10-Year Anniversary of Open Source 161
Bruce Perens writes "Saturday is the 10-Year Anniversary of Open Source, the initiative to promote Free Software to business. Obviously, it's been incredibly successful. I've submitted a State of Open Source message discussing the anniversary of Open Source, its successes, and the challenges it will face in the upcoming decade."
Surprised by Wealth! (Score:2)
Re:Surprised by Wealth! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
By 2001?
I miss the old Technocrat. Thanks for that... Have you another, like project in the wings?
Re:Surprised by Wealth! (Score:5, Informative)
Technocrat.net has been back for a while. If you did know that and don't like its current editorial content, I could really use some better article submissions. I've got to take most anything people submit right now because it's slim pickings. But not over here at Slashdot, darn it.
New projects in the wings: a start-up company called Kiloboot. Product not announced yet. An American version of FFII.
Thanks
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware the "new" Technocrat was still associated with you - after dropping the old slashcode. I have some pals there - and still drop a post occasionally.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
If it were a bit more lively it would be more enticing. People like me are ensured to get lots of feedback from Slashdot for example, either through replies or the moderation system, and even through the Friend and Foe functions.
The impression (a person like me gets) while at Technocrat.net is that n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think you mean "Open Source" (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. This definitely isn't the 10th anniversary of open source. OSI, maybe, but not open source. I was using NetBSD-mac68k more than ten years ago, and it was and still is open source. Ditto for MkLinux.
I'll raise a glass to that! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Misleading use of capital letters (Score:5, Insightful)
While this may be the 10th anniversary of Open Source, it is not the 10th anniversary of open s.
Open-source computer code has been around about as long as computers, and the equivalent to open source in other areas such as blueprints have been around since time immemorial.
corrected (Score:3, Insightful)
While this may be the 10th anniversary of Open Source, it is not the 10th anniversary of open source.
Open-source computer code has been around about as long as computers, and the equivalent to open source in other areas such as blueprints have been around since time immemorial.
--
That'll teach me not to use Preview.
Re: (Score:2)
In contrast to other languages which insist that inanimate objects should be classified as masculine or feminine, capitalizing names of things isn't very confusing at all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(paraphrasing)
Of course we had free software back in the '60s. But back then it was called "software".
Re: (Score:2)
While this may be the 10th anniversary of Open Source, it is not the 10th anniversary of open s.
It's definitely not the 10th anniversary of Open Source. I refer slashdotters to my slashdot journal entry of June 27, 2007 entitled "Who invented the term 'Open Source'? [slashdot.org]" As per the entry, the earliest documented use of the phrase I could dig up was September 10, 1996, in a Caldera press release. No matter how you slice the facts, the tenth anniversary of Open Source has definitely come and gone.
I've asked Mr. Perens for clarification before, but he wasn't listening. Perhaps this time?
Anyway, I have t
Re: (Score:2)
The date that I am talking about today is the anniversary of a campaign.
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, WAY back in the day it was common to buy simple computer games not in disk form (those were hard to spread), but in the form of a magazine or book. They'd have a collection of simple games' source printed in t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
10 years - not hardly (Score:2, Informative)
Try to get over yourselves people.
Re:10 years - not hardly (Score:4, Funny)
Re:10 years - not hardly (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
Now all I can do is bitch about MS. (not the disease, the other disease)
Open Source has already changed the world... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been using Open Source all the way since the start, heck...I've even contributed to it by writing Open Documents and Wikis to help guide the everyday user how to use the various applications.
I am proud of what we have achieved, I remember when people at work mocked us as "nerdy" or "hippie" for constantly advocating alternative solutions to software and hardware solutions, but after being known for solving issues that the commercial world just couldn't this is no longer the case.
Thanks to distributors like "Ubuntu" that puts community effort together in functional packages for the "everyday man" - Linux has become both friendly and usable for everyone, not to mention the efforts of the Wine team that has made it entirely possible to run your favorite apps. under Linux with ease and little "under-the-hood" work at all.
Fantastic efforts, and an even better future. Personally I think the future for OS have never looked this good.
Scarcity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But, see, therein lies the difference.
The free software movement and the open source movements propose to do that and at the same time work in order to preserve their ability to do so. That pleasurable sharing that you speak about was nice, but as we can very much see nowadays, did not sustain itself: it is now gone, a precious memory no doubt, but no less gone for that. Why is it gone?: precisely because those that practiced that sharing always disregarded the fact that they were not doing anything to pre
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: free software is the success (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Correction: free software is the success (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I remember just how little buy-in we had with business people then, because Richard was the wrong guy to promote to them. He doesn't have any empathy with them, this rapidly becomes clear if you discuss it with him. Yes, if we didn't do it, someone else would have. The world really was ready for it, that was clear in how fast it caught on.
Thanks
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he is viewing (and projecting his views) of the attitudes of the types of people who deal in closed source software, rather than the software itself. For example, in his early days at MIT he quickly realized that companies were unwilling to share the source code with him so that he could improve the software. He would also be upset over software that had inherent flaws that he couldn't fix because the source was closed. Dealing with stubbor
Re: (Score:2)
I've met Stallman. My initial impression: He's rude, argumentative, defensive eccentric and comes across as not quite mentally stable. (Using props like a halo and robe and calling yourself the patron saint of free software?! Please!!!) He's also got the charisma and style of a smelly hippy. (I will give him one positive
Re: (Score:2)
IMO, for Richard the source of his genius is also an affliction. He can't help the way he is.
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps. If he didn't drag it out for so long it might even be funny. For those that don't get it, it's very very off-putting and what most non-techies see is a strange hippy with a long beard and food in it rambling about something or other. They're likely to pay as much attention to the homeless man that begs for money on the way to work.
Although he has at times gotten food in his beard, ther
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. "Open Source" was about the marketing. Despite RMS protestations to the contrary, there is no practical difference between Open Source and Free Software. The difference is in the marketing. One is a near religion requiring adherence to a specific philosophy, the other merely a licensing model.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Big deal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- Wikipedia.
Celebrate them all (Score:2, Informative)
Silver Jubilee!
Who's going to write the press releases?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The important thing here are the ideas and goals, and not so much the tools created to acheive the goals
Ideas are valuable all of a sudden? Then why is "Imaginary Property" always decried? No... the real value is in the implementation, and that began with Stallman's Compiler [gcc] and has grown from it. So yes, the tools are important. If there had been nobody capable or willing to write GCC or Apache for free, the technological world would not be what it is today.
That being said... the idea of Freedom is still king. And there is this quote from one of America's founding documents [ushistory.org] that brings that ho
Re: (Score:2)
prior art (Score:2)
What? (Score:3, Interesting)
10 years, huh? I wonder what Bruce's friends from UC Berkeley [wikipedia.org] would say. Sure seems like they had open source long before Bruce decided to get his name in the papers. Parens' and Raymond's instance on taking credit for free software is disgusting.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, BSD had the source code and licensing, but no campaign to drive others to create such things. Stallman started that. I canonized the definition of what was, and what was not, Open Source. Raymond and I evangelized to business. Everybody in this picture is standing on other folks shoulders. I'd be the last to deny that.
Bruce
Not 10 years: thank ESR for the lies (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not 10 years: thank ESR for the lies (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, the words "Open Source" could have been used that way before then, but we can't find any record. Since Open Source Definition only got done (as the Debian Free Software Guidelines) in July 1997, whatever was referred to before then wasn't quite what we know as Open Source today.
Thanks
Bruce
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, the words "Open Source" could have been used that way before then, but we can't find any record
Not to rain on your parade, Bruce, but the comment that you're replying to shows documentation of the term being used in 1990. I know that this isn't news to you, but this "I own the term Open Source" game that you play really turns a lot of people (who would otherwise be very sympathetic) away from your message.
Re:Not 10 years: thank ESR for the lies (Score:5, Informative)
The references you point out refer to the presence of source code, not the presence of licensing that assures the right to redistribute, modify, and use. BSD did provide that sort of licensing, but it was just called BSD licensing. The only campaign for developers to provide those things at the time was called Free Software.
Actually, there was a regular use of the term open source at that time, to refer to a form of military intelligence.
But I really did invent the term "nojomofo" Bwahh haha ha! :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the BSDs made was also Free Software, exactly meeting the FSF's definition. You of all people should know that. There were some unfree AT&T bits early on (which were actively being eliminated), but by the time of FreeBSD and NetBSD, it was completely free. And still is.
Re: (Score:2)
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"10 years" - bogus. (Score:2)
"Open source" goes back to the 1960s. [wikipedia.org] The Free Software Foundation was established in 1985. The first major Linux release was in 1992. These new guys from the late 1990s are just mouthing off.
I'm so sick of "Open Source" it's bogus! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been in the industry for about 25 years and RMS was a visionary. While we we focused on software and what it could do and how to do it, he also focused on the dangers that our own creativity would bring to us and how to protect us from it.
Make no mistake, RIAA, MPIAA, SCO, et. al. are *ALL* apparitions RMS saw over a decade or so ago. The Open Source movement is nothing more than a selfish group of little people with a narrow scope and no plan. RMS has had a plan all along, and while he may seem to be an extremist and might not have been right 100% of the time, in retrospect, he has been right pretty darn close and his extremism seems less and less unwarranted over time.
The truth is both a blessing and a curse. It takes a lot of work to realize the truth and most people will not challenge themselves. Once you learn the truth, however, you are cursed with trying to explain it to others.
Re:I'm so sick of "Open Source" it's bogus! (Score:5, Informative)
Now, obviously, I think that Open Source evangelists like me have a role in talking with business people that Richard can't fill. His brain wiring isn't built for it. The a priori arguments he makes are not the way to start selling these concepts to business people, but hopefully they will eventually come to appreciate Richard's arguments after they enter through Open Source. Obviously, I don't want to erode the goals of the Free Software campaign at all. I'm out to help people understand Free Software with a gentle introduction. I tried to make that clear in the article.
Thanks
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, and while I greatly respect your individual contributions and I think you're probably a pretty honorable guy, history has shown repeatedly that expedience in the form of subjugating ideals for gain is always a long term error.
I don't think the the "Open Source" movement has done anything constructive. The whole ESR Cathedral blather is an embarrassment, in most professional circle
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's obsolete. ESR wrote it before IBM stepped into the picture, etc. I invite you to read The Emerging Economic Paradigm of Open Source [perens.com]. At least one now-professional has based his thesis on this paper.
I think the major difference in objectives between Open Source and Free Software evangelists is that the Free Software folks say that proprietary software does not have a right to exist. Unfortunately,
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, so you admit, you are not bound by "free software," but promote "open source" which is not necessarily
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said in an earlier response, I respect your contributions and believe that you are probably an honorable guy. Its obvious you are passionate and believe you are doing what you are doing for noble reasons. I don't think I'm arguing that.
I think you have put the objective before the means and hav
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have put the objective before the means and have thus harmed the objective.
Correct me if I'm wrong Bruce, but that's the point that Bruce is trying to make. FSF has a different objective then Open Source movement. FSF is focused on freedom of software for the users. Open Source is focused on the idea that open source leads to better software for the users . The better software is only secondary in the FSF way of thinking, but is the core of Open Source. Ultimately it comes down to your belief, which one can't argue with (especially on an online forum).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not so much about compromising ideals as it is about style of evangelism.
Thanks
Bruce
Re:I'm so sick of "Open Source" it's bogus! (Score:5, Insightful)
In my experience, Open Source people are mostly Free Software advocates who have modified their terminology in order to make their sales pitch more effective.
Their are typically very community-minded, and un-selfish (by the standards of most people).
They are more interested in driving adoption than RMS, who prefers to focus on promoting an understanding of the principles of Software Freedom.
Generally speaking, Open Source folks have the same goal as the Free Software community, but differ in their preferred means.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Open Source community has a lot of differences with the free software community. And while the differences may be subtle, they are crucial.
Re: (Score:2)
Fred: Well at least I'm not a anarcho-socialist sellout!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, don't saint him just yet, he does all right.
But the fact is that his views that all software needs to be free are at the opposite end of, but as extreme as, Microsoft's (and other commercial vendors') views that all software needs to be profitable.
He doesn't say that "all software," he mere
Re: (Score:2)
Et tu RMS?
Seriously, RMS is outspoken enough for others to put the Free Software Movement into practice. Linus has done just as much for GNU by managing an open source project that attracted the attention of the computing powerhouses, as RMS has done by dueling windmills. Linus is the Yin, to RMS's Yang. Without a concrete demonstration of a successful open source project, RMS would be nothi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In my view, I have far more admiration for Linus Torvalds than I do for RMS - at least Linus pretty much refuses to get involved in all the political arguing and just seems to get on and make decisions about what is ***TECHNICALLY*** the best thing to do with Linux.
Well, your view is based on the idea that technology is able to support itself, and that there is no need for political action in order to guarantee that its advances are sustainable, of consequence and accessible. It is rooted in the childish belief that there is no battle for the preservation of the social, economical and political conditions which allow the free development of technology and its free application.
It is an age-old strategy of people wanting preserve the status quo: to minimize and hide
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"stop with the political bullshit" is precisely what I was talking about.
I have read a couple of books by Marx. I guess from your comment that you haven't. Your loss, really. I guess from your comment, also, that you view reading a book by Marx as somewhat disqualifying. Your loss, again. I wonder what you do read... (In particular, what do you read in order to know what Marx writes about!)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume your point was to try and discredit the side of the argument you don't like in a vain attempt to get people to agree with you because you don't actually have any points of your own to make.
SO it's a good time to remember (Score:2)
So when talking about Linux, look neat, don't stink, and don't talk like a raving maniac.
"Open Source" is a lame catch phrase (Score:2)
Wake me up in a year, when it's the 10th anniversary of Bruce Perens' mailing list post: It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again [debian.org].
The term "open source" was coined to avoid talking about freedom, under the rather stupid assumption that business people don't want to hear about it. Here's the thing: business owners are some of the most vehement seekers of their own freedom, so if you talk to a business owner who is frustrated with vendor lock-in [slashdot.org] and tell him that he can have the freedom to do away with
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read my economic paper? [perens.com] I really do make a point of talking about it in terms of free markets.
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read my economic paper? I really do make a point of talking about it in terms of free markets.
No, I didn't, and neither have most people who talk about "open source". That's the problem; The term "open source" diverts attention away from its greatest strengths.
The other problem is that people focus on getting vendors to release "open source Linux drivers" for hardware, instead of on getting the documentation that gives everyone the freedom to write and improve drivers for any platform.
I don't mean to belittle your other contributions, but in my view, the term "open source" is a liability.
The inexorable progress of Free Software (Score:3, Interesting)
Remarks about Audacity and Ardour aside, it's come a hell of a long way in 10 years, when priorities were things like drivers, windowing systems and text editors.
Go Free Software!
Constructive Criticism (Score:2)
In contrast, we have not yet achieved the penetration that we might have desired on user desktop systems, at least if you don't count the fact that Free Software provides a large part of Apple's MacOS today, and critical elements of Microsoft Windows as well. Both companies have been forced to develop strategies to live with us, some of them less comfortable than others.
I had about 80 different complaints each of the three times I read TFA. The lines above stood out as a way to crystalize two complaints, which I very much intend as constructive criticism. I'm not trying to fix you personally - the end goal is successful promotion (or on-going success, or improved success, if you prefer) of Open Source.
1. You state that both companies were forced to develop strategies to live with us. Is that really true or accurate? It may be, but it doesn't ring true. Apple
Re: (Score:2)
About Apple: when I was leaving Pixar, I walked in to Steve's office and said "you still don't believ
Bruce, this is almost completely off-topic, but... (Score:2)
regards,
unitron
Re:Bruce, this is almost completely off-topic, but (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 3872 number is only well-known because of the period when there were fake Bruces, more than one, on Slashdot...I had to make a point of telling folks that the "Real Bruce Perens" had that specific ID. This led to the Eminem parody.
That Eminem thing must have been something I passed on due to only being on dial-up 'cause I don't remember it, but I do remember changing my sig to something like "the real unitron is user 5733, but doesn't rate an imposter" (and naturally soon thereafter someone registered something like un1tron :-)
I do remember registering sometime soon after getting here just as the Halloween Papers scandal broke.
My 10th Year Anniversary... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think he gave up when, after explaining the importance of solar energy to life on earth, people started throwing chopping virgins to people to appease the Sun God.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise, break the chain. You can do it. Tell others how. Set yourself free.
Re: (Score:2)