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!

What is Open Source?

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the if-you-have-to-ask dept.

Linux 322

s390 writes "The Inquirer is running an article by Olliance about "What is Open Source?" It appears to be the first of a two-part series for managers about how to engage with the open source community. The writers seem to know their material. Are they on target or have they missed something important? Do PHBs really need to read this sort of introduction to get comfortable with the idea of using Linux and other open source software?"

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

no (-1, Flamebait)

thecloud (684034) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285793)

you have to respect open source before u can understand it

Re:no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285854)

Respect open source?

Open source is about free (unpaid) labour, nothing else.

Re:no (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286179)

Re:no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285929)

you have to UNDERSTAND something before you can RESPECT it.

And it's "you" not "u".

NO (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285987)

Open Source developers have to respect end users before it will be accepted. No more of this "RTFM, j00 n00b. h4w h4w, I 0wn3d j00. 1337."

Re:NO (1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286120)

Ya the problem is when you use open source software long enough you get used to its "something always needs to be fixed" ways. There's always something that needs tweaking or configing or editing. Nothing ever just works. The problem is the developers have been doing this so long they don't realize it's so bad. Also most of the hardcore users of open source software enjoy this, they think it's fun to always be tweaking and fixing and editing. Sure to them it probably is. I just want a desktop that works. I use GNU/Linux sure, but it definatly needs work if anyone is going to use it on the desktop.

fr1st ps0t (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285799)

you're too slow..

Did your mother not give you enough hugs? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286078)

Because just like your father said, you're a failure. Here's a haiku for you and your dad.

Daddy's dark embrace
God, help me win his favor
Another failure

Open Source Is (0, Redundant)

pnix (682520) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285811)

Awesome. A life saver. Heck, it's even good!

The thing I see is (4, Interesting)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285813)

everyone seems to think just because something is Open Source it is default GPL'ed.

Antitrust kind of fell into this trap (worst computer movie ever!).

I loved antitrust (4, Insightful)

zapp (201236) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285868)

Antitrust beat the hell out of movies like Hackers and The Net.

Atleast Antitrust used GNOME, real unix commands, etc... had hot girls, and an actual plot.

Maybe it didn't portray the fineprint of the GPL, but it did pretty well (I thought) at showing how corrupt corporations can be.

Re:I loved antitrust (4, Funny)

xutopia (469129) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285946)

eveytime there was code on the screen it was funny as hell!

If (byte byte)
{
byte byte byte
Byte ** asdfasdf
Byte byte is good for a byte()
so byte byte byte
}

Authentic (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286030)

This code segment actually comes straight from dselect.

Re:I loved antitrust (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285980)

Atleast Antitrust used GNOME, real unix commands, etc... had hot girls, and an actual plot.

Yeah...and all the code was HTML. Sorry, but if you're going to make a movie based on computers and put so much detail into using proper software to make things look more authentic, the LEAST you can do is rip some GPL'd code from somewhere and use that. The geek factor in that alone would have boosted the movie a lot.

AntiTrust is the worst movie since the Matrix. (1, Funny)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286101)



Anti Trust had no plot, the hacking wasnt even real, most hackers use Windows. Also Microsoft, I'm assuming this is who the movie wanted to imply it was about, is one of the most honest corperations on the face of the earth, they support affirmative action and have donated millions of computers running billions of dollars worth of the best most well known software.

Bill Gates also gives scholarships, gives money to India, Africa, China, Europe, this man should be knighted.

Re:AntiTrust is the worst movie since the Matrix. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286231)

Your trolling is just a little too obvious with this one. Your usual persona as deluded dimwit is undercut by this, more bizarre, statement.

Re:The thing I see is (1, Funny)

cK-Gunslinger (443452) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285871)

Antitrust kind of fell into this trap (worst computer movie ever!).
You obviously were fortunate enough to miss "The Net."

Re:The thing I see is (-1, Troll)

SkewlD00d (314017) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285949)

Yeah, it's funny when the media gets all the facts wrong as usual. "OSS != GPL for the 432489304 time."

If all reporters were engineers, I think news would be less slanted and more factually-based. But, most people are ignorant about the world around them, so there's no need to have the facts right.

Oh, and where's the WMD in Iraq? I guess Bush should have made sold the point that getting rid of Saddam is more important than (root cause) of WMDs, but his hired "Yes"-men didn't see that one. Intelligence and government are mutex.

Mod parent down, -1 troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286160)

WTF does Irag have to do with open sores?

Shared Source is better than open source. (-1, Offtopic)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286180)



Shared source protects national security, it prevents communists, hackers, terrorists and other radicals from accessing source code which could decrease the security of not only our nation but also destroy the economy.

Its easier to write a virus for software thats open source than it is for closed source software, There is even some indications that due to WindowsXP, PCs are more secure on average. eweek report [eweek.com]

So as you see, Windows and closed source OS's are more secure.

Also Iraq has WMDs, we have pictures, satelite photographs, spies, electronic wiretaps, taps on their email, and viruses in their Linux servers which special forces agents pretending to be Open Source Zealots installed. According to all the proof, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, our satelites did not detect that Iraq moved or destroyed these weapons so we went to war to force them to do so, and now the weapons have been found.

You'll get an announcement around the time of the next presidential election.

Re:The thing I see is (1)

hpulley (587866) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286244)

If all reporters were engineers, I think news would be less slanted and more factually-based. But, most people are ignorant about the world around them, so there's no need to have the facts right.

We can't all be domain experts. Articles on all sorts of subjects are poorly written due to lack of domain knowledge and research on the reporter's part. We notice the computer domain errors in print and movies because we work in this area but I'm sure surgeons, biologists and other experts groan at articles which we accept due to ignorance on our own part.

The lack of any research ability is the sad part about all these reporters as I always thought this would be a key skill for a journalist but getting a weak article submitted early (first post, anyone?) seems more important than doing it right. Hey, maybe software engineers should be journalists after all, we could release articles early and then release service packs and patches later... its not a retraction, its a feature.

Open Source is bad for the economy. (-1, Troll)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286071)



Why do you think Microsoft wont hire Americans anymore? I know, because stupid open source robots are willinng to code for free!! Why hire anyone when Microsoft can just take the open source code, use it in their closed source products, and no one would ever know because no one sees the code!

early source (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285821)

open like sco

Maybe (5, Funny)

T40 Dude (668317) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285824)

they should ask SCO ?

Indeed (1)

Faust7 (314817) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286054)

SCO = Strange Concept, "Open."

Why wont IBM just pay SCO? (-1, Troll)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286202)



Pay SCO and give them back the code they rightfully own, this will make it easier for Microsoft to buy SCO and own Linux, then the source can be closed once and for all and security and stability can be saved.

1st reply (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285828)

1st!

That's What Neo Had to Do in Matrix Reloaded (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285832)

Isn't it?

Re:That's What Neo Had to Do in Matrix Reloaded (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285991)

Hermonie DIES in the next Harry Potter book!

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285834)

fp

Body rich and full flavored

Unfortunately.. (5, Funny)

cK-Gunslinger (443452) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285837)


.. no one can be told what Open Source is.

Re:Unfortunately.. (0, Flamebait)

SkewlD00d (314017) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285880)

What, like the Matrix? Or, is it some big secret? Geez... you're starting to sound like a Scientologist. ;)

Re:Unfortunately.. (1)

cK-Gunslinger (443452) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285923)

Yeah, like the Matrix. I tell you that you can't be told what Open Source is, but 10 minutes later proceed to do exactly that.

Re:Unfortunately.. (1)

SkewlD00d (314017) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286040)

Is there a blue and red pill interface? Or do I have to eat a monitor displaying the Aqua UI?

Btw, there outta be a rule that open source/free/GPL'd projects must reuse as much code as possible from other projects, that way some embedded db doesn't use linear searches and insertion sort.

The first rule of open souuce is... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286027)

"No one can be told what open source is..."

it must be THRUST upon them! [goatse.cx]

Re:Unfortunately.. (4, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285938)

Oh, you mean we need to pop some pills and find out for ourselves?

Re:Unfortunately.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286012)

Damn straight. Let's mee up here [extrema.nl] . I think that's gotta be the best place.

Re:Unfortunately.. (1)

Miriku chan (168612) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286206)

(it's bad to reply to sig's, etc etc etc) it's Stanislaw, with a 'w'. there isnt a 'v' in the polish alphabet /me is a pedantic pole.

Re:Unfortunately.. (3, Funny)

smilingirl (608655) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286118)

Open Sores? Yuck! reference to Fox Trot comic: http://smilingirl31.tripod.com/comics/foxtrotlinux .gif

The GPL and Open Source are a cancer. (-1, Troll)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286229)



These evil communist souless robots write code in an attempt to destroy the US economy and ruin the tech industry. Its because of the open source movement that Microsoft is forced to hire programmers in India.

You open source robots know what open source is, Open Source is a cancer which will eat up companies like pacman and make the US into a socialist communist Soviet style place.

What Yoda would say? (0, Funny)

maizena (640458) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285838)

"May The Source Be With You..."

Open Source is... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285844)

TEH SUK!~!!`1

Thank you, I'll be here all the week.

This is what it is (2)

SkewlD00d (314017) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285845)

Enough said [fsf.org] . theRegister: RTFM!! Must be a slow news day.

Re:This is what it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285898)

Thats what it is for a tiny number of geeks.

For management-people in big companies (and small too) it's just about free labour, it's nice not having to pay for stuff.

If anyone thinks anything else you are just fooling yourself.

Re:This is what it is (0, Troll)

SkewlD00d (314017) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285977)

Haha... something for nothing, eh? That's called "free as in free-beer" software, i mean *BSD license. ;)

Re:This is what it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285999)

No one pays for GPL'd software either.

Re:This is what it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286176)

Haha... something for nothing, eh? That's called "free as in free-beer" software, i mean *BSD license. ;)

Sure, but the "something for nothing" is what the PHBs will care about - they won't care about the beer / speech distinction.

Like it or not, managers default to commercial (5, Insightful)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285850)

Which means that Open Source needs to be carefully pitched to them -- commercial, closed source software is how business has been done for thirty years, while free software is still kind of a wierd new hippiesh thing (although having big-time companies like IBM embracing it helps.)

It's like the saying goes; when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like it needs a pounding. Nobody ever got fired buying Microsoft, whereas Open Source seems like a gamble... even moreso now with the bogus SCO lawsuit. Calmly and rationally explaining to the people that make the procurement decisions at your company that free software is a valid alternative and explaining why is necessary, because by default they're going to want to go with what they've always went with.

Re:Like it or not, managers default to commercial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285887)

IBM's employess dropped the Blue Suits and Ties for Sandals and Dreddies?

Re:Like it or not, managers default to commercial (1)

bogado (25959) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285939)

I think big business, care mutch about the warranty (even if the EULA say the program is guaranteed to do nothing) and support (+2 hours of phone menus) then anything else. That is why we need big companies to suport and warranty linux, like IBM and redhat. Small business and home offices should be more confortable with using linux, if they had a little push like those reviews and introductions arround.

Re:Like it or not, managers default to commercial (1)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286215)

Big business does not get support direct from the vendor except in rare cases.

I know of one company that contracts IT to CSC, at £1200+/box/yr plus £40/call plus £80/relocation. (IE moving the box accross the room or accross the world.)

They think it's worth it because it gives them known costs, support who know the business (although that bit backfires a bit...), someone to blame when things go wrong (penalty clauses and SLAs) and all the other things that make them comfortable.

They couldn't give a rats ass as if Linux or Windows was deployed, as long as it brought their cost base down. It's CSC who choose not to do it, not the company in question.

(FWIW the numbers there probably sounded like a good deal 5+ years ago when the 10 yr contract was signed. Bet someone feels a bit foolish now.)

Re:Like it or not, managers default to commercial (4, Interesting)

brejc8 (223089) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285990)

A friend of mine who works at an unnamed Swedish company was very much for open source software, but when his managers were thinking of buying software they allways went for the medium-small sized companies reather than the large sized or open-source. The reason was that if they programs didn't work purfectly they could put pressure for the companies to fix it. If they refused they would bury them in legal threats and colapse the company and move on. Thus not many companies would refuse to fix bugs and solve problems.
Interestingly the concept of the company fixing its own problems as they hold the source was just unthinkable. No manager would give themselves more work no matter how much money it would save.

Company-to-Company relationships are important (4, Interesting)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286150)

That's an interesting point that many people overlook - just because IBM supports Linux doesn't mean that IBM makes a good partner for smaller businesses.

A couple years ago I was part of a vendor selection process for a WMS, and one the three contenders (EXE) basically eliminated themselves by not demonstrating that they took customers of our size (~$200 million) seriously. I sent them data to use for our scripted demo weeks in advance of our visit, only to have their technical sales rep get back to my voice mail with initial questions at 5:30 p.m. the day before we were to arrive - and by that point I was already on the plane. The demo, obviously, turned out underwhelming.

Their functionality was top-notch, but all the signs were that we'd be a small-ish customer to them, and hence not worthy of focused attention (read: flunky implementation consultants among other issues). A major component of any software purchase decision has to be the potential relationship between the customer and vendor, and how well the customer feels they'll be treated going forward...

Re:Like it or not, managers default to commercial (3, Interesting)

cnkeller (181482) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286222)

The reason was that if they programs didn't work purfectly they could put pressure for the companies to fix it. If they refused they would bury them in legal threats and colapse the company and move on.

I find that kind of interesting, if not slimy. Most software includes some type of "provided as-is license". This would seem to indicate that a customer doesn't have a lot of legal ground to stand on regarding buggy software. Custom contract work is probably a different story.

Has anyone actually sued (and won) a vendor for buggy software? I'd be interested because Quicken on the Mac, though far more useful than Gnucash, crashes quite often. Intuit has acknowledged this, but provided no fix. Guess they think I should be grateful they didn't write info to my MBR....

Re:Like it or not, managers default to commercial (4, Interesting)

dsr9996 (593882) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286249)

My experience at the company I work for has verified what your friend's Swedish company does. Big companies are going to be unresponsive to bug reports and feature requests because big companies by nature move slowly, are ponderous, and not as nimble as smaller ones. The same, interestingly, is also true of groups within companies.

The only reason big companies will be responsive to requests is if the company doing the requesting is also big (i.e. a very important client). This makes perfect business sense: It is much more important to make sure a client that spends $10 million on your products each year is happy versus a researcher at a university that spends $1 thousand.

Your other point about companies fixing bugs in OSS since they have access to the code is also right on. It is not always easy to fix bugs in code, especially if the code is non-trivial in size or complexity. It takes time to learn the code well-enough to solve bugs in it, unless they are glaringly obvious. So the time that may be saved by reusing open source code must be weighed against the time it takes to learn that code if a company intends to make fixes to it.

Finally, I think most companies do not understand open source licenses, and because of this ignorance, they are afraid that by using open source code they will have to give away all their proprietary code. The threat of this alone is enough to make any company afraid.

At the company I work at, open source proponents would need to convince the high ups at the company (CEO, CIO, etc.) about the safety and utility of open source, and once those guys made a decision to use it, they would make it a possibility for group managers and individual developers to explore open source solutions to use in their projects.

Peaceful regards,
Devin

Re:Like it or not, managers default to commercial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286003)

Right On!

Businesses are resistant to change, and always have been. Change is an unknown, and the unknown is scary. Would a company rather have a constant 5% growth, or a varying growth of 1 to 10%? They'd take the 5% any day, as it's a much better buy for investors/stockholders.

I say hoorah! for any business even looking at OSS of any sort, even if they don't use it. Why? Because that assessment may open the doors for applications which are more suitable for OSS programs.

What is open source? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285869)

Its crap, of course.

Seriously... (2, Funny)

Faust7 (314817) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285888)

On Slashdot? This has to be the grand-slam heavyweight champion of trick questions.

Hush! Hush! (4, Funny)

LX.onesizebigger (323649) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285908)

As someone who hopes to graduate with a Bachelor of Business Admin and a Bachelor of Science (CS) and has an interest in OSS, my thoughts on this:

Hush! Don't tell them! OSS will be a comparative advantage to some of us. Don't ruin that!

(TWAJS)

you have it exactly (2, Insightful)

zogger (617870) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286183)

You nailed it. It's a HUGE economic and practicality advantage in most cases for businesses. If they can maintain their competition (somehow) to keep using the expensive buggy stuff, they can pull ahead quickly. And even better if they completely "get it" and share back, they'll have the help and interest in their products they deserve, their business will do better, they can make more money and pay the help and stockholders more..on and on. I'm amazed that businesses still cling to that which just costs and costs and costs and costs and never really delivers all that well. Let em fail I say.

GNU's definition (3, Interesting)

plj (673710) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285914)

The article seems to be pretty concentrated to OSS community. But how about GNU's definition [gnu.org] of OSS?

Personally, I think its the license, which answers the question.

Re:GNU's definition (4, Informative)

ronfar (52216) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285956)

Actually, I think here [gnu.org] is a more accurate view of the GNU Foundations ideas about Open Source Software.

Re:GNU's definition (1)

plj (673710) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286187)

Now when you said it, I have to agree.
I think I actually have seen that definition before, too. But the GNU license page just popped into my mind instantly, and I didn't just remember the page you pointed out.

Prepare to get modded up. ;)

Re:GNU's definition (1, Funny)

GMontag (42283) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286148)

Shouldn't that be GNU/OSS? ;-)

Actually explain it to me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285925)

Checkboxes

GPL
BSD
Business(You have the code and can change the code but can't resell the code, just used for your project)
Other

Sorry (4, Insightful)

BillsPetMonkey (654200) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285931)

But on theinquirer, this is preaching to the converted, and the linux side banner "blindingly easy" betrays a lack of objectivity in approach. I'm not trolling, but this article won't be noticed by the people who really need to see it.

In the area of marketing the "linux zealot" tag is our own worst enemy and unfortunately that's what this will be labelled.

Here's an interesting snippet: (0, Offtopic)

Bame Flait (672982) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285934)

Vitamin C is a crucial part of dealing with Open Sores. According to Dr. Bob, vitamin C can be used topically for open sores and wounds. When you put vitamin C topically on a sore or wound it can be the equivalent of eating 30-50 thousand milligrams of vitamin C in the bloodstream! Dr. Bob used this mixture on everything including burns, ulcers, cuts, infections, etc. Dr. Bob also advised using an omega 3 and 6 oil blend and mixing it with the aloe vera and ascorbyl palmitate. Dr. Bob recommended Udo's oil from Flora for an omega oil blend. Then put Vaseline over the oil to seal it at the wound.

This is unbalanced advocacy (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285937)

Chances are a PHB will have heard some of the anti-OSS FUD that's going around and this article takes no steps to address that. A semi-technical sceptic PHB will dismiss this article.

Not obvious (5, Insightful)

Jad LaFields (607990) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285945)

As a someone who is relatively new to /., the 'geek scene', and alternative software, I'd just like to point out to many people I don't think that OSS is a very simple, obvious concept. I haven't finished reading the article yet, but I think the idea of explaining OSS simply to 'non-geek' people is a good one, considering the "if you don't know what it is, figure it out yourself, we're not pandering to anyone" attitudes I've seen every once in awhile. Well, off to finish reading...

Self-Reliance (3, Insightful)

Bame Flait (672982) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286089)

Although I posted offtopic flamebait above, I'm moved enough by this post to respond seriously.

Businesses have a problem these days when it comes to software implementation - people aren't very good at it. This is typically (in my experience), because they have a hard time finding the right people who are expert in implementing software (which in many businesses, is at least as challenging as developing it). This difficulty is compounded when you have to deal with third-parties, which are notoriously unreliable when it comes to satisfying commitments (time, dollars). Those who have the appropriate human capital are the ones best equipped to implement open source effectively - and those who don't, won't.

Now part of the nature of open source is that there isn't a corporate entity out there that bears some responsibility to the organizations implementing the software - and this is where modern executives run into a wall. Without someone on the inside who knows their stuff, they're not going to be implementing anything other than the same old corporate offerings that will come with (mediocre) software and support.

What executives need to realize is that open source doesn't just give their programmers more control, it gives them more control. With the right personnel and a little innovation, open source gives you the power to grow and expand your business in highly specialized ways that proprietary software simply won't be able to match - even in a co-development type of environment (this I know from experience).

So cancel your MSDN subscription, and hire a few competent admins and developers. Then listen to them. It might feel like stepping off the plank into shark-infested waters, but they'll soon realize that they're swimming with the mermaids and dolphins in a sea of technical enlightenment.

This is too easy. . . (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285951)

Open Source

1. Your Mother

2. Taco's "Wife"

3. Your Mother

open source is fun (3, Insightful)

tuffy (10202) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285959)

Or, perhaps less simply, it's the notion that writing code for its own sake can be worthwhile - both to the writer and to everyone else.

Open Source? Its a communist idea. (-1, Troll)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285960)



The soviet union is attempting to destroy our economy by giving everything away for free, I mean why work hard when you can get everything free, free music, free software, free wifi internet access, next you'll see our government being pressured to give free healthcare, and food stamps away.

Nothing is free, people should earn everything they have or die.

Re:Open Source? Its a communist idea. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286218)

Umm...pssst...hey man...think you could score me a little of whatever it is you're on?

Quality "Ensurance" (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285966)

Is "ensurance" a word?

Like the authors I'm a Brit so I know the British distinction between 'insure' and 'ensure' but I'd never say 'ensurance', I'd say 'assurance'.

You know, like 'QA'.

Re:Quality "Ensurance" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286016)

Like the authors I'm a Brit so I know the British distinction between 'insure' and 'ensure' but I'd never say 'ensurance', I'd say 'assurance'. You know, like 'QA'.

Oh, hadn't spotted this was footnote 4.

Even so, I think they've just made 'quality ensurance' up for the article - the only google hits are poor translations into English - and they're being overly anal about their dictionary definitions.

So.. (5, Funny)

zapfie (560589) | more than 11 years ago | (#6285967)


What is Open Source?

Open Source is patient. Open Source is kind. It does not envy.

It does not boast, it is not proud

It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered

It keeps no record of wrongs

Open Source does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth

It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres

Re:So.. (1)

Munelight (192694) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286051)

...and its nose should pant, and its lips should curl, its cheeks should flame, and its brow should furl. Its bosom should heave, and its heart should glow, and its fist be ever-ready for a knock-down blooooooooow.

Re:So.. (2, Funny)

Malibu Barbarian (460198) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286103)

This release includes the beta nose. I'm still working on the lips. I had to remove the heart because it didn't work right for anyone but me, still looking at that.

Re:So.. (1)

bludstone (103539) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286057)

Thank you for the list of things to avoid saying to a business-person when trying to sell them on linux.

Re:So.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286152)

There remain Mountain Dew, code, open source, these three. Yet the greatest of these is open source.

What is Open Source? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6285981)

Looking on SourceForge it appears open source is a bunch of not even half-finished, abandoned software projects. In my personal experience it appears open source is a bunch of half-finished, difficult to use software projects whose users reply RTFM in response to every question and fix it yourself to every suggestion.

ya, so what? (1)

zogger (617870) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286230)

so what if half the projects aren't finished? that means the other half is, and with thousands to choose from, anyone can find what they need. And which is better, finding something your business can use then you can take it from there and more-easily customize to suit, or be forced to pay for a closed source solution that you still have to do that with? Most even expensive closed source programs still require customization, I see the articles here describing all these various expensive programs, they still need admins and coders to make them work exactly how the company wants them to work. One way, the open way, is in most cases cheaper and easier, the other is much more expensive and harder to customize. Gee, tough call there.

assumptions (5, Insightful)

thoolihan (611712) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286001)

The author assumes some things. High Quality? Some software is. OpenSSH for starters. However, anyone who's spent some time installing packages on various GNU or BSD systems knows there are some really awful projects out there too.

Now that I think about it though, thanks to the Java version of ICQ, I think closed source still holds the worst app of all time record...
-t

I had... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286009)

... Open Sores once. Penicillin cleared 'em right up.

PHB? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286021)

Does it make me more or less of a geek that I thouhgt "Player's Hand Book" before "Pointy Haird Boss" when I read PHB?

Re:PHB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286079)

It depends on which PHB you're talking about - D&D or AD&D, and then which edition - 1, 2, 2+ or 3.

If its less than 3, you're OK, +3 extra geek happiness.

If its 3, -1 n00b g33k.

If its D&D, +5 l337 g33k g0d.

IMO (1)

Neophytus (642863) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286035)

Open source is any source that is available. open source software is whatever you want it to be

What is Open Sores? (0, Redundant)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286090)

Remember the "Foxtrot" cartoon, where the mother mis-heard her son's reference to open source as being "Open Sores".

Open Source? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286091)

Those things I got on my dick after I fucked Taco's mom?

Oh wait, those were open sores... Nevermind.

Missing the Point (5, Insightful)

Delphix (571159) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286093)

While I read slashdot daily, and have an appreciation for Open Source software, I think a lot of you miss the point. I work for a company that builds 3D simulations. For years we used IRIX. SGI was simply the best graphics rendering stations you could buy. We still have some fridge sized boxes, an old Octane, and a couple O2s sitting around.

However, we've moved to Linux. We use Red Hat 7.2. Why? Because Open Source is great? Beacause we're giving back to the community? No. Because Linux allowed us to reuse all our simulation code that was built using Unix interoperabilty on more modern hardware, cheaper. We can go grab a GeForce4 Ti 4600 off the shelf, get a 8MB Buffered IDE HD, and Dual Athlon chips and they'll eat those O2s / Octanes, and even the old fridge sized Onyx. Slap six of them together and you've got a six channel renderer. We did have to change our IG software. We were using Performer, now we use a third party developed renderer.

For years our the company that developed our renderer has supported both Linux and Windows. Now they only support rendering on Windows. They still support the API for Linux though. So now we're looking three options:

1) Devoting time to developing our own Linux based renderer.
2) Continuing to use their API on Linux, but to control chanels on Windows boxes.
3) Converting the simulation over to Windows and dropping Linux.

At this point option 1 is pretty much out. While we have the in house skills to develop an IG, it would take several years to build something to meet our requirements (needs texture paging, terrain paging, must handle terrain sizes in excess of 2GB, etc).

Option 2 looks attractive because it's the least work. And will probably be what's implemented in the short run.

Option 3 will probably be our long run solution as we've had some trouble with nVidia and ATI drivers on Linux. While they do work in most cases, they don't seem quite as robust as their Windows counterparts. Ie with the Quadro cards...

Now if you go back and read over these things, what we considered in deciding what to use were:

1) time
2) cost
3) ease of implementation

You'll note we never said anything about Open Source. When we first moved to Linux we looked at Open Source issues. We use open source development tools. GCC, GIMP, ImageMagick, Glade... But it had nothing to do with the fact they were open source. If they had been sold to us like IRIX was and performed the same functionality we would have bought them.

We're interested in shipping our product, making $$$, and that's what managers are concerned with. The debate over whether or not we use Open Source software is irrelevent. The questions that have to be answered are how it would impact cost, time to delivery, learning curve. The other thing is, you shouldn't expect businesses to go out and just switch to Open Source because you wrote a persuasive article. If there is a system in place, it probably won't be replaced until it's necessary to do so. It's that whole cost thing again. Why replace something that's been paid for that works until it's necesary to do so.

If you answer that with anything other than it will make the company more $$$, or increase productivity, etc... you won't get very far with the suits.

My experiance with linux (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286107)

My new G5 tower is now shipping to my house as I speak, Here is why.

My l33t gent00 boxen fucked up today, I had recently upgraded to Xpensive86 4.3 only to find that my keyboard and mouse dosen't work anymore. So, after about 5 hours of trying to rebootstarap only to find that the Indian server that gentoo ran on had burnt out in the heat wave, I opened up lynx, and ordered a new G5 tower, worth all Rs 400,000!

No more linux, its panther all the way from now on!

Re:My experiance with linux (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286172)

Better get used to lynx. Your box isn't going to get there until August, and you're going to have to pay extra for Panther when it ships because the G5s ship with Jaguar.

Atleast you got the Rupee to Dollar conversion right. Well if you bought the $8000 model.

sorry (0, Offtopic)

Oldskooldave (532945) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286185)

your g5's coming with jaguar not panther my "1337" haxor friend

Open Development (3, Insightful)

eadz (412417) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286115)

is what open source is really about. I have seen quite a few "Open Source" projects - code released under the GPL - that have been closed development and absolutly useless as an open source project because of this.

What is open source? (5, Funny)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286131)

That most interesting of human endeavors whereby some people give away the fruit of their labor and get nothing in return. The idea here is that "closed software" is an anathema to human freedom and therefore clashes with the pursuit of life, liberty and well-cooked apple pie.

A theory formulated by people who came to age trying to screw universities out of what they considered their own personal property, which was then somehow extrapolated to the real world and subsequently swallowed in extremis by a few technically capable idealists and several million people looking for a free ride who contribute absolutely nothing but "believe" and therefore are part of the "community".

The resulting movement (and its derivatives) can be thought of as the technological version of the catholic church during the depth of the medieval era - in both structure and radical "join us or die" behavior.

Along the way they convince themselves that "some day" they'll make a buck on giving away stuff, and when they don't (which is the most common result), they blame the government, the system, the corporations and the weather for being "unfair".

Basically.

Interview with the Vamp^H^H^H^HSlashdot Editor... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6286167)

Michael: What is Open Source?

Troll: Take the Red Pill

It's a Start (1)

tomakaan (673394) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286205)

A lot of businesses and schools enjoy spending money for some reason. It gives them a false sense of security. And, of course, it can't be good if it's free. Everything that is free is too good to be true.

I think that as more and more of these types of efforts [slashdot.org] come around, the movement towards seeing open source more widely used will pick up a little speed (as with everything else). Sure, it's only The Inquirer and some computer maintenance company in the UK, but ya gotta start somewhere.

One misconception I had (4, Insightful)

jcsehak (559709) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286219)

One misconception I had was that open source meant you had to give the product away for free. This was even reflected in version 1.0 of the Open Source Music License I wrote (that I based on the GPL). But that's not so! You only have to give the source away, not the end-product. And you don't even have to make it available for download, you need only sell people CDs of the source for the cost of the media.

Open source isn't so much for the benefit of the end-user as the developer. Or rather, other developers. So it's just as easy to make money on an open source project as a closed one, as long as someone else doesn't take your code and make their own version that better and cheaper. So for MS, open sourcing Word would be a bad idea. But for a musician like myself, "better" is relative. So making your music open-source does nothing but good.

The enquirer? (0, Troll)

ocie (6659) | more than 11 years ago | (#6286224)

Did someone see an image of the virgin Mary, or St. jude in the linux kernel sources?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?