Slashdot Log In
Mundie Speech @ OSCON - Blogged In Real Time
Posted by
Hemos
on Thu Jul 26, 2001 01:13 PM
from the debates-are-fun dept.
from the debates-are-fun dept.
Thanks to Simone for pointing out Doc Searls' weblog as well as Dan Gillmore's weblog being updated about the Craig Mundie (of Microsoft)'s speech @ O'Reilly's Open Source Convention. Dan's take is excellent - that's what I'm hearing from people there as well.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Mundie Speech @ OSCON - Blogged In Real Time
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 141 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.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Re:Transcript or video of the debate/talks? (Score:3)
for an audio transcript
Re:Dmitry (Score:4)
Open Source: A strawman argument? (Score:3)
I think that I see the disconnect here, and it actually lies in the distinction between Open Source, and Free Software. As I see it, the difference is that the motivation behind Free Software, as advocated by Richard Stallman, is to advance humanity as a whole, without concern for commercial viability. The motivation behind Open Source is that a company can benefit commercially from use of an Open Source license. Now, it is clear that there are definite benefits for a company to use Open Source software, however I think a good case can be made as to why it may not be in a company's best interests to create such software, and I suspect that this is the case that underpins Craig's argument.
The question then is - which argument are we having here? I think that it is fair to say that advocates of Open Source tend to shift their position as it suits them - effectively using a strawman argument. Since we are discussing Microsoft's use of a Shared Source license, and Microsoft is, of course, motivated by profit, it seems that at least partially the Open Source advocates, in criticizing Shared Source, are making the weaker case that it is in Microsoft's interests to create Open Source software. It is also clear, however, that most of their justifications for this position are, in fact, justifications for the stronger case that Open Source is in the public interest.
This is a strawman since in arguing with Craig they imply that he is trying to say that Open Source is not in the public interest, and argue against that (which isn't hard). The reality, however, is that Craig is actually thinking in terms of a for-profit corporation's best interest (which is perfectly natural), and then presumably relying on the Ayn Rand philosophy that capitalism will ultimately advance the public interest.
I therefore challenge the participants to make their position clear. Do they feel that:
I think that we need to acknowledge that for-profit corporations will do whatever they can, within the law, to advance their own interests, and it is the responsibility of government to protect the public interest.
--
Re:From another audience member... (Score:5)
Yes, the loss-leader business model has some serious risks involved. What does that have to do with open source?
Open source software is not a business model; it's a development model. It's a way to get software that you want or need -- by collaborating with others in developing that software. Open source's success or failure is not predicted or represented by Red Hat's success or Eazel's failure, but by the ability of open-source participants to get and to build the software they need and want.
Is there any open-source software you use? Does it do what you need it to? Is it in active development? Well then, the open-source model has succeeded in producing value for you. Some notable ways in which open source has succeeded for me include the Postfix mail server, the Konqueror browser, and the mutt email client. These are successes not because anyone is or isn't making money on them, but because they are good and useful software, valuable to their users.
It is true that a few companies built around a loss-leader business model have used open-source software as their loss leader, and have failed to recoup their losses and thus gone out of business. However, this is a consequence of the risks of a loss-leader business, and of the drying-up of capital for risky high-tech ventures. Hardware loss-leaders -- the :CueCat and the iOpener come to mind -- have also tended to fail recently. Yet nobody suspects that a "hardware business model" is to blame, and that non-loss-leader hardware companies such as Dell or AMD are threatened.
Moreover, it is interesting to note that when a loss-leader open-source company disappears, the value (if any) of its open-source software tends to be preserved: take Nautilus, for example, which is still being developed after the demise of Eazel. The open-source development model has as one of its strengths that it is not vulnerable to the failure of anyone's business model.
Re:Linux (Score:3)
Since you reposted the link, I'll repost the response.
Those are fake.
They are pranks using net send.
Old technology. Old pranks. A new bunch of lusers.
(now is the time you laugh at them for being gullible).
--
Re:GNU == *no competition* ???? (Score:3)
Brent Glass loathes the GPL. In the SiliconValley.com round table debate a few weeks ago, Brent was by far the most vociferous critic of the GPL on the panel. Far more so than anyone from Microsoft, even.
- jon
Re:From another audience member... (Score:4)
The idea of charging for services has worked well for many companies. Cygnus, for example, was greatly profitable developing free software long before the movement ever became popular. RedHat seems to be doing well, having beat analyst expectations every quarter. Mandrake has done well. IBM has done well. CollabNet has done well. Many consultancy companies have done well. In fact, the consultancy companies do what can't be done in the Microsoft world - they can be profitable, equal players.
Microsoft Wins Again (Score:5)
So, once again, Microsoft speaks, and millions of Open Source/Free Software geeks listen in rapt attention, then spend the next few days bitching about what was said.
Guys (and gals), listen to me: When you're paying attention to Mundie or Ballmer or Gates, and then bitching about how evil they are... You're not writing code.
Can't you see? By holding these "talks" and issuing press releases, Microsoft's intent is to distract you from writing code!
All that time you spent writing up a self-righteously indignant post to Slashdot, the time you spent checking your user profile to see if anyone replied to it or modded it up, that time you spent writing counter-replies, all that time you could have spent writing code is now lost. (And yes, by writing this post, I myself am guilty of that offense.)
Look, Microsoft's "Shared Source" initiative has two primary purposes: To throw the Open Source/Free Software advocates into disarray, and to keep the uninitiated from getting involved with Open Source/Free Software in the first place. The purpose behind this is to forestall any competition to Microsoft's .NET buildout, which is going to require a gargantuan engineering effort. Microsoft will have to write every line of code themselves, whereas a potential competitor may choose to leverage Open Source/Free Software works to get to market quicker. So naturally, Microsoft wants to scare as many people as possible away from OS/FS. The "Shared Source" ploy also theoretically gets them free debugging expertise, a job they have traditionally been unable or unwilling to do themselves.
My advice (which is worth every cent you paid for it): Write code. Ignore them and write some code.
I name SourceForce since it's one of the best known, but there's no reason you can't go to SunSite... er, MetaLab... er, iBiblio. Or the FSF's projects pages. Or any other site hosting Open Source/Free Software works.
There are thousands of pieces of software out there needing work. Some are sexier than others. Some are dull but crucial tools or pieces of infrastructure. Some don't exist at all, except in your imagination. Pick one.
Some consider the lack of a feature to be a bug, so add a feature if you like. Either way, it'll improve the quality of the project.
Microsoft is worried because a lot of the Open Source/Free Software alternatives are better than their own stuff. Where OS/FS alternatives fall short, they are rapidly catching up. Microsoft can make all the sophomoric remarks it wants about the GPL and Open Source/Free Software ("If you touch the GPL, your intellectual property will get cooties! Ooo, icky!"). But at the end of the day, the reliability and quality of OS/FS projects will be the compelling factor that causes users, both business and casual, to migrate over to our stuff. And that will happen only if the work is done to make the OS/FS projects better.
Personally, I can think of no more direct or effective rebuke to Mundie's "talk" than an audience full of people with laptops and 802.11b cards, deliberately and maliciously fixing bugs at him.
Jump on SourceForge. Pick a project. Fix a bug.
And then when you've checked in your fix, post about it here, so everyone can see the progress being made.
Back to the grind,
Schwab
Re:GNU == *no competition* ???? (Score:3)
That's because Bruce was making a complete ass of himself, webmaven. Tell me, webmaven, why would you bother responding to someone who was trying to bait you? Hmm, webmaven? You see, webmaven, Slashdot even has moderation scores for people who behave like that, and Bruce's posts would've been modded down by any sane person. And don't take offense, webmaven, I'm just mocking Bruce's baiting style by repeating the person's name every sentence. Get it, webmaven?
Cheers,
hahahahah (Score:3)
Another audience member: There's little debate in this room that many software patents are (poor). Will you enforce all your patents, even (unfair or bad) ones?
Craig: Absolutely.... We grant patents as one form of intellectual property protection. Should we have patents? That question was answered a long time ago.... if the examiners give out a patent, it bears weight. (Issues a challenge to go ahead and fight a patent.)
Same audience member: Even if we have no money?
Craig: Get your money. (big audience negative reaction)
that is HILARIOUS.
(big audience negative reaction)
(big audience negative reaction)
(big audience negative reaction)
(big audience negative reaction)
Re:GNU == *no competition* ???? (Score:3)
--
Decentralized Hailstorm (Score:4)
--
Re:Decentralized Hailstorm (Score:3)
I almost never go directly to the Network SOlutions servers. Local servers act like a cache. But, that doesn't mean that they aren't critical.
The interesting question is can I do a hailstorm transaction without touching an MS server, and also not touching any server that requires authorization (at any level) from Microsoft.
It does not count as decentralized if I can only use servers that have had their public key signed by Microsoft, or by a Microsoft partner, or by a server that itself is signed by Microsoft, at any level. IE, if all Microsoft servers and all Microsoft-signed keys went away, would it still work?
If not, then it is obviously.centralized, microsoft is a critical component of it. Remember, just because a packet never touches Redmond doesn't mean that its travel can't be critically dependent on Redmond.
In fact, this is ideal. THey get to siphon off money from every transaction, and they don't even need to buy the servers. Its a lot like the rants about what digital-cert companies actually sell, and why you shouldn't just make&sign your own certs.
Re:From another audience member... (Score:4)
Because this community isn't out to make a ton of money and rule the world. This community is out to make software that works so amazingly well the gods will notice.
If you want to beat up Microsoft, be my guest. Just don't tie yourself so closely to us code writers that you take us down with you should you loose.
Again, I repeat. I'm not here writting code to beat Microsoft. I'm here to make this f*&king computer do my bidding. Don't tell me to change my licensing practices, or my direction (beat Microsoft at all costs) just becuase you think Microsoft needs to be beaten.
I didn't make my code GPL so you could fight a battle with it. I made it GPL so you could use your computer efficiently, to help advance humanity, to some day get the human race to the stars.
Re:From another audience member... (Score:5)
Assuming that when I write something and release it to the public it's for the purpose of making money. I'm growing tired of this rat race. I know what Microsoft is saying - they want to make money, pure and simply, but can't do it under the GPL. In addition to this, they want all competition eliminated (GPL software). So, they spend all this time boo-hooing about how the GPL is bad becuase it doesn't foster Microsoft's Universal Law - making money.
I would have thought that all those in the business world with their degrees and such would see this and let the air of Microsoft's tire. But it would seem that we are SO CONSUMED with the urge to argue that we engage Microsoft and discuss it with them.
We should be concentrating on doing what we do best - writing good code and sharing it with each other. We made it this far by concentrating on that - writing good software. We did not get this far by targetting a company and attempting to beat it with a free alternative. We should not be targetting Microsoft and attempting to beat them. They will out manuever us.
We should drop all this bickering with MS and go back to doing something that Microsoft can't beat us at: writing good code.
Re:Dmitry (Score:5)
Um... maybe because MSFT is a member and key financer of the BSA [bsa.org], one of the DMCA's chief architects/proponents?
Is there any reason NOT to keep the pressure on these guys until DMCA is overturned?
-Renard
Microsoft / Open Source in a win-win situation? (Score:5)
Re:From another audience member... (Score:3)
No offense, but isn't that true? Hasn't the idea that open source generates major profit potential been pretty well refuted by the bursting of last year's Linux bubble and the collapse of companies like Eazel and VA Linux? Was there ever a quantitative business model as opposed to a religious manifesto behind any of those claims? Hasn't the idea of making money by giving away software and charging for services failed for almost every company that's tried it?
No flamebait here, I hope. I'm just not sure why people are continuing to assert the validity of a model that has almost universally failed, and nowhere succeeded.
Tim
Re:From another audience member... (Score:3)
What concessions RMS makes to the ability to make money in The GNU Manifesto [gnu.org] are distinctly pained. It's clear that RMS believes anyone writing software should be motivated primarily by the sheer joy of it, and that the need to pay the bills should be considered a regrettable necessity. He says that he believes programmers should be paid much less than they are and that the prospect of wealth is a corrupting influence.
His whole concern is with programmer salary, and not with business model. He barely discusses what it would take to actually build a business on free software as opposed to what it takes to pay programmers. When he even discusses salary, it's only in one of his pained concessions about how if you really have to make money, here's how you could, but really, you shouldn't care about that.
In contrast, ESR enthusiastically embraces the idea of open source as a way to make money. In some ways this is just a difference in emphasis, but it's a big difference in emphasis, on which numerous companies were launched -- as opposed to the one major company formed under the RMS model, Cygnus. And the ESR companies have enthusiastically embraced the Big Money/Next Big Thing way of describing themselves, which is anathema to RMS.
Unfortunately, no company of significant size founded on the ESR model has yet succeeded in making a profit. There are a few small consultancies, but they do not create significant original software -- they only offer services on software which other people have written, or create small vertical projects. The ones that have tried to create their own horizontal software (e.g., Eazel, Lutris) have not made a profit by doing so.
I agree with your analysis of Red Hat's overvaluation, and I also agree that we will not see an Oracle or a Microsoft emerge from Open Source. The question is whether we will see any profitable horizontal software development businesses emerge from it. So far, there are none.
Tim
Seeing your passive power (Score:4)
---
Re:Dmitry (Score:3)
It's a Law, not a business policy. If you want to change it, you must rely on the Courts (which this would be a great case to do that with) or convince your representatives in Congress that it's a bad Law, an to at least amend the criminal provisions. I cannot imagine a world in whiich MSFT or the BSA would lobby to overturn the DMCA. Can you?
Dmitry (Score:5)
Transcript or video of the debate/talks? (Score:3)
From another audience member... (Score:5)
I have to say this, first of all: the Mundie opening comments might have been "statesmanlike," but the whole idea came down to the same thing that happened in our first keynote (from a Cisco bigwig). He said that we basically don't see economic reality and we don't know about business, and while we have good points we should abandon most of our philosophical ideas. More Red Herring arguments and usual anti-os crap that gets refuted again again.
Converstaions since the Mundie debate around here seem to mention this: when Mundie was really forced to face issues (especially when it came down to hard DMCA questions) he fell back to basic Corporatespeak. The same old crap: "If you don't like the law, write your Congressman and change it." Sorry, it's easy to say that when you have millions of dollars to back you up. When faced with a question about defending against Patent infringement suits and there costs, his comment was something like "Well get the money."
This debate was interesting, but when it came down to it Microsoft retained their basic Arrogance. In addition, they tried to paint themselves as UNDERDOGS. "We have seen a lot of failure" they say. Whatever.
Business good... GPL bad... that was most of their argument...
Re:From another audience member... (Score:5)
I don't agree that the model has universally failed, but never mind for a moment. This comment has the same problem as when someone says "dot-coms have universally failed." The problem is no one has found the *right* model. Just because no one has found the correct answer to a problem doesn't mean the answer to the correct answer doesn't exist.
Secondly, there are plenty of us that don't give a ding darn whether the "business model" is "valid" or not. Richard Stallman sure as hell doesn't care. I would be happy to set up a business that allows me (and other employees) to survive that fits into my system of right and wrong.
There are still those people that care about people's rights over profit potential. This might make me an idealist, I don't care. I don't see why my idealism should be overriden simply because it fits in with "buisness interests."