fairytale bubble of extreme hygiene.

      A couple weeks past this last Burn, The Economist had an article largely pooh-poohing the gift culture at Burning Man, much more so than that newspaper has ever decried the open source movement. One thing they got right, though, is seen here:

      Normally, behind any hippie event, there are various corporate sorts or hairy entrepreneurs filling their boots with cash. But at Burning Man all buying, selling or advertising was banned. The 3.75-square-mile (six-square-km) site was strictly a commerce-free zone, with two exceptions to prove the rule: first, you had to buy a ticket to get in (which could cost $300 for the whole week and paid for the site, the Portaloos and a few basic amenities); and, second, at the central camp you could buy coffee, tea and ice. Everything else had to be given away. Even bartering is discouraged.

      To be freed for even a brief spell from the constant crush of the unending, ubiquitous advertising and consequent grovelling and lying that plague our society really is a refreshing change, a respite from tyranny and deception. No one ever asks what "you do for living"; sometimes, though, they ask you what "you live for doing", which seems more important.

      As for the cost, try renting a hotel for 8 days: you'll be spending more than the cost of a Burning Man ticket ($175 - 2x that last year) most anywhere and anywhen in the United States today.

      The "gift culture" thing really is shared in common between the open source culture and Burner culture. If you don'

      • >Don't knock what you do not know.

        I have been, and I immediately got the reference. In fact in light of the recent hubub about Discovery Channel doing an on-playa episode of some new pseudo-reality-tv show and paying BM.Org an undisclosed amount of money had me comparing Burning Man to a child growing through the years - now at age 20 beginning to finally grow out into the world comfortably. Very much like open source with Linux taking many of the first hard steps for the larger communities to follow

  • The book has been slashdotted... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24, 2005 @03:46PM (#13866115)
    There's also an essay co-authored by Slashdot's own Jeff Bates. The sample chapter is the introduction, and includes an entertaining riff on the parallels between the open source community and the Burning Man community. This volume is edited by two of the original three editors, Chris DiBona (former Slashdot editor)

    Does this mean it's full of typoos, dupes, articles with links that don't reference the actual article, and pictures of goatse?

    And do you have to type the word in the image to read the book?

    (mind reading capcha="bullocks")

  • Essay Draws Parallels to Knighthood (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bokumo ( 169717 ) on Monday October 24, 2005 @04:09PM (#13866276) Homepage
    The essay/introduction does draw parallels between Burning Man and open source software, but large portions of the essay were devoted to descriptions of what happens at Burning Man with only tenuous connections made to open-source software.

    I thought the parallels drawn between the open source movement and the feudal concept of knighthood were far more insightful and appropriate.

    • I thought the parallels drawn between the open source movement and the feudal concept of knighthood were far more insightful and appropriate.

      I have to sort of agree with this. But I think that the reason the knighthood analogy was more insightful is because it was actually explained and tied in. Had he explained the parallels between burningman and the open source community rather than leaving it up to the reader to understand, you all wouldnt be so confused. I did not spend much time trying to make it r

  • Wack (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24, 2005 @04:18PM (#13866348)
    It's completely wack when a book about the "open-source" movement is only sold and not available online for free.

  • Has it been written yet? AFAIK There is no glut of good books about Open Source, esp. for developers. (I don't mean books about specific OSS projects--of which there are plenty.)

    Yes, I'm familiar with "Succeeding with Open Source" by Bernard Golden. But if I'm not mistaken that book is all about USING pre-existing OSS as one uses "off-the-shelf" components.

    How about some DIY OSS? I'm sure it's "A Long Way To The Top," but if there were some good OSS do's and don'ts (send links if you got 'em!), mayb

  • ...and includes an entertaining riff on the parallels between the open source community and the Burning Man community.

    [toke] Dude, you gotta try this DVDJon stuff! It's so open!
    Sure, man, I...What?! $0.99 for a song? Ten bucks for a bottle of water? What are they smoking?!
    [cough] [toke] Dude, maybe it's that bad [cough] Microsoft stuff that's goin' around. [toke] It's like, clooooooosed.

    --Rob

  • Seems kind of hypocritical to me, all these opensource "gurus" allowing their essays to be reproduced under what I assume is the old copyright scheme many of them claim to hate.
  • I can't wait to get the book. I love to study all aspects of the computer culture this will be an awesome book to get. I am going to look into getting the other one soon. My question is why did it take so long to revise it? I mean with the speed things move at on the web it should be a whole heck of a lot different.
  • Whatever level of irrelevance of the actual book content, I like the cover artist bravely used the most potent magical symbol of the postmodern chaos magick. In fiery context. Excellent choice.
  • The introduction gives the idea that OS/Free Software is about "free" as in "free beer" instead of "free" as in "free speech". It says "commodization" is about zero cost and that OS/FS is about or its success is about "commodization". It seems to think that it is all about chilvary and cool community grooviness rather than about the freedom to innovate and fully use software. The old myth that OS/FS developerors are fundamentally in a privileged position where they do not need to make a living is rolled

Slashdot Top Deals

"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe

Close