Slashdot Log In
Think Tank Report On the State of Open Source
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed May 09, 2007 06:49 AM
from the looking-in-the-mirror dept.
from the looking-in-the-mirror dept.
AlexGr writes to recommend an account of a meeting a couple of months back of representatives from more than 100 software companies discussing the state of open source software. The outcome is outlined in a 16-page report, 2007 Open Source Think Tank: The Future of Commercial Open Source (PDF). Among the surprising conclusions: participants noted a growing similarity in methods between open source and proprietary software development. They predicted some kind of convergence, where the best of both approaches gets adopted in each camp.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
This article is nonsense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Licensing and Support issues with 'Closed Source' software is precisely what drove enterprises to Open Source! Enterprise care a hoot about GPL v2 and GPL v3 wars.. they aren't interested in redistribution.. just that the Damn Thing Works (TM) !
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But...hey what is this MS was a platinum sponsor?
May be tomorrow they will sponsor Suse for Enterprise ...huh
Re:This article is nonsense... (Score:5, Informative)
Licensing and Support issues with 'Closed Source' software is precisely what drove enterprises to Open Source! Enterprise care a hoot about GPL v2 and GPL v3 wars.. they aren't interested in redistribution.. just that the Damn Thing Works (TM) !
Parent
Re:This article is nonsense... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
On masochism... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Where licensing does become important is that people do understand that they need things like client licenses, and that Microsoft have (either by accident or design; I think design) made it fantastically complicated.
Look at the annual Microsoft tax in the form of "subscription" licensing (pay per year and get a discount of around 20% on the outright purchase price - gee thanks, don't strain
We have a winner (Score:2)
Bingo. They read the pitches from the vendors, which contain gigabytes of FUD saying e.g. there's no company "standing behind" open source software (which, of course, is false). The pitches do not mention that their own EULA disclaims every liability it possibly can.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
1) They do not want to be compelled to release their own software, and GPL does not make clear what constitutes distribution. They send their internally-developed software to company divisions all over the world, which may or may not be sold in the future, and to vendors and suppliers. Sometimes they make licensing agreements with third-parties to support or even take over internally-developed applicat
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FAQ does [gnu.org].
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2) There are companies out there that make a lot of money by providing support for open-source softwa
Companies care about the GPL (Score:2)
"Confusion over OSS license terms is a major issue, as ISVs and customers of open source do not fully understand license obligations."
"The sheer number of OSI-approved licenses was not a major concern to most participants."
"Incompatibility of licenses--specifically that software distributed under the GPL often cannot be used with
software distributed under MPL, Eclipse or Apache licenses--was a serious concern for everyone."
"Think Tank participants bemoaned the lack of a business-friendly lic
Re: (Score:2)
Surprising? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Once upon a time, Open Source developers were called all sorts of filthy names... like gypsies, hippies, communists etc. etc.
Now that 'Enterprise Customers' have adopted these software systems into their networks, the Closed Source world would like to inform you that they have changed... since it's now apparently fashionable to be a hippie.
Parent
Can I be a Think Tank too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can I be a Think Tank too? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Can I be a Think Tank too? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Can I be a Think Tank too? (Score:5, Funny)
How about: National Enterprise Research Devision
Or: Global Electronically Evaluation Kommittee
Maybe even: Digital Organization of Reviewing Karmawhores
Parent
ApostropheColon? (n/t) (Score:2)
Tanks should not think (Score:2, Offtopic)
Until they can get their basic tactics right, they might as well ask what Leeroy Jenkins [wikipedia.org] thinks about Open Source!
Re: (Score:2)
This 'think tank' IS there to take the brunt of the abuse, so that the corporations behind it can slip in and do what they want while everyone is attacking the tank. In this case, what they want is probably to absorb more open source ideas while maintaining their 'closed source is better' stance. 'Embrace and Extend' and all that.
Or they could be planning a subversive blow later to show how their exposure t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you get somebody to pay you all salaries, in return for which you bloviate for pay where you once bloviated for free.
Simple.
Think Tanks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Think Tanks (Score:4, Funny)
This report was provided by the commitee for think tank research, a think tank for the research industry. It has been funded by various large industry think tanks and we would like to thank them for the expense account they have provided during this period
Parent
Not a think thank (Score:3, Interesting)
A think tank is more of a permanent or at least longer term organization, where similar minded people tries to build a rational justification for their already existing viewpoints.
Both are actually quite useful. The seminars / workshops are a fine place to learn from others mistakes, so you can make your own new a
They meant "brainstorm" probably (Score:2)
California"
Heh. Sounds like it was prolly *lots of really hard work.
Re: (Score:2)
Some interesting points about Novell/MS (Score:5, Informative)
"(...)
Microsoft was represented by Sam Ramji, Director of Open Source Technical Strategy, while Novell was represented by Justin Steinman, Director of Marketing Linux and Open Platforms.(...)
(...)
From Microsoft's perspective, the deal it struck with Novell was driven mainly by customer demand. Sam described how its Interoperability Executive Council, which includes 30 top CIOs demanded interoperability between Windows and Linux, as both must coexist in the enterprise and neither will completely displace the other."(...)
(...)
From Novell's perspective, its motivation for the deal was primarily the need to differentiate itself in a meaningful way to gain share versus Red Hat. As number two in the market, Novell recognized that it simply could not gain significant share without a "game-changing" event. (...)"
Re:Some interesting points about Novell/MS (Score:5, Informative)
What people have to realize is that Microsoft is not a company with one cohesive strategy anymore. They fight battles on a number of different fronts
The bottom-line as to why the deal with Novell is simple: Microsoft may have a monopoly on the desktop, but in the server space it has nothing even close. There are very few Microsoft-only shops these days; most enterprise customers don't want to put all their eggs in one basket and very wisely so. So they adopt a mixed-platform strategy and CIOs rightly realize that the only thing causing any problems in interop between Linux and Windows is Microsoft, so they make demands. Novell wants a piece of the action because it believes that doing so will differentiate SuSE from Red Hat and put/keep them on top of the enterprise Linux market.
And unless you have a monopoly in a particular space -- the customer is king.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
If there was anything about the deal that was positive, that event alone made the positive superfluous.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not at a lot of companies. For example, at Ford Motor Co., Linux adoption was initially started by technicians for a small number of things like routers, but through IT management became an official company strategy. Now most servers at Ford are either Linux or AIX or are moving to Linux or AIX.
The needs of vendors (Score:5, Insightful)
How about meeting the needs of users? Any vendor is free to adopt any licence they want, it's up to the market, i.e. the buyers, to decide if that licence is acceptable or not.
All in all, the whole article seems like an intent to spread FUD against the GPL.
Sponsored by... (Score:5, Informative)
Source: http://thinktank.olliancegroup.com/ostt2007report
Nuff said.
Also... (Score:4, Informative)
2. IM is the preferred method of communication (with friends) for those under 25 by a wide margin and email is the preferred communication method for those over 25 by a significant percentage. This represents a major generation gap in communication modes.
3. User generated content is vastly increasing in both supply and demand, driven by such popular online properties as MySpace, FaceBook, YouTube, blogs
o Written content: 55M blogs today, up 800% in past year
o Visual content: homemade videos, mashups
4. Traditional media is losing authority with the younger generation, who are increasingly turning to "open" media for advice about music, products and services.
5. Companies are following these trends
o Adopting corporate blogs, especially by CEOs
o "Always-connected" management
o Rise of SaaS
o Virtualization of workforce
o Outsourcing
o Mobility solutions
How is this all related to Open source and its effects? I don't seem to get the point here.Is it just me or ridiculously off agenda?
What a waste of time ?... my time offcourse :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that it's possible to claim a direct relationship, but indirectly these trends create a market for certain capabilities. And if you develop software for the traditional office market, this might cause you to rethink some of your assumptions, for example, that you get to sell into a space which controls what goes on both the servers and clients.
The way things are trending, any software you put out there has to interoperate with whateve
Timed openings (Score:3, Interesting)
It isn't rare for an Open Source project to be entirely developed behind closed doors before its first appearance on the 'market'. This approach is typical of larger companies, like RH and IBM (which can afford an extensive internal testing roadmap) and doesn't at all imply that the software is closed source in itself.
Once finished such software is released under an open license after which point it is continued to be developed in collaboration with the community; particularly in areas relating to bug-squashing and building interoperability with applications not considered important at the time it went to market.
Is the development of such software then considered 'open' or 'closed'? I think it's hard to generalise.
interesting Novell MS Q&A session.. (Score:2)
Then instead of a closed two company deal, why not open up the protocols to everyone, unemcumbered by patent and rand restrictions.
'Sam defended Microsoft from the accusation that its deal with Novell will lead to Microsoft suing other Linux distributors for patent infringement. Sam described Microsoft's patent portfolio as primarily defensive'
Depends on which en
to save you the bother of reading the whole report (Score:3, Interesting)
What the f**k is Microsoft doing on an Open Source conference. Oh, I forgot, Novell gave them a complimentary pass in exchange for some paper.
[ indemnification FUD ]
'While customers
One of the 'sponsers' of this report having spent years and a whole heap of money on promoting IP and patent FUD now gets to contribute to a report on the indemnification dangers of the GPL, how f*****g ironic.
[ Lack of support FUD ]
'The lack of commercially available support for some open source solutions continues to be a big barrier to adoption'
[ not compatible FUD]
''Another significant barrier to adoption by customers is integration and interoperability'
[ Open source standards not standard FUD ]
''Open source lacks compliance with many standards when compared with proprietary solutions'
[ Open source is only ever used to bargan down proprietary vendors ]
'canny CIOs are using open source's reduced acquisition costs as leverage in negotiations with proprietary vendors'
[ Open Source vendors lack the personal touch FUD ] ( a new one on me ? )
''The CIOs agreed that some level of personal touch by commercial open source vendors is needed'
[ Open Source has no known positive attributes ] ( another new one on me ? )
'The fact that a product is open source is not viewed as positive or negative'
Conclusion: If Open Source has no added value as compared to proprietary code then we might as well stick with the lawyer proofed fully supported touchie feely version
In related news, the Pope said today
Money well 'sponcered' on this 'report' methtinks
http://thinktank.olliancegroup.com/ostt2007report
Open source lacks standards compliance? (Score:2)
"Open source lacks compliance with many standards when compared with proprietary solutions"
I admit I didn't read the report all that carefully, but this particular observation made my jaw drop. How can anyone argue that open-sourced programs lack compliance with standards when many of the most significant programs were written precisely to conform to well-established standards. Doesn't sendmail comply with RFC2822? Doesn't ISC bind comply with the various DNS standards? Don't MySQL and Pos
The open source method!! (Score:2)
Its really amazing how it was once laughed at and now all these articles trying to constrain what open source is.
Its like the single god and being saved thing goes... My god not yours....
But the hard reality, if there is a god, hes/shes not any one and all of them at the same time.
Want to add another facet to the open source jewel? Have at it, do it your way, I'll do it my way and everyone else will do it whatever way they so chose.
The fact that it comes toge
mistake (Score:4, Insightful)
As soon as you have vendors in the mix, companies that expect to make money from the software, you have conflicting interests: vendors want to make money, and that money has to come out of the pockets of users. It doesn't matter whether the software is nominally open source, these companies are going to find a way to get at the money somehow.
Often, a "hybrid (open source/commercial) model" translates into simply "we're going to let people do a lot of development and bug fixing for us for free, and then we're going to sell the stuff commercially.
A simple rule of thumb is: don't use software under a "hybrid" or "dual license" model; somehow, you are going to be paying for it sooner or later.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well said.
Open source does not fit into a "market" model in many aspects.
There's also the term "market share" that does not make any sense here - nearly all PCs purchased as complete systems will contribute to the market share of Windows as it comes pre-installed, most notably on notebooks. Even if some of them will be converted int
The problem with think tanks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)