Gartner Says Open Source "Impossible To Avoid" 167
alphadogg writes in with a Network World article that covers a Gartner open source conference, in which VP Mark Driver seems to be going out of his way to be provocative. "You can try to avoid open source, but it's probably easier to get out of the IT business altogether. By 2011, at least 80% of commercial software will contain significant amounts of open source code..." After this lead-in, in which open source seems to be regarded as some kind of communicable disease, the rest of the article outlines a perfectly rational plan for developing an open source strategy.
sounds good to me (Score:1, Insightful)
Is Gartner warning us? (Score:2, Funny)
Oh but you can... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is not related to the use of open source, but rather to the use of Unix and Unix-like operating systems. For users of Windows-based open source software, there is no such connection. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Strategy" is Not Rational (Score:5, Insightful)
Making an "open source strategy" is silly. No one has an "EULA" planning session where they try to make general guidelines for what kind of non free screwing they will and won't take. They consider the options available and take the best. This is a panic by non free software vendors and their pawns. The same people who used to tell you to always use the "best" tool for the job realize that the best tool is often a free one. Open Software planning sessions are a waste of time designed to heap FUD on free software. The time waste itself will put you at a competitive disadvantage, using the wrong tools will too.
It's never been rational to ignore free software. Every significant non free program has roots in some kind of free software. The people telling you to ignore free software have been plundering it themselves all along.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's quite a sweeping statement. Since you're using it to back up your implied argument that free software is inherently superior, could you provide some examples of this?
Re:"Strategy" is Not Rational (Score:4, Informative)
I can provide examples, but that won't satisfy you.
Browser history [wikipedia.org], if not the web itself, and symbolic manipulation [wikipedia.org] are good places to start. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing you can do with a computer that someone has not used for their PhD and created a free, working copy. Often, there will be a great big pool of public domain code from government sponsored research, but some of that has been stolen and given to private interests. The great wave of source code theft that happened in the 1980s was the exception, not the rule.
I did not imply that free software is inherently superior for every person. It is mostly is if value performance. It's always superior if you value freedom and flexibility. I value freedom and have not given up much to have it. There are a few cases where you might have to keep a Windows machine around, but most people can do without it and be better off.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, so I can't help you anymore than that.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd need to provide a *lot* of examples, given your sweeping generalization that all commercial software is derived from something GNU came up with.
Mosaic was software funded by the government of the United States and made available under a BSD-style license. It has nothing to do with your concept of "free software".
That's funny, I remem
Re: (Score:2)
No amount of data can prove the assertion, but you can disprove it with a single counterexample. (But the test isn't whether or not it's GNU, but rather whether or not it has Free Software roots.)
So do you have a counterexample?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, as long as you define "Free Software" for me first.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's start with the algorithms that make up software programs, all of these are math and for free.
Most of the techniques used in modern programming like multitasking, compiling, unix and so on came from Universities and were mostly free until the landscape changed in the 70's, ask Richard Stallman why he founded the Free Software Foundation.
Most commercial programs are derived from this base so GP is right in that claim.
Besides, do you have polio? you can check these facts yourself all over
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Everything that is Unix ultimately came out of Bell Labs. Bell Labs gave us C and Unix and I think even sh. Before that, much multitasking and research in software development was lead by IBM, as, they were the reigning hardware company and had monopoly power. So really, all of the innovation which you describe came about because the big companies could afford to fund these lavish research
Re: (Score:2)
The origins of Unix are not with Bell Labs, but with individuals including Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, Brian Kernighan, and many others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Thompson_(computer_programmer) [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ritchie [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kernighan [wikipedia.org]
There are a number of sources available that show unix wasn't a commercial project initially and was developed as a hobby project with
Re: (Score:2)
You better know *a lot* since that's what twitter claimed.
Most of that predates Richard Stallman by far. Try again.
No, he's not, and neither are you. The basis for modern software was laid out by people working at universities and US government agencies in the 60s and 70s, mostly paid for by research grants
Re: (Score:2)
No it is inherently older. Back when the money was made on hardware, almost all software was open source.
Re:"Strategy" is Not Rational (Score:4, Insightful)
Much as you might find it silly, many companies *are* doing it.
If they are not going with "Zero Indemnification" policy of Microsoft, they need to know what sort of open source licenses they will use, what sort of support packages they feel their businesses need. An example: in the UK, Financial Services companies **must** have support contracts on all software which is not built in house, otherwise their auditors make them put money aside to insure against the risk. Should your company use GPL software or only BSD license? What if you make and sell software like System Integrators do and need to supply your own support agreements?
I would love to call it silly and say no one is doing it, but when top Global companies are doing exactly this (I'm dealing with the people who are doing it on a daily basis), you're just ignorant.
And as for saying that open source planning sessions are just to heap FUD on Open Source, you're plain wrong. Often we (open source companies) push for them to make sure customers do have a policy for how and where they use open source, otherwise they'll just take whatever Microsoft or Oracle push to them - nobody likes to change, it's a right pain. But we (open source companies and other interested/stakeholder individuals) need to push for these battles, because we win. I'll ignore your last paragraph which is just utter nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was the other way around - free software has its roots in creating free alternatives to non-free software.
Forex:
GIMP - Photoshop/PSP
Scribus - Pagemaker/Indesign/Quark
OpenOffice - MS Office/Star Office/Corel/Lotus/etc
Linux - AT&T Unix
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>I thought it was the other way around - free software has its roots in creating free alternatives to non-free software.
Actually, of course, it's both ways. But free -> private happens a lot more than private -> free, for fairly simple and obvious reasons. The non-free, private software owners generally don't let us see their source, so building on their achievements is difficult (and lawsuit-prone). The free, op
Re: (Score:2)
As to the specific apps mentioned, no good
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most IT should not care. (Score:2)
A significant part of my law practice is advising clients about what they need to do to comply with a bunch of open source code that has, somehow, made its way into their software.
So how many people really need to worry about this? I was under the impression that the vast majority of IT work is implementation that will never be distributed. That would make "Open Source" planning is mostly FUD.
For the few companies that do need to consider the issue, things should be much easier than what they are us
Sounds right (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A business will use gpl'd libraries to avoid having to make their own and then pass the whole thing off as their own. From there, they've got an advertising budget so they can easily drown out the buzz from a community-based solutions.
I know it happens in windows because some of the commands for a particular ssh server my employer was using were 1:1 openssl. I aske
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Despite their similar names, OpenSSH and OpenSSL are different projects. Or did you mean that the SSH server used OpenSSL?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
A conversation (Score:5, Funny)
--I was in the hospital with (whispers) *Linux*. They wouldn't let me get online. They were afraid I'd install it on the computer. They even found it on my cellphone.
--Man, that's harsh!
--You're telling me! At least they put me in a room with Windows.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sounds right They.. will... be.... (Score:2)
(captcha: airbag)
Standard (Score:1)
2. Post on slashdot.
3. Sneak in something insightful.
4. ???????
5. Profit!!!1
Re: (Score:1)
Consider the Source (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Consider the Source (Score:5, Interesting)
Gartner Says Linux PCs Just Used To Pirate Windows [slashdot.org] (2004)
Gartner Recommends Holding Onto The SCO Money [slashdot.org] (2003)
(Sure they got some better ones too, I just picked the funnies)
Re: (Score:2)
1. The topic must be topical and something people are extremely interested in
2. It must be purely speculatory to make it impossible for anyone to dispute any information they manufacture.
3. It must be loaded and contraversial.
All the topics you've listed and this topic fall into those 3.
Gartner reports are nearly always ridiculous in hindsight, they're ju
Re: (Score:2)
So here Gartner is clearly a Microsoft proxy.
http://gotze.eu/2007/07/gartne [gotze.eu]
Amen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's an understatment... (Score:2, Funny)
Already here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Try to do -anything- on the web without having to deal with Firefox, Apache, PHP, etc, etc... Good freaking luck. Even Safari uses open source components, so there goes all compatibility with Mac as well. (Meaning you can't test it on Mac, because then you'd be dealing with open source.)
Now, try to have a successful business without the internet. Sure, it's possible on a small scale, but I can't name a single business I deal with that doesn't have at least a 'contact us' page on the internet with a phone number.
And that doesn't even get into interacting with other companies that happily use open source in their daily functioning.
Re:Already here. (Score:4, Insightful)
Try to do -anything- on the web without having to deal with Firefox, Apache, PHP, etc, etc... Good freaking luck. Even Safari uses open source components, so there goes all compatibility with Mac as well.
I could quote more, but I would bet that almost 100% of the sane people on the planet would agree with both the parent post and the linked article.
I'm just confused as to the point of the article. This article seems as relevant as saying air in the Earth's atmosphere contains 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, 0.03 percent carbon dioxide, with trace gasses and this is impossible to avoid.
Is there something I missed? Is open source a problem or something? I don't understand the point here.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Otherwise, they might as well be dead and useless.
Oh, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Gartner's company line for years was "Avoid open source, it's risky".
That's changed slightly. Reading the article, it looks like they're now saying "It's still risky but you can't avoid it".
Re: (Score:2)
Gartner prints what it's readers want to read (Score:2)
To me it seems that Gartner published it for similar reasons that television news media has sports news. 90%+ of sports news isn't actually news, is irrelevant the day after it was broadcast, and a lot of it is just filler before it even air
Re: (Score:2)
A proprietary product can only be properly supported by the company that produced it, any third party support will be restricted by lack of access to code (not just to read, but to modify) and internal documentation.
And since only one company can support it, there is no competition for providing support for that product, giving them no incentive to improve the support quality or lower the price.
With open source, third parties can easily open up to offer supp
Re:Already here. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are good at what they do, they can turn a profit on desktops. Laptops, have a smaller profit margin on the low end. It is really hurting them. MS being 10% to 25% of cost on systems. It would not hurt Dell to be able to sell without Microsoft.
Dell is still a big name. Nvidia, Western Digital, etc, all have warehouses within a few blocks of where Dell puts systems together. Dell does not keep but 6 or 7 days worth of parts on hand. Th
Re:Already here. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem isn't the lack of drivers, it is what the Chinese will do with an open-source driver.
I really don't understand why Dell would care. They arn't hardware designers, just system integrators using (mostly) comodity parts.
Hardware manufacturer spends lots of time (read: money) developing software-instead-of-hardware approach to make a given computer peripherial lower cost to the consumer.
While I'm sure there are exceptions for the most part I'd say I'm happy to see those pursuing that approach go. Forget Linux etc. even on Windows these types of hardware tend to be the buggiest pieces of garbage available and are the first to become obsolete when a new version of Windows, or even sometimes a service pack, comes out. What's wrong with hardware makers competing based on making better hardware?
You release the hardware specs (or better yet, a real working driver) and you now enable somebody to duplicate all that work in a couple of weeks just reusing (yes, stealing) the software. No R&D time. Much, much cheaper product.
Well, they still have to duplicate the hardware which is IMHO a lot harder than copying the software, be it open or closed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't imagine Dell requiring open-source drivers. Even if to support their Linux offerings. [...] You release the hardware specs (or better yet, a real working driver) and you now enable somebody to duplicate all that work in a couple of weeks just reusing (yes, stealing) the software. No R&D time. Much, much cheaper product.
Yes, I can hardly imagine Dell wanting to see their suppliers in a price war. I'm sure it would break their heart if all their components were suddenly "much, much cheaper".
Re: (Score:2)
So perhaps they should stop trying, stop producing buggy software to emulate operations that hardware should be doing, and produce proper hardware to do it, which they can sell as premium quality goods, instead of competing with the low end cheap stuff coming from china.
Most of the software based devices i've ever used have been incredibly buggy, less compatible and/or slower than their hardware based counterparts. Some of them improved in reliabili
Disease? (Score:4, Funny)
Sir, you appear to be confusing "open source" with "open sores." I realize they sound similar, and English spelling isn't entirely logical, but this one ends with an "S" sound, not a "Z."
It is a disease, and that's why it works! (Score:5, Insightful)
DUH!
I fault YOU, dear comment submitter, for attaching a negative connotation to it. There's nothing wrong a viral idea, and there's nothing wrong with admitting that an idea is viral. There is something wrong with being ashamed of perfectly decent things.
What this says, in my view, is that 80% of the developers that are, um, developing will see freedom as beneficial. And in my world, that ROCKS!
Re:It is a disease, and that's why it works! (Score:4, Interesting)
The very fact that the GPL attaches itself to the code its released under, and survives into the downstream modifications that are made to the code.. there are beautiful resemblances to the way successful life itself evolves.
I'm inclined to believe that licenses that are not viral (e.g. BSD) and depend on altruistic reasons to survive, are somehow doomed to extinction (i.e. will be swallowed by proprietary licenses that couldn't care less about perpetuating the BSD cause). In the long run, the GPL will emerge as the fitter license that made its way into the larger user base while retaining pefect copies of itself.
(Of course I'm neither a biologist nor a programmer, so apologies if I sound like I'm talking outta my ass.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except in projects licensed under the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
In other news (Score:2, Informative)
Tivolization (Score:1)
Open source in commercial software? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In all honesty, I would not be surprised if more companies went the way of distributing free (as in beer) components of their larger software. Quick examples I can think of are VMWare's server product and Adobe Photoshop's free fork.
Re: (Score:2)
This removes driver problems, since the hardware configuration is known up front. Apple already do this, they sell bundles of standard x86 hardware running mostly open source code. There's also all the high end vendors who do the same, people like Sun and IBM etc.
And don't forget appliances, most people don't want to build their own video recorder, manufacturers can save a lot of money a
Re: (Score:2)
Open Source != GPL
LGPL, BSD, etc, licenses exist also. Almost all of the commercial software I've ever programmed for had open source components, but the companies were always diligent enough to pick libraries that did not require open sourcing of the entire app.
Re:Open source in commercial software? (Score:5, Insightful)
For mostly the same reasons I just bought lunch at the cafe downstairs. The salad I'm eating is fully "open source" and I have plenty of know-how and experience to make my own salads by growing the component vegetables in my garden and bring in my own lunches for little if any money.
For my money, I get "ready to eat" convenience taking only a few minutes of my time and full product support--if it's not to my liking, I can take it back and get it fixed.
Open Source != written by anti-commerce hippies. The software may be free, but there's plenty of money to be had providing and supporting solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[flame]You are right, Open Source wasn't written by anti-commerce hippies, the GPL was. [/flame]
Re: (Score:2)
$DAYJOB for me these days is Wind River Linux. Yes, it's all GPLd. Yes, source is available. We are still offering something people are willing to pay for, and people continue to pay us money for stuff. It's clearly a commercial product; it's just a commercial product that happens to have a lot of GPL'd code in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How to be Open Source yet Commercial (Score:2)
Having said that, it is indeed difficult to make software both Open Source and Commercial, since the software recipients can then freely redistribute it. There are only two true ways I can think of:
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say that the opposite of commercial is non-commercial. Examples which (to me) are clearly commercial but still zero-cost are Internet Explorer and Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If these predictions are correct (which they probably aren't) how do these products stay "commercial"? If at least half of that Open Source software is GPL covered, then %40 of that commercial software will have to be open as well.
You seem to be confused about the meaning of 'commercial software'. It appears that you're actually referring to off-the-shelf software. The vast majority of commercial software is custom-developed for particular business needs, and is often never distributed. As long as it's never distributed, it's possible to integrate proprietary and GPL software without having to GPL the entire application.
Gartner seems to think that kind of thing will become standard corporate procedure in the near future. I would
Re: (Score:2)
What does DiDio say? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this the same Gartner that Laura DiDio worked for and suggested that Open Source software and especially Linux had no place in the then "today's world?"
I guess that you are referring to this gem:
The thing about Linux is, you can talk about a free, open operating system all you want, but you can't take that idea of free and open and put it into a capitalist system and maintain it as though it is some kind of hippie commune or ashram, because if you can do it like that, at that point I'm like, 'Pass the hookah please!'
But no, she didn't work for Gartner, she worked for the Yankee Group.
I think Hell is freezing. Wrap the pipes. (Score:2, Funny)
Considering this recent revelation of the future from this prophet, we here at Microsoft want a piece of the action too. We have been dodging this bullet for too long. It's time to sink our teeth in and bite it.
We have been holding secret negotiations with Torvalds and starting next year, the NT kernel will be scrapped in favor of the Linux kernel. Windows will cease to be an operating system. Instead, Microsoft will develop something to be known as "the Windows Desktop Environment", or
Bespoke Software Won't disappear (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very few airlines offer a totally global service, often they will have deals with other airlines to carry their passengers onwards to other destinations, for instance a european airline might only offer direct flights to a few major cities in the US, and then have deals with a local american airline to carry their passengers onwards...
For this to work smoothly, they need to be using the same or a compatible booking system, so it would make sense
Why get out? (Score:2)
Because software will more reliable and easier to get means that it will be used more and thus more clients will need my services.
This is actually a Good Thing (TM).
Y
By 2011, at least 80% of readers will be out of IT (Score:2)
Re:By 2011, at least 80% of readers will be out of (Score:2)
Well you could format your rant so it's easier to read, but it's an ok rant so you can be forgiven!! ;-)
Unlikely, the more realistic motive is simply money. By replacing their file and print servers alone with linux they've slashed a significant amount of revenue going to M$. OSS
Obligatory (Score:2)
You have used it for years anyway (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple example (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not in the least. Microsoft has done very well..
MS and open source you ask?
Check the license for TCP/IP. For a long time they used just netbui for workgroups, but it didn't scale to the internet.
They like the BSD license. It's the GNU license they have an issue with.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't working. Try avoiding OSS software. Some of it is GNU, some of it is BSD. Speaking of BSD, know of any commercial software using any internet connections using the BSD TCP/IP stack? Avoiding OSS is like trying to avoid the internet and most networking standards.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, there are multiple implementations of a TCP/IP stack. I've heard that e.g. Linux uses its own implementation, and Microsoft claims to have reimplemented the stack for Vista.
I've also read that the IETF wouldn't accept a protocol specification as an internet standard if there aren't at least two independent implementations of the protocol, which wouldn't be the case if everyone was using the BSD stack.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, it's ludacris [wikipedia.org] is it? I thought maybe they just think they can become chamillionaires [wikipedia.org] by claiming so. =P