Google And Open Source

Nate writes "Former Slashdot editor, games programmer and consultant Chris DiBona talks about his new work at Google in a brief interview over at Linux Format. Most notably, DiBona points out that Google wants to follow IBM's lead in not attempting to control open source, and he also highlights the reasons why Google will never be a 100% open source company." From the article: "So I don't see the word 'sponsorship' as being appropriate. Because sponsorship also implies stewardship. We don't want to run open source, that's not who we are. I have to tell you, I've admired how IBM has gone about this. They've for the most part not screwed up: they haven't taken things over, they haven't managed to break anything, they've done a lot of good work. We're not going to use that as a model for what we want to do, because we're different companies, but I really want to get code out there, I don't want just... money. Money's not enough."

Money's not enough ... but it sure helps

A lot of projects benefit from IBM's money, but as importantly, a lot of the Linux codebase benefits more from their hardware compatibility. We run a large farm of IBM e-Series servers (x306, x335, x336, x345, x346), and it really, really helps when we can grab the source for drivers straight from the IBM website.

Hardware compatibility: thank you IBM.

Money

I don't want just... money. Money's not enough.


He can PayPal me any of it he does not want. I could sure as hell use it.

Re:Money

The way I read it:

I don't want just... money. [I want power and control too]

Money's not enough. [It's never enough, I want more]

No one can own open source.

Any person or company who contributes *anything* to the OSS community is helping it thrive. Google contributes in a variety of ways from actually releasing source code, funding summer of code, and even just existing as an excellent search engine making it easier for OSS developers to search for previous solutions to the problems they are facing.

Release pagerank

First: We're not going to use that as a model for what we want to do, because we're different companies, but I really want to get code out there, I don't want just... money. Money's not enough.

Then: We're never going to release PageRank [Google's trademark system for ranking web pages in its search index], we're not going to release things like that, because to release them would ruin them. If you release how you do the ranking function, suddenly every web scrambler in the world screws up the rank and Google search becomes useless. We don't want to do that.

Or, you could release it so others can learn how it works and perhaps come up with improvements or more sophisicated algorithms/systems that are rank scrambler proof.

But that endanger profits right? think of investors, lifesavings etc. Fair enough.

Re:Release pagerank

Don't be stupid.

EVERYTHING gets cracked. If Google released PageRank, then they'd be starting a "war" with the search-engine abusers. A never ending war. Yeah, having it be "open-source" means that the community could constantly update it to prevent the latest abuses, but the people doing the abuse would just find new holes, since the source would be available.

Sometimes "security through obscurity" is the right thing to do.

Re:Release pagerank

EVERYTHING gets cracked. If Google released PageRank, then they'd be starting a "war" with the search-engine abusers. A never ending war.

Like that doesn't happen now.

Yeah, having it be "open-source" means that the community could constantly update it to prevent the latest abuses, but the people doing the abuse would just find new holes, since the source would be available.

They would find holes anyway. The choice is between bad guys finding holes and good guys patching them, or just bad guys finding holes.

Sometimes "security through obscurity" is the right thing to do.

Not if you're relying on it. Because it isn't real security at all.

complete the quote!

> I don't want just... money. Money's not enough.

What he means is that he wants power, prestige, and chicks!

Seriously, what happens when money's not enough? You go for power (politics), and then you get caught in a scandal with some chicks, and it all comes crashing down. It's happened too many times.

SCO Sues Google

This just in: The SCO Group has launched a lawsuit vs Google after reading on Slashdot that Google plans to follow the examples of IBM in open source. Says SCO CEO Darl McBride, "Clearly this shows that Google has donated confidential SCO code to Linux. Now with these two major companies causing such infractions, the price of Linux licenses has to be increased to $1398." This lawsuit has prompted one Pamela Jones to create a new site entitled Googlaw. SCO representatives have alerted us that they will be employing Maureen O'Gara to search for links between Google and Ms. Jones. Says Ms. O'Gara, "Well, the evidence is right here. Just as Google's offices reside in America, so does Pamela Jones." Google's lawyers could not be reached for comment as they were too busy rolling on the floor in fits of laughter.

Sponsorship doesn't imply stewardship

sponsor (verb, trans): provide funds for (a project or activity or the person carrying it out)

Nope. Nothing about stewardship there.

Open Source, Schmopen Schmource...

Tell him to post a new slashdot poll for old times sake.

Hell, just tell ANYONE to post a new slashdot poll; that most-used-key-combo thing has been up there since LAST Valentine's Day...

hardware limitations

FTA, he states that some of the software would be useless to release unless you have "more than a hundred" servers in a datacenter. That's really not that many boxes nowadays. Besides, I don't need more than a hundred physical machines when all I need is ten decent machines and VMWare or Xen to run ten virtual servers each.

new name

Oh, I thought "Google and Open Source" was going to be the new name for Slashdot.

I should have known that was wrong.. if that were happening, it'd have to be "Google, Apple, and Open Source".

Quoted Forever

"I really want to get code out there, I don't want just... money. Money's not enough." -Chris BiBona

Now in the record books... completely interprets the feelings of all open source programmers, and those who program for the fun of it.

I thought Page Rank was open source??

Okay, I'm confused. I thought Page Rank was an OSS project.

And then there are other things. We're never going to release PageRank [Google's trademark system for ranking web pages in its search index], we're not going to release things like that, because to release them would ruin them. If you release how you do the ranking function, suddenly every web scrambler in the world screws up the rank and Google search becomes useless. We don't want to do that.

Now, if you recall, Google publishes EXACTLY how the Page Ranking works: http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html/ [google.com]

It is all right there:

As a Google user, you're familiar with the speed and accuracy of a Google search. How exactly does Google manage to find the right results for every query as quickly as it does? The heart of Google's search technology is PigeonRank(TM), a system for ranking web pages developed by Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin at Stanford University.

Am I wrong?

Hypocritical?

From the article,

And then there are other things. We're never going to release PageRank [Google's trademark system for ranking web pages in its search index], we're not going to release things like that, because to release them would ruin them. If you release how you do the ranking function, suddenly every web scrambler in the world screws up the rank and Google search becomes useless. We don't want to do that.

The very same argument could be used from Microsoft's point of view. We're never going to release Windows [Microsoft's trademark operating system], we're not going to release things like that, because to release them would ruin them. If you release how you do the operating system internals, suddenly every hacker in the world screws up the code and Windows becomes useless. We don't want to do that.

Google hasn't ever release any open source code !

See, that's the difference between Google and other companies with open source values. Google hasn't released ANY worthwhile open source code and just likes to talk about it.

What?

they haven't managed to break anything, they've done a lot of good work. We're not going to use that as a model for what we want to do,

That doesn't sound promising.

GOOGLE NOT OPEN SOURCE FRIENDLY

Google is not open source friendly. They just pretend it to be.. They enjoy all the benefits of open source; they do like "Microsft is evil and they are the open source heroes, angels" but this is not the case.. I even find Microsoft more honest than Google.

All their apps are closed source. They don't even make them cross platform by just using Qt libraries; they're programming only for Windows. They only care MONEY!

What if Picasa were open source? Is it a very special program? No.. there should be no secret algorithm inside.. they could very well open source it..

All their technology is built on top of LGPL'd VFS based GoogleFS.. But I can't see any open line of code around.

Throwing away $1M in Google Summer of Code project is nothing for a company of $140B market capitalization.

Plus, their privacy policy is very debatable!

So this picture [atypicaljoe.com] explains everything very well I think..

Bill Gates is the biggest donator ever; whatever you say, Bill Gates created amazing technologies, he made us meet with computers.. And the open source zealots still hate Bill Gates but adore Google! I simply can't believe this!

Not money, power.

I don't want just... money. Money's not enough.

Yeah, you want power. The power to control people's lives. Hundreds or thousands or millions of people's lives. Through propoganda and censorship. That's what you want.

And how do you go about getting it? Keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.

Its all about trust, for me. Never about money or power. And I don't trust Google. They're too powerful to trust at this point, like IBM, a monopoly or a government. They would have to fully embrace the GPL or some other form of selfless act to be taken seriously. Free wireless is nice, but so are free cell phones.

With regard to GNU software, I trust the code. The license makes that easy for me. I don't have to trust the project leads or copyright holders. They've already given up their power by using the license. But Google isn't like that. They like the money AND the power.

Let me get this straight...

If you release how you do the ranking function, suddenly every web scrambler in the world screws up the rank and Google search becomes useless. We don't want to do that.

So, if some competing company pays someone to get a job at Google, get the source for the PageRank algorithm, and leaks it onto the internet, then Google is basically toast?

I'm not sure that's something I'd admit to in public...

DiBona (Google) versus Shuttleworth (Ubuntu)

Both do a lot for OpenSource but not with the same intention. This might shed some light on their images and possibly have some adjusting.

O. Wyss

Google PageRank Workings

The original page rank worked exactly like this:
The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html [stanford.edu] [By: Brin and Page]

Of course it has been modified over the years, but yeah, the basis of PageRank has been released already.

Dibona spoke about this at SCALE

Dibona spoke on this topic at SCALE last week. Slides and audio will be up shortly. Keep an eye out on the SCALE website [socallinuxexpo.org]

Google Search Appliance

I'm suprised that no one has taken advantage of the availability of the google search appliance to get insight into the detailed workings of the google backend

That seems reasonable

I'm glad to see that Google understands that they don't need to be 100% open-source or 100% commercial. Nor does it have to be 50-50. Whatever Google decides is there decision and is their own decision.

Re:Not about money?

i jsut want them to put up a copy of their web server.

i want to play with it and see what it can do

Chris DiBona != Google (N/T)

He talks about himself, not what Google is about.

A slight correction.

He never said it wasn't about the money. He only said that money wasn't enough. Money will buy almost everything, so by implication those can't be enough either. It follows that he wants everything money won't buy, as well, not instead of. That, to me, is scary.

Re:Not about money?

MSFT give almost nothing back

I beg to differ. Microsoft has given you all this exploitability... could you ever have imagined being able to take over a computer through a JPEG? What about all the worms we have? They would have died had Microsoft not given us all these security holes! Honestly, shame on you...

Re:Not about money?

I'll probably get slapped down for this, since this is the Linux section of Slashdot and I know you guys don't usually like to hear about the good points of Microsoft, but why should MS give anything back? They don't owe you guys anything. They're a business, they're in it to make money. There's nothing wrong with them embracing concepts from everywhere either, because that's what you do if you want your company to stay profitable.

Sure, some of their business practices have been a little less than pleasant, but in most cases by the time the courts made their decision it was irrelevant anyway - can you imagine now getting an OS without an internet browser, or some form of media player?

And I call time on the "barely servicable, shoddy software" part too. I use XP, quite happily, without any major show-stopping problems. My system stays on almost constantly for weeks at a time, without any noticeable performance degradation caused by doing so. I would say that aside from faults with drivers, which MS has no significant control over, and third party applications, which again MS can't control, I've not had any problems at all. I've certainly never had a BSOD under WinXP. I could draw some comparisons with Linux here where several of the distributions I have tried haven't even managed to INSTALL successfully much less be usable (and I'm not on about small distros here - I'm on about Slackware amongst others).

Yes, Microsoft have made mistakes. Want to bet Google will be making some too?

Re:Not about money?

It's true that Google is a for-profit company, but it's clear that they have other goals that push them along.

There's a vibe that I get from that company that they care about making the internet useful. Also, Google employees get less than industry standard pay and they dont' complain - they enjoy doing what they do.

Yeah, they like money, but the care about more than that.

Re:Money can't buy me love.

"I don't want just... money. Money's not enough." could be understood to mean "We want all the money we can get AND ..."

shouldn't bother the shareholders much.

Re:Not about money?

it's abt money, not abt code. google's whole business was based on ads. they will do whaterver it takes to sell ads becasue wall street demands that. if earnings take a hit, wall st isn't going to give a damn about their contributions to open source. just not sure how this all fits together.