Food for thought re: Open Source

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harvey Van Sickle
  • Start date Start date
Interesting article in today's "Technology" supplement in the
Guardian, about some of the limitations of open source as an
approach --
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1660763,
00.ht ml

It struck me as an intelligent discussion by someone who
doesn't sound like a corporate shill -- either MS or anybody
else).
Click to expand...

IMO the article seems to be more about OpenOffice than about
Open Source.[/QUOTE]

I thought it used OpenOffice fairly effectively as an illustration
of the problem(s) with using an Open Source approach in a public
(that is, non-technically-proficient) setting -- the point about
the MIT origins of Open Source seemed perceptive.
 
Harvey Van Sickle said:
IMO the article seems to be more about OpenOffice than about
Open Source.
Click to expand...

I thought it used OpenOffice fairly effectively as an
illustration of the problem(s) with using an Open Source
approach in a public (that is, non-technically-proficient)
setting -- the point about the MIT origins of Open Source seemed
perceptive.[/QUOTE]

IMHO, OpenOffice is a bit of an easy target... it's all true what
he writes:

* OOo *is* a big steaming pile of complex code
* the source tree *is* pretty closed, with all the code coming
from Sun-engineers. * it *does* have its irritating bugs

But still... I can't imagine an article with an equally negative
tone using Firefox as the subject, or other projects like
Inkscape, Gimp, Gnome, KDE, ...

And, you have to admit: when it comes down to security-critical
bugs, everything is done to fix them as soon as possible. Also, in
the case of (let's say) MS Word, we don't even have a view of the
bugs that are actually in there.

Just my 2 cents,
Wald
 
I have not read the article yet, but I know that opensource is doomed to
die.

History tells us this,
Human nature tells us this

Its very basis of existence is too fragile to withstand time.

These will be remembered as products of the golden age of computing.

However "free" programs that are NOT opensource will flourish. Money will be
made form vast global advertising.
 
kenny said:
I have not read the article yet, but I know that opensource is doomed
to die.

History tells us this,
Human nature tells us this

Its very basis of existence is too fragile to withstand time.

These will be remembered as products of the golden age of computing.

However "free" programs that are NOT opensource will flourish. Money
will be made form vast global advertising.
Click to expand...

<tongue-in-cheek>
Does your crystal ball also have the score of January's Super Bowl? I'd
like to get my bets down early...
</tongue-in-cheek>
 
IMHO, OpenOffice is a bit of an easy target... it's all true what
he writes:

* OOo *is* a big steaming pile of complex code
* the source tree *is* pretty closed, with all the code coming
from Sun-engineers. * it *does* have its irritating bugs

But still... I can't imagine an article with an equally negative
tone using Firefox as the subject, or other projects like
Inkscape, Gimp, Gnome, KDE, ...
Click to expand...

I agree; the problems of OpenOffice don't generalize nearly as well as
he implies. The GIMP and KDE could have had such articles written
about them a few years ago (but he's have had to focus on different
weaknesses), but they've come a long way. Their impressive bugfixes
and improvements might not be possible with the OOo development model,
but we'll see. For a long time, many people thought Microsoft's
process couldn't lead to a stable kernel. ;)
 
Harvey said:
On 08 Dec 2005, Hans S wrote




I thought it used OpenOffice fairly effectively as an illustration
of the problem(s) with using an Open Source approach in a public
(that is, non-technically-proficient) setting -- the point about
the MIT origins of Open Source seemed perceptive.
Click to expand...

The MIT origins of OS caught my eye too but for a slightly different
reason: In my small experience with open source projects, it appears
that non-end-user projects tend to sail more smoothly.

So, for example, the Apache community seems to rumble right along
whereas the Nvu community staggers in fits and spurts.

I'm tempted to posit that there's some kind of inverse rule going on
here. For example: more end-users for a given OS project translates
into a less nimble (robust?) project. Dunno, something like that.

very interesting article, thx for posting

Craig
 
I do not use paranormal powers to predict the future.
I use knowledge of occurring events throughout history, and fundamental
knowledge on how humanity functions.

As for your ironic reply.. you will have to take that crystal ball out of
your
a** first.
 
I do not use paranormal powers to predict the future.
I use knowledge of occurring events throughout history, and
fundamental knowledge on how humanity functions.
Click to expand...

That claim and a lot of hand-waving has gotten you a long way. ;)
 
On 08 Dec 2005, Craig wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
-snip-
Click to expand...
The MIT origins of OS caught my eye too but for a slightly
different reason: In my small experience with open source
projects, it appears that non-end-user projects tend to sail
more smoothly.

So, for example, the Apache community seems to rumble right
along whereas the Nvu community staggers in fits and spurts.

I'm tempted to posit that there's some kind of inverse rule
going on here. For example: more end-users for a given OS
project translates into a less nimble (robust?) project.
Dunno, something like that.
Click to expand...

That could also explain why (as noted elsethread) the Linux open
source projects seem to have been successful, as those projects
inevitably have a smaller (and more technically-proficient) user
base.
 
Harvey Van Sickle said:
I thought it used OpenOffice fairly effectively as an illustration
of the problem(s) with using an Open Source approach in a public
(that is, non-technically-proficient) setting
Click to expand...

So the local governments of Munich (approx. 14000 workstations) and
Vienna (approx. 4800 workstations), to mention but two very large
public organizations, which are switching to open source software
(including Open Office), are wrong?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/21/opensource_government/

"According to the preliminary results of a survey carried out by a
Dutch University, only 32 percent of UK local authorities are using
open source software, compared to 71 percent of French, 68 percent of
German and 55 percent of Dutch authorities."
http://www.infonomics.nl/FLOSS/index.htm

http://www.oss.gov.za/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=53

Q.
 
I thought it used OpenOffice fairly effectively as an
illustration of the problem(s) with using an Open Source
approach in a public (that is, non-technically-proficient)
setting
Click to expand...

So the local governments of Munich (approx. 14000
workstations) and Vienna (approx. 4800 workstations), to
mention but two very large public organizations, which are
switching to open source software (including Open Office), are
wrong?[/QUOTE]

Probably not; but possibly. It remains to be seen.

None of the organisations which have looked at the issue and
decided for either open or closed source are "right" or "wrong":
they've presumably weighed the pros and cons, and come to a
decision.

These things aren't black and white: you can look at the issues,
and come legitimately come to different conclusions. To support
Open Source does not demand that one is uncritical in analysing
Open Source: it's an approach, not a religion.

Organisations which have opted for OpenOffice, though, have taken a
decision to go with a model of programming which is not perfect,
and which may well have flaws in the manner in which it addresses
error correction.
 
Harvey Van Sickle nos contou:
That could also explain why (as noted elsethread) the Linux open
source projects seem to have been successful, as those projects
inevitably have a smaller (and more technically-proficient) user
base.
Click to expand...

With more users, you need to focus into supporting more
hardware/software.
 
Harvey Van Sickle said:
Interesting article in today's "Technology" supplement in the
Guardian, about some of the limitations of open source as an
approach --
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1660763,00.ht
ml

It struck me as an intelligent discussion by someone who doesn't
sound like a corporate shill -- either MS or anybody else).
Click to expand...

I've just sent a response to the publishers of the article, which I expect
and hope will be forwarded to the author, in which I suggest that the
problems discussed are ones of methodology, not philosophy. Specifically,
the reason that user-supplied bug fixes are so rare is because the code
within any single componant module of Open Office is so complex that it
takes too long for someone without lots of time and expertise to analyse it;
and that's because the source is organised and grouped into modules that
match the componants of the final distribution version. If there was a
development version which broke the code into a number of much smaller
sub-modules, it would be far easier for outsiders to analyse the functions
of a module and solve a bug. It's just a matter of documenting what each
submodule is supposed to do and what input and output formats its supposed
to get and produce. In other words, treat it like a big computer system and
break it into manageable chunks - not like a big application (which it is).
Then you just extract the executatble code, definitions, etc to the
large-size module - Writer, Calc, Draw, etc - when the time comes to bundle
together a new distributable version.

Mike Bourke
 
kenny said:
I have not read the article yet, but I know that opensource is doomed to
die.

History tells us this,
Human nature tells us this

Its very basis of existence is too fragile to withstand time.

These will be remembered as products of the golden age of computing.

However "free" programs that are NOT opensource will flourish. Money will be
made form vast global advertising.
Click to expand...
Sigh.

In the last twenty-five years I have heard so many variations on this:
The mainframe is dead, no one will use them after 1980/1990/2000/...
UNIX is dead. _I_ first heard this in 1987. I still make my living
programming on it nearly 20 year later
The PC will never take off. Well, we _know_ how wrong that one was!
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...

Come back when you've got a couple of decades experience in this area,
and you opinion may have some weight.

Or, publish a peer-reviewed paper on the inverse costing of software in
relation to hardware (in the beginning, the machine cost and the
software was free) and how this is affected by the rise of shareware,
freeware, and OSS. (A couple of decades ago I did one on just the
inverse cost thingie, I'd be intrigued to see what you come up with.)

Cheers,
Gary B-)
 
I do have a couple of decades experience in this area, but experience is NOT
an indication of connection with reality.
Insight and the ability to perceive what will happen in the future has some
connection with experience, but it is not everything.

Oh no... don't mix me up with those other fools that said those things.
I on the contrary know have a keen instinct on what will work or what will
not in technology, and I have never been proven wrong!

I never ever said that mainframe computers would die, and I from even BEFORE
there were PC's knew that small cost effective computing was a part of the
future, I HAD ONE! lol... and you know what else? From the time of the first
BBS's I KNEW there would be a global network, when Bill Gates was thinking
that
the internet would just go away.

So don't try to to push your age or your knowledge on me as if you are
superior. Because you are not.

In fact I think the computer networks of the future will be a combination of
mainframe and PC computers.

You can see my current site (it will not be online in this form for long
since I will be changing it completely), where I talk about the computer.

www.computerboom.com

I stand by my claim... in the future... (I am talking not in 5 years but
more) there will be no (or very little) opensource (as we know it now).

I have a lot to base this assumption on. But most of all I do not base this
on technology, but on an understanding HUMAN NATURE.


Kenny
 
:
"As we know it" is a trite, overused nonsensical phrase STOLEN from an
old speech
given by FDR in Buenos Aries. "As we know it" is a moronic phrase
demonstrating
the idiocy of the user of the phrase!
 
Back
Top