McVoy Strikes Back 777
cranos writes "Fast on the heels of his previous article claiming the kernel is at risk of Bad Things over the BitKeeper fuss, Daniel Lyons has released a new article where Larry McVoy attacks the Open Source movement as non-innovative and dependent on the kindness of corporations. The following quote says it all: 'The open source guys can scrape together enough resources to reverse engineer stuff. That's easy. It's way cheaper to reverse engineer something than to create something new. But if the world goes to 100% open source, innovation goes to zero. The open source guys hate it when I say this, but it's true.'"
Re:I think it's true... (Score:1, Interesting)
No worries. He's fully surpassed by the assholes in the mirror around here.
I mean honestly, the OSS community has not treated him with any respect, despite the fact that he's a good friend of Linus. If Linus sees something in him, then perhaps there's more to the guy than the "money grubbing asshole" everyone here makes him out to be? Maybe, just maybe, he's an innovator who is looking to make a living off of innovating? You know, put food on the table for his kids?
Re:I think it's true... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I can't disagree (Score:5, Interesting)
So what exactly was it that products like sendmail, bind, apache, etc where copying from the closed source world? It also seems that Internet Explorer starts to rip off features, which where introduced with open source browsers. (Safe for Opera, but it was Firefox' success which finally convinced MS of tabed browsing and the implementation has yet to be seen).
I'd wager that the internet would be a duller place, would it solely be reliant on such engineering gems lik IIS and Exchange (which came later in the first place).
Re:That's just silly. And here's why. (Score:3, Interesting)
The basic idea, perhaps, but not necessarily the design.
Version control with all the bells and whistles is a complex problem. Coming up with a good solution is difficult. Larry doesn't care that there are open source version control systems, he cares that other people are copying his solution.
Re:McVoy doesn't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
The point of larry is that decent software can't be created by a student in a couple of weekends. It takes some programmers working full-time to create a "perfect" product - just look at the state of the "documentation" of most of software projects
However I think that lack of resources is not that bad, sometimes. Students who write software on weekends need to be smart because of the lack of resources. Sometimes this means that they need to write good software, design things properly, etc. Not by choice, but because they have not option.
Many people has forgotten the Unix example, Multics was a great OS founded by AT&T, MIT etc with docens of engineers, Unix was mostly a hack by a couple of guys. IMO Unix suceed not because they guys behing it was extremely smart (many of the ideas from unix were stolen from multics), but because they needed a good system and neccesity forced them to write a great OS. Millions of dollars don't always drive "innovation", innovation drives innovation; money is a way of encourage innovation but "neccesity", open source ideals, desire to punch Bitkeeper can create it to..
Re:McVoy doesn't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
The other thing about the services model is this... Not everyone wants the same set of features. With proprietary software, if it doesn't have a feature you want, you might be able to submit a request, but usually, you just have to suck it up and deal. With open-source software, you can pay someone - usually the creator - to implement any features you need on top of their (presumably) mature codebase.
Never, ever underestimate the massive value of this.
Re:Chortle... (Score:4, Interesting)
All of this activity is hosted on a small relatively inexpensive PC. We build our own machines here and this one cost about $1500 in 2001; a similar rack mount machine would probably cost about $3000 today but be about 3 times faster. The fact that such an inexpensive machine can handle this level of activity underscores our message about total cost of ownership.
What a twat.
Re:So, you programmers ready to give up your jobs? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hell those companies that save money from free software could (and many do) hire a developer or two to customize/improve the software for their needs. And they would still save money.
Re:Oh please (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure. I've had a few similar replies so maybe I needed to quote more of the guy I was replying to. Roughly:
Larry: Money drives software innovation
GGP: Hobbyist time works just as well
Me: Hobbyist time will only get you so far
As another AC pointed out, yes, the innovation often will happen in the hobbyist bit. But you're not going to get complete, visible innovative software unless you go full cycle. Sure, someone else can pick it up an run with it but it's hard to get those people to notice your project unless you've got it so far.
Yes, there are plenty of OSS projects that do go full cycle but they're often the popular-closed-source clones that Larry's complaining about. The ones you cite all are, arguably.
McVoy does get it.At least part of it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Frankly a lot of what he has to say makes perfect sense. The world will never be 100% open source. And unless you make it illegal "so much for freedom" to charge for software closed source will always be around. That is not a bad thing.
Open source will also never die.
I work for a company that produces closed source software. Not one of our customers has ever asked for the source code. They also pay us $600 a year for tech support and updates. Most of them are happy with our software and we provide documented file formats so their data belongs to them. There is not a single open source product that competes with us. So guys the market is wide open if you want to jump in.
One thing that really ticks me off in the FOSS community is the idea that OSS has to be free as in beer. It does not. What it does mean is if you pay for OSS you get the source and the right to give it and the source to whom ever you want. And yes you can charge them as much as you want.
The other thing is if you do not contribute code, money, documentation, or at least good bug reports to the project you are a freeloader. I want to smack people that I hear complaining that this free program or that lacks this or that feature or that the guy that wrote it is an idiot. SHUT UP AND ADD THE FEATURE YOURSELF! Or pay the developer to add it if you want it. But do not sit on a message board complaining about what you are getting for free.
Before any of you RMS fan boys jump on me let me say one thing. I have released a few FOSS programs I wrote. The first couple where not GPLd because the GPL was not written yet but I gave away the source. I have contributed to a few more GPL programs since then. The world will never be all open or closed source. People that think it should be are like those that think the world should forced to all be one faith.
Re:wouldn't need to (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok I'll bite... where is this mystery project of yours?
Re:So, you programmers ready to give up your jobs? (Score:5, Interesting)
My job consists of writing software that the company I work for will never earn a dime from. (directly) We don't write software for the sake of earning money from it. We write it to solve a business need.
The majority of our time is not spent doing software development. It's spent supporting our users, fixing bugs, adding small features, or modifications. All of which would still be required if we were using OSS.
I'm valuable to the company I work for not so much because I'm a programmer, but because I understand our business environment and can apply that knowledge to software. It's unlikely management would ever be able to surf over to Freshmeat and download something that could replace what I do.
Besides, I wouldn't work for McDonalds, I'm partial to driving trucks. I'm already used to long hours and low pay.
Re:So, you programmers ready to give up your jobs? (Score:3, Interesting)
I will not cry anything.
There are 196 contributors listed on the Linux credits [kernel.org] at kernel.org
That's not many branches of your favourite fast food joint.
Non-innovative?-Implimenters. (Score:1, Interesting)
Hmmm... that sounds pretty innovative to me."
and
"Well, I guess some innovations come from the Open Source community, after all..."
Well no. The OSS community are implimenters not innovators. Others from universities and corporate research labs actually do the innovating.
"Frankly, big corporations (Microsoft comes to mind) do not 'innovate' either. They slavishly copy whatever worked for the competition."
Check out what Microsoft Research is doing, plus I don't see you complaining about "copying" when OSS does it.
"I think this gentleman is just angry that some people decided to copy his precious SubVersion. But guess what? That is the nature of Open Source. If the 'community' likes something, it is going to copy it, and then improve on it."
He has some valid points, but since this forum isn't actually about "finding truth" but more about one big "yes" fest. I expect those points to be lost in the noise.
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I have a feeling (Score:3, Interesting)
Guess what McVoy, lots of us read the Kernel Traffic [kerneltraffic.org] summaries who aren't necessarily involved. I don't like companies with bad attitudes, period.
Re:Chortle... (Score:3, Interesting)
Phillip.
Re:wouldn't need to (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll excuse your gross ignorance here for a moment...
I simply asked where the project was. I didn't say I wanted it to be GPL, nor did I say that I wanted it to be "free". You said it was "open-source", so I asked where it was.
Also, with regard to your ignorant statement about "re-reading the GPL", I have read it, as has our FSF-appointed attorney. We've been actively fighting GPL violation cases against two commercial companies who have taken our software and rebranded it (removing all of our copyright attribution, a copyright violation) and misrepresented the origin of it (a Lanham Act violation), and many other things for the last 4+ years. I know every single angle of the GPL, how it can be enforced, how it can be violated, and many other things. Our attorney teaches and practices IP and Copyright law. Trust me, I know more about how the GPL works than a majority of the Slashdot crowd. Consider your comment here ignored.
So I say again, where is this mystery project of yours?
Actually... don't tell me, I would never buy anything from you, not with your attitude. Never mind.
Capitalism (Score:4, Interesting)
1. It's free to make lots of copies of software and production cost is less than say writing a book or making an episode of Simpsons. In fact, people are willing to program as a hobby or, in 3rd world countries, for very low pay by our standards.
2. As McVoy pointed out, users of the software - big companies like Apple (hardware maker) or IBM (making money on service and support) - have interest in open source to free customer's money for themselves and soak up other people's contributions. There are more software users than software sellers. Oops!
3. On consumer side, intellectual property that has similar costs to software - TV shows and newspapers - has long been free and makes money on advertisement or convenient delivery (cable or newspaper subscriptions). There are all signs Google is trying to get into both models.
Microsoft and music record companies are seemingly beating this trend by selling IP which is relatively cheap to produce at increasing prices. I say it's because they operate under corpitalism - government rules that favor otherwise unsustainable business models of big corporations - rather than true capitalist open market.
For one thing, piracy is impossible to control without unreasonable laws like DMCA that prohibit studying mathematics and allows invasive snooping of Internet by private entities. In a normal society, content produces would have to come up with reasonable prices and attractive distribution channels to encourage honesty. Also, control of limited distribution channels - like buying all radio stations so that independent music can not be heard - would be illegal in a society that promotes free competition. So would be patent lock-in of trivial ideas, like Amazon's 1-click.
The most extreme case of corpitalism is bankrupt airlines that continue to operate as usual while being allowed to break any contracts that they voluntarily accepted (like employee pension plans). You would think if government gets into social protection, the target would be poor individuals rather than huge companies. PanAm ran out of money and folded and air travel is generally better/cheaper because of that.
Fortunately, it just takes one country in the world to switch to true capitalism instead of corpitalism. After a short time, everyone else would leach their software and domestic companies would have to switch to better business models to compete.
Re:wouldn't need to (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.websaviour.com/templation/ [websaviour.com]
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's somewhere between a templating system and a content-management system, but it's core idea has very little to do with either. I just posted the announcement as a reply to the original reply, and that page explains the system better than I can in a brief response. The best analogy I can make is that the system is like database normalization for HTML sites, although the system leverages the natural site hierarchy more than set theory, so the parallel is not exact.
You're just attempting to lock your customers in to something for which no one else may even have the source or documentation.?
Although changes are most efficient to make when the system is run live, it produces static HTML or PHP files in its cache which can actually be deployed statically. The whole system is designed with the core goal of no lock-in, no new languages to learn, and no administrative tools necessary.
Re:So, you programmers ready to give up your jobs? (Score:3, Interesting)
On the one hand it's actually great that Office at least partially supports what we do. But it does so reluctantly, and I guess we spend more time programming around bugs in PPT and Excel than driving our own ideas forward. In truth they are a piece of shit internally.
We submit what we find to MS, but they just don't care. A colleague of mine from a totally unrelated department mentioned that we frequently run into bugs to a Microsoft guy she had there for an unrelated issue (but also from the Office group). He just shrugged, and said that we are on our own when we build a plugin.
Hey, we are trying to use their fucking APIs, and we are on our own? Great, thanks for letting the software shop pay for being a "Microsoft Partner".
We would have loved to be able to look at the Office code, and we would have fixed countless bugs over these years, if they would just let us. But no, we have to fix bugs by patching the MS binaries in RAM.