Open Source > Linux > LQ
As mentioned on the podcast (the ogg rss feed is in your favorite podcatcher, right?) I decided to drive and in about an hour I’ll be off to the Ohio LinuxFest. I should arrive just in time for the FARK.com/Ohio LinuxFest “pre-party”. If you’ll be in Columbus and would like to chat, let me know.
–jeremy
(via Michael) It’s great to see that companies are finally starting to grok the true benefits of Open Source:
Freedom, Not Cost, Is Key
Overall, Forrester’s research clearly showed that enterprise open source adoption is steadily increasing, with many businesses showing no marked difference in their purchasing attitudes between open source and commercial platforms. But while the increasing popularity of open source software was encouraging from a systems integration standpoint, the more surprising result was why that popularity was increasing. We initially assumed the obvious answer was cost. But, in actuality, that’s not the case.
True, licenses for open source software can be had for a fraction of their commercial counterparts or nothing at all, but the total cost of ownership (TCO) for those licenses is far from free. Support costs and staff expertise are still pricier than commercial packages - mainly because they’re harder to find.
No, what’s really driving the adoption of open source software is freedom.
Almost half of all respondents interviewed in the Forrester study cited open standards, a lack of usage restrictions, and not being locked into a single software vendor as their primary reasons for looking at or adopting open source solutions. Lower initial purchase cost was cited as important by most interviewees, but just as important is the ability to customize these packages to specific business uses - especially in vertical markets. And although most noted that they won’t really change the code, having that option is very valuable to them. Freedom is key.
It’s not just about being gratis. Sure, that’s often what gets an Open Source foot in the door. In reality, though, that’s not enough. The Open Source paradigm is producing very high quality code and Open Source companies (and increasingly, traditionally closed source ones) are providing real value to clients with this code. Escaping the “isn’t all Open Source free as in beer” misnomer is a big step. I’m actually surprised it’s taken this long.
–jeremy
Rob Enderle has posted a final analysis of his involvement in the SCO fiasco. Unlike Dan Lyons, he’s not apologizing. Let me first say that I think anyone receiving death threats is absolutely deplorable. He never goes into details about specifics, but if it did indeed happen (and I have no reason to think he’s lying) then I can see why he was upset. However, using the asinine behavior of a single person to paint the Open Source community as “criminals” and then assuming that since they are criminals that SCOX must have a case is not only disingenuous, but seems a bit unprofessional for an analyst. I’m sure Rob is not a bad guy. What he writes in the linked article seems very genuine and I do thank him for that. Hopefully any analysis he does on Open Source or Linux moving forward can be based on facts and data. Hopefully then we can all get along.
–jeremy
OpenOffice.org has been in the news for a couple reasons this week. On one hand, IBM announced that is was releasing Lotus Symphony, an office suite that is based on OpenOffice.org code and runs in an Eclipse instance. On the other hand, some of the community is up in arms about the control Sun continues to have over the project. Note that I am not involved in the OOo community on a daily basis, so I don’t know if the CW article is just a journalistic powder keg or a legitimate impending feud. Looking at the issues at hand, I do have a little commentary however. When you look at successful Open Source projects of a certain size, they typically have some kind of benevolent dictator at the top. Sometimes it’s a person (Linux for example), sometimes it’s a Foundation (Firefox, Apache, Eclipse) and sometimes it’s a company (Alfresco,OpenOffice). Whatever the structure, that direction and leadership from the top is critical to the success of a project. It’s clear that up until now, Sun has been the “top” of the OpenOffice.org project. They employee about 85% of the contributors and all official commits must go through Hamburg. Don’t forget that OpenOffice.org is the result of Sun acquiring Star Office and open sourcing it. Keeping that in mind, it’s clear that some features have not made it into the product because Sun did not want it to happen. That being said, I think that overall Sun has done a very good job with the project.
Now, with IBM joining the project on an official level and also committing 35 head count from China, things may be set to change. Have we reached a point where Sun should let go and form an “OpenOffice.org Foundation”? If so, how much control of that organization should they retain? Or, is it OK for a company that started an Open Source project to maintain control if they are providing good leadership? OpenOffice.org is hugely important to the Open Source community, so this is an important discussion. I think that an OpenOffice.org Foundation makes the most sense in this case, but I could see a general argument for maintaining company control (at least in some cases). What do you think?
One final comment. I forget sometimes how difficult a position Sun has put themselves in after years of being schizo about Open Source. For the last couple of years they have done some truly awesome things, yet they continue to take a beating in the community. I wonder how long it is until some will think they have paid their dues. With some of the OpenSolaris vs. Linux posturing that is sure to come (more comments on that soon) my guess is that Sun may not get the credit they deserve for some time.
–jeremy
Yes, I am a bit late on this one. I had a couple items on the blog TODO a bit longer than I anticipated. I’m working my way through those now, but will still post the items I think are especially important.
So, as you’ve surely heard by now, the EU dismissed the Microsoft anti-trust appeal. From Andy:
In what the New York Times is calling a “stinging rebuke,” the European Court of First Instance issued a much-awaited judgment at 9:30 AM today in Luxembourg affirming almost all of the March 23, 2004 holdings by the European Commission that Microsoft had abused its dominant position to further expand its market share. The Court also affirmed the remedies against Microsoft, including fines of approximately US $1 billion. Only those parts of the original decision that would appointed a trustee to monitor Microsoft’s compliance with the EU’s orders were rejected, as exceeding the powers of the Commission. But while the victory is a significant one for the European Commission, how great a defeat is this in fact for Microsoft? Perhaps less than first meets the eye, on which more below.
Today’s decision is but the latest event in an almost 10 year history of investigations, trials, appeals, and new allegations that initially focused only on Microsoft’s activities involving server software, but eventually grew to involve allegations of abuses in the office software marketplace as well. All of these accusations involved contentions that Microsoft was limiting the ability of its competitors to create products that would interoperate with its own, thus further entrenching itself. With time, open source advocates and trade associations filed lodged complaints as well, as Linux gained market share and greater vendor interest, and OpenDocument Format (ODF) compliant products, such as OpenOffice, gained greater credibility.
In the decision announced today, the Court found that Microsoft had abused its dominant market through two types of conduct, and ordered Microsoft to remedy the situation as follows:
The first type of conduct found to constitute an abuse consisted in Microsoft’s refusal to supply its competitors with ‘interoperability information’ and to authorise them to use that information to develop and distribute products competing with its own products on the work group server operating system market, between October 1998 and the date of adoption of the decision. By way of remedy, the Commission required Microsoft to disclose the ’specifications’ of its client/server and server/server communication protocols to any undertaking wishing to develop and distribute work group server operating systems.
The second type of conduct to which the Commission took exception was the tying of Windows Media Player with the Windows PC operating system. The Commission considered that that practice affected competition on the media player market. By way of remedy, the Commission required Microsoft to offer for sale a version of Windows without Windows Media Player.
At first you probably thought, wow - $1B! Andy puts that in perspective though:
While today’s judgment is significant, it is worth noting that the penalties that Microsoft has incurred to date – roughly $1 billion, plus an obligation to reimburse a far smaller amount of legal fees – are minute in comparison to the magnitude of the profits it has garnered over the ten-year investigative period. During that time, its market share in both of the subject markets has grown dramatically. As a result, while Microsoft has nominally lost in court, it continues to win at the bottom line, given that the only impact on its products to date has been more symbolic than effectual - the requirement to offer a version of Windows that does not bundle a free copy of its media player.
Stated another way, a billion dollars spread over ten years is $100 million a year. During the same period, Microsoft revenues have grown enormously, to over $50 billion a year, fueled primarily by the continuing growth of its operating system and Office products. It has been a tiny cost of business to pay, and a shrewd and cynical business decision to incur, a liability to pay one fifth of one percent of annual gross revenues to retain the freedom to dominate so lucrative a market in spite of the 2004 judgment.
Suddenly it doesn’t sound like all that much money, does it. That aside, it’s good to see some follow though from the EU. The Microsoft PR machine is in full swing, warning other US companies of the dire impact of this ruling. Two items on that note:
“Obviously, law that is made for Microsoft is going to apply to other market leaders as well. IBM, Google, Apple and others would have to look very carefully at the implications for their business models,” — Brad Smith, Microsoft General Counsel
“What this ruling will do is send a message to companies that if they establish a good market position with a successful product, they will be forced in Europe to essentially give up that product to their competitors.” — Robert Kramer, a vice president of public policy for CompTIA, [a Microsoft ally]
Of course, they are confusing marketing leading with market dominant && anti-competitive. Stephe and Mark explain and expand on that point better than I’d be able to.
In the end, while it’s good to see this ruling it may not have much material impact. Windows without Media Player is not what we need. If history is any guide, Microsoft may be able to convince the courts that it’s complying and being more open, while still stifling competition and innovation with unfair practices. One place this ruling may make a difference is on the recent OOXML ISO/IEC JTC1 proceedings. If OOXML is adopted and with some of the Microsoft actions in Europe during the process that have come to light, this ruling could come into play.
–jeremy
From Linux Watch:
For the first time in the U.S., a company and software vendor, Monsoon Multimedia, is being taken to court for a GPL violation. Previously, alleged GPL violations have all been settled by letters from the FSF (Free Software Foundation) or other open-source organizations, pointing out the violation.
The SFLC (Software Freedom Law Center) announced on Sept. 20 that it had just filed the first ever U.S. copyright infringement lawsuit based on a violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL) on behalf of its clients. The group’s clients are the two principal developers of BusyBox. BusyBox is a small-footprint application that implements a lightweight set of standard Unix utilities. It is commonly used in embedded systems, and is open-source software licensed under the GPL version 2.
The developers of BusyBox came to the SFLC after trying to talk Monsoon into honoring the conditions of the GPLv2. Unsuccessful with this, the SFLC has filed suit on the developers’ behalf against Monsoon.
As you can guess, this news has been swirling around the blogosphere. While it is the first lawsuit to be filed, it looks unlikely that it will go to trial. It is interesting to note that the complaint asks not just for injunction (which has always been the presumed remedy for GPL infringement) but for financial damages. That could make the settlement a bit trickier. At any rate, while I find the attitude of the company’s rep odd, it seems clear they want to set things straight. Why odd you ask? He says:
I’ll have to contact the engineering team and see what the expected scope (level of effort) is and then balance it against our other development tasks. And when I know I will let you know.
You cannot balance legal obligations with development tasks. Looking at the entire thread, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was still learning the GPL (and the repercussion of breaking it). How the company responds in the next couple of days should give a pretty clear indication of how this is going to unfold. Let’s hope they do the right thing.
On a side note, I find it odd (or better put… disheartening, but not surprising) how many devices take advantage of Linux and Open Source without actually supporting Linux or Open Source from a product perspective. The HAVA product looks quite nice, but not nice enough for me to get Microsoft Media Center or a Windows Mobile 5 device 
A shame, really.
–jeremy
John Mark has a point - Intel may very well be one of the best kept secrets in Open Source. They are working with a ton of projects, employing a lot of Open Source developers and releasing a lot of code. They are doing all this fairly quietly and are probably one of the main drivers (no pun intended) behind the fact that ATI and nVidia will have to open up more. In fact, ATI is already doing so. Thanks Intel.
I tend to suggest that… you buy [a machine] with Intel’s graphics and wireless. That takes care of the 2 biggest annoyances right there.
- Linus Torvalds
–jeremy
Michael Tiemann recently asked why it is that the global IT consumer continues to accept IT-related write-downs of $386B/year. They do so in a pattern that sees them repeating the mistakes they have made in the past (buying the same or “upgraded” applications and operating systems from the same proprietary sources). The post is a compelling one and I agree that Open Source will deliver radically different, radically better results than have been observed in the proprietary software world. What I really liked about the post, however, is the paragraph explaining the difference between Free Software and Open Source. It’s a question asked often and one that Michael really nails (as you’d expect):
One of the questions we received during the interview was the question “What’s the difference between the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative?” I chose to answer the question based on the constituencies of free software and open source. In my view, the fundamental difference between the free software movement and the open source movement is that free software is based on the ethics of software freedom, and open source is based on pragmatic implementation of observed results. I am a believer in fundamental human rights, including the right to live a healthy life free from oppression. But I am also heavily influenced by what science teaches, and when science teaches that we need to respect the environment or we need to pay attention to what we eat in order to live a healthy life, I tend to lean in the direction of protecting oceans and forests for the health of all rather than strip-mining and clear-cutting them for profit today. When I first read the GNU Manifesto I was compelled by the moral and ethical arguments that Stallman presented. But what made me willing to do something different, rather than merely take the side of the argument at cocktail parties, was that I saw the commercial benefits of such a model as well. These benefits have now been validated by academic and commercial case studies alike, many of which are referenced in the paper. Is it unethical to adopt an ethical position based on pragmatic reasons? I don’t think so. Is it pragmatic to adopt an ethical position without pragmatic evidence? I don’t think so. Thus, I identify with open source because it takes the position of pragmatic validation, even if it validates a position based on ethics. (I should also note that I know many capitalists who believe that it is unethical to ignore what the free market teaches. I consider that a fairly extreme position, but I include it because it shows that some capitalists are, at their core, deeply ethical people.)
FWIW, I usually find myself on the Open Source side of the fence. I tend to be pragmatic, so that probably doesn’t come as much of a surprise.
–jeremy
A quick follow up on the Zimbra acquisition. While I’m extremely happy for Yahoo! on picking up a great company, I agree with Jack that it would have been a great fit for Red Hat. Had they made the pickup 6-12 months ago they surely could have gotten a more reasonable multiple. Not only that, but it fits in very nicely with their Enterprise business model. Like the JBoss acquisition, it would have gotten their foot in the door to places previously not using RHEL. Sure, it would have put them in more direct competition with Microsoft, but JBoss shows they aren’t scared to lock horns with a behemoth. Hindsight is usually 20/20, but with the ever present Microsoft/Yahoo! merger rumors, I’d sure feel better with what is a huge opportunity being in the hands of a pure Open Source player. It just seems like it may have been a better fit. That all being said, I wish both Zimbra and Yahoo! (who doesn’t get enough credit for the Open Source things they do) the best.
–jeremy
You’ve probably heard by now that SCOX has filed for Chapter 11. It gets worse though, as it seems almost half of its finance department has either quit or been fired. Two of the people who quit had over ten years’ experience. I’ve been through a couple Chapter 11’s and they are never fun. That being said, when the financial people start to flee, something is severely wrong. It’s looking more and more likely to me that we’ll end up with some kind of shareholder lawsuit before this is all over with. Oddly, it seems SCO is blaming competition from Linux for some of its financial shortfall. If they would have tried to compete in the first place, they almost certainly wouldn’t be in this position now. Some companies are unduly vilified… but SCOX is not one of them. The question now becomes who will end up with the smoldering remains of SCO? One hopes it will be either IBM or Novell, so we can put this whole thing behind us. There’s always the small chance that some patent troll will try to pick things up for pennies on the dollar, even though it’s clear the case is nearly unwinnable.
–jeremy
Subscribe