Andreesssen: Why Open Source Will Boom - in 103 Words 827
An anonymous reader writes "You gotta love Marc Andreessen's 12 reasons why Open Source is set to boom: can anyone use fewer than 103 words and still adduce as many reasons as he does?"
Why Linux Will Boom - in 3 Words (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why Linux Will Boom - in 3 Words (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why Linux Will Boom - in 3 Words (Score:5, Interesting)
We were concerned about Bon Jovi's song where he says "I'll be there for you. These five words I say to you". One person said "Ha leave it to Bon Jovi to screw that one up. It's six words." I however was convinced it was 5 words.
The whole thing got bigger than it needed to, but the professor didn't have an immediate answer.
After reviewing with some colleagues including 1 who was an attorney, the general consensus was that it was indeed 6 words. It's also a contraction, which is pronounced as 1 word, but if you diagram that sentence, you have to separate the subject and the verb.
Therefore, if you accept the decision of the Professors (and attorney), What we acutally have is Andreessen's "Why Linux will Boom in 106 words" due to the 3 contractions he used in his list.
Although, there is a good argument for either side..
Not Impressed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not Impressed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not Impressed (100 Words or Less) (Score:4, Interesting)
Your reformulation merely states that the Internet happens to transmit bits that are open source, without the "transmission vector" aspect. It also carries other things.
Ain't English grand? This is why I end up being so verbose, so often; if I want, I can condense many of my multi-page essays down to one dense paragraph, but I prefer that more then a handful of my readers understand what I'm saying. (Which still may not happen often, but what can you do?) You can see a lot more of this in the other Slashdot replies too; 103 words is nice, but by the time everyone is done misinterpreting and projecting onto them, one wonders if a 103-page essay wouldn't have been called for. (Of course, more words means more opportunities to misinterpret; argh!)
1 word counter-argument (Score:5, Insightful)
One word counter counter argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One word counter counter argument (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not saying I agree. In fact, I disagree. However, many, many people say it to themselves every time they download a piece of software and it doesn't run because it needs to be re-compiled on their platform. So then they go to Best Buy and purchase something that runs, but crashes, but at least it runs.
Re:One word counter counter argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I get what I pay for. Yay.
Re:One word counter counter argument (Score:5, Interesting)
"Only a fool thinks price and value are the same." - Antonio Machado
Re:One word counter counter argument (Score:5, Insightful)
"Only a fool thinks price and value are the same." - Antonio Machado
That still doesn't negate the fact that value generally comes at a price.
Re:One word counter counter argument (Score:4, Insightful)
And commodity infrastructure software is an exception to that.
Re:One word counter counter argument (Score:4, Interesting)
In the late 90's it was once said by venture capital types looking at putting money in to a software company... "Is Microsoft going to develop anything like this". The reason being that "IF" they did then, even if the product sucked, it would be cheaper and then it would drive this new company out of business. Well, now instead of Microsoft, it is open source.
You don't see many new closed source Web servers being developed do you? How about any new SQL databases?
You and I would agree that if there is good quality closed source programs, and they can be cost justified, some companies will use it. That software MUST add value to the company though, and there better not be a "good enough" open source solution. Granted there are many in I.T. today that just buy whatever Microsoft/Oracle/IBM puts out, but those types are quickly being replaced, or because of cost they are "looking" at other alternatives.
In my opinion it is not a good day to be a software development shop. Too bad for all those Indian programmers out there...
Re:One word counter counter argument (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, it's probably a wonderful time to be offering consultancy on systems integration and how to best tailor particular open source programs to a clients needs.
Re:One word counter counter argument (Score:5, Interesting)
By the time you have even heard of this software, it has been in use at several sites for many months... usually years. That is several people taking the risk of running a possibly unstable product, joining the mailing lists, sending feedback (and sometimes fixes).
I submit patches to Open Source where I can, and I use products that are labelled alpha and beta quite frequently - if they do, or have the potential to do, what I need them to. Once a product has reached critical mass (Apache, Linux, VIM) I use the software with confidence. Other's have already paid for it with thier time and energy. At that point, the cost of the software is usually in the time it takes to install and configure it with sub-standard documentation, lack of wizards, etc.
If I wasn't in IT, I would not use a lot of the stuff that I do - I know I can usually "make it work" and submit the tips/questions/fixes/how-to that are requisite in using such software in it's early phases.
Re:1 word counter-argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux has to overcome consumers attachment to Windows fueled by the incredible power of their apathy and lazyness to learn anything new (at least, on the desktop).
Perhaps it's a good thing that some Linux distros try to emulate the Windows interface (Lindows and the like), because for simple people who use their computers for email, browsing, and the occasional spyware-filled P2P, there's no way they're going to take the time to learn something like KDE as it is.
Same 12 reasons as last year? (Score:5, Insightful)
*yawn*
Re:Same 12 reasons as last year? (Score:5, Insightful)
It hard to imagine this whole thing just blowing over.
It came true last year. And the year before that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux is old in the hobbyist market. Linux is the player to beat in the server market. And in the scientific computing market. It is now well-established in the embedded field. It is getting a foothold in the corporate desktop market.
The home desktop market is still missing.
Hmm, I smell a slashdotting (Score:5, Informative)
"The Internet is the carrier for open source."
"The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
"It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
"Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
"Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."
"Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
"Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
"Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."
"There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."
"Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."
"It's free."
Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually almost the whole World is anti-Bush, not anti-American.
Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's just be clear with this particular point that Mark is making that this isn't about Bush or that "open source" software itself is anti-American. The point is: people remember the Cold War and worry that American business works hand-in-hand with the CIA and other agencies (which is not to say that their own governments are any better in many cases-- but look at which foreign groups are most receptive to "open source": governments).
Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting (Score:5, Insightful)
This neatly illustrates the difference. Al-Quaida are anti-America. The dislike America and want to destroy it.
At the same time there are millions of people around the world who are anti-Bush. They dislike Bush and think his politics, especially international politicies, suck. These people are not anti-American and certainly do not sympathise or support Al-Quaida.
There are certain people in the US for whom it is beneficial to lump those of us who are anti-Bush alongside the anti-Americans. You don't need to help them by doing it yourself, though.
Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, but Clinton was also wrong. However he wasn't as consistently wrong and bone headed about it as Bush as proven himself to be, hence any "anti-Clinton" feeling was minimal compared to the current anti-Bush sentiment around the globe. It is this rise in ill-feeling towards the U.S leader which has been interpreted as anti-Americansim by U.S Conservatives in an effort to discredit what are largely valid complaints. Labelling someone who is complaing about your foriegn policy "anti-American" and placing them right next to Bin Laden himself is a great way to make your critics look bad.
Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting (Score:4, Interesting)
No, this is not true. In Europe we pretty much switched overnight from liking and respecting the US to despising it as a result of Bush's response to the terrorist attack in New York.
Hopefully you guys will get rid of the current administration soon and we can get some sanity back into world affairs.
Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting (Score:5, Insightful)
1. "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists."
2. The opinions of "old Europe" do not matter.
3. Freedom fries.
4. British and Spanish troops in Iraq, counter to public opinion.
Now, why do *I* (a Canadian) hate Bush? He wins an election by about 500 votes. He has the good fortune to be president on 9/11, which turns him into a pariah. Then he manipulates public sentiment about 9/11 to push forward the most extreme right-wing agenda in recent history.
-a
No, (Score:5, Funny)
Everyone Used to ADORE the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Eh? You really mean to say you think that, before one year ago, everyone in the world LOVED the US?
Look, I'm not happy with the situation in Iraq, but to blame all anti-American sentiment on the War is just plain dumb-ass. To blame all anti-American sentiment on any one thing is just as stupid. There are lots of reasons why people dislike the US. Some of those reasons are good, and some aren't, but most go back to policies that have been in place since at least WWII.
The point is that Open Source will boom because people, and even more so governments don't trust an American Monopoly, especially one which has been repeatedly convicted of abusing its monopoly position to extend its power and control.
You're both right - wrong argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just after Sept 11, 2001 - most of the world (save a few corners of hatred) loved the US. Most across the globe was a New Yorker for a short period.
The Bush politics, and pushy-war-mongering, squandered the good will of the world in record time.
Now, after a few years, most of the world is indiffernt to the US, a bit more of the world hates us, and Great Britain is on our side.
You're both right. Where's the agrument there?
Re:You're both right - wrong argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's definitely not just the war.
The US stance on world affairs in general - failure to go with the majority of civilised countries on Kiyoto, the land mine treaty, the international war crimes tribuneral, etc, etc. The inability of the US to rein in pollution. The abandonment (unilaterally) of the ABM treaty, forcing things like the DMCA down other countries throats, not supporting the UN (not even paying their share of the UN fees even!)...heck - the failure to adequately deal with Microsoft!
All of these things chip away at Americas' world standing.
The trouble is that these things are massively under-reported in the US media. I live in the USA - and I find it quite hard to find out about any of these things on TV or the radio without going to sources outside the USA.
I think the average American would be truly horrified at the stinky reputation their beloved country has pretty much anywhere outside their own borders. But they DON'T see that. All they are told is that a few Arab terrorists hate them...and the French.
Re:You're both right - wrong argument. (Score:5, Interesting)
No. Tony Blair is on your side. The majority of sane British people think Bush is one of the biggest retards ever born, never mind definitely the biggest retard ever to hold office.
(Case in point, the other day he appeared on BBC News saying "There is no middle ground between good and evil". WTF? Even 8 year olds have a more sophisticated weltanschaaung than that! Somebody send the man to a high school Ethics lesson. Even 12 year olds, when presented with a classic 'moral quandry' scenario, notice within about 5 minutes that there is almost nothing but middle ground.)
OTOH, the majority of sane Brits probably also have a general affection for the American people, culture, etc, and an appreciation that democratic capitalism is the worst system - except for all the others. This was the same feeling before Bush, the same during Bush, and will be the same after him.
Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting (Score:4, Interesting)
Past American screwups in foreign policy have left deep scars. Americans are frequently accused of imperialism. That was true in many ways, in the 1880s in Latin America and Africa (just as the rest of the world was pulling back its colonial powers).
More recently, during the Cold War America fought a variety of proxy wars with the Soviets, often backing one set of ruthless dictators against the Russian-backed ruthless dictators. These wars caused a lot of pain and grief, and because America was trying to establish client-states (or at least, keep the Soviets from establishing their client-states), it looked like more imperialism.
The CIA, in particular, is less effective fighting terrorism today than it might be because it has screwed up so badly in the past that a host of restrictions were placed on its power. It still hasn't effectively integrated its intelligence with the FBI, for example. That wall was put into place because the CIA had badly, badly misused the FBI to abuse American citizens in the 60's and 70's.
I live in America, and I'm not sure the rest of the world believes me when I say that the American people really don't want to run your country or own the world. The worst I can accuse us of is being willing to take advantage of less-developed countries, to use cheap jobs and nonexistent worker and environmental regulations to our advantage. But we don't want to colonize those countries, nor are we particulary intent on forcing them to continue those practices. We just take advantage of what we see. (I do not approve of this, mind you, and many will see this as worse than plain-old imperialism, but I'm just trying to lay out my observations as best I can.)
When Americans want to invade a foreign country, it's always out of fear. When we fear for our safety, we become aware of our strength. Other than that, we'd rather be economic than military.
Except, perhaps, for GW Bush, and his dad. The first Gulf War was clearly about oil, though we were able to play it as being about a small, oppresed country (as opposed to all those other small, oppressed, non-oil-bearing countries that we ignore). The President played it for oil, and sold it to Americans as freedom.
The same thing happened again last year. Americans, worried for their safety, were plenty ready to fight whomever the President said, with secret intelligence, was a danger. But the intelligence was wrong, or false, and the President misled America. Last time it worked, because the war was cheap, and he lied less. This time, there could be serious repercussions for American foreign policy.
But I believe that Americans, as individuals, had no interest in stealing Iraqi oil, even if the President did.
I've allowed myself to get drawn rather off-topic, so mod me down if you must, and I apologize in advance.
Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, don't you think the childish "you're just jealous" defense has something to do with it as well?
- Chris
Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting (Score:4, Insightful)
It's all come to the point where you get Americans seemingly under the impression America is "better" than other countries, and that everything America does is, by very definition, "good". The only thing America is better at than the rest of the world is impregnating incredibly baseless patriotism into its citizens, and gun crime. America isn't about freedom, liberty or justice - it's about stock, shareholders and dividends. I think that's what pisses most people off. It would be like if Jesus came back and decided to be a slave trader. Lots of promise, but no balls to carry it out.
12 Reasons for Growth of Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
The missing word is adoption (as in 12 Reasons for Growth of Open Source Adoption).
That's because he states mostly reasons for doing open source, not using it (unless you think users really believe that "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants" or find it a compelling argument ofr open source that "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed").
Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting (Score:4, Interesting)
Like Cisco or Nortel?
>"The Internet is the carrier for open source."
It's also the carrier of porn and illegal copies of propritary software.
>"The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
It is also the platform through which propritary software is developed.
>"It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
Not nescessarily. Most insecurities are due to looming release dates. There is also a tradeoff between usability and security. Which is better? Depends on your mission.
>"Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
Not sure about this. I just got back from Kuait and there are literally hundreds of street vendors there selling propritary software.
>"Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."
Like the respect between the Reiser group and Linus? Why did it take so long to get that patch added? Those two crews showed as much respect as a couple of kids yelling "Did not! Did too!"
>"Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
Uuh, not sure what he means by this. I'm assuming he means IBM. What about Sun, MS, Adobe, and other closed source "Giants"?
>"Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
So does Windows. And when you are buying a $10k server, $200 for Windows doesn't even figure into it.
>"Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."
You have a winner here. But imbeded Windows and QNX are also players. This marker is not usually concerned with backwards compatibility and is very volitale in regards to the underlying kernel they choose. If x86 chips become prevalant, expect Windows to dominate.
>"There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."
This has always been the case. Lots of companies need some app that custom-built. They don't really care where the source comes from. Since the app is rarely redistributed, they have no requirements to release their modifications.
>"Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."
Not really. There is a percived lean to newer technologies in non-critical areas. Expect MS to respond to their concerns with newer server technologies that are hardened for special applications.
>"It's free."
But it can cost a ton while you have an outage and the one guy that knows about it is in Jamaca with his family on holiday. Most big projects are not like that, but you never know... MS shares the love. There is rarely one person who holds all the keys to a project.
And remember, if Linux truly takes over, MS will just use the kernel and bolt on a propritary installer (YAST) and a propritary desktop (Java Desktop) and then crush the competition like they always have.
Re:Hmm, I smell a slashdotting (Score:4, Funny)
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Documentation? my ass (Score:5, Informative)
when programming device drivers on linux, i was often frustrated at the lack of up to date specifications of functions and interfaces. for example the documentation about PCI functionality is hopelesly out of date, and specifies functions that are mentioned in other places as 'they are obsolete and you should not use them. EVIL EVIL'.
the old functions did have man and info pages. how nice. the new functions did not have them.
compare that to developing on windows. not everything is nice, but the MSDN documentation collection for developers is the best documentation ever, and includes not only a complete function reference, but also tons of samples that -shock horror - actually work.
even on mandrake 10, the developers documentation is crap.
regards,
Interfacer.
Re:Documentation? my ass (Score:5, Informative)
I'm always impressed by how good the OSS documentation is. OK, I can relate to your experience of Microsoft documentation being better. I have to agree. Microsoft, Cisco, Intel and IBM are all first rate in the documentation department. But have you used documentation from other vendors? Dell? Nortel? Shudder. It's enough to make you cry.
OSS documentation isn't always the best, but it's quite often not the worst. GNU documentation is consistently shoulders above UNIX documentation. Linux kernel documentation is lacking but GTK and GNOME documentation is good. Perl documentation is excellent (though that sort of language needs it). Popular server applications for Linux like Sendmail, BIND, Apache are all extremely well documented both for developers and users alike.
I agree with you that writing device drivers for Linux is like stumbling through a darkened room filled with lethal boobytraps. Linux isn't a stable API or ABI (yet). Other OSS can be much better. It's no different to the commercial world where some vendors are good at documentation and other vendors definitely are not!
Re:Windows is well docuements (Score:5, Informative)
Windows is very well documented [microsoft.com], both for developers and users. The availble APIs are fully documented in a consistent manner, and Microsoft does an excellent job of making sure future operating systems properly support all documented APIs.
And for the sibling poster who claimed documentation is not free, check out the following links.
I've been developing for Windows for 15 years and have never purchased API documentation. I used to purchase books for examples and ideas, but I haven't done as much of that over the last five years - online sites, both Microsoft sponsored and others, have filled the need.
One Word (Score:5, Insightful)
Integrated Desktop and Applications (Score:4, Insightful)
Open source benefits from anti-American sentiment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open source benefits from anti-American sentime (Score:5, Insightful)
Using Open Source means that the money stays in the Local economy, not going to Redmond.
A lot of countries, particually in asia and the third world, don't like the economic dominance the US has and any chance to keep money in their own economy instead of owing it to the US is a good deal for them.
That is probably another reason for the increasing use of Linux in China, Israel, and even the EU.
AND distrust (Score:5, Insightful)
Go with an entirely open-source solution, and you can make sure there are no built-in trojans, watchers-at-the-gate, or other boojums lurking behind the desktop.
Re:Open source benefits from anti-American sentime (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux et al. are international efforts. They are not made/control by an American company (MS, Apple, IMB, SUN,
Re:Open source benefits from anti-American sentime (Score:3, Insightful)
the world view's America as the land of the selfish, run by corporations, headed by a falsely-elected retard, and not bothered about persecuting people, being hypocritical, or just plain murder if it's beneficial to profits.
MS is associated with similar "American" traits - bullying, being crap, holding the world back.
so being for open source and linux is like being against capitalism and MS.
Re:Open source benefits from anti-American sentime (Score:4, Funny)
Well, ex-president would be better, but we can't use that yet. Soon, I hope...
Re:Open source benefits from anti-American sentime (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically.. a more widespread distrust of America will be reflected on american products.
Do foreign governments want to put their strategical infrastructure software in the hands of a nation which they do not trust?
Let's not turn this into a flamewar on how or if these sentiments are valid and just agree on that they exist, like it or not.
Re:Open source benefits from anti-American sentime (Score:5, Informative)
The balance of payment [digitaleconomist.com] situation has been mentionned, but I think it also has something to do with security concerns as well as countries wanting to develop an indigenous software sector.
Basically, your whole economy is dependent on outside investments to keep running, and that's hurting your currency. Some have suggested using the Euro for petroleum sales to hurt the dollar further, possibly causing a recession in the US (obviously aiming to affect the next elections).
If you are unsure how deep anti-American sentiment runs, consider the last Pew Research Center annual survey on attitudes towards Americans [people-press.org]. The percentage of people that think suicide bombings against the US are justifiable is just plain scary.
So while the BOP, security and protectionnism all play to a certain extent, I wouldn't underestimate the sheer resentment against the US.
Re:Open source benefits from anti-American sentime (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously though, governments would be well advised to avoid dependency on software so heavily subject to the control of any other country's government, it shouldn't depend on anti-American sentiment in particular.
Andreesssen - Why I'm an idiot in 103 words. (Score:5, Funny)
He tried these 12 steps With Netscape. Then this guy went and founded LoudCloud.
I'm not sure that we even want this guy giving us his support or opinon.
It's kinda like getting political backing from Nixon.
Feh.
Re:Andreesssen - Why I'm an idiot in 103 words. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure that we even want this guy giving us his support or opinon."
I agree,
in that the average reader of slashdot may take Andreesen's thoughts and opinions with a grain of salt. With that said:
(1) the guy did have a vision many moons ago, that while others may have had, he somehow figured out a way to parlay it into millions of dollars. So he's got something that the rest of us don't have.
-and more importantly-
(2) financial and industry wonks do give the guy some credibility and are interested in his opinion for reason "1" above. So when you get someone with his cache talking about Linux, it's gonna get more airplay than 99.9999% of the slashdot readership.
just my
jeff
Re:Let's see you go against Microsoft. (Score:5, Funny)
Less than 103? (Score:5, Funny)
All Your Base Are Belong To Tux
Of course... (Score:3, Funny)
Tom.
In fewer words (Score:3, Insightful)
Two words (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Two words (Score:3)
What would really help Linux is a disastrous (Fortune500-company- secrets-in-the-newspaper- disastrous) security hole in Windows.
My reasons in WAY less than 100 words (Score:5, Insightful)
Worthy of a /. news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of these are not so good (Score:3, Interesting)
Anybody who can exhibit a counterexample can say this is not true.
2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."
Okay, that's true, but meaningless. Who cares?
3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
Again, who cares?
4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
This can be proven wrong, and you'll look stupid.
5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
I really take exception to this, although it may be true. I think it's true that many open-source devs are europeans who have green-ish attitudes, it's immaterial, unhelpful, and boring. I for one don't wish to be associated with this and I raise an eyebrow at Andreesen for thinking this. If Kerry thought looking anti-American is going to help him, or you think it will help Linux, you are wrong. It is not going to resonate with people who aren't already on your side.
#6 - #12 are all fine, true, okay, and useful.
Re:Some of these are not so good (Score:5, Insightful)
2) It's not meaningless. I don't personally remember the bad old days when Linux distros were mailed between developers on stacks of fifty or sixty floppy disks. But those dark times did exist.
The Internet allowed for collaboration on an unprecedented, massively multiplayer level. This is something that proprietary developers haven't been able to take full advantage of, because their model requires a certain level of secrecy. They can release beta software and ask for feedback, but they can't say, "Here's the code. Tell me if you see anything wrong with it."
I don't believe #2 and #3 are saying anything different. #4 may be true, but it's difficult to make a convincing case either way.
5) It's not just about the developers. It's about the acceptance of Linux by users. The fact is, only about 5% of potential computer users live inside the U.S. Therefore, for 95% of people, any money paid for Microsoft products is money leaving the country. The higher the level of anti-American sentiment, the more people will clamor for an alternative. There's also the fact that a foreign government cannot check the Windows disks they receive for backdoors.
In America, no it won't resonate. But we're not the center of the world, and those who be against us dwarf the number that be for us. So I think Bush should be playing nicer, but that's a flame for another time.
Am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or am I reading the wrong article?
Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the sentiments from which Open Source benefits are directed against the dealings of a number of big software companies, not against the fact that most of these are American.
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
No nation likes to be a dependent of another nation.
If all your software is american, you're just one trade embargo away from having your entire IT infrastructure obsoleted.
What about BSD? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, I'm not trolling. Don't most of those reasons also apply to the BSDs?
Andreessen relevant how? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. "The Internet is powered by open source."
Hello? Yes, Apache, Sendmail, BIND etc. are used extensively, but how about those Sun boxes and Cisco devices doing all the routing?
2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."
I don't see how this means that OSS is going to succeed, it just seems like a fact. Anyhow RMS was doing Free Software using tapes and the USPS long before the Internet came along.
3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
True, but proprietary companies also use the Internet for development, so how is this important?
4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
Maybe.
5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
Great. Thanks, so you manage to put Open Source and anti-American in a sentence. That's the last thing that OSS needs: "OSS developed by terrorists". Stop splitting the world into American and anti-American; it's not that simple, and surely the number of people who sit that and go "I'm going to develop this cool software because I hate America" must be tiny. Most of them are doing it for the glory.
6. "Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."
Yes, true.
7. "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
I don't even understand this.
8. "Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
Hmm. Ever talk to IBM about running Linux on Big Iron? Not everything is Intel and if it were wouldn't that mean that Intel could charge whatever they like for a processor and make servers expensive again?
9. "Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."
Yes, they are.
10. "There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."
Oh man, this guy is out of touch. Go to any large organization (Shell Oil, JP Morgan, HBO,
11. "Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."
Wow, the insights never stop.
12. "It's free."
Very unimportant. A far more important issue is TCO; if you can make a good TCO argument then a CIO is going to buy into it.
John.
Re:Andreessen relevant how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Argh! This is a premium example of why so many who do not hate the USA or its citizens are 'anti-American' -- it's that "yer with us or agin' us" attitude that comes off as so peurile, and it makes the electorate seem bellicose and dangerous. There is the kneejerk belief that comes up: if you aren't waving stars 'n stripes(TM), you're a potential enemy, or divisive. It's an emotional response that goes against the grain of the Constitution, but never mind hypocrisy.
Anti-american != terrorist, okay? Terrorists are extremely rare; opponents to the strategic geopolitics of the USA are globally in the majority. Anti-american is a catch-all phrase that incorporates many concepts, including resistance to: economic/cultural expansion/neo-colonialism, foreign policy apparently as cynical as imperial Rome, a populace ignorant of or uncaring of the secrets and excesses of its leaders, and of course more than half the world's military expenditures being used to enforce dubious (Dubyous?) goals, etc. etc.
Patriotic blindness to the validity of external criticisms aside, the US government and its intelligence agencies provide no reason for other nations and their industries to trust software produced in the USA. Don't forget that most espionage is nationalistic industrial intelligence.
Odd... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm reading how OPEN SOURCE will boom in 5-10 years, not linux.
Do story submitters not read the articles either ?!
hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Most reports I have heard say that most people from countries outside of the US view many US products (McDonalds, Microsoft, Nike, others) as international producs and don't really associate them with the US. Is that BS?
I'd also like to know if that statement is just a knee-jerk statement or if there is any proof to back it up.
"Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
So does Solaris, and it HAS for a while.
This could just as easily be 103 words about Apple (Score:5, Funny)
2. Apple has the iPod, the iSight, Quicktime, iTunes - all superior Mac and Windows implementations
3. Apple has the design prowess and the marketing genius to cater to just about any market segment they choose to go after - right now; audio - next; video
4. Apple has the appearance of support - most people don't know where to turn for Linux support
5. Macs can run Linux too
6. Apple has an immense support base on the internet
7. Mac OS X is a Unix derivitive - so everything mentioned in the 103 words pretty much applies to Apple.
There - exactly 103 words!
What's new? (Score:3, Interesting)
Two things will make or break Linux: a> Ease of use and b> Applications
The first, ease of use, has been a problem for Linux for a long time and only in the last year or two have people really started to address this. I think with time, Linux will boom, but there's still a lot of work to do.
The "Last" OS (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing that would prevent such "Borgification" would be a superior kernel structure with a fundamentally different architecture. Sure, there will be one eventually, but the temptation to graft that into Linux will be too great, and "Linux" will most likely adapt, rather than get killed.
Re:The "Last" OS (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? The only thing that makes a cola a cola is the inclusion of the cola bean as an ingredient. What Pepsi, Coke, RC, and others do is vary the other ingredients, like sugar and caffeine, to taste.
Advocating that Linux should be the one true OS is to fall for the same kind of hubris that Microsoft is known for. We need diversity in our OS space for security reasons, to prevent any form of "monoculture."
How is that a good thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentim (Score:3, Insightful)
Mark Who? (Score:4, Insightful)
The guy was lucky to have stumbled onto the Mosaic project in college and has been coasting on that dumb luck ever since.
He accomplished nothing while at Netscape, he wasn't a core developer, he wasn't given any real position of responsibility or authority, he was merely a handsomely paid poster boy. He has accomplished nothing since the demise of Netscape. Loudcloud was a complete and utter failure. His latest venture will likely sputter and die as well.
Why he continues to get publicity as an "Internet Whiz Kid" boggles my tiny mind.
His "top 12" list shows no signs of creative thought or keen insight, its just a regurgitation of the same Slashdot karma-whoring BS seen here every day.
1. "The Internet is powered by open source."
Really? Cisco routers are open source? What about the switches and core hardware/software that makes things work? Open source? I don't think so.
2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."
Uh, yeah... The "Internet" doesn't give a shit what it "carries". Open or closed, it is an
agnostic transport.
3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
"The Internet" is merely the means of transferring data. Linux is a platform, but so is Windows, Solaris, and other folks that have made significant contributions to the growth of the internet.
4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
Really? Just saying it is so does not make it so.
Open source code can be just as buggy and full of security holes as proprietary code.
5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
Huh? So its good that the rest of the world hates the US? Hmmmm, right, so lets foster even more ill-will around the world so the mighty Linux can RULE! How does one make such an idiotic statement?
6. "Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."
Yeah, thats SOOOOO Much better than cold hard cash. I'd really rather my friends think I'm cool than make a decent living.
Statements like #6 are easy to make for a guy who stumbled into his fortune by sheer luck.
7. "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
Maybe, but Mark Andreesen is not one of them.
8. "Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
9. "Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."
10. "There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies."
Yes, and this "software" is not necessarily any good. The barriers to entry in the open source world are very low, but that doesn't mean that everyone is produciing quality code. Volume != quality.
11. "Companies are increasingly supporting Linux."
Geez, how long did it take him to come up with #11? Really keen insight, Mark. Keep up the good work.
12. "It's free."
Wow, brilliant, thanks for the insight, captain obvious.
Easy to beat (Score:5, Interesting)
In case you hadn't noticed every single example of countries, cities, companies, schools and government departments moving to Linux have always cited one and only one reason for moving.
Because they're looking to cut costs and Linux is free.
You know Linux has more advantages, I know Linux has more advantages but they don't appear to ever be quoted by these companies.
Alternative... (Score:5, Insightful)
some rebuttals (Score:4, Insightful)
so here goes:
1. "The Internet is powered by open source."
Sorry, but this statement is a little too broad. As far as I am aware (and I'm open to being proven wrong - bait!) a large amount of "The Internet" is powered by Cisco routers which run the proprietary operating system IOS. I accept that there are a large amount of Sendmail/Postfix/Exim/Qmail boxes around pushing email, but there are also a hell of a lot of MS Exchange Servers and IBM Lotus servers pushing email as well powering corporate email. Also MS represents around 1/4 of web servers on the Net. So, like I said, a very bold generalisation.
2. "The Internet is the carrier for open source."
As it is for proprietary systems.
3. "The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed."
That is because open source is largely decentralised. Business itself is decentralising to some degree (although not to the same level as Open Source - but this can be as much a strength as a presumed weakness).
4. "It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software."
This is the one that erks me the most. Lets take a look at the nuts and bolts of the O/S rather than the user interaction. There have been probably (if someone has stats, I would love to see them) as many Linux (think SSH + FTP + Telnet etc...) exploits out there as there have been on Windows (think IIS). The more the Linux front-end bloats like Windows has over the years and the more "features" that get added to various products introduce security risks.
The fact that the source is open means that people can exploit it rather than by trial and error or just hacking around than by actually analysing the source and finding weaknesses in it like people did with the Windows leaked source code.
Most of the bad security press (especially recently) has been Outlook (Express) based Worms and this was do to introducing a good idea (feature) that turned sour. Could just as easily happen in the Open Source community, but due to lack of penetration (he said penetration) it has never cascaded into something as far-reaching as MS's security woes have in this regards.
5. "Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments."
Personally I'm big into this! I feel that the potential for Europe to regain power and all of that is pretty massive. However, outside of the USA there is one big problem - language. You may think that this is getting better - go to Brussels, goto Barcelona and see how many 20-30 year olds speak English; not many.
6. "Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers."
At our (proprietary) office peer respect amongst coders is pretty high too. Are we an exception?
7. "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
"He doth stride the world like a colossus...". What if the giants jump up and down and shake you off? Sorry I just don't get this - anyone care to explain?
8. "Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel."
As does Windows. And don't say the free thing because RedHat Advanced Server and all of the other commercial guys also charge for their server distros. And then you want support, and then you have to have certified engineers. I've seen too many contrary ROI models to not prove anything here.
9. "Embedded devices are making greater use of open source."
Fair enough. Although consider Symbian. Also consider that MS have not been big on an embedded device strategy until recently. We all know what happens when MS starts taken an interest in something - and of all people M
"Linux runs on Intel" (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole point is that Linux is not limited to one or two platforms! If Linux only ran on *Intel Brand* hardware, then Intel would squeeze the market, and people would go elsewhere. However, you aren't limited to Intel or AMD or Sun or PowerPC. You aren't limited by either 32 or 64bit. Vendors compete on the basis of their features and price. If one vendor tries to put the squeeze on you, migrating to another platform is relatively painless. Makes it harder for the vendors, since they can't lock you in, but it sure frees the end user!
Wow, a lot of flaws (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer I am a linux loving desktop hippy who plays games ONLY on windows 2003.
True enough except not really certain parts of it certainly are. TCP/IP bind apache etc are all opensource. Telecom infrastructure sure as hell isn't. Neither is the hardware that powers all the opensource. At best it is 50/50.
True enough. Opensource can usually be downloaded legally wich is a bit less usual for propietary code.
And how do all those outsourcing project work? Over the internet. It is more like opensource is possible because of the internet. Opensource is big because of the internet not the other way around.
Well sure. As soon as someone gets all the bugs out of openssl. It is not the biggest piece of software in the world and still holes are found. Sure they are plugged as soon as possible but they are still there. Opensource is only secure at the moment because nobody has found a gigantic hole yet. We may not be so lucky in the future.
Oh boy. What a nice way to ruin an article. Exactly what is meant by it anyway? I know plenty of "anti-american" kiddies. They just go with the flow but I don't see them using linux. They spout of against america because it is cool but it is just words. None of them practice it. Would be hard to do as none of them got a clue.
There is a far more real anti-"what america has become" feeling. How exactly this applies to the choice of software would be hard to say. I think at best you can say it is powered by an anti-coorperation feeling but this would not exactly explain why big business is adopting linux.
This argument is too big to be included in a short list.
Incentives around closed source include million dollar salaries. I think this is a tie.
Linux stands on the shoulders of unix. Since when has unix been opensource? Sentence is incomplete. Opensource stands on the shoulders of giants who may have nothing to do with source at all or who developed some closed source but allowed others to use it and work with it and it is sharing a place on those shoulders with closed source.
Nice speech but meaningless.
So does windows. In fact it runs only on Intel and AMD but linux runs on the most expensive hardware out there. Intel isn't proprietary? WAHAAA. Intel isn't expensive? Depends, get some real hardware from intel and you will be paying big money. Not as big as "real" servers but you get what you pay for. Itanium? Better have a 19inch fridge ready to cool it.
True. Same as tron. Tron is also capable of running on the desktop. Have you even seen it live? So my washing machine etc will run on linux but I control it via windows? Nice win, not. Only if all linux powered embedded devices are also compatible with linux on the outside it will mean very little.
Ehm, right. What was AT&T again? Or Xerox? Software companies? Don't think so. Hell software being developed by software companies is a relativly new idea.
Yup but that is not a reasing why it will win. It is a symptom of the fact that it is winning. Cause and effect I am afraid.
Yes nice. Free as in money or free as in freedom. People care about money. Far less about freedom. Opensource costs money. Same as closed source. You need to pay someone to maintain your setup. To install and modify.
I know he was trying to limit words but this sentence should be more specific.
"Opensource allows freedom."
CONCLUSION:
Meaningless.
Has he changed his tune? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe he was thinking counter to his salesforce even then, though that is giving him the benefit of some large doubt. I don't think he was actually thinking about anything in particular related to that meeting, since he spent most of his time checking information on his Blackberry and filling out a Federal security clearance application, and didn't participate in the meeting other than to sit there and look famous.
In any case, this story makes me laugh, only half-ruefully.
Also, since when is desire for control over one's computing systems 'anti-American sentiment' (point 5).
Open Source != Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Open source is good. Linux is...well, it's good but it's not really what's needed for desktops. It's a modern incarnation of old thinking, something one notch below an OS for heavy iron mainframes, much too complex and awkward to really want on my desk. I live with it because it's better than Windows in some ways, but I've used UNIX professionally, and UNIX on my desktop and notebook is categorically what I don't want. And if I don't want it, just think about people who don't know much at all about computers.
Now if Linux were drastically simpler to understand and configure than Windows, then we'd have something here.
secure (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying "simply" is a bad idea. It makes it sound like open source code is inherantly more secure... written, released, secure all in one fell swoop. Succesfull open source code might be more secure but it was work to make is so. It didn't just happen. People had to look at it, analyze it, use it, push it and do things to it that weren't meant to be done. That can happen with closed source exactly the same way. However, open source seems more accountable and verifiable to the outside world (in my opinion). Accountable in that they don't put 4 pages of EULA that must be agreed to before ever running the program(1), and that you can usually access the developers of the software if something is really fscked. Try getting through to a software engineer at microsoft if your machine keeps booting up into an unstable state and explore.exe or whatever it is keeps crashing on load. Verifiable in that you can view the source code, or hire someone to do so without NDA's or other contractual obligations to the owners of the source code.
I would have prefered, "Open source can be verified as secure, where closed source can not." But that isn't even perfect.
(1) question: does the GPL or BSD license have to be agreed to for simply executing a binary created by source code released under the GPL or BSD license? naively I assume it does not need to be agreed to, only if you redistribute.
13) OSS == Jobs, MSFT et al. != Jobs (Score:4, Interesting)
Open source software lowers capital barriers to market entry.
Proprietary software vendors will not create jobs for Americans:
So, ON THE WHOLE, OSS expedites job creation, MSFT et al. do not.When I had this discussion with MSFTie Rob Scoble, he wrote:
>Microsoft money does create jobs. 5000 in the
>past year alone (mine was among them).
And I replied:
This not a counterargument, because 'Microsoft money' is an aggregate of revenues from BigCos and SmallCos. My supposition is that money from SmallCos can produce more jobs if it stays in the hands of SmallCo execs/owners.
Also, when BigCos pay license fees to MSFT the net effect on American jobs creation is nil, statistically, as money moving from a BigCo to a proprietary IT BigCo is not money that becomes more likely to create American jobs as a result.
Q.E.D. :-)
"can anyone use fewer than 103 words..." (Score:4, Funny)
Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min (Score:3, Insightful)
Or perhaps MS is seen as a big bad bully, and so is the US?
I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are the ones that popped into my head right away.
Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what using OSS alternatives allows them to do?
Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min (Score:4, Interesting)
1) American companies have been known for putting back-doors in programs so that organizations like the NSA could easily break in if needed. (Remember the infamous Lotus Notes story?)
2) America has put back doors in other software that caused nasty things [zdnet.co.uk] to happen.
In short, other countries don't trust us.
Re:103 words? maybe it won't be slash.. for 30 min (Score:5, Interesting)
"We don't want to send America one cent that we don't have to."
"The NSA might be pushing code into Windows that can be used to compromise our security."
"Support your local developers."
"If Microsoft doesn't support our language, we're screwed. If Linux doesn't, we can fix that."
"Maybe they saved our asses in World War II, but they're still acting like a bunch of pricks. Screw 'em."
#5 explained (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, imagine that a company you distrust that much is in bed with a government that cannot be trusted. A government that feels free to impose its will on anyone anywhere, and had no respect for anyones privacy. That requires little or no imagination these days. Now, imagine that it isn't even your own government. How would you feel?
Even true US patriots can see why any sane government would want to ensure that they rely only on OPEN computing systems instead of coverting their governments and populations into MicroSerfs.
Re:not trolling but.. (Score:5, Informative)
some of them are stronger now e.g. IBM and Novell/SUSE.
but linux actually being good is also required. linux is constantly improving. conversely (imo), windows is getting worse (activation BS, DRM, unTrusted computing pushes).
while MS might be able to push all this DRM BS on home users via stupid DMCA-style laws, flexible computing is too important for business and education institutions to let the BS in. and these places have the resources to use linux and make it even better.
Re:not trolling but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Growing cost of software in relation to hardware (related to "it's free"
2. Growing anti-Microsoft-sentiment (in part related to his mention of anti-American sentiment)
3. Growing Internet use (related to his first 3 points)
4. Growing interest in security/coverage of Microsoft security problems (related to #4)
5. Growing interest in replacing expensive hardware and associated software and support contracts with inexpensive hardware that can easily be supported by any number of local individuals (related to #8, and makes the cheaper cost of software even more important in relation to my own #1)
6. The inherent flexibility and portability of open source (leading to #9, embedded (and other) devices making use of open source software)