Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

10-Year Anniversary of Open Source

Posted by kdawson on Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:26 PM
from the corks-a-poppin dept.
Software Linux
Bruce Perens writes "Saturday is the 10-Year Anniversary of Open Source, the initiative to promote Free Software to business. Obviously, it's been incredibly successful. I've submitted a State of Open Source message discussing the anniversary of Open Source, its successes, and the challenges it will face in the upcoming decade."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: 10-Year Anniversary of Open Source by Bruce Perens (3872)
This discussion has been archived.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.

10-Year Anniversary of Open Source 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

    • Re:Surprised by Wealth! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@@@perens...com> on Friday February 08 2008, @12:52PM (#22351186) Homepage Journal
      Surprised by Wealth was Eric Raymond, not me. I wouldn't ever have written that, and Eric claims he lost all the money because he never sold the stock. Holy toledo. My biggest IPO was Pixar. I made a little money on various friends-and-family things from Linux companies. Wasn't involved in LinuxCare. :-)
      • I didn't mean to attach the specifics to you, Bruce. I just remember the general "boom" mentality that happened around LinuxWorld in 1999.

        By 2001?

        I miss the old Technocrat. Thanks for that... Have you another, like project in the wings?

        • Re:Surprised by Wealth! (Score:5, Informative)

          by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@@@perens...com> on Friday February 08 2008, @01:10PM (#22351424) Homepage Journal
          How can you look at Zimbra and MySQL and think the boom mentality was then?

          Technocrat.net has been back for a while. If you did know that and don't like its current editorial content, I could really use some better article submissions. I've got to take most anything people submit right now because it's slim pickings. But not over here at Slashdot, darn it.

          New projects in the wings: a start-up company called Kiloboot. Product not announced yet. An American version of FFII.

          Thanks

          Bruce

          • Zimbra may - briefly - make MS the biggest open source vendor in the world! ;-)

            I wasn't aware the "new" Technocrat was still associated with you - after dropping the old slashcode. I have some pals there - and still drop a post occasionally.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Bruce Perens (3872) *
              Technocrat.net is still mine, although I actually lost the domain once and some nice folks rescued it for me. Wow. Anyway, I take the adsense revenue and pay Zogger with it. I can't always be there to run articles, and he's there much more frequently.

              Bruce

  • I think you mean "Open Source" (Score:3, Informative)

    by Filter (6719) on Friday February 08 2008, @12:31PM (#22350830)
    Not open source.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by eln (21727)
      More accurately the "Open Source Initiative", which is the effort to water down the Free Software philosophy until it appeals to business types.
  • Making the software world a more friendly place to work and play! Here's to many more years!
    • I got permission in 2007 to install some open source software at work after using it head to head with some of the programs from big players that I found absolutely intolerable. Hopefully initiatives like this one help whoever makes those decisions come around! Here's to another 10 years of increased adoption and collaboration (at work and then at home)!

  • Misleading use of capital letters (Score:5, Insightful)

    by davidwr (791652) on Friday February 08 2008, @12:35PM (#22350894) Homepage Journal
    It's too bad English requires titles to have initial-capital letters in almost every word. It leads to confusion.

    While this may be the 10th anniversary of Open Source, it is not the 10th anniversary of open s.

    Open-source computer code has been around about as long as computers, and the equivalent to open source in other areas such as blueprints have been around since time immemorial.
    • It's too bad English requires titles to have initial-capital letters in almost every word. It leads to confusion.

      While this may be the 10th anniversary of Open Source, it is not the 10th anniversary of open source.

      Open-source computer code has been around about as long as computers, and the equivalent to open source in other areas such as blueprints have been around since time immemorial.
      --
      That'll teach me not to use Preview.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Intron (870560)
      When I first started writing code in the 70's there were still serious arguments about whether code could even be protected by copyrights. It wasn't until the "Pineapple" [cornell.edu] case in the early 80's that it was settled. The Pineapple contained Apple's ROM code and their claim was that you couldn't copyright binary data. They lost, of course.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Trogre (513942)
      I like it how Jon "Mad Dog" Hall put it:

      (paraphrasing)

      Of course we had free software back in the '60s. But back then it was called "software".

      • Yep. I remember dissecting the QBASIC code for Gorillas and Nibbles back when I got my first PC (486SX 20Mhz, 2MB Ram, 80MB Hard Drive, DOS 5.1 + Windows 3.1). It was quite educational. A lot of the old programs for my Commodore 64 were just distributed as source on disks too.

        As a matter of fact, WAY back in the day it was common to buy simple computer games not in disk form (those were hard to spread), but in the form of a magazine or book. They'd have a collection of simple games' source printed in t

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by dedazo (737510)
          In the beginning (around 10,000 BC or so), software was nothing more than a commodity that helped drive hideously expensive computers. Source code was shared freely among everyone (government agencies, universities and companies that actually used computers) and got adapted and improved for whatever task they wanted to accomplish with what little shared time they were getting on their Big Iron du jour. Companies like IBM, DEC and Wang made a killing on the hardware and support, and software was an afterthou
  • The first open source project I participated in was from around 1985-1996. The prject itself pre-dated that even.

    Try to get over yourselves people.

  • Open Source has already changed the world... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MindPrison (864299) on Friday February 08 2008, @12:37PM (#22350954) Journal
    ...and will continue to do so, and even accelerate into the future.

    I've been using Open Source all the way since the start, heck...I've even contributed to it by writing Open Documents and Wikis to help guide the everyday user how to use the various applications.

    I am proud of what we have achieved, I remember when people at work mocked us as "nerdy" or "hippie" for constantly advocating alternative solutions to software and hardware solutions, but after being known for solving issues that the commercial world just couldn't this is no longer the case.

    Thanks to distributors like "Ubuntu" that puts community effort together in functional packages for the "everyday man" - Linux has become both friendly and usable for everyone, not to mention the efforts of the Wine team that has made it entirely possible to run your favorite apps. under Linux with ease and little "under-the-hood" work at all.

    Fantastic efforts, and an even better future. Personally I think the future for OS have never looked this good.

      • Scarcity (Score:5, Insightful)

        by XanC (644172) on Friday February 08 2008, @01:19PM (#22351564)
        With an absence of scarcity. A lot of economic rules (not all, but a lot) simply don't apply to software in the age of the Internet.

  • Correction: free software is the success (Score:5, Informative)

    by argoff (142580) * on Friday February 08 2008, @12:39PM (#22350988)
    Open Source is a trademark group, but the real success has been free (an in GPL) software. Economic forces alone have pushed growth in this area up way above 20% per year in many areas, but the Open Source movement was sort of drug along by the coat tales. I'm not saying it's hasn't accomplished a lot, but pure economic forces would have forced this growth anyhow even if the Open Source group never formed.
    • Agreed. Stallman sees deeper than any of us and he should get much more credit than he does. Of course, he'd do without the credit and be happy if you'd just think about the importance of your freedom.

      That said, I remember just how little buy-in we had with business people then, because Richard was the wrong guy to promote to them. He doesn't have any empathy with them, this rapidly becomes clear if you discuss it with him. Yes, if we didn't do it, someone else would have. The world really was ready for it, that was clear in how fast it caught on.

      Thanks

      Bruce

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Russ Nelson (33911)
        RMS would be a better advocate for freedom if he wasn't such a hideous leftist. He should read _The Road to Serfdom_, but as far as I know, he never read the copy of _Economics in One Lesson_ that I sent him.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Russ Nelson (33911)
            Just pointing out that RMS believes in leaving people free to run their lives the way he wants to -- not the way they want to. But you're right about RMS being non-compromising -- it has effects that limit the dispersion of his ideals.

  • Big deal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gwern (1017754) on Friday February 08 2008, @12:40PM (#22350990) Homepage
    I could care less about "Open Source"; it has done dubious good for us. Now, Free Software's anniversary I would care about quite a bit!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Bruce Perens (3872) *
      We just have to figure out which anniversary of the three stated below to celebrate :-)

      In 1983, Richard Stallman launched the GNU project after becoming frustrated with the effects of the change in culture of the computer industry and users. Software development for the GNU operating system began in January 1984, and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) was founded in October 1985. He introduced a free software definition and "copyleft", designed to ensure software freedom for all.

      - Wikipedia.

  • The concept of open source has been aroud for much longer than 10 years, I remember open source software on Fish disks for thte amiga in the mid eighties...

  • What? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by brass1 (30288) <SlrwKQpLrq1FM@w[ ].net ['hat' in gap]> on Friday February 08 2008, @12:46PM (#22351078) Homepage
    Ignoring for a moment that Bruce is clearly Slashvertizing his blog. Again.

    10 years, huh? I wonder what Bruce's friends from UC Berkeley [wikipedia.org] would say. Sure seems like they had open source long before Bruce decided to get his name in the papers. Parens' and Raymond's instance on taking credit for free software is disgusting.

    • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@@@perens...com> on Friday February 08 2008, @02:11PM (#22352340) Homepage Journal
      No, my blog is technocrat.net . The link is to perens.com, a site with no ads.

      Yes, BSD had the source code and licensing, but no campaign to drive others to create such things. Stallman started that. I canonized the definition of what was, and what was not, Open Source. Raymond and I evangelized to business. Everybody in this picture is standing on other folks shoulders. I'd be the last to deny that.

      Bruce

  • Not 10 years: thank ESR for the lies (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wiredlogic (135348) on Friday February 08 2008, @12:48PM (#22351116)
    This has long been a sore point with me. The term "Open Source" has been in use for more than 10 years. The first software related occurence on Usenet occured in the early 90's [google.com]. This co-opting of the true history of the term has been orchestrated by ESR with his self-biased jargon file. He likes to demurr by saying that the foundation of OSI represents a true beginning but this is just a buch of phony chest thumping to make himself seem relevant.
    • We certainly had Free Software before then, and whatever BSD made. But as far as I'm aware, the coining of the term Open Source as another name for Free Software was by Christine Petersen (then-wife of nanotechnology guru Eric Drexler) on one of the first days of February 1998. I think it might have been February 1, and Eric called me the day after the meeting where that happened.

      Of course, the words "Open Source" could have been used that way before then, but we can't find any record. Since Open Source Definition only got done (as the Debian Free Software Guidelines) in July 1997, whatever was referred to before then wasn't quite what we know as Open Source today.

      Thanks

      Bruce

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nojomofo (123944)

        Of course, the words "Open Source" could have been used that way before then, but we can't find any record

        Not to rain on your parade, Bruce, but the comment that you're replying to shows documentation of the term being used in 1990. I know that this isn't news to you, but this "I own the term Open Source" game that you play really turns a lot of people (who would otherwise be very sympathetic) away from your message.

        • This is sort of moot, because IMO the Open Source Definition was the big deal, and the fact that we had a campaign rather than just a term was a big deal too. Stallman had not bothered to set a Free Software Definition in writing at that time, he actually wrote and told me that what I had written was a good definiton of Free Software.

          The references you point out refer to the presence of source code, not the presence of licensing that assures the right to redistribute, modify, and use. BSD did provide that sort of licensing, but it was just called BSD licensing. The only campaign for developers to provide those things at the time was called Free Software.

          Actually, there was a regular use of the term open source at that time, to refer to a form of military intelligence.

          But I really did invent the term "nojomofo" Bwahh haha ha! :-)

  • "Open source" goes back to the 1960s. [wikipedia.org] The Free Software Foundation was established in 1985. The first major Linux release was in 1992. These new guys from the late 1990s are just mouthing off.

  • I'm so sick of "Open Source" it's bogus! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mlwmohawk (801821) on Friday February 08 2008, @01:06PM (#22351378)
    I'm sorry but the "Open Source" movement is a bogus attempt to water down the original purpose of GNU and the Free Software movement.

    I've been in the industry for about 25 years and RMS was a visionary. While we we focused on software and what it could do and how to do it, he also focused on the dangers that our own creativity would bring to us and how to protect us from it.

    Make no mistake, RIAA, MPIAA, SCO, et. al. are *ALL* apparitions RMS saw over a decade or so ago. The Open Source movement is nothing more than a selfish group of little people with a narrow scope and no plan. RMS has had a plan all along, and while he may seem to be an extremist and might not have been right 100% of the time, in retrospect, he has been right pretty darn close and his extremism seems less and less unwarranted over time.

    The truth is both a blessing and a curse. It takes a lot of work to realize the truth and most people will not challenge themselves. Once you learn the truth, however, you are cursed with trying to explain it to others.
    • Here's Richard Stallman's statement on the issue, which he made during a joint speech we did in Italy:

      Free software and Open Source seem quite similar, if you look only at their software development practices. At the philosophical level, the difference is extreme. The Free Software Movement is a social movement for computer users' freedom. The Open Source philosophy cites practical, economic benefits. A deeper difference cannot be imagined.

      The origin of Open Source lies in a practice that could have come from Dale Carnegie: if you seek to persuade someone, present the case in terms of his values and desires. For persuading business executives, citing practical, economic advantages can be effective. By all means do so, if it feels right to you, when speaking privately to executives.

      Talking to the public is something else entirely. When we talk to the public, we promote whatever values we cite. If we cite only practical, economic advantages, and not freedom, we encourage people to value practical advantages and not value freedom.

      Those values make our community weak. People who prefer a state of freedom only for the secondary practical and economic advantages it brings do not appreciate freedom itself, and they will not fight to defend it.

      This is the reason I stated, in my joint speech with Bruce Perens, for not supporting the practice of presenting Free Software in public in the limited economic terms of Open Source.

      Now, obviously, I think that Open Source evangelists like me have a role in talking with business people that Richard can't fill. His brain wiring isn't built for it. The a priori arguments he makes are not the way to start selling these concepts to business people, but hopefully they will eventually come to appreciate Richard's arguments after they enter through Open Source. Obviously, I don't want to erode the goals of the Free Software campaign at all. I'm out to help people understand Free Software with a gentle introduction. I tried to make that clear in the article.

      Thanks

      Bruce

      • I'm out to help people understand Free Software with a gentle introduction. I tried to make that clear in the article.

        I'm sorry, and while I greatly respect your individual contributions and I think you're probably a pretty honorable guy, history has shown repeatedly that expedience in the form of subjugating ideals for gain is always a long term error.

        I don't think the the "Open Source" movement has done anything constructive. The whole ESR Cathedral blather is an embarrassment, in most professional circle

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Bruce Perens (3872) *

          The whole ESR Cathedral blather is an embarrassment, in most professional circles it is an hysterical joke.

          It's obsolete. ESR wrote it before IBM stepped into the picture, etc. I invite you to read The Emerging Economic Paradigm of Open Source [perens.com]. At least one now-professional has based his thesis on this paper.

          I think the major difference in objectives between Open Source and Free Software evangelists is that the Free Software folks say that proprietary software does not have a right to exist. Unfortunately,

                  • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                    by Bruce Perens (3872) *
                    You and I don't have to choose between freedom of software and better software for users. It's OK to want both. It will sometimes be necessary to choose which of those we start the conversation with when approaching a prospective convert, and which one we leave for when we've won the argument about the first.

                    This is not so much about compromising ideals as it is about style of evangelism.

                    Thanks

                    Bruce

    • Re:I'm so sick of "Open Source" it's bogus! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by replicant108 (690832) on Friday February 08 2008, @01:27PM (#22351672) Journal
      The Open Source movement is nothing more than a selfish group of little people with a narrow scope and no plan.

      In my experience, Open Source people are mostly Free Software advocates who have modified their terminology in order to make their sales pitch more effective.

      Their are typically very community-minded, and un-selfish (by the standards of most people).

      They are more interested in driving adoption than RMS, who prefers to focus on promoting an understanding of the principles of Software Freedom.

      Generally speaking, Open Source folks have the same goal as the Free Software community, but differ in their preferred means.

      • In my experience, Open Source people are mostly Free Software advocates who have modified their terminology in order to make their sales pitch more effective. That would describe Bruce Perens' motivation, but it would not describe Eric Raymond's motivation.
  • that no matter how much you may not like it, how you dress, present yourself and speak is how other people will judge what you do.

    So when talking about Linux, look neat, don't stink, and don't talk like a raving maniac.

  • Wake me up in a year, when it's the 10th anniversary of Bruce Perens' mailing list post: It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again [debian.org].

    The term "open source" was coined to avoid talking about freedom, under the rather stupid assumption that business people don't want to hear about it. Here's the thing: business owners are some of the most vehement seekers of their own freedom, so if you talk to a business owner who is frustrated with vendor lock-in [slashdot.org] and tell him that he can have the freedom to do away with

  • The inexorable progress of Free Software (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wall0159 (881759) on Friday February 08 2008, @02:04PM (#22352252)
    It's interesting, these days, to hear someone say something like "Oh, Linux is no good - it doesn't even have a good multi-track music recording program. Linux will never replace [closed source platform]".

    Remarks about Audacity and Ardour aside, it's come a hell of a long way in 10 years, when priorities were things like drivers, windowing systems and text editors.

    Go Free Software!
    • However, its creator, God, forgot to document it

      I think he gave up when, after explaining the importance of solar energy to life on earth, people started throwing chopping virgins to people to appease the Sun God.

    • You've been trapped by vendor lock-in. Your PDA and/or cellphone use proprietary skunkware to lock you in. You didn't think about caldav, or other synchronization APIs before you bought them, did you? If you want to replace Outlook, you have to break the whole chain, not just pieces of it. You could use MacOS, which is a bit open-sourcey (except those that must protect precious DRM bits).

      Otherwise, break the chain. You can do it. Tell others how. Set yourself free.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.