Richard Davies wrote: The UK has a good crop of technology pioneers in cloud computing - for example ElasticHosts, FlexiScale, Flexiant, OnApp - and also some strong government initiatives such as G-Cloud.
We will have to see whether this kind of technical leadership converts into swift mass-market adoption or not.
(May 19, 2003) - Java developers like open source software. To varying degrees, anyway. For some, the attraction is free-as-in-speech; for others, it is free-as-in-beer. None of this should come as a surprise to you, and I'm certainly not the first person to make this observation. Nor will you be surprised when I say that many developers believe the open source software is necessarily better than commercial software.
This notion is a fallacy.
There is no question that there is some great open source software out there. But the only open source projects the wider business community might hear about (e.g., Linux, JBoss, Apache, MySQL) are the successes. By the time they get press, they've proved themselves and are held up as the banner for the OS movement.
They should be. They are all excellent pieces of software built by individuals dedicated to the Bazaar method. The achievement these projects represent, individually and collectively, is nothing short of astounding.
However, it does not prove the point the open source software is a priori better than commercial software.
Ask yourself this. How many of the projects on SourceForge are dead or dying? At http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php ">http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php, there are nearly 70,000 categorized projects. Common sense would suggest that a hefty portion have been abandoned. The reasons for this could include lack of time or continued interest on the part of the lead developer. They could also include the fact that many of them were just plain bad, and so couldn't generate enough of a user/developer base to continue. We'll never hear of those.
The Bazaar method is powerful. Not only is open source a viable model for software development, I would go so far as to say that it contains certain internal pressures that give open source projects more likelihood of being better than their commercial counterparts. This is a much different thing, though, than guaranteeing better results.
One of the aphorisms at the heart of open source development is "Many eyes tame complexity." The key source of the quality of most open source projects is the number of developers working on the software. Different people with different perspectives keep the code trim and neat and working well. If you don't reach that critical mass on an open source project, it fails, no matter how good it is. So, even if such a project might have been better than a commercial alternative, the result is a bunch of unused code taking up server space at SourceForge.
Don't get me wrong. I think open source software is a fabulous thing, for both -speech and -beer reasons. The beauty and power of Bazaar development is such that the unused code from the last paragraph is waiting for someone, maybe you, to find it and take over the world with it.
Open source is a viable model for software development. It can work, and when it does, it tends to work very well. My only point is that it is not a magic bullet, and making something open source does not guarantee quality.
About Steven Berkowitz Steven Berkowitz, LWM's industry news editor, has done development and project management for Fortune 100 companies, start-ups, and non-profit organizations. He currently provides technical and communications consulting services to corporate clients.
We think we have the OSS business model. See the link below. For those of you who hate Marc, try to pretend that this did not come from him and read it with an open mind.
I?m sure, big vendors will benefit from OS and OS will increase monopolization in software industry. Just think who pays a salary for "key" people in Apache or Eclipse projects.
I do not understand why music industry is fighting till the last man against "free distribution" of songs and software industry doing exact opposite?
Why do you think that removing "money interest" from software vendors will make any good? All my previous experience from socialism tells me exact opposite. For now I can see that OS will kill many small vendors just because people will prefer "free" to "good" software. And, I
#23
Chris Eyre commented on 21 May 2003
I have oftern found that open source software is better supported than the commercial equivalent. I reported a bug on an open source project yesterday and receive acknowlegment and a fixed source file today.
Last year I found a bug in a commercial database, provided scripts that could reproduce the problem and included build data and the exact version that the bug was introduced. The automated reply took one day. After a week I got an email suggesting that I try the latest hot fix.
#22
Ondrej Pribyl commented on 21 May 2003
I may be missing something, but unless this article has been written in response to some over-enthusiastic open source propaganda, it is completely pointless. The main message seems to be that 'open source' does not equal 'fantastic'. What a surprise! If this isn't common sense, I don't know what is. Personally, I am very happy with the proportion of open source output that is of excellent quality and there is a lot more of it than any single developer could consume in a lifetime. Quality aside, it is the underlying ethos of openness and sharing that is unbeatable. And just in case you wonder, I do write commercial software.
#21
Think commented on 21 May 2003
Sorry to say, but:
This is yet another irrelevant article.
None of the statements about open source go beyond what common sense tells people anyway. Some statements are pure assumptions derived from an insignificent amount of people and projected on the mass of developers.
Actually, most programmers would deny to be as naive as you try to indicate.
Especially as most have seem both: free rubbish and free gold.
And the ones who have browsed through the tons of open source projects have also encountered that some are dead, dead, dead.
So what's left after subtracting all this from your article:
- A speculation about what can make open source projects successful.
- A bunch of unfullfilled expectations about hard facts and problems companies face when using open source software.
#20
Anon commented on 21 May 2003
I work with a bunch of open source enthusiasts that really believe commerical software is evil and open source is some kind of a salvation.
At times they refuse to work with some commercial tools and waste time looking for some open source alternative.
They simply don't have a clue about writing commercial software, all they do is whine about re-inventing the wheel and I (among a few others) spend time with a lawyer to find out that we can really use these open source offerings without turning our own product into open source.
I'm really beginning to think OS is the choice of bad programmers, the ones that have lost the will to create something of their own.
Exceptions make the rule, I do admit a few OS projects really deserve all the respect, but these are the ones that have taken care of their licensing as well.
When in doubt, leave it out!
#19
Bill Pearson commented on 20 May 2003
In 20 years of experience I have
observed that management in commercial software production , both in-house IS departments and software houses have
very little regard for software engineering principles or practice. From
looking at and using much open source code , it is completely different , it
seems as if the authors have read all the books and put it into practice and
they care that the software is properly
structured. This makes an enormous difference in quality and changeability.
The only real downside is an endemic lack of documentation!
#18
CD commented on 20 May 2003
You do have to evaluate the open source software you are going to use and make sure it has had enough people behind it and that it has proven itself. You can't just take any open source project, and assume it's high quality.
We switched from a very popular and expensive app server six months ago to Open Source, and our problems have been solved. We ported the application without changes, and it just runs. We don't have to worry about license fees, maintenance and/or additional overhead of application loadings that come with at least some of the commercial products. Our stability has been phenomenal.
#17
nobody commented on 20 May 2003
Why has JDJ in the last few editions blatantly put articles that are nothing more than ads for Oracle App Server, PeopleSoft etc.? No wonder, there is another aginst open source - who paid for this one?
#16
Gopal Thiruvengadam commented on 20 May 2003
Opensource is a gift to programmers and developers. It unites programmers all around the world. If anyone says commerial products are better than OS products, there could be only one reason. Everyone who work on a commercial product gets their daily bread and satisfaction. OS developers build the product part-time 'caz they don't get money from what they doing. The only satisfaction to OS developers is the outcome of the product and its success. Because Linux Trovalds had that satisfaction he gave Linux and many others like him..
Nobody funds projects developed at sourceforge!!
Don't even compare mySql and Oracle for determining the whether OS or a commercial product is better. Because everyone here knows how many millions were spent for developing the Oracle database to what it is now..Don't compare any OS products with commercial for that matter..
OS is great and unique.. It will dominate the industry in one-day..My only request to all developers on OS, do not lose hope in the effort you put in. Stay united and stay with OS and improve how projects on opensource can get organized.
The conclusion of this article is missing : "Every architect should keep in touch with open source."
The author is right, OSS is not a silver bullet. OSS comes in many different qualities. Management should give their software architects time to stay in touch with the OSS projects. This avoids wrong architectural decisions on the one hand and allows much more widespread usage of OSS-projects on the other hand. Too many managers select an expensive commercial offering without knowing their is a viable OSS-alternative.
Open source may not be a "magic" bullet, but it is a bullet just the same...and what could a "magic" bullet do that a regular bullet couldn't do anyhow (aside from being free)?
#13
Killingtime commented on 20 May 2003
If they did, I'd load up my magic revolver with magic "clue" bullets and shoot you in the head.
--Kt
#12
Dave M commented on 20 May 2003
I don't agree with the alternative term for "open source" as being "commercial sw". It should be open source and non open source. All successful sw products are basically commercial in nature. Even TCP/IP can't be used without some investment in infrastructure. As for the value of having source (and free speach and beer (maybe) for that matter) it certainly diminishes completely at some point. For example, consider a 100% Java ORDBMS. If it was written in C open source would only allow you to freely port it around. Taking on the task of learning and supporting the source is certainly nothing anyone would do lightly, even if they had just won the lottery.
Bill Burke wrote: We think we have the OSS business model. See the link below. For those of you who hate Marc, try to pretend that this did not come from him and read it with an open mind.
Igor wrote: I?m sure, big vendors will benefit from OS and OS will increase monopolization in software industry. Just think who pays a salary for "key" people in Apache or Eclipse projects.
I do not understand why music industry is fighting till the last man against "free distribution" of songs and software industry doing exact opposite?
Best,
Igor.
Igor wrote: Why do you think that removing "money interest" from software vendors will make any good? All my previous experience from socialism tells me exact opposite. For now I can see that OS will kill many small vendors just because people will prefer "free" to "good" software. And, I
Chris Eyre wrote: I have oftern found that open source software is better supported than the commercial equivalent. I reported a bug on an open source project yesterday and receive acknowlegment and a fixed source file today.
Last year I found a bug in a commercial database, provided scripts that could reproduce the problem and included build data and the exact version that the bug was introduced. The automated reply took one day. After a week I got an email suggesting that I try the latest hot fix.
Ondrej Pribyl wrote: I may be missing something, but unless this article has been written in response to some over-enthusiastic open source propaganda, it is completely pointless. The main message seems to be that 'open source' does not equal 'fantastic'. What a surprise! If this isn't common sense, I don't know what is. Personally, I am very happy with the proportion of open source output that is of excellent quality and there is a lot more of it than any single developer could consume in a lifetime. Quality aside, it is the underlying ethos of openness and sharing that is unbeatable. And just in case you wonder, I do write commercial software.
Think wrote: Sorry to say, but:
This is yet another irrelevant article.
None of the statements about open source go beyond what common sense tells people anyway. Some statements are pure assumptions derived from an insignificent amount of people and projected on the mass of developers.
Actually, most programmers would deny to be as naive as you try to indicate.
Especially as most have seem both: free rubbish and free gold.
And the ones who have browsed through the tons of open source projects have also encountered that some are dead, dead, dead.
So what's left after subtracting all this from your article:
- A speculation about what can make open source projects successful.
- A bunch of unfullfilled expectations about hard facts and problems companies face when using open source software.
Anon wrote: I work with a bunch of open source enthusiasts that really believe commerical software is evil and open source is some kind of a salvation.
At times they refuse to work with some commercial tools and waste time looking for some open source alternative.
They simply don't have a clue about writing commercial software, all they do is whine about re-inventing the wheel and I (among a few others) spend time with a lawyer to find out that we can really use these open source offerings without turning our own product into open source.
I'm really beginning to think OS is the choice of bad programmers, the ones that have lost the will to create something of their own.
Exceptions make the rule, I do admit a few OS projects really deserve all the respect, but these are the ones that have taken care of their licensing as well.
When in doubt, leave it out!
Bill Pearson wrote: In 20 years of experience I have
observed that management in commercial software production , both in-house IS departments and software houses have
very little regard for software engineering principles or practice. From
looking at and using much open source code , it is completely different , it
seems as if the authors have read all the books and put it into practice and
they care that the software is properly
structured. This makes an enormous difference in quality and changeability.
The only real downside is an endemic lack of documentation!
CD wrote: You do have to evaluate the open source software you are going to use and make sure it has had enough people behind it and that it has proven itself. You can't just take any open source project, and assume it's high quality.
We switched from a very popular and expensive app server six months ago to Open Source, and our problems have been solved. We ported the application without changes, and it just runs. We don't have to worry about license fees, maintenance and/or additional overhead of application loadings that come with at least some of the commercial products. Our stability has been phenomenal.
nobody wrote: Why has JDJ in the last few editions blatantly put articles that are nothing more than ads for Oracle App Server, PeopleSoft etc.? No wonder, there is another aginst open source - who paid for this one?
Gopal Thiruvengadam wrote: Opensource is a gift to programmers and developers. It unites programmers all around the world. If anyone says commerial products are better than OS products, there could be only one reason. Everyone who work on a commercial product gets their daily bread and satisfaction. OS developers build the product part-time 'caz they don't get money from what they doing. The only satisfaction to OS developers is the outcome of the product and its success. Because Linux Trovalds had that satisfaction he gave Linux and many others like him..
Nobody funds projects developed at sourceforge!!
Don't even compare mySql and Oracle for determining the whether OS or a commercial product is better. Because everyone here knows how many millions were spent for developing the Oracle database to what it is now..Don't compare any OS products with commercial for that matter..
OS is great and unique.. It...
Tom Baeyens wrote: The conclusion of this article is missing : "Every architect should keep in touch with open source."
The author is right, OSS is not a silver bullet. OSS comes in many different qualities. Management should give their software architects time to stay in touch with the OSS projects. This avoids wrong architectural decisions on the one hand and allows much more widespread usage of OSS-projects on the other hand. Too many managers select an expensive commercial offering without knowing their is a viable OSS-alternative.
Regards,
Tom Baeyens
Founder of http://jbpm.org
David B wrote: Open source may not be a "magic" bullet, but it is a bullet just the same...and what could a "magic" bullet do that a regular bullet couldn't do anyhow (aside from being free)?
Dave M wrote: I don't agree with the alternative term for "open source" as being "commercial sw". It should be open source and non open source. All successful sw products are basically commercial in nature. Even TCP/IP can't be used without some investment in infrastructure. As for the value of having source (and free speach and beer (maybe) for that matter) it certainly diminishes completely at some point. For example, consider a 100% Java ORDBMS. If it was written in C open source would only allow you to freely port it around. Taking on the task of learning and supporting the source is certainly nothing anyone would do lightly, even if they had just won the lottery.
Edward Hooper wrote: Open Source Software started as a response to the poor (and expensive) software coming out of Microsoft and other large software houses. Compared to what Bill Gates has shoved down the throats of the computing public, OSS is much better and less expensive. But a lot of CIOs don't seem to get this. They will continue to hemorage money in Microsoft's direction because they don't want to know any better.
OSS is not a magic bullet to MS's gaping wound, but it is a bandage. If only Bill would take his meds...
Juan Pablo Mattenet wrote: Just my .01 cents:
I have worked in many projects in many companies, and I have never seen the code shared as it is on SourceForge.
How many times inside the same company a group will retain control on the source code of one app?
How many useless meetings are held every day to convince other developers to share their source and knowledge?
Even if the project is dead, at least they are available to the community to learn from it.
Even a dead project will tell you that someone else have already encounter this problem, and made an attempt to solve it.
In a commercial world, failures are silent buried and forgotten..
Yes, OS it is no silver bullet. But IMHO is a step forward.
Pablo Antonioletti wrote: No developer think (it's my thought) open source is better than commercial software. But, many developers ask ourselves what software component is better to solve our problem. The answer sometimes drive us to open source and sometimes to commercial software. So my conclusion is: open source is not worst than commercial sofware.
Peter den Haan wrote: Both the article and the responses so far make a number of great points. I do certainly agree with the premise that Open Source is not a magic bullet, but OSS has a number of advantages in addition to what has been discussed so far.
Using resources like the Trove, I can examine the amount of mindshare and attention a project gets -- has it reached or will it reach the critical mass discussed above? With commercial software this is not always as easy. The ecosystem of less well-known software can be opaque to say the least.
I can download the source and design documents and within a short time get a first impression of how solid the engineering is. How often did it happen to you that only after some serious use you find that the commercial package you adopted has been badly engineered?
Finally, having the source is a huge advantage when you encounter the inevitable problems. My e...
Scott Russell wrote: Many books on software development that I've read claim that upwards of 70% of all software projects fail. There's just no way to have stats on commercial projects that fail because what company would want that kind of press.
Yes there is no silver bullet, but what open source gives the software community is a chance to produce better software (higher quality & more useful to more people) and the fact that there are dead projects is simply part of open source. It's software evolution. Those are worth pursuing so no one does. On the other hand how much money is spent on commercial software projects, that are doomed to failure but are forced to continue, because of political pressure?
Swisscom, the Swiss telecom, is going into the cloud business.
Its subsidiary Swisscom IT Services AG has signed up with Red Hat as a Certified Cloud Provider and launched a public cloud Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) cloud targeting enterprise-class customers primarily in ...
Apache Deltacloud, the Red Hat-contributed ReSTful API that abstracts differences between clouds so services on any cloud can be managed – provided of course there’s a driver – has graduated from the Apache Foundation’s incubator and is now a full-fledged Top-Level Project (TLP)....
In a surprise move on Tuesday, January 10, Oracle wheeled out its Big Data Appliance.
That’s the one it said in October would be ready sometime in the first half. Only nobody believed it meant early in the first half. Heck, it’s not even clear anybody thought Oracle could make ...
Rackspace Hosting, the service leader in cloud computing, on Thursday announced its acquisition of SharePoint911, an industry leader in SharePoint consulting, training, and "JumpStart" services within SharePoint. The unification of both companies provides capabilities to deliver ...
CloudLinux, Inc., on Thursday released CafeFS 3, a virtualized file system for shared hosters that cages each customer within its own virtualized file system.
CageFS becomes part of CloudLinux OS at no additional charge. CloudLinux OS, the only commercially-supported Linux OS m...
About Newsfeeds / Video Feeds
.gif)
(May 19, 2003) - Java developers like open source software. To varying degrees, anyway. For some, the attraction is free-as-in-speech; for others, it is free-as-in-beer. None of this should come as a surprise to you, and I'm certainly not the first person to make this observation. Nor will you be surprised when I say that many developers believe the open source software is necessarily better than commercial software.
Swisscom, the Swiss telecom, is going into the cloud business.
Its subsidiary Swisscom IT Services AG has signed up with Red Hat as a Certified Cloud Provider and launched a public cloud Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) cloud targeting enterprise-class customers primarily in ...
Apache Deltacloud, the Red Hat-contributed ReSTful API that abstracts differences between clouds so services on any cloud can be managed – provided of course there’s a driver – has graduated from the Apache Foundation’s incubator and is now a full-fledged Top-Level Project (TLP)....
In a surprise move on Tuesday, January 10, Oracle wheeled out its Big Data Appliance.
That’s the one it said in October would be ready sometime in the first half. Only nobody believed it meant early in the first half. Heck, it’s not even clear anybody thought Oracle could make ...
Rackspace Hosting, the service leader in cloud computing, on Thursday announced its acquisition of SharePoint911, an industry leader in SharePoint consulting, training, and "JumpStart" services within SharePoint. The unification of both companies provides capabilities to deliver ...
CloudLinux, Inc., on Thursday released CafeFS 3, a virtualized file system for shared hosters that cages each customer within its own virtualized file system.
CageFS becomes part of CloudLinux OS at no additional charge. CloudLinux OS, the only commercially-supported Linux OS m...
