Why open source failed
dayvancowboy.org
dayvancowboy.org
Meh. Sure, whatever. Open source hasn't taken over the world, hasn't killed windows, and is most successful on the server. I guess that's "failed" for some interpretations of the term.
It probably wouldn't have caught on the server space if Unix wasn't such an integral part of hacker culture anyway. The whole point of the (admittedly badly writtten. I'm not a native speaker, I'm just learning how to write more complex essays) article is that open source remained glued to hacker culture and it failed to deliver its promises or even confirm Linus' Law ("given enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow") as poor QA killed Linux on the desktop space.
As for the desktop, the work isn't finished, and it'll take a very long time to get to the point where it's a real contender. It's not a QA issue. The Linux desktop of today is actually of very high quality. It's that it's a very difficult space to compete in.
I mean, I was a true believer -- I went all the way building a Gentoo desktop and whatnot. But none of the readymade distributions I tried (SuSE, Mandrake, Fedora, etc.) were up to the task of fueling a working environment where I don't have to worry about the working environment.
After a while, I just got a Mac and quit bothering with useless geekery. I went geeking into functional programming instead.
Did you get the news that the next batch of OLPC laptops will use Windows XP? They weren't bribed by Microsoft. It's not a matter of interface either, they'll keep the same interface.
What's important about this isn't so much that free software didn't fail, but that modern computing could not and would not exist without free software. End of story. Mac classic would be all but dead now, and Windows would have "innovated" us all in to a ditch. Remember what Microsoft did to IE when Netscape wasn't a threat? It'd be the same story. Without free software, there wouldn't be a mozilla, an OSX, or anything like it. Modern computing absolutely requires free software in order to function.
From that basis everything (even the hardware) was open so that it could be studied and changed. It made perfect sense. The sellout doesn't seem to gain anything at all (as you say, it even uses the same interface) whilst giving up the fundamental principle of independence for the recipient.
Sure, but the governments OLPC needs to sell to in order to succeed, were bribed (and threatened, and lied to, and pretty much all of the other tricks in Microsofts 30 year history of FUD and scorched earth tactics).
And, of course, all but Negroponte were disgusted by the change of direction and left the project.
Did everyone but Negroponte _really_ leave in disgust? Boy, the zealotry actually surprises me, and I spent six years watching Slashdot for several hours a day.
Now you're just being retarded and resorting to name-calling (see what I did there?). I write both Open Source and proprietary software, and I have no religion.
You've already shown yourself to have a deep misunderstanding of Open Source, and its community. You've also shown a willingness to erect straw men and hold up single individuals as representative of an extremely diverse group of people. And, you've shown a profound lack of comprehension of how far Open Source has worked its way into every aspect of human technical activity, and how it continues to grow.
Your article may have been interesting and mildly believable ten years ago (and I remember reading lots of similar arguments back then, and they were a little worrisome to those of us in the Open Source community), but today it just exhibits an extremely limited view of the technology industry and where Open Source fits within it (where==just about everywhere).
In short, you're not a credible witness, and you become aggressive when someone calls you on your weak arguments.
Sure, but the major cost center for PCs is hardware, not software, at least not the operating system anyway. Major manufacturers are permitted to install Windows on their machines for only a small fraction of the retail price, so installing Linux instead doesn't save much money.
Either way, the main driver for open source isn't price, it's flexibility. Not everyone needs it, but for those who do, it's a huge boon.
Microsoft has increased the cost of Windows licences while the cost of hardware components has decreased. The result is that the "free" copy of Windows that comes with pre-built PCs takes an increasing slice of the costs. If a hardware manufacturer can sidestep the OS cost while providing its customers with a functional computer then it gives them a huge competitive advantage.
Back when linux was "cool" (when was this? Late 90's?) only geeks tried it. Some stuck with it, others went to OSX, like yourself. Most people, during this time, managed to hear the word linux, but didn't really know what it was. Consequently, they didn't try it. This mythical time when everyone and their grandmother was trying Linux just didn't happen. But just because Free Software didn't work for you back then doesn't mean it failed.
Mac OS, by my standards, failed miserably. Totally. Utterly. So I went to Linux. This was pre-OSX, when Apple was a company that had totally lost its way and was getting demolished by Microsoft. Pretty much everyone said that the Macintosh and Apple had failed and their days were numbered. Now things are different because Apple didn't stop. They never really failed you see, they just kept going. The Free Software community is doing much the same, and I'd be surprised if we're in the same place in another ten years.
Just because something is not meeting your specific needs right now doesn't mean it's failed. Given the enormous progress I've seen over the past ten or so years I think it's fair to say quite the opposite. You actually have a choice to run Linux today where that wasn't really an option a decade ago. If that's failure, then you have a strange definition of failure.
Lets face it: conquering consumer market is impossible without millions spent on "Mac vs PC" commercials and I wouldn't expect Linux to ever get there, unless PC manufacturers start paying for it. Linux gets a nice chance to be a major player whenever DELL/HP/whoever develops a nice line of Linux-only machines with a catchy name and distinguished set of applications, accompanied by a massive PR-campaign, kind of like Eee PC on steroids.
This isn't about commercials. Millions were spent in server-space commercials and Linux still came out winner because it was a cheap good-enough solution. Large companies have given desktop Linux many opportunities to catch on because it's economically more profitable. The crummy QA of desktop distributions (server distributions also have crummy QA, it's just that the geeks who run them are able to surf through it) made desktop Linux fail.
I bet you haven't used any Linux in years. It's changed... alot.
You mention that linux needs a "…catchy name and distinguished set of applications…" before it can gain popularity or widespread usage. How did Linux manage to surpass other OS's if it doesn't have the same/similar features that people use?
But I won't. The original statement was that "Desktop Linux Failed". I objected and offered a way to "Succeed": IBM/Lenovo could have taken their existing ThinkPad line with its 100% hardware compatibility, put a prettier face on a hundred or so selected Gnome apps, give it a cool name and spend $50 million promoting them on TV, exactly what Apple did to BSD.
The basic point of the first part of my post was supposed to be that very few distros contain all the features that make the distro equal to OS X or even Windows. Because of this, it's inaccurate to say that Linux as a whole is equal.
The second part of my post was a reply to a statement you said. It makes a lot more sense if read separately instead of part of the same post.
To reply to what you said in response to me (Pretend this is the start of a separate post for more coherence if you like): What reason is there for IBM/Lenovo to do such a thing? Apple had a clear reason for buying Next; the failure of Copland. But how would taking Linux, developing a new UI, and rebranding everything else help IBM/Lenovo?
How many people really need Fusion? The vast majority of distros are niche designed to showcase a particular innovation or for a particular application, which may have nothing to do with general desktop use. Many others are designed for 'enterprise' applications and also have no need of Fusion. Yet more are designed for power users, who may or may not want Fusion, and certainly know how to install it if they do. only a few distros are targeted at casual users and of them, only a couple think that Fusion is the proper solution.As you must understand, linux about flexibility and just because a particular distribution doesn't pack the features that you think it should have doesn't mean that it doesn't suit its target audience very well.
"How did Linux manage to surpass other OS's if it doesn't have the same/similar features that people use?"
Different target market.
Ideally (to me), some distro could have website that could autodetect hardware and have a bunch of {check, drop down, radial} boxes for software to put on it. (Want Fusion? OpenOffice? Gnome or KDE or XFCE or so on? How much information to see? Everything/Quick blurb/Errors only/Whatever else? Hell, if its for the end user, let them upload their own desktop background to use right away. Little things are important too) The site would then customize the distro and create the iso as needed for the individual.
That would in itself go a long way to creating a usable customizable OS that does what people want instead of trying to guess what they want and create yet another variation within the sea of distros. But, such a thing hasn't happened yet for a variety of reasons.
Just because I can customize a {Gentoo, Slackware, Debian, Red Hat, etc} install to be exactly how I need it, doesn't mean my neighbor who "heard about this lunix thing" can do the same.
"Different target market." Which one are you discussing? And is it the same one as I am? I'm talking about end users.
The OP criticizes open source as a 'failure' because it doesn't satisfy a demographic for which it was never meant.
'End users' as you describe them, don't need Linux, they have Windows, and for them, it works just fine.
Because if you define "end user" as businesses, then they're going to come in contact with Linux int he office. If "end user" is defined as "power users" then Linux is doing just fine and every "This is the year of Linux" or "My technophile girlfriend uses Ubuntu!" article is wrong off the bat.
Whoever you wrote it for. In open source, it is usually yourself and people like you. Sometimes its businesses, or non-computer people, but usually its 'hackers.'
Gentoo doesn't come with Fusion because it's target user base is made of technophiles who like to tinker. Red Hat doesn't have it because it is targeted at business users who use it to power servers and backends. Ubuntu targets 'ordinary users' and does come with Fusion. It's really that simple.
"Ideally (to me), some distro could have website that could autodetect hardware and have a bunch of {check, drop down, radial} boxes for software to put on it. (Want Fusion? OpenOffice? Gnome or KDE or XFCE or so on? How much information to see? Everything/Quick blurb/Errors only/Whatever else? Hell, if its for the end user, let them upload their own desktop background to use right away. Little things are important too) The site would then customize the distro and create the iso as needed for the individual."
That would be a cool distro but I don't think that it's feasible. Besides, part of the fun of Linux is exploring what's available. Ubuntu comes with a large repository and it makes it easy to explore all the different applications that are available. Trying different things out was one of the things that always kept me on Linux, it was a lot more fun than the Windows model, never mind that I couldn't use Photoshop.
As for the feasibility of the idea? Its not feasible for me to do - beyond my knowledge. But I don't see why someone can't manage it at some point in the future if they wanted to. But that could just be because I thought of it and no one likes to think that they've thought of a bad/impossible to implement idea.
Plus what SuSE has goes beyond what I envisioned. So props to them.
However:
- Open source (in a way that works) is here for web 2.0. Check out the AGPL (I'm releasing a big project under it this weekend.) This offers the same advantages for companies as desktop/server open source (no license administration, no data lock in, market price for consulting).
- OSS is not a failure. It ships on 99%+ of all desktop/laptop computers (including Windows and OS X machines), and even if you limit your count to shipped devices that have more open than closed software then Open Source still wins (routers, cell phones, appliances, set top boxes, even watches!)
- OSS doesn't have to dominate to win. As long as it fits the needs of the people who are developing it, then it will continue to mature. Maturity will (and has!) naturally bring more users and more development money.
- This is really the first full year you in which can buy consumer computers from tier 1 vendors with Linux pre-loaded. (HP, Dell and ASUS - the last of which has shipped a million plus units.) This was a precondition for mass market success. As the offerings mature expect sales to grow - up until now Linux wasn't really in the competition, but rather just a curiosity in the market.
Seriously, have you ever met an open source developer and contrasted this to a corporate programmer who has never worked on open source software? It's pretty obvious who's better.
Will they? Or will they move onto theoretical computer science hacking (like Sigfpe and stuff) or even formal logic (like I did)? Is meant-for-widespread-use hacking gonna continue? That is an open question.
You really should read the de Landa essay. It's surprising no one has; mine was just commentary.
Best part was:
"It’s interesting to see how the demise of Linux as a consumer platform... contrasts with the starry-eyed hopes of the open-source project."
Classic.
The reason I had the time to blog about it is that Microsoft Word's control revision system is simple enough that I got my job done way before deadlines. As much as I love TeX typesetting, that would NEVER happen in a LaTeX+CVS/Subversion/darcs/git environment.I'd be still struggling the "quantum theory of patches".
Perhaps folks just think differently about software usage.
Microsoft Word's UI is sometimes counterintuitive, but it's simple enough that people outside the hacker community can use it.
One problem with open source I didn't point out because the main idea was to focus on de Landa is that too many people thought competing with Microsoft had much to do with compatibility. If there was a working environment for collaborative writing as usable as Microsoft Word people would eventually go for it because it's cheaper.
I know, I know. I actually wrote my undergrad thesis on compatibility issues in software competition and how Apple was attempting a "partial compatibility strategy" by adopting Unix while keeping Macintoshness. But with time I realized that wasn't really the core problem, it was just a road bump.
I think there are actually two "problems" going on at the same time. On one hand, open source software is "too difficult" for most people to use. I agree. But on the other hand, most people aren't putting that much effort into learning the software.
Is software supposed to be easy to use? As much as possible, I would think. But some "hacker" software that has a tremendous initial learning curve (TeX, Emacs, even Lisp, depending on your background) offers equally tremendous rewards over similar software that is easier to learn.
The reason, perhaps, is that in learning TeX, you are learning how to prepare documents at a more abstract level than Microsoft Word. The resulting documents may be largely identical, but TeX offers the user more power and control in exchange for taking the time to learn how to operate it. This is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if your job is to prepare documents. It may be a totally awful thing if you only need to prepare an occasional document, as the benefits of TeX are not likely to be worth the effort required to learn it for you.
The cost-benefit equation just doesn't work for "hacker software" as you say it. We're busy doing econometrics (we do use GNU R, but Matlab, Stata and SAS are far superior for most work) and statistical work, and just need to get reports done. We're trying to make money in here, not join a religion.
It's only human. I was a Haskell religious nut for a while. (Then I stopped programming and changed hobbies to skateboarding. But I'm studying modal logic from Konyndyk, so I'm still in the Haskell-ish geekspace).
Blender of course has been open-source for years now and is being improved, but note that it too was proprietary software prior to being open-sourced.
UI is a tricky thing, especially in graphics applications, where once you're used to one application, the others feel wrong. And especially in 3D applications, where there's no standardization -- look at Max and Maya, both now from the same company, or look at ZBrush, whose interface is equal parts brilliance and lunacy (although version 3 is much improved).
This is not merely an open-source vs. proprietary thing; Blender's interface was at least as bad when it was a proprietary product. Wings3D, on the other hand, has one of my favorite interfaces. It's open source, but its interface is inspired by Nendo, a defunct commercial product.
I suggest you to read a blog post from my friend. http://bob.wyman.us/main/2008/04/liquidity-and-c.html#more
I hold similar point of view like him. Because I think the current problem is in fact open source succeeds greatly, but to bring a usable system to end users requires integration and current integration on desktop linux is not that great.
Another thing is for non native speakers, maybe we should just try to write sentences as simple as possible. I learned an old story from an old friend. She and her husband went to a graduate school in midwest and both were required to take a simple writing test. Her husband failed badly while she did great. She said to me : "I don't remember all those complex grammar rules of English so I just tried to write everything as simple as possible and my husband is proud of his study of grammar and tried to write very complex sentences".
I like PG and NNT's writings because they are simple and elegant. The most important is what do you want to say and can you say it clear. I remember when I was in graduate school, a rule is that "If one can not even clearly describe his/her dissertation, then it is impossible to defense it". (I was science major, but I guess for literary and philosophy, the opposite holds true because both disciplines adopt a different strategy: defense by obscuring)
edit: Can anyone tell me why this gets down voted? Because of url inside a post? I don't know where and why in this post makes people feel bad to down vote it?
The thing is, it's too late to change the average (intelligent, well-informed, willing to try new things) user's perception of Linux. For a while, people like classical musicians were trying Linux because it seemed like the better alternative. They gave up. The world gave up.
It's interesting how people using Linux are so insistent and proud of their technology. (Check this reddit mini-thread: http://reddit.com/info/6ku5n/comments/c044vs7 )
I never once mentioned in the blog post I use a Mac. It's just something in the background. I don't think about it. I use Windows at work, incidentally. The taskbar works differently, but I'm not playing OS freak anymore.
It's an interesting thing. I have had two relationships with 30-year-olds who are in the same late-adolescence trip I am. Anyway, that's a personal rant.
Anyone can become a Linux sysadmin in six months of training. Most classical musicians start in their early teens to get to orchestra level.
I would find that insulting if I thought you knew what you were talking about.
Responding to your original blog troll http://dayvancowboy.org/2008/05/de-landa-tackles-open-source...
1. you have your facts wrong. Linux is picking up in the consumer space, and many more people are starting to use it who aren't programmers. But, this has nothing to do with open source. HP, Dell and IBM all ship computers w/ Linux; which makes for an interesting definition of failure.
2. De Landa's understanding of open source is simplistic and wrong a movement that can be said to encompass both Theo De Raadt and Richard Stallman is not one given to unity of motive. One could say that there is no open source movement as such, merely individuals who use open source as a tactic.
3. Given 2. it is absurd to speak of "Open Source" "Failing"; it's like saying academia has failed because some people do not get advanced degrees.
There went my lunch hour dammit.
Boy, you need to get out more.
You are implying that art is somehow better than science and engineering! People can be good at something no matter what it is they are doing! They can hone a skill or perfect a craft or master a field of anything! At least realize your bias!
A classically trained musician is operating in a field that demands perfect form and creativity, but allows for endless practice.
A good system administrator is like a Mississipi river pilot, he knows the environment and his equipment, and he is able to respond to changes quickly, on a variety of equipment under a wide variety of conditions. And he should also be able to foresee consequences and alternative courses of action.
If you think six months of training is enough to turn _anyone_ into a competent admin you are an ID10T.
The main thing is that in portuguese sentences within sentences have more connectives, are more common and thus more readable for the general public. I've been trying to contain sentence length and linearize thought (instead of exploring its arborescent structure).