Archive for April, 2007

Linux and Open Source Conference Discount Codes

Published by
jeremy
at April 30, 2007 in Linux, LinuxQuestions.org, LinuxWorld, MySQL, Open Source and Ubuntu. 3 Comments

I’m just booking some upcoming conference travel (in this case OSBC). As you may know, LQ is a sponsor of quite a few fantastic Linux and Open Source conferences. As a result of that, we’re able to offer you some discounts. Here’s a partial list - as I get more I’ll bump this post. If you run a conference that LQ doesn’t sponsor, but you think should, drop me a line. Without further ado and in no particular order:

The 2007 MySQL Conference & Expo: 10% off using mys07lqt
Ubuntu Live: 10% + $150 off using ubu07lqt
OSCON: 10% off using os07lqt
LinuxWorld Canada: 25% off if you register before April 11th

If you’ll be attending any of this conferences and would like to meet up (I’m attending most, but not all), let me know.

–jeremy

Share This

Microsoft’s other Linux patent deals

Published by
jeremy
at April 19, 2007 in Linux, Microsoft and Open Source. 0 Comments

It looks like the Novell Patent deal isn’t the only one Microsoft is pursuing. From a recent CBR post:

While Microsoft’s patent covenant deal with Novell has grabbed all the headlines, it is not the (only) patent deal Microsoft has done recently regarding Linux and open source software.

Back in March in struck a patent deal with Fuji Xerox, while over night it announced a broad patent deal with Samsung.

What have these deals got to do with Linux? A lot, according to Microsoft’s representation of the terms.

Neither of which actually state that Linux contains Microsoft’s intellectual property, but they continue to associate the open source operating system with Microsoft’s intellectual property.

It’s a fair assumption that maintaining the association is the main reason for mentioning Linux in the announcements, given that must be countless other technologies involved that do not get a specific mention.

Only Microsoft and Samsung/Fuji Xerox know how much the deals actually relate to Linux.

So what is going on here? Given the vague nature of the patent sharing agreements it remains to be seen, but the argument put forward by Matt Asay recently following a conversation with Mark Shuttleworth certainly makes a lot of sense:

“Microsoft’s patent game is designed to force open source to compete on its terms. Mark made a hugely salient point on this: Microsoft has been a disruptive force in the software industry by building complex software and essentially giving it away for peanuts.

In turn, it is being challenged by open source, which is free. The difference, as Mark said, between $0.00 and $0.01 is huge. And that difference is not flattering to Microsoft, even despite its lower price points than its fellow proprietary competitors.

The assertion is that Microsoft is attempting to basically levy a tax on Open Source software. It does seems odd the Linux is specifically called out, while no other technologies are. As the article indicates though, only Microsoft and Samsung/Fuji Xerox know how much the deals actually relate to Linux. These deals certainly snuck under the radar when compared to the Novell deal, but neither of the other companies involved here are “Open Source” companies and deals like this in the industry are quite common. Where Microsoft is planning to go with these deals is anyones guess, but it’s certainly something worth keeping an eye on. I’d definitely agree with the general consensus that Microsoft is looking to create doubt and not looking to actually sue anyone. We’ll see.

–jeremy

Share This

What Brand Means

Published by
jeremy
at April 18, 2007 in LinuxQuestions.org and Sun. 0 Comments

While I think part of the recent turnaround at Sun has to so with their increased acceptance of both Open Source and the Open Source philosophy, a lot has to do with attitude like this. I like getting reminders like that post from Jonathan every once and a while.

The saying goes, “a brand is a promise.” On a personal level, I’ve always felt that statement was incomplete. A promise is the lowest common denominator of a brand - it’s what people expect. Think of your favorite brand, whether search engine or sneaker or coffee shop or free software, and you’ll know what I mean - a brand is an expectation. If you experience anything less, you’re disappointed. A promise seems like table stakes.

But a brand must go beyond a promise. To me, a brand is a cause - a guiding light. For fulfilling expectations, certainly, as well as dealing with the ill-defined and unexpected. It’s what tells your employees how to act when circumstances (and customers) go awry, or well beyond a training course.

What’s a brand?

It’s not a logo, an ad campaign or a money back guarantee. At minimum, it’s a promise that helps to define those items. Beyond that, it’s a cause that gives definition to the ill-defined, that tells you how to deal with the unexpected or the uncomfortable. It’s what motivates you to hire that fellow at the front desk, and to foster his instinct to feel, “Eureka, I found an opportunity to build an evangelist!”

That’s not about money or resources or training or contracts. It’s a cause. One your employees - and more critically, your customers - willingly join.

It’s with a similar attitude that I try to approach LQ every day. Some are surprised to hear that I still personally answer every email that comes in via the contact form. “Isn’t there a lot?” is a popular question. Now, we get hundreds of thousands of visitors… so the amount of mail that comes in substantial. That being said, someone has taken time to contact us. Our main goal has always been to help. They should expect an answer and seeing what comes in gives me a lot of valuable information on how we can improve. You’ll also notice that we’re extremely receptive to feedback. To me, it shouldn’t be any other way. Now, of course we don’t implement every suggestion we get - that’s just not feasible. We do listen to every suggestion though. We did seven years ago and I’ll strive to make sure we do seven years from now. If you ever have any feedback about any site on the LQ network, please don’t hesitate to contact me, be it public ally via this blog or via email (which should be pretty easy to find). Thanks again to both the mods and every LQ member. You make the site what it is.

–jeremy

Share This

Michael Dell Uses Ubuntu and Firefox

Published by
jeremy
at April 18, 2007 in Firefox, Linux, Open Source and Ubuntu. 0 Comments

I was surprised to see that Michael Dell Officially uses both Ubuntu and Firefox on his home laptop. Not surprised that he uses it, mind you…just surprised that it’s so authoritatively posted. Great to see!

–jeremy

Share This

Microsoft Urges Review of Google-DoubleClick Deal

Published by
jeremy
at April 16, 2007 in Google, MSFT and Microsoft. 0 Comments

It’s amazing how quickly things change sometimes. Microsoft, the consummate anti-trust defendee, is now asking for help from antitrust authorities. From the NYT article:

Microsoft, a veteran defendant of epic antitrust battles in the United States and Europe, is urging regulators to consider scuttling Google’s plan to buy DoubleClick, an online advertising company.

Microsoft contends that the $3.1 billion deal, announced on Friday, would hurt competition in the fast-growing market for advertising on the Web and raises questions about how much personal information would be collected by Google, already a dominant player in online advertising.

Bradford L. Smith, Microsoft’s general counsel, said in an interview yesterday that Google’s purchase of DoubleClick would combine the two largest online advertising distributors and thus “substantially reduce competition in the advertising market on the Web.”

Google dismissed Microsoft’s assertions. “We’ve studied this closely, and their claims, as stated, are not true,” Eric E. Schmidt, the chief executive of Google, said in an interview last night.

I’d guess many will find this ironic. Microsoft clearly had a different take on “substantially reduced competition” when they were on the other side of the equation. I think this marks a watershed moment for Microsoft. They may have hit the realization that they are unable to effectively compete in a certain market. They’ve thrown money and resources at the situation with little results. The fact that they, of all companies, are so quickly asking for this is indicative of their current situation. It’s even more ironic considering that any deal this big surely would have been throughly reviewed anyway. They’re showing just how weak their position is, with little upside from my point of view. One thing is clear, Microsoft is no longer the bulldozing behemoth they once were. Not by a long shot.

–jeremy

Share This

Open Source Business Models: a Taxonomy of Open Source Firms’ business models

Published by
jeremy
at April 16, 2007 in GPL, Linux and Open Source. 0 Comments

If you’re looking into starting a commercial Open Source company, here’s an in-depth look at the various current business models.

Within the context of the FLOSSMETRICS project we are performing a study on the business models adopted by companies that are leveraging FLOSS source code, and how the model changes with respect of licenses and commercialization approaches.

In this post I present a draft of the result of 80 FLOSS-based companies and business models, conducted using only publicly available data. Feedbacks and suggestions are welcome!

It still seems to me that we haven’t found the ideal commercial Open Source play, but this is still a relatively nascent industry. It’s remarkable how far we’ve come so fast. There’s still a lot to figure out, which is part of what makes it so exciting to me,

–jeremy

Share This

Thinking Past Platforms: the Next Challenge for Linux

Published by
jeremy
at April 15, 2007 in Linux and Open Source. 0 Comments

Doc Searls recently posted his last SuitWatch. It’ll be sad not to see the email every other Wednesday, but the reasoning does make sense. The form and flow of a text email newsletter really aren’t congruent with Docs strengths. It’s good to hear that we’ll get to see even more writing from him on the LJ site as a result of this though, so I think it will be a net win. On to the content of the last SuitWatch, the following really struck me:

That’s the gauntlet I want to throw down on this, my last SuitWatch. I want to challenge the big hardware OEMs — Dell, HP, Lenovo, Sony and the rest of them — to break free of the only form factors Microsoft will let them make, and start leading the marketplace. Make cool, interesting, fun and useful stuff that isn’t limited by the Microsoft catalog of possibilities. Stop making generic stuff. Grow greener grass beyond the Windows fences.

A few weeks ago I was talking with folks who worked inside one of the large hardware OEMs. Somewhere in there they told me about their “Linux strategy”. I told them they needed a “Linux strategy” about as much as a construction company needs a lumber strategy”.

If you’re going to have a Linux strategy, make the strategy about getting past an OS-bound view of the world. Because the big difference between Linux and Windows is that you can build anything you want with Linux. With Windows you can only build what Microsoft lets you build.

Think about it…. Does Microsoft tell HP how to make printers? Does it tell Sony how to make camcorders or flat displays? Hell no. Then why do those companies let Microsoft tell them how to make desktops and laptops? Another way of putting it: Why should the choice of personal computing hardware form factors be limited by the things Windows can do? Why wait for Microsoft to provide the base designs for desktops, laptops, notebooks and hand-helds? Why not let your engineers’ imaginations run wild? Why not listen to customers who want personal computers that do stuff Windows can’t? (Or Apple’s OS X, for that matter.)

The short answer is politics. “All technical problems are political as well as technical”, Craig Burton once told me. “And the technical problems can always be solved”. The politics of OS-choosing is the politics of marriage. The big hardware OEMs have been acting for decades like they’re married to Microsoft, which is why they act as if putting Linux on boxes with Microsoft logos tattooed on their butts is like cheating on their spouse.

OEM adoption is a critical step in Linux crossing the next chasm. I’ve stressed this here too many times to remember. Looking back a couple years, I’d have thought someone would have broken ranks by now. The politics are proving quite strong. I thought the catalyst would be Apple. My thinking was that it would give other hardware vendors a glimpse of what could be accomplished with a unix-based system. That wasn’t enough. Whether huge numbers of Dell customers yelling loudly on the IdeaStorm site is enough remains to be seen. Having a hardware OEM look at Linux as the building blocks to innovation is a great analogy. The first one who’ll get that remains to be seen.

–jeremy

Share This

GPLv3, Linux and GPLv2 Compatibility

Published by
jeremy
at April 14, 2007 in FSF, GPL, GPLv3, Linux and Open Source. 1 Comment

Allison continues her fantastic coverage of the GPLv3 process in this post.

A third possibility is that the Linux kernel developers will decide that it’s not worth the hassle and just accept the GPLv3. I suspect that this is what the FSF is hoping will happen. Depending on the changes in the next two drafts of the GPLv3, it still might. But, it’s not looking likely that the kernel developers will yield. Frankly, if I were in the kernel developers shoes, I wouldn’t either. The GPLv3 serves to further the goals of the FSF, but the current draft actually hinders Linus’ goals and the goals of Linux in general.

Another possibility, complete speculation on my part, is that the Linux Foundation becomes more than just a loose consortium of companies sponsoring Linux kernel development. It becomes the copyright holder for the Linux kernel, not taking copyright assignments from contributors like the FSF, but copyright licenses like Apache does, so the kernel developers still hold their copyright on the code. The Linux Foundation releases a license with basically the same terms as the GPLv2, but without the legal ambiguities, obscure language, and anachronisms. Like the GPL, this license is copyleft. Like the GPL, this license requires the release of modified versions under the same license. This license clearly defines the concepts of linking and modified works, making it easier for Linux distributors to be sure that their segmented distribution trees are in compliance. Over time, more and more projects currently released under the GPL adopt the Linux license, because it is more legally precise and more comprehensible to the average developer than either the GPLv2 or GPLv3. Eventually, Linux distributions switch over to the Linux license, leaving only a small branch of GPLv3 (or v4 or v5) code to be downloaded separately (if the user chooses to do so).

It had occurred to me that it might be nice if the FSF did a sort of updated draft of the GPLv2 that included very minor improvements while not introducing the major fundamental shifts of the GPLv3. It’s clear they wouldn’t do this now, as it would hinder the adoption of the GPLv3. I hadn’t thought of the possibility of someone else improving on the GPLv2. Seems unlikely, but maybe just the thought of it will smooth some things over in the GPLv3 process.

–jeremy

Share This

Note to content owners: DRM doesn’t work

Published by
jeremy
at April 9, 2007 in DRM. 0 Comments

Mark Shuttleworth recently posted about some of the follies of DRM. I’ve said in the past that I think it’s possible for DRM to have a place, but when it gets in the way of the consumer it’s just stupid. When people can’t legitimately pay you for something, they’ll just rout around you. Most people are honest and do want to pay, so punishing them for the mistakes of a vast minority who will never pay is silly. From the article:

The truth is also that, as the landscape changes, different business models come and go in their viability. Those folks who try to impose analog rules on digital content will find themselves on the wrong side of the tidal wave. Sorry for you. It’s necessary to innovate (again, sometimes!) and stay ahead of the curve, perhaps even being willing to cannibalize your own existing business - though to be honest cannibalizing someone else’s is so much more appealing.

Someone will find a business model that doesn’t depend on the old way of thinking, and if it is not you, then they will eat you alive. You will probably sue them, but this will be nothing but a defensive action as the industry reforms around their new business model, without you. And by the industry I don’t mean your competitors - they will likely be in the same hole - but your suppliers and your customers. The distributors of content are the ones at risk here, not the creators or the consumers.

He’s 100% right. We’re reaching the point where the average person is sick of the current situation. You have the RIAA suing people, formats that only work on some devices and myriad arbitrary technical limitations that aggravate and confuse the average consumer. Someone will make it easy. Someone will come up with a new business model. That someone will make an absolute boat load of money… and people will love them for it. The revolution will be televised - I just don’t think it will be wrapped in DRM.

–jeremy

Share This

Open Source and Business

Published by
jeremy
at April 9, 2007 in Open Source and Sun. 2 Comments

In dealing with Open Source in the business world, it’s amazing how often I run into statements like “we don’t use Open Source because we need a supported product” or “isn’t all Open Source no cost” or “yeah, but you can’t make money with Open Source”. I think some of this misinformation is simply the fact that Open Source is a new way of doing things. Old habits die hard. Another part of it, of course, is the FUD spread by some straining to maintain the status quo. I won’t touch on that part today though ;) The fact is (in order) commercial Open Source companies have to offer quality support - it’s where they provide value and therefore where they make their money. They’re not selling you boxed bits. All Open Source does not come at no cost. There are many examples of this, but the misconception remains a common one. As for the last one, there are a ton of companies making money with Open Source. In some cases, lots of money. The fact that being Open can be extremely good for business is actually what sparked this post. This is from a recent post by Jonathan Schwartz:

For years we were called proprietary - a moniker that did more damage to Sun than any market downturn. And frankly, we’ve spent years recovering. But at this point, my hope is we’ve completely turned that slur on its head, that we’ve come to define open - more open than any other vendor, more open than open itself. From silicon to systems, software to storage and services.

Where open translates to “open to opportunity.”

So how is the Sun stock doing since the transition started? In the last two years the stock has almost doubled. The general consensus about Sun has gone from one of near death to one of rejuvenated innovation. Open Source isn’t only good for the consumer, it’s good for the whole chain. It’ll just take some longer to figure that out than others.

–jeremy

Share This

« Previous Entries
Close
E-mail It