Slashdot Log In
NYT On Open Source
Posted by
Roblimo
on Mon Aug 28, 2000 02:26 AM
from the mostly-harmless dept.
from the mostly-harmless dept.
KOHb writes: "The NY Times has a front-Web page article on using Open Source to bridge the "Software Gap." Mentions Mozilla, Apache, and other friends." Well-researched piece, talks of potential changes in software development -- both positive and negative -- as the Open Source model spreads. (Free, reg. req. to read.)
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
NYT on Open Source
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 60 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Read the Software Conspiracy; Navy Ships Run NT (Score:4)
While Slashdot discussed the government's reluctance to accept Open Source in Linux -- Government Acceptance vs. Actual Use [slashdot.org], apparently our Nation's proud warriors have no problem putting our nation at risk at the hands of a closed-source operating system as evidenced in USS Yorktown dead in water after divide by zero [ncl.ac.uk]. The mighty Yorktown had to be towed back into port after its NT network crashed when a sailor entered a "0" into a data entry field.
A very good article . . . (Score:3)
One or two things that I found rather interesting: The quote from Jim Gray at MS - he views open source as a "challenge" . . . I may be over-analysing a throwaway line, but that sound like MS looking at open source as a challenge to their position (which it is), rather than as a potential opportunity for them and the rest of the industry (which it also is).
Also, the comment from Brian Behlendorf: 5e+6 software engineers, maybe 5e+4 working on open source projects. Those numbers sound pretty reasonable - I mean, there are something like 20,000 people on lkml, supposedly, and I'd bet that list would include a fair portion of OS developers.
And by an odd coincidence, the top percentile of programmers are supposedly something like an order of magnitude or two more productive/effective than the remainder . . .
I suspect that the OS world overlaps far more than statistics would suggest with that top percentile, and that a fair portion of it's success has been due to that.
How's this for an idea? Rather than try and get more and more people working on OS projects, we aim more for getting the OS methodology accepted, and possibly even taught, so that rather than going into proprietary software houses, any new top-percentile programmers go straight int OS . . .
That might sound elitist, but I think it's fairly reasonable - there really is that kind of productivity difference, so we might as well try and make the most of it . . .
himi
--
A push for new examples of open source success (Score:3)
Registration (Score:3)
free-info/slashdot
Jim Gray? (Score:5)
For those that don't know, Jim Gray is an ex-IBM, ex-DEC database guru who won a Turing Award for his book "Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques" (among other things)
It's an amazing book (on my desk as we speak) and in it Jim bemoans the fact that DBMS technology has been hampered by the fact that most of the innovation was being done behind closed doors, thereby forcing coders to reinvent the wheel rather than advancing the state of the art.
So then DEC implodes and Jim Gray goes to work for MS. I seem to recall that he got a 7 digit signing bonus. And now he's describing open source as a "challenge"
I'm not suprised, but I'm more than a little saddened.
--Shoeboy
NYT might be believing the hype a little too much. (Score:4)
I've seen this come up a couple of times before; there seems to be some resentment on the part of the old guard towards a younger, somewhat arrogant crowd who think just because they can slam out an ls frontend with the gtk toolkit that they're wizards(no, of course this doesn't apply to everyone, or even most people) Not meant as a flame, I'm not part of either crowd, just an interested observer.
Eric S. Raymond, an open-source evangelist, observed that Mr. Torvalds was "the first person who learned how to play by the new rules that pervasive Internet access made possible."
This is probably one of those statements that irritates the older crowd as well. The internet was founded as a scientific and technological collaboration tool. Linux is the new kid on the block.
--
Re:Well written, but... (Score:3)
Actually, I suspect that percentage wise free software is way out in front . . . In part because innovation in the free software world gets built on very quickly, and also because I think the people working on free software are rather more often the `lone genius' types that _are_ truly innovative.
Also, I think it's easier to be innovative in the free software world than in the proprietary world - you're scratching an itch, rather than trying to appeal to people, and if you've got an innovative itch you'll probably come up with an innovative solution . . .
I think BSD is a good example of that: the BSD hackers were scratching their various operating system itches, and came up with something really innovative and amazing. Apache is also a good example - it may have originally been drived from the NCSA webserver, but it's evolved into something vastly different, and vastly more powerful than the NCSA developers would have dreamed of.
And the way that people like to point at Linux and say "It's just another Unix" is pretty damned silly - Linux _is_ just another Unix, but it's also a platform for doing all sorts of wierd and wonderful things . . . If you want to work on something innovative and different in operating systems these days, you're almost certainly going to start hacking on the Linux kernel, because it's already there, and lets you work on what you want to work on, rather than having to write a whole OS before getting to the interesting stuff . . . So Linus' tree isn't the place to look for the Linux innovation - in fact, you probably won't even see the innovation until it hits you over the head from behind . . .
Hmmmm . . . I think I've over used `innovation' here . . . ;-)
himi
--
40-hour weeks at Microsoft? (Score:4)
I thought the most interesting part of the story was the idea that the project methodology of Free Software (or open source if you like) is becoming recognized as not only a "challenge," but a better way of doing things.
(The licensing issues of Free Software are not explained well in the article, but it has other virtues.)
IBM discovered long ago that programming teams don't get the job done faster if you throw more bodies at it. Yet Microsoft and other proprietary software makers really stick to the same old project methodology. In one way or other it is quite similar to the old "waterfall" methodology, with a schedule driven by market needs, and features and bug fixes dropped at the last moment so the buggy release goes out the door.
Consequently, Microsoft attracts highly-skilled, highly-paid engineers to enlist in these "death march" projects and rewards them with stock options based on performance. No doubt few at MS feel able to work 40-hour weeks.
But the result is more and more massive software, more and more legacy code to maintain, more and more bugs to fix, more and more releases to fix the bugs, and software never seems to get radically better.
This is the old "software crisis" of the 1970s, back again with a vengance. Now that Microsoft has gained a monopoly in certain areas, they have little incentive to innovate or find better ways to do things.
Many of you will argue about this point. But again I say the projects are market-driven by the bosses, not customer-driven. The aim never seems to be delivering code that is elegant or really functional, but only shipping it out the door and charging money later for a release that promises to fix those bugs (and introduces more). And the software gets bigger and bigger, with an idea to include as many functions as possible. The customer more and more relies on the behemoth manufacturer to fix things and customize them and support them, and those jobs aren't being done better now than ever.
On the other hand, a team of variable size that is distributed over the Internet does seem to work in certain situations. The code it produces is closer to what customers want and need. Even though in many cases it is not finished, it provides enough for a custom programmer to fill in the missing parts. The C and Unix environments have become a lingua franca for professional programmers.
The eXtreme Programming model does not use teams distributed over the Internet. Instead, it puts the much smaller teams near the customer. Like the open source model, it releases in stages, and it reuses components and other programs well. And it leverages software as a profession. Programmers should not work more than 40 hours a week. Instead, they need to get out of the office, become human beings, relate to their families and societies, and become inspired once again why programming is important, and why it is so important for all of us to do our best job.
When Microsoft programmers start working 40 hours a week then I know they will have learned something from these new methodologies. But they won't be able to do that unless their bosses learn it first. It might indeed taking a lot of shrinking of the big software factories before this happens.
Well written, but... (Score:3)
Well written piece, but I have 2 problems:
The two marketplace triumphs of open source, after all, are derivative rather than truly innovative.
A classic piece of FUD the author unfortunately hasn't managed to avoid. The standard reply would be to point to sendmail, for example.
My guess is that percentage-wise, free and non-free software have about the same amounts of truly innovative stuff.
There are many kinds of open-source licenses, but they all require contributors who modify an open-source program to make those improvements available to all members of the project.
Ouch! This is very wrong. BSD-style licenses qualify as open source, but they do not require modifications to be made available.
Actually, none of the open source licenses require exactly that "contributors who modify an open-source program make those improvements available": this requirement is only made by GPL-style ('viral') licenses only if and when the modifications are redistributed.