Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Open Source Technology Behind Twitter

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the look-under-the-hood dept.

Open Source 81

caseyb89 writes "If it weren't for open source technology, you wouldn't be able to tweet. Chris Aniszczyk, Open Source Manager at Twitter, shares how open source is vital to Twitter's success. He states that using open source is a 'no-brainer' for Twitter because it 'allows us to customize and tweak code to meet our fast-paced engineering needs as our service and community grows.' Twitter also established an open source office about a year ago to support a variety of open source organizations that are important to them. Aniszczyk will discuss Twitters open source usage in his keynote at LinuxCon."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

LOL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40975753)

But is the opening as big as goatse's asshole? Teeheehee

Sent from my iFag device

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40977027)

goatse don't code!

Hmmm... (-1, Flamebait)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#40975781)

If it weren't for open source technology, you wouldn't be able to tweet.

So the existence of idiocracy shit like Twitter is due to freetards? Shouldn't this article then be titled "Open source projects who should be blamed for Twitter's existence"?

Re:Hmmm... (-1, Troll)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#40975923)

Wow. Sarcasm must be a new thing to Slashdot moderators...

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40976041)

Wow. Sarcasm must be a new thing to Slashdot moderators...

I think the use of "freetards" is what did ya in.

I think a better way of putting it, if you were in fact really interested in sarcasm, would be something like, "Now I know who to blame!" or "Oh dear God! The Dark Side of Open Source." or "So, the author is blaming Open Source?"

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're an Aspie who probably saw some comment moderated high sometime using such harsh terms.

Re:Hmmm... (-1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976105)

Did me in for what? The whole point of sarcasm is to be ridiculing and mocking. Wow, I can't believe I've had to explain sarcasm to someone. And I'm called the aspie?

Re:Hmmm... (3, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976157)

Calling someone a name is not sarcasm.

Re:Hmmm... (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976265)

"Why is the entire Internet against me?" wondered Sarcasm Nazi Racist, Jr.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

Zapotek (1032314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40979931)

Sure it is...genius.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40980073)

Touche...

Hmmm - indeed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40976523)

Asperger Syndrome - Very common with techies. Meaning, if you had that syndrome, it may have explained the "freetards" because you don't get social cues.

Instead you are a normal guy coming across as a jerk.

I suggest you apologize and tell everyone that you're trying to give up smoking.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976965)

You were ridiculing in an ineffectual and impotent manner, relying on trite clichés of the kind made popular by people who know nothing about what they talk about. It's not sarcasm. Sarcasm is said to be the lowest form of wit, of which your comment was completely lacking.

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40976169)

You want humor with a condom and other people are aspies?

Re:Hmmm... (5, Interesting)

Piata (927858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40975929)

Anything of widespread use is going to acquire idiot users. With that said, Twitter is far more useful and worthwhile than most "social" platforms out there. I put "social" in quotes because you could just as easily follow a couple of information sites or key developers on a project and your twitter becomes a centralized news feed rather than people talking about the latest annoyance on their way to work.

I was skeptical of it at first too but it's surprisingly useful if you follow the right people.

Re:Hmmm... (5, Interesting)

vux984 (928602) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976025)

I was skeptical of it at first too but it's surprisingly useful if you follow the right people.

For a lot of people twitter is what rss was supposed to be. Except that RSS does a better job of it than twitter does.

I really don't get twitter... all the real use cases people like are much better served by RSS.

Re:Hmmm... (2)

fbobraga (1612783) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976171)

twitter is far more than a "read-only" RSS: RT, Reply/DM - and it is easy to use for non-techies...

Re:Hmmm... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40976601)

Stop bringing facts into this discussion, it disrupts our goal of replacing all modern technology with a combination of 1990s protocols such as Usenet and IRC.

Re:Hmmm... (2)

vux984 (928602) | more than 2 years ago | (#40977785)

fair enough. and good point. But the use cases where people cite "twitter is really useful" tends to be to follow a particular news feed.

retweeting is rarely more than just noise, unless the rt is through an aggregator account... but then its really being used as news feed by its followers and the rt functionality isn't much more than a couple seconds of copy/paste with any RSS feed/aggregator.

As soon as "normal users" start retweeting; its usually just worthless noise.

reply/dm -- true enough that they are features not in RSS. But again, replies tend to be more noise than news, and DM -is little more than than what sms/email already does.

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40979497)

statistically, this "noise" = measurable popularity

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40981345)

fair enough. and good point. But the use cases where people cite "twitter is really useful" tends to be to follow a particular news feed.

retweeting is rarely more than just noise, unless the rt is through an aggregator account... but then its really being used as news feed by its followers and the rt functionality isn't much more than a couple seconds of copy/paste with any RSS feed/aggregator.

As soon as "normal users" start retweeting; its usually just worthless noise.

reply/dm -- true enough that they are features not in RSS. But again, replies tend to be more noise than news, and DM -is little more than than what sms/email already does.

It is not just to follow a particular news feed but to follow particular news sources, the real people behind the news.

  I follow news feeds, news writters and political active writters... The level of interaction with the news is just awesome. You were never so close to the authors of the articles you read and in "political active" countries like mine (Mexico but lets not talk about it because its nothing positive!) it's easier to get a real feeling about your country's situation when you are abroad.

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40984915)

I am not a big Twitter user; in fact, I don't have an account, I just follow a few people via RSS. Most of the people I follow are bloggers whose blogs I read.

Probably the most interesting difference to RSS is the easy support for public conversations (you can do that on blogs... but there has to be a relevant blog post, and if the blog owner doesn't want that conversation happening, they can delete it). This is both useful for contacting companies and actually getting a response and for watching bloggers (and their readers) have conversations about quick thoughts (as a special sidenote, most people seem to post recommended links only to Twitter, but that's just a use of the technology). I have found a few new interesting blogs by reading conversations on Twitter.

Personally, my issues with the technology are (1) the message length limit. Yes, it's for microblogging but 1k instead of 140 characters would be less likely to be a problem. (2) It's a service, not a protocol. I really don't like the idea of a single company controlling every tweet (this is pretty much the only reason I don't have an account). I would feel much more comfortable if a federated replacement where were used (I believe status.net which is what identi.ca uses supports federation, but Twitter, of course, has huge network effects).

As a last note, when comparing two technologies, especially when wondering about user adoption, you have to consider ease of use: just signing up for a Twitter account gives you a feed and the integration with the @ and # features. Getting that without Twitter involves at best setting up your own federated social network instance or signing up for some other social network.

Re:Hmmm... (2)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976227)

Some differences vs. RSS:

- Enforced limit on tweet size
- Text only (so worked with even simple phones via text message)
- I'm not sure I could figure out, in a short time, how to set up an RSS feed that can be updated via SMS.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976441)

Assuming slashdotter level of competence it should be easy. SMS sent to email, fetchmail and a simple script should do it pretty well.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 2 years ago | (#40977733)

- Enforced limit on tweet size

And everybody agrees this obsolete.

Text only (so worked with even simple phones via text message)

RSS subject lines are text only as well.

I'm not sure I could figure out, in a short time, how to set up an RSS feed that can be updated via SMS.

Yes, and one of the big features of iOS6 is that Siri will be able to tweet for you too... but this is not something I can imagine needing.

SMS -> RSS gateway isn't the most natural way of updating a news feed anyway.

If I were hosting an RSS feed (or more likely multiple feeds), I'd surely have an app on my phone to update it (them) and it would be dead simple to setup and use.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40978359)

If I were hosting an RSS feed (or more likely multiple feeds), I'd surely have an app on my phone to update it (them) and it would be dead simple to setup and use.

You'd have ended up with something like Twitter. Smartphones were not yet very common. Feature phones could run arbitrary Java, but most carriers limited the apps you could install. Short of a carrier deal, that left SMS for the mobile interface.

Re:Hmmm... (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976273)

Per usual what is "popular" is typically not the best technology available. Look at game consoles: Atari 2600, NES, PS1, PS2, Wii were not the most powerful consoles of their generation but they still obliterated the rest.

Super Audio CD and DVD-audio were both superior to the MP3s and AACs, but sold poorly. And now we have twitter which you claim is inferior to RSS, but that doesn't really matter to the general populace.

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40977819)

Well... I follow twitter using their RSS feeds. Check mate!

Re:Hmmm... (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40984269)

I agree. Twitter is nothing but a forum of RSS feeds, but it has one thing; brand recognition. If you tweeted, you're a twat.

--- @sigg3net on identi.ca.

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40976065)

Anything of widespread use is going to acquire idiot users...

Indeed.

Re:Hmmm... (-1, Redundant)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976191)

Twitter is a collection of newsgroups where each message is limited to 160 characters.

Newsgroups have been around for over thirty years.

Twitter is optimal in serving the "communication" desires of an idiot generation, but has no useful purpose.

Twitter is due to freetards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40979765)

> So the existence of idiocracy shit like Twitter is due to freetards? Shouldn't this article then be titled "Open source projects who should be blamed for Twitter's existence"?

Pity I can't block slashdot users similar to Usenet .. :(

Yeah right. (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40975811)

If Twitter was really based on an open source model, they would have fixed that 160 character limit a long time ago; It's a relic of a bygone era. They also would have added some extra privacy and patched the security vulnerability in the EULA module.

Re:Yeah right. (3, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 2 years ago | (#40975865)

Yeah, but now 140 characters is part of twitter's culture and identity. The fact that the SMS limit doesn't exist anymore doesn't matter one iota.

What is twitter without banally short attention spans?

Re:Yeah right. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976161)

>>>The fact that the SMS limit doesn't exist anymore...

It doesn't? Last I heard if you enter a really long text, the phone software will divide it into 2 to 3 SMS sends of 128 bytes each, and then double or triple-bill you for that text.

Re:Yeah right. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976401)

Last I heard they could use the twitter app or email instead of SMS and not worry about it at all.

Re:Yeah right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40976725)

Right, because everyone has a smartphone and/or data plan.

Even in US smartphones have only recently passed 50% mark, in poorer countries it's dumb phones and feature phones all the way.

Re:Yeah right. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40977097)

Many feature phones do email.

Re:Yeah right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40977205)

And many providers out there have cheap bulk SMS plans (and free incoming messages), but charge for email as if it was delivered by a courier.

Re:Yeah right. (2)

schroedingers_hat (2449186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40977469)

You've never met the electronic mail man? It's called email for a reason.

Re:Yeah right. (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40975899)

If Twitter was really based on an open source model, they would have fixed that 160 character limit a long time ago; It's a relic of a bygone era.

The identica people can't seem to decide on a limit.

http://status.net/2010/02/15/identi-ca-character-limit-results [status.net]

http://status.net/wiki/Identica/web [status.net]

This is very much like the desktop publishing situation in the 80s... people whining that they can't express themselves without using 45 different fonts and 5 colors on a page... Newsflash is they can't express themselves... at all... a tech feature isn't going to fix that.

Re:Yeah right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40976193)

test

Re:Yeah right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40976019)

You have no idea what you are talking about

Re:Yeah right. (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976037)

Isn't the 160 character limit a limitation of the SMS protocol, and not Twitter?

Re:Yeah right. (1)

romiz (757548) | more than 2 years ago | (#40977273)

The "concatenated SMS" protocol, which removes this limit in exchange for a higher message count, existed before twitter started to be relevant: It is defined in GSM/3GPP release R99, which was already widely deployed even in low-cost devices in 2006, when twitter was created.

Re:Yeah right. (1)

EMR (13768) | more than 2 years ago | (#40977351)

And how many people honestly have their twitter feed sent to their phone via SMS?

Re:Yeah right. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40977379)

and the sms protocol has nothing to do with twitter really + you have had multipart sms's before twitter was born.

the limit is more about them being cheapskates with hw at the beginning(due to not having money) and it making building the infrastructure cheaper. ALSO as it was used mainly as "one liner"(remember those from bbs's?) replacement on web-pages originally it didn't matter that much since the real content would have been on the blog the tweets were about.

Re:Yeah right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40977251)

If Twitter was really based on an open source model, they would have fixed that 160 character limit a long time ago; It's a relic of a bygone era. They also would have added some extra privacy and patched the security vulnerability in the EULA module.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of a true open source model was that anyone could fork a project, but not necessarily alter the mainline. Otherwise I would be able to make any changes to the Linux kernel and claim any rejections meant it was not an open source model.

open source when it's helpful (5, Informative)

manicpop (1342057) | more than 2 years ago | (#40975833)

Much like Google, Twitter embraces open source when it benefits them, even as they are in the process of locking down their API and making the service more "closed." It says a lot about open source that tech companies are finding so much benefit in embracing it as PART of their strategy, but the Twitter platform itself will never be completely open source, because Twitter knows it benefits them to keep it closed.

Re:open source when it's helpful (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40976049)

Twitter actually releases a ton of code and patches. See: https://github.com/twitter

They seem to believe in actually giving back..

Re:open source when it's helpful (1)

manicpop (1342057) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976889)

Open source in the corporate world is a not a matter of "giving back" -- in terms of, let's say, a "charitable donation" -- it's all about what's beneficial to the company and what they are REQUIRED to give back due to open source licenses. We shouldn't be thanking Twitter for being a part of the open source community; they've obviously made a business decision that contributing to the community benefits them. If they cared about open source more than other business decisions and (potential) profits, they'd open source everything. That's not to say Twitter is bad, or not contributing in good faith, or that their contribution to open source isn't valuable. What it does show is how open source has proven it can benefit everyone. I don't know the specifics of the licensing of all the open source projects to which they contribute, but I would imagine with many/most of them they are required to publish their changes and patches. It's the open source community and the licenses that make this happen, not the "niceness" of the companies that contribute.

Re:open source when it's helpful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40976977)

Most of what Twitter releases is under permissive licenses, they prefer the Apache Public License 2.0 for code according to:
https://dev.twitter.com/opensource

Also, since they run code mostly on the server and don't distribute... they aren't bothered by the typical GPL viral clause.

Re:open source when it's helpful (1)

manicpop (1342057) | more than 2 years ago | (#40977509)

Ah, that's helpful. Perhaps Twitter is not the best example of the point I was trying to make but the overall idea is this: Companies that take a pick-and-choose approach to what code is open and closed are contributing to the open source community for their own benefit, which *generally* benefits others as well. It says a lot of good about the community. It doesn't necessarily make the companies reasoning for doing so good or bad. You could say it's neutral, like eating a sandwich, if you get my somewhat obscure reference.

Re:open source when it's helpful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40991615)

If your point (however valid) does not really apply to Twitter, then perhaps this is not the best place to make it. There's hardly a dearth of articles covering "open source" and "companies" and the interactions thereof on Slashdot; perhaps one of them would be better suited for the discussion.

Re:open source when it's helpful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40978063)

Twitter have zero obligation to give any code back. They do not distribute their product, it's pure user experience and a few naff "clients" for convenience.

Re:open source when it's helpful (3, Informative)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976895)

Also: bootstrap.

Re:open source when it's helpful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40976053)

Sure, Twitter's secret sauce is their data and ads platform.

Shouldn't people be happy that they are trying to give back to the open source community by having an open source office? Similar to how Google gives back? I think the effort is commendable, but we'll see where it goes. I don't think enough companies give back given all the benefit they get.

Re:open source when it's helpful (1)

rhsanborn (773855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976785)

Twitter embraces open source because it's FREE as in beer. It's much easier to bootstrap a company with free stuff. Everything else is a side benefit.

Re:open source when it's helpful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40976903)

Isn't it same for Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, $ANY_OTHER_MAJOR_IT_RELATED_COMPANY?

They all use open source software and contribute to the projects useful to them. Sometimes they even opensource their own utility projects.

Google uses a bunch of open source tech and puts out a lot of their own projects in the open, like Chromium, Android or WebM.
Apple has WebKit (formerly KHTML) and hired LLVM authors to work on it and clang for them.
Facebook loves their PHP and NoSQL and contributes to these fields.

Still, no one's so crazy as to just give out sources for their core software.

Oh, and can you explain what the fuck does limiting access to APIs (I assume you're referring to web service APIs), that is, to server resources, have to do with open source?

Re:open source when it's helpful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40977537)

What use have you of the Twitter platform? Unless you have 100 million users you can just use the web framework of your choice.

A good thing, not a bad thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40977805)

You say that as if it's a bad thing. This is an example of open source winning, not open source losing.

"you wouldn't be able to tweet" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40975873)

Hyperbole. If there were no open source available, they would have to develop some of their tools in-house. That doesn't mean Twitter wouldn't exist without open source. It just makes Twitter a bit cheaper to run.

Re:"you wouldn't be able to tweet" (3, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 2 years ago | (#40975983)

Having to write all of that software themselves may have set the barrier to entry too high for them to ever get started. Even a small increase in start up cost can be the difference between a product or service launching or never even being attempted.

Re:"you wouldn't be able to tweet" (1)

Kergan (780543) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976403)

One could also argue that you were able to tweet in spite of Twitter using open source for a long time. Remember the days when they were using Ruby on Rails?

Re:"you wouldn't be able to tweet" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40976575)

Huh? The Rails version was a rapid prototype which allowed them to quickly get users/hype/venture capital. It would have sucked equally bad if they'd used WebLogic or something.

Re:"you wouldn't be able to tweet" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40978009)

It would have sucked equally bad if they'd used WebLogic or something.

Actually, I've used WebLogic, and it would have been 100x worse if they would have used that piece of shit software.

Now run it in a lightweight container like Tomcat or Jetty, and it could have been a lot better than Ruby "It Doesn't Scale Even Though It's" on Rails.

Re:"you wouldn't be able to tweet" (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976873)

Very much agree. They could have just as easily built the same service using proprietary software. Their licenses may have cost more, but would probably completely eclipsed by the cost of paying their employees anyway.

Re:"you wouldn't be able to tweet" (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 2 years ago | (#40977945)

you make the mistake of assuming closed source software is better than open source, and that Twitter would be able to purchase licences for a twitter-feed product someone else wrote.

Twitter undoubtedly would be ok with any platform when they started, but today they have so much scale they need to tweak that code, the close source platform would have to be rewritten completely in something, at least the OSS stuff gave them a big head start.

You're right that staff costs are big, but when you're serving so many people even that fades into insignificance - it doesn't matter how much you pay your staff and infrastructure if you cannot serve up tweets.

Head imploding from (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40975905)

So many buzzwords.

/. is confused about the meaning of censorship (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40975963)

* -1 modded posts are filtered by default as they are considered spam
* Criticism of /. is looked upon as spam and worthy of censorship. It is -1 modded by editorial staff
* IP's of anonymous users are tracked & profiled for no other reason than a couple of mild criticisms of /.
* These IP's are prevented from posting at the whim of editorial staff for the same reason
* The justification is that this is done when 10 spams are received (but at the discretion of staff). In this case there was 1 fuck joke & 3 /. criticisms due to the fuck joke momentarily deleted, then modded to -1 after a complaint.

Please explain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40975995)

I'm not sure I follow - open source seems to be heralded as it means people can easily share code so as to not have to be rebuilding the wheel each time someone creates a similar program as well as allowing end users to be able to possibly read through the code and see how it works, thus allowing them to use it for their own purposes and possibly tweak it for their own needs (and ensure code is secure, though I'm dubious of that given things such as the Obfuscated C Contest - just because one can read the source code doesn't mean it's understood or readily apparent).

That, however, doesn't explain how it being open source or closed source affects their ability to modify said code as needed. I mean, it's cool if us as end users get to see how it's done, and it's undoubtedly cheaper than closed source as Twitter doesn't need to periodically renew licenses or at least reduce the cost of implementation, but that's just an initial barrier to entry issue, hopefully long since recouped by their business model.

The only people I'd want messing with Twitter's code would be authorized members of Twitter, rather than someone out on the net, so how does Twitter being open source actually help them beyond what being closed source based on open source would? What's to stop someone from snagging part of their code and implementing a competing service?

Re:Please explain (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976653)

You're exactly right. Using open source software might be cheaper and may have allowed them to get up and running faster, rather than having to build their own from scratch. However the claim that "'it allows us to customize and tweak code to meet our fast-paced engineering needs as our service and community grows." is completely meaningless. If Twitter was running on closed source software that they developed entirely on their own, they would still be able to tweak and update it as much as they want, any time they want.

Re:Please explain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40977099)

Because building a web platform from ground up is cheap and fast.

Makes as much sense for a small web startup as buying a land lot and building their own datacenter from the get-go.

This is news? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40976061)

Slashdot's new meme. (I've noticed it's now popular to post this on most articles.)

Astroturfing? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40976093)

If it weren't for open source technology, you wouldn't be able to tweet.

The article sounds like an astroturf for Microsoft.

Gee gosh, thanks "Open Source" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40976261)

Now let me go back to see what Kuchter and a random Kardashian is doing right now. I think one of them was watching CNN, so I'd like to stay informed on current events.

Other massive entities using Open Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40976385)

Nethack Online HTML5
Slashdot Incorporated Ltd. AG
Facebook
Microsoft's Hotmail
Megaupload
Pirate Bay
National Rifle Association
GNAA (to be confirmed)
WikiLeaks
Department of Homeland Security (USA)
Department of Fatherland Safety, Public Opinion, and Industrial Waste Management (People's Republic of China)
One Directions MySpace Page

Exploits but not supports open source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40976661)

Like many companies, Twitter exploits but does not support open source. They are hardly as egregious as, say Google (where ChromeOS is taking Linux and making it the opposite of what Linux stands for) or Apple (creating the Mac OS out of open source, but recently adding a walled-garden app store - I think you can still run your own apps, but who knows for how long?). Recent political campaigns are the same way - the Obama campaign exploited open source technology, but has done very little if anything to support or promote it.

The president says: (1)

OhSoLaMeow (2536022) | more than 2 years ago | (#40977199)

Twitter didn't build that.

Take Care at LinuxCon .. (0)

dgharmon (2564621) | more than 2 years ago | (#40979683)

At all times have a third party independent potential witness present at all social occasions. This to provide corroboration against any future false accusations of harassment, sexual or otherwise. There may be persons patrolling the venue with the sole purpose of perceiving such harassment and trashing your reputation in the media. Remember if they'll target Shuttleworth they'll tarnish anyone. If only Deep Thought could saves us all from humorless single-issue fanatics.

No news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40982005)

My private closed-source company uses the web (Apache) and email (exim) since decades now...

Godzilla is real! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40982027)

But mothara is first!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?