Open Source Not That Open? 339
mstansberry writes "At the Open Source Business Conference last week, Microsoft's Shared Source mouthpiece Jason Matusow argued the point that open source isn't really open. He said you can't just go changing code on supported Linux offerings without paying extra to companies like Red Hat or Novell. So as Linux is commercialized, it becomes less open. While Matusow made good points during his presentation, many in the open source community are skeptical of the idea at best."
It all depends... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It all depends... (Score:5, Interesting)
If they think it's hard to get code in, that's pure nonsense. As a Fedora Extras contributor (fortune-firefly, and coming soon Nethack: Vulture's Eye/Claw) the process is relatively simple, and the people very supportive and responsive. Now, Fedora Extras is certainly less picky than RHEL, but I can't imagine it being too difficult to get code in. If it's not your own package, just simply a package carried by RedHat, you don't even have to deal with RedHat - you just deal with the developers of that package. If they take your patch, then your patch ends up in the distro.
If he's talking about "you make changes and then expect RedHat to immediately support your changes for you without merging it into the distro", however, that's a pretty preposterous thing to expect. That's not asking for a supportive vendor - that's asking for consultants.
Re:It all depends... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It all depends... (Score:5, Informative)
The code is open and you are free to change what you want. Or simply review it for your sunday afternoon leisure. Whether or not some other person or company is happy to give you support is a different matter altogether. This is just more FUD. RedHat is not "less open" it is simply a greater financial gamble if you start changing code in a RHEL supported box, either they support it or they don't. However, this doesn't change the fact that you can freely download Linux and bake it from scratch or use one of the many distros and change the code as you see fit.
No Additional Value... (Score:4, Insightful)
An IT manager may look at this argument and conclude there is no advantage to open source solutions, in that there is no point having solutions that are not supported. The manager may conclude closed source is a better choice; while no self-modifications can be made, at least the system is supported in its entirety.
At the end of the day, your average IT manager needs to desperately separate him or herself from the technology. Otherwise, they get completely snowed under doing technical work that should have been delegated. When there is an option to pay for support, most will take it. The argument is powerful in that it contends as there is no option for support of changes, so there is no ability to make changes. So why buy open source as opposed to a fully supported Microsoft product?
Very smart implication, I think anyway.
Re:No Additional Value... (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem of getting locked in to a vendor still remains. When one vendor gives you closed source programs, and then decides that he no longer supports your version, your only choice is to switch to another product. That is a software manufacturer has a monopoly on supporting that software. In open source, any company can support the software...and no one can claim that they will be bad at it because they do not own the code. As the code is publicly available, they can claim that they are as good at supporting the product as the company that sells the software.
Less lock-in as far as I can see is a good thing.
Re:No Additional Value... (Score:3, Insightful)
If support is a concern for you, and providing your own fixes is not (and this is true for many, many, many shops, in no small part due to the culture that grows up around proprietary software - you implement workaround, rather than fixing the product directly), then obviously the "open" part of Open Source is of little value to you. That doesn't mean yo
Illogical. (Score:3, Insightful)
With Open Source you can.
A. Modify nothing had have full support
B. Modify somethings and have support on what you have not modified.
C. Can fix problems or ad features yourself and get them adde
It's a fish, and it's red. (Score:5, Insightful)
Few if any competent companies would expect that they can modify the source willy nilly and then expect direct support on what _they_ have done from the distribution vendor. I mean, if you have an understanding of the process of software development and have spent 5 minutes reading about the Open Source movement, then you'll understand that it is a completely impractical, if not irrational, way of working.
When has this approach ever been promoted by the Open Source community? This sounds like only something a PHB could arrive at, following a methodology of gleaning an understanding of OS while walking by the cubicle farm and overhearing casual conversations.
Seriously, to me it seems like Microsoft sat around a table brainstorming for potential negative aspects of OS that they could market to suitably gullible people. I guess they feel sufficiently threatened to roll with even the weak results of that session. I hope the audience laughed at the guy, and told him to go back to counting the cash piles back at Redmond.
Re:It's a fish, and it's red. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It all depends... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, to stick with the car analogies, you expect your car dealer to fix your car if it breaks within guarantee, although you've modified the motor, and exchanged the breaks. All at no cost extra.
Sorry, but this is plain stupid. It does not work like that in non-FL/OSS industry, and noone claims that it works like that with FL/OSS. You just can't buy a service contract, do whatever the heck you like to the software, and then expect them to support your own code without giving them extra money for the time they need to analyse the changes you made to their software.
So please stop making such braindead comments.
Re:It all depends... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you have access to the code, and can change whatever you like, DOES NOT MEAN that you will be allowed to contribute to the official project code yourself. Firefox is a closed development house. They keep strict control over what code goes in, who's allowed to touch it, what features go on the UI and how they're organized. If they want to keep it that way, they're perfectly within their rights -- and given the quality of the product, it seems to be a good idea. If everyone were allowed to drop in code, or tack things on to the UI, the project would soon be a total mess.
But just because they keep a tight reign on the project code doesn't mean they aren't following the ideals of open source. You still have access to the code. You can go in and change whatever you like, fork the project, release your own competing version based on the original codebase, etc. That's where the true value of OSS comes from. If the Mozilla foundation ever went away, the community could pick up the code from the last release and run with it. If your company wants to release a custom version with support for some weird proprietary graphics format that Mozilla would never in a million years devote time to, you can. That's what open source is about.
Allowing everybody with even a vague interest to contribute to THEIR fork of the code, however... was never any open source license. At some point, once you get past the warm fuzzies of releasing something Open, you still have to sit down and actually code the project. And keeping an invitation only group makes a lot of sense, from that perspective.
Re:It all depends... (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft understands! (Score:3, Interesting)
Just like how the unions are saying that Proposition 75 [smartvoter.org] is a way to silence union members. What is is is to say that the union can only take money out member's paychecks for political campains, after they get permission. Not jump through hoops to get a refund of polical dues. Or Proposition 75 [smartvoter.org] will cut school funding. But it actually limits the amounts of spending increases.
Re:It all depends... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Microsoft presentation says something very different.
"Matusow said opening up software can add value, "but you need to understand why you want to open certain software. We are building intellectual property into software and trying to sell it. We throw code over the wall for the community to build on it.""
They throw code over the wall?
It's very patronizing. Instead of regarding the people out there as brainpower with a positive contribution, they regard their internal direction as higher than external voices. I guess this is why ultimately Microsoft is dropping the ball. They just don't listen. You NEED to listen. The world has changed since Win95, or even WinXP. We need more, we need it faster, and we need it to work with the Mac laptop and Linux server.
Basically, the surge in open source is driven by the fact that it's answering so many of the productivity, communication and search questions of the marketplace. Even Apple realize that, and this is why their baby (MacOS X) is largely available as Darwin (open OS code).
Just my two cents.
Shane Coughlan
Project Leader
Mobility http://mobility.shaneland.co.uk/ [shaneland.co.uk]
Re:It all depends... (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, I dunno what he's been smoking...
1. The code is open, you can change it as much as you want (it just might not get adopted upstream)
2. If you make a good patch to fix a bug then it usually does get pulled in upstream (either by the packager, or by the author - if it gets to the author then *all* the packagers get it)
3. Tied in with (2), if you join the project that's developing a
Re:It all depends... (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally understand that there are advantages of the open source model, primarilly in that if the company you had support from goes out of business or stops supporting that software you can still go out and find
Re:It all depends... (Score:3, Informative)
Well, if your changes go upstream then in *will* be supported by the vendor at no extra cost. In any case this seems like a bogus arguement because the choice is between FOSS (you can make changes but they might be unsupported) and closed software (you can't make changes at all) - clearly FOSS gives the greater freedom and closed software has no advantage.
prima
Not really. (Score:4, Interesting)
The argument in this case is closer to the strategy the cigarette companies used on tobacco's addictiveness. In that one you pick an arbitrary definition of your own -- a straw man -- then quickly move on and hope your audience doesn't have time to realize the definition you've used is loaded. You help this process by passing over it quickly, or by referring to it without ever stating it explicitly, and moving on to emotional or inflammatory rhetoric.
The distinction is this: in one case you force the other side to provide you with the faulty definition. In the other you rely on the other side carelessly accepting a definition you supply.
Finally... (Score:5, Funny)
Come on... Microsoft!??!
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Informative)
Shared source is Microsoft's foray into community development, started back in 2001 when Linux was just a hobby for the blue-haired ponytail set.
I think everybody except for Microsoft had heard of Linux well before 2001. I first started playing with it in 1995, and had it in production for webservers and other edge type boxes during 1997.
I've never had blue hair.
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sold (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm sold (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm sold (Score:2)
Unless that is just meant to be an MCSE inside joke.
That's Might Only Be True... (Score:5, Insightful)
And if your paying for support (Score:3, Insightful)
AFAIK, one can still get those distros without having to buy a support contract.
you mean Redhat wont support my modified code!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Redhat wont go the extra mile to support some code that they have supplied and I have modified.
Wow that's preposterous.
What next? Ford wont honour my new vehicle warranty if I modify the engine?
Re:you mean Redhat wont support my modified code!? (Score:5, Informative)
Ford will honor your new vehicle warranty if you modify the engine as long as the problem cannot reasonably be connected to the engine.
For example, if I install a high-flow air filter and a few months later the brakes stop working, Ford will honor my warranty. If I install a high-flow air filter and the cylinders break, Ford might be less willing to fix it under warranty. It would be up to Ford, by the way, to show that the damage was due to the modification and you can take them to court if you don't agree. Depending on what happens, it may not be worth it.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act [enjoythedrive.com] is the federal regulation in this case.
This may be off-topic, but it's a common myth that if a person modifies their car, they lose their entire warranty. It's not true.
Re:you mean Redhat wont support my modified code!? (Score:4, Informative)
The same is generally true with RedHat or any of the other OSS companies. If you make some custom patches to, say, your Postfix mail server, and then you experience a bug/issue with your Apache server, they'll still help you out with the Apache problem. They'd probably help you with the modified Postfix too if you'd just keep it on the down-low.
The Point (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a distribution thing its a philosophical thing.
To make an allusion to a situation I have at work: we use a framework for development, and I have a tweaked copy I use for a pet project. But I don't dare ask for support on it, because I made modifications to the code beyond the specifications of the code. I can do that, because I am a developer and have rights to the codebase, etc. but then its no longer a standard. I can't expect it to support other applications built for the main framework and vice versa, etc...
But in truth he makes a point - the core of the OS in general doesn't need to be messed with, most tweaks and alterations do/should occur at the application level.
Just my 2 cents worth,
-everphilski-
Re:The Point (Score:5, Insightful)
No of course you can't. That's like me saying "I created a program on my computer, can someone offer me support without seeing the code or knowing much about it?" However if you distribute your software, and it gains a wide customer base, then people will be able to offer support on it, and nothing stops you from offering your customers support for your derivative.
Try doing that with Windows and see how far you get.
the core of the OS in general doesn't need to be messed with, most tweaks and alterations do/should occur at the application level.
And open source IS open, because if someone were to make changes to the OS, if the changes were good enough and the people distributing it professional enough, it would gain widespread use, and the other Linux distro's would be welcome to come along, grab his changes, and implement it within their own distributions.
To me, the MS PR person seems to have created a straw-man more then anything. But then again, why is this a surprise? Microsoft appears to hate the GPL and Linux, because it see's them as a valid threat to their own virtual monopoly. Whenever a MS person speaks, be very careful. He might be speaking the truth, but the likelihood of a spin is great. You should also be careful whenever there's a Microsoft article on Slashdot, because while the summary might be saying the truth, the likelihood of a spin is great. In this case, the summary gave the impression the article was primarily about Open Source not being open, when in reality, it's about Microsoft's shared source license.
Re:The Point (Score:3, Interesting)
That's like me saying "I created a program on my computer, can someone offer me support without seeing the code or knowing much about it?"
Actually I think it's more like buying a car, modding it to hell and back, and then expecting the local garage to do a full service for the same amount. You would have to be a complete loon to think they wouldn't charge you more. This M$ guy has stated the obvious and made it sound like a bad thing.
Re:The Point (Score:5, Informative)
If you find a bug in a customized program, you try to reproduce it on a stock version. If it exists, you submit a bug report against that. It's their bug, completely.
If you modified the code, then you should be able to determine if the modifications are working as expected. If not, it's your bug.
Maybe you have shared your modifications with others who can help. Maybe it has already been merged into the standard codebase.
Even when it's not possible to reproduce the bug due to logistical contraints, or to determine whose fault it is, the vendor should still listen to the problem and offer guidance on how to isolate the problem.
Re:The Point (Score:3, Informative)
Depends on what you did, but if you're wil
Re:The Point (Score:3, Informative)
Not true. Amazon.com uses Red Hat for a lot of internal stuff that they have modded out the wazoo and Red Hat still supports them and even HELPS them mod their source. Of course, I'm sure Amazon pays all sorts of dough for their support contract, but if you are willing to pay, it can be done.
Re:That's Might Only Be True... (Score:5, Insightful)
Regards,
Steve
Re:That's Might Only Be True... (Score:5, Informative)
I really do wish people would stop propagating that myth! Many of Red Hat's most important products are entirely closed source. Not only do you not have the right to modify the code, you don't even have the right to SEE the source code! Look at their RHN products.
In addition, it's not just code changes that will stop Red Hat supporting you. Recompile your kernel, and they won't support you until you reboot with a stock kernel.
None of the above get to me though. What REALLY gets to me is Red Hat supporting machines that have software from other vendors installed.
I recently had to upgrade the kernel on a batch of machines running RHEL 3 with Veritas storage foundation installed. On the test server, I ran into a problem - during the reboot, the server could not mount any veritas managed filesystems. If I commented these out of fstab and rebooted, I could then mount them fine. Would Red Hat support me, even though I have paid for premium support on all of these boxes ? Not a chance! They told me that it's a Veritas problem - go talk to Veritas.
Veritas of course maintain that it's a Red Hat problem because everything was working fine before the new kernel was booted, which seems reasonable enough to me. Eventually, after expending considerable amount of my own time and effort, I found and solved the problem. It turns out that Veritas needs to put a bunch of modules under
Re:That is not true (Score:5, Funny)
Why is Bob Young posting as AC? Come on, Bob, show some backbone - we won't be that hard on you!
Err... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, presuming that he is disregarding any ideas of software being closed to *hem* increase profit, he doesn't really seem to get the idea...
I'd say that if anything, you should need to understand why you want to _close_ certain software.
Worst, Microsoft, troll, ever... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can do whatever the hell I want with GPL'd open source, short of refusing to share my changes when distributing binaries to other users. Microsoft has all these licenses, but AFAIK they've released nothing of worth under any of them. I can't view or modify any significant Microsoft source without signing an NDA and paying millions of dollars, or risking serious prison time.
Re:Worst, Microsoft, troll, ever... (Score:2)
Worse... when someone like Citrix or Symantec does a better job with 'closed source' base, MS will change the paradigm and break the better app. Running the better guy out of business. And a new crippled MS version of "Terminal Services" or "Anti Malware" will be born.
It's worse than that. (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, but there's more. If your mods are excellent and usefull, they might be rolled into the upstream sources and officially "supported" by having others continue to mod and improve things for you. That's why
Re:Worst, Microsoft, troll, ever... (Score:3, Informative)
That is just absolutely silly. If you have a support contract then use the damned thing when you get that esoteric hardware and make Redhat do something with it. then your contract is still valid. Why d
Re:Worst, Microsoft, troll, ever... (Score:3, Insightful)
Supported? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't want official support from any vendor, you modify away - and support it yourself.
Re:Supported? (Score:4, Informative)
The first thing just about any vendor, MS or a reseller, Apple, will tell you when you have a problem with the OS is to do a clean install. If you want someone to fix your Windows install while keeping all your apps and settings intact, you'll be paying a hefty call out fee.
Re:Supported? (Score:3, Funny)
You can't even expect Microsoft to support their own modifications.
Re:Supported? (Score:2)
Re:Supported? (Score:2)
Besides, I'd like to see how often this is actually relevant. Most people don't customize their code, and those that do are typically capable of fixing it themselves.
It's just a straw-man attack att OSS.
in other news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:in other news (Score:2)
It's open (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is you can do whatever you want with the code, but you can't force someone else to use it. I mean think about it. Imagine a code repository where every developer could write anything and it was fully open. It would never build. Code that is good enough usually gets accepted upstream, that darwinistic process helps open source, not the opposite.
Pure FUD & other assorted bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
I read the article and it's as thin as water. Nothing to see here (move along), not even anything real to discuss here (except perhaps that
An Open Discussion of Shared Source (Score:2, Informative)
Of course! (Score:2)
Equivalently, if a company standardized on Debian Stable, then its going to be harder to get a p
The end user remains free to change (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps. But even so, the end user remains free to make changes. Even if the license (oddly) prohibited redistribution, supplying the source code to software with the software itself will always be better that not. Closed source is a dead end. End users have no choice, they must rely on the vendor to issue security patches and fix software.
This is not to say that every user will be tempted to change his/her software. The majority of users will be content with what is, and may not even be aware that the source is available. The freedom still exists, however.
Guy is full of it (Score:4, Insightful)
And the Linux kernel is also open. Just don't expect your changes to necessarily go into effect on the 'official' kernel. Just like the MS's shared source code will have 1 official version and then whatever the customers changed out there which they can't even share with each other because they signed NDAs and whatnot up the wazoo just to see the code. Unlike Linux.
MS, stop attacking Linux and mind your own business. You have less and less credibility when you keep attacking Open Source in general with your FUD and your customers are catching on. It's better to salvage what dignity you have and shut up. If and when you stop spreading FUD, your credibility might go up and you can stop spending billions advertising yourself and attacking others. But then, that would totally go against the grain of what is a marketing company, not a software engineering company.
Re:Guy is full of it (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, this round of FUD isn't aimed at "end-users". It is aimed at PHBs that are considering switching large operations. It makes absolutely no sense to purchase a support contract and then attempt to negate that contract by doing self-modifications. As I stated in my post above, why did you purchase the support if you a
Re:Guy is full of it (Score:3, Insightful)
MS, stop attacking Linux and mind your own business
Umm... It didn't really seem to me like an attack on Linux, per se, but more of a defense of shared source. Microsoft fears Linux (and rightly so) as it's up-and-coming competitor - but there haven't exactly been horse's heads in beds, have there? And besides, if Linux is now Microsoft's greatest competitor, how the heck is it not Microsoft's business? (Here, "business" can be taken more or less literally.)
For the record, the article did make a goo
Re:Guy is full of it (Score:3, Insightful)
yes, that is the point he was making but it is still a null & void one. If you have the "in-house" ability to
Re:Guy is full of it (Score:3, Insightful)
I think spreading FUD or misinformation about something is always an attack on that front.
It's like the
More MS FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a new meaning for the phrase "lock things down" that I hadn't heard before. I don't believe redhat locks anything down. The customer might be responsible for fixing problems with their own changes, but that wouldn't affect the support that redhat provides (i.e. so long as the problem was not caused by a customer change).
In effect, it's more FUD from M$. They really appear desperate now, grasping at any possible argument against Open Source. I didn't see the M$ spokesman telling the audience that Microsoft would support its own software which had been altered by customers.
So Mr Matusow, please explain again, how a license which allows customers to do more than your license allows is bad for those customers? That's like the RIAA claiming that 20-more years of copyright post death of author is good for the consumer.
Re:More MS FUD (Score:2)
That's what having the source does - it facilitates collabortion and partnership between you and the vendor.
Soko
Re:More MS FUD (Score:2)
Remember this the next time one of their mouthpieces shows up to do with an interview with a Slashdot editor, telling us all how Microsoft is a friend of o
Not the point (Score:5, Insightful)
The catch is this: change something, lose support. (Score:5, Informative)
What the article doesn't say, is that M$ [microsoft.com] has the exact same stance. You run 3rd party software with Microsoft Exchange, you lose support from Microsoft on not only Exchange, but probally your install of Windows 2003 Advance Server. Go read your EULAs from top-to-bottom, and you'll see what I mean. For any Microsoft product.
God I hate people slinging FUD around.
Re:The catch is this: change something, lose suppo (Score:2)
I'm a fan of portable software. Why, for instance, are tools like Verilog compilers not 100% portable? They're userspace text reading applications. Not like they need something from a kernel other than a heap and a file system.
Every time someone tells you "I use word" or "We only support $DISTRO" tell them "then you don't get my money".
That'll curb this idiocy fairly quick.
Tom
Strawman (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The catch is this: change something, lose suppo (Score:3, Interesting)
The EULA you agreed to says they can. In practice this means they will still take your money, blame the other software and close the case. Either that or like you said they will ask you to install a new server with only MS software on it, load all your data to it and then try to replicate the problem. After a week of blowing your sysadmin's time you won't be ab
This is the same reasoning... (Score:3, Insightful)
In the meanwhile, those who know and care will buy the best option available, while looking at historical data for reliability, TCO, and ownership experience... and then laugh at those who run the American software/vehicle upgrade treadmill.
Author of TFA must be an idiot. (Score:2)
"Shared source is Microsoft's foray into community development, started back in 2001 when Linux was just a hobby for the blue-haired ponytail set."
WTF?!
Re:Author of TFA must be an idiot. (Score:2)
You must be new here.
Rule number 1: (Score:2)
So basically... (Score:2)
You can make all the changes you want. What he is describing is a limitation on the support certain companies provide.
It's a bit like saying that Slashdot isn't free to visit - because if you do it at work you might get fired. It's true, you might get fired, but that's because of the terms of your employment, it's not a property of Slashdot.
Air is not free (Score:5, Funny)
Developers, by Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
By reading those comments I get an odd sensation that Microsoft is trying to use "developers, developers, developers" like a bunch of highly exploitable hippie enthusiasts.
Chaning the code in Windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ofcourse RedHat cant support somebody elses code, the programmer changing the code might as well be a monkey and there is no way RedHat can magically fix things if an idiot sits down and hits the keyboard with a pillow. What you can do is send those fixes upstream and if the fixes are good it will get incorporated into the next release.
Not Surprising (Score:3, Informative)
But that isn't a big deal because MS doesn't either. It isn't like MS will support driver modification from ATI let alone anything I could come up with either so what is the advantage of MS's way?
Does my company "pay through the nose" for Centos? (Score:3, Informative)
Red_Hat != Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
So? Roll your own distro. Can you do that with Windows? No. Can I tweak XP and sell it as my own? No. Better yet, can I tweak the codebase for Windows Server 2003 so that I have a company wide distro for our internal systems? Hell no.
I'm sorry but this Microspin Doctor's argument looks to be in beta still. As per usual, I don't expect Microsoft's final argument to be worth anything until the third release.
This point has traction in some circles (Score:2)
I was in a meeting recently regarding platform development (i.e. the company sells the entire box, hardware and software to their customers). The talk of porting the app to Linux came up and the chief honcho dismissed it as neither a benefit nor a loss.
His point was that their product requires certain OS-level customizations. They can either purchase these customizations from a proprietary-source OS vendor and pay out the wazoo for them,
I was at the conference and was in the audience... (Score:5, Informative)
first off, the argument went like this:
Say you're running SAP or some other large enterprise system. Say it's running on Linux. The fact that it's Open Source doesn't gain you much. You're extremely unlikely to be able to change things as companies like SAP, Oracle, etc. all specify exactly which versions of some of the various fiddly bits of Linux they support running their application on. If you deviate from those supported configurations - they don't support it.
And guess what - it's true.
Oracle isn't into supporting you bump-reving your kernel, and your upgrading to the latest c lib. They'll test a working stack - identify known issues (and work-arounds) - and that becomes a "known good" configuration. So - while you can do whatever you want with the source, that doesn't mean that other people are obligated to support it.
In any case - it's sort of a straw man argument. The fact of the matter is (and he even pointed this out) for the most part most people just use software. They aren't interested in actually modifying it in any way (substantively speaking). They aren't going to look at the source code, change it and re-compile it. Only 1% or 2% of software users are in that class. So realistically the fact that you can modify the source isn't such a huge advantage in practice. Other people have cited here what the real benefits are: Freedom of choice - you can still choose to make the change and support it yourself, and security - if the company supplying your software goes away, you still have the source...
And I see a lot of people reiterating the following OoC (Out of Context):
"But if a customer modifies the source code, [Red Hat] can't help you [without charging you extra]. They have to lock things down to provide value," Matusow said. "As open source becomes commercialized, it becomes less open."
What he meant by that - and clarified - was that Red Hat has supported configurations, and other software vendors upstream (Oracle, SAP) have supported configurations. They "lock things down" (not in the literal sense, damn us programmers are always soooo literal - I'm suprised more of us aren't fundies) to provide value - is simply saying they limit the scope of what they support... Deviations from those known configurations are not generally well supported. I'm very curious about how well Red Hat supports the following on the current set of it's "Enterprise" edition:
1> Downgrade a core component such as the C Lib, or similar library or set of system utilities that a lot of the system relies on.
2> Upgrade a core component as above.
3> Crossgrade a component like the file system to a different one.
Once that's been done, I'm also wondering what kind of support you'd get out of a company like Oracle or SAP...
Re:I was at the conference and was in the audience (Score:3, Insightful)
I do alter source code pretty often infact. It has been invaluable to me at work since i can find an error, fix it and continue as nothing happened. I have had problems in commercial software that hasnt been fixed for years and could do nothing.
Re:I was at the conference and was in the audience (Score:3, Interesting)
1. RedHat's distros come with (backward) compat libraries and compilers packages (optional to install) with their enterprise products. I believe the that between the two you have most things covered. The compat libraries are typically required by Oracle ...
2. You might get away with core upgrades, if it lives on an extras disk. I haven't explored them... anyone? However, if people complain loudly enough and
Re:I was at the conference and was in the audience (Score:3, Insightful)
Arrogance... (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean they do have the singularity OS....
... and blazing hypocracy (Score:3, Interesting)
This is really nothing more than another Microsoft expression of arrogance.
I mean they do have the singularity OS....
You're telling me. FYI, there was once a large retailer who had over 1000 stores whose customer value cards authed thru a central farm of NT servers. The problem was that these servers would crash on a regular basis and arguably cost the company over a million dollars per hour in downtime when it happened.
To get to the root of them problem, they bought expensive specialized hardware,
Don't listen to MS about value (Score:3, Informative)
Biased much? No, to provide value they don't need to lock things down (although last I heard DRM wasn't intalled on Linux distro's, you don't need a registration key to use a distro, you don't have to call up to register your installation. I'd hate to see what Matusow claims Windows is, if he believes Linux is locked down). To provide SUPPORT they need to lock it down. Linux has been able to offer value in it's distro's for years without locking it down. Although value is subjective, so I'm sure many MS cronies will disagree.
Point He Misses (Score:3, Insightful)
If you go with MicroSoft or other closed source products, when you are up shit creek, you are relying on them to give you a patch. Maybe you don't really matter to them (or whatever vendor sold you the stuff) -- in which case, you can go jump in a lake.
Sometimes the problem isn't that there's a bug in the closed source stuff, but that your stuff is interacting with it in a way that makes it misbehave. Perhaps the system is documented, in which case you need to read a thousand pages in the reference manual, hoping to find the requirement that you've failed to meet -- thereby causing the failure.
Or you call the vendor:
You: "it's broke."
Vendor: "Why? What are you doing? Nobody else has this problem"
You:"Well, I don't really know."
Vendor: "Thanks for calling. Please get back to us when you have more info."
On the other hand, if it is open source, you can fire up the debugger, find the problem, and work aroudn it or fix it -- all of that is perhaps faster than going through the support process. If you do a big project, the odds of you encountering a roadblock like this approach 100% percent. If you are pessimistic about the vendor and believe you can fix things, you pick open source.
Yes because as we all know... (Score:3, Insightful)
[sigh]
Microsoft knows full well of BSD [opensource.org] licenced software. They just prefer not to mention it since it would make their bullshit clearly that.
I guess while Microsoft slogs it out with "Linux", Sun and Apple, this will make BSD the "meek"?
Sweet Blue-Haired Savior (Score:3, Informative)
``Shared source is Microsoft's foray into community development, started back in 2001 when Linux was just a hobby for the blue-haired ponytail set.''
Excuse me? Am I delusional or were major, reputable companies already using and supporting Linux in 2001?
Had this nonsense been coming from one of Linux's adversaries, I would have understood, but this is coming from the reporter!
I guess, by the same token, Linux was created in 1991, while Microsoft was still struggling to establish a foothold on the PC desktop market.
Please forward my (and your own) complaints to the reporter and the editor's.
What being "Open Source" really means (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, there's the Fedora Legacy project [fedoralegacy.org] which has picked up RedHat 7.3 as well, providing yet another option for administrators of "axed support" distros.
Let me ask you this - what companies or groups have stepped up to the plate to support Win9x after Microsoft's abandoning of the platform?
I guess Windows is really not that open, is it?
what people will believe (Score:3, Interesting)
There also wasn't anyone to sue if something went wrong. And there wasn't documentation. And there wasn't a 5 year road map so nobody was in control of its future. And more recently, you could be exposed to legal uncertainty.
Well, people aren't buying that old FUD anymore. So now we've got the new and improved FUD.
Now you can't get support if you've modified the code.
Next thing you know, there won't be documentation available for your own modification.
And then there won't be anyone to blame/sue if your own modifications don't work.
Your whole company will have an uncertain future because your modifications don't have a 5 year roadmap from an industry leader in the software biz (that consistently misses its own goals, but nevermind that detail). No 5 year roadmap = uncertain future.
Worst of all, your own modifications might have legal uncertainties, possibly infringing upon someone else's patents or other so-called intellectual property. You could be exposed to lawsuits or other frightening uncertain legal woes.
Be affraid. Very affraid. And also uncertain and filled with doubt!
So, the code is free, but support costs money (Score:3, Insightful)
Why didn't we think of that?
Oh, wait...
Re:I agree: GNU is M$ (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, GCC supports things like a smart assembler inliner and packed structures. But I ask you, why doesn't MSVC? In this day and age it still uses the "we put code in verbatim with params" model that Watcom made famous in the EARLY NINETIES.
With GCC I can say "pass me these variables in registers" and then mix with C and ASM code in the same routine. GCC will sort out which registers to assign and even alias the variables automatically as possible.
With MSVC it's totally atomic. You can't tell it to alias registers with variables and once you leave your asm block you're totally fucked.
HOWEVER, when striving to write portable code GCC is a hell of a lot more compliant. Where are "long long"s in MSVC? Where are VLA and other C99 keywords?
Speaking as someone who actually works on a diverse set of platforms I'd like to qualify your post as "cheapshot".
Tom
MS source is available to some academics/customers (Score:3, Informative)
Strangely enough I have a friend who did just that. Now the research project he was working on had been granted access to Windows NT source after signing NDAs but the license was transferable if the project moved to another university, they were not prohibitte
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)