OSBC Underway

May 22, 2007 1 Comment

The OSBC is officially underway. The opening keynote was the always interesting Matthew Szulik. I’m not sure who does the Red Hat short videos, but they are consistently both entertaining and compelling (even if some of the themes are reused quite a bit). Some interesting tidbits from the keynote:

* Open Source no longer needs to be validated
* Open Source has the ability to change IT from a cost to a value
* A long while back, while trying to get VC for Red Hat, someone asked Matt when he was going to “give up on this gimmick”
* In his opinion he feels that Open Source also has a social responsibility component. He gives as an example a research institute that had to ditch a decade of breast cancer research due to data incompatibilities
* He welcomes the competition from the likes of Oracle, and sees it as a management responsibility to compete…and not a technical issue
* He often feels in sales meetings that the crowd is divided – the 40+ crowd dislikes him (not personally, of course) and the 25-ish crowd thinks he’s pretty cool
* We are only at the beginning of the Open Source cycle… and cycles in this industry are the norm

–jeremy

Filed under Open Source, OSBC, Red Hat

In San Francisco for OSBC

May 21, 2007 Leave a comment

Landed in San Francisco earlier today and spent most of the day walking around. The OSBC starts tomorrow morning. My recent post on Dell and Ubuntu seems to have gotten a fair bit of attention while I was traveling. If I get any further information I’ll be sure to sure it.

–jeremy

Filed under Dell, Linux, Open Source, OSBC, Ubuntu

Dell announces the models for Ubuntu

May 18, 2007 19 Comments

I just got the following email forwarded to me by a Dell employee:

We will be launching a Linux based OS (Ubuntu) on the E520, 1505 and XPS 410 starting next Thursday, 5/24. We expect these systems to be less than 1% of our OS mix for the entire year which is ~20,000 systems annually. Please cover the huddle deck below with your team by EOB Sunday. If any questions come up, please let me know so I can address them before launch.

The goal of launching Linux is to continue to give our customers more choices to customize their new Dell. Providing more options to our Linux Enthusiast customer group will hopefully create even more Raving Fans!!

It was also noted that people within Dell can now officially start discussing the desktop Linux situation with customers. It’s great to see this initiative being followed through on so quickly. I was hoping for a bit more than three models, but what’s more important right now is how those three models are actually rolled out. The long term implications for Linux on the desktop in the mainstream here are huge. Kudos to Dell for finally making the leap. With less than 1% of sales at stake here though, it’s possible Dell doesn’t have the incentive to put a huge effort behind this. I’ll be keeping a very close eye on the roll out and will certainly be posting more on the topic. I’d like to thank Rick, who forwarded this to me.

–jeremy

Filed under Dell, Linux, Open Source, Ubuntu

Migrating to Ubuntu Linux from Microsoft Windows

May 16, 2007 2 Comments

It’s a great reminder that we’re making real progress to see stories like this:

Four years ago I tried about a dozen Linux distributions, to see if they were ready for an ordinary user to install as an escape from the Windows world. None of the distros performed well enough for me to recommend them to a non-geek unless they were going to hire someone to install it. After hearing Dell’s recent announcement that it will sell computers with pre-installed Ubuntu Linux, I decided to see if Ubuntu was user-friendly.

So, what was her experience now?

Conclusion

I think Ubuntu Linux is definitely ready for almost anyone with a Windows system who is tired of having their computer infested with spyware and viruses. It is also a way to avoid Microsoft’s “activation” demands. It’s free! It’s good! It works!

I will continue to use Windows for writing because OpenOffice.org does not have a feature I need. OpenOffice developers: Remember my enhancement request from 2000 or 2001 asking for an outline feature? The feature with more votes than any other feature request? Yes, that one! Your unwillingness or inability to give OpenOffice.org an outline view that works just like Microsoft Word’s outline is all that is keeping me from turning my Microsoft Windows partition into blank oxide.

That’s right – her only show stopper was the lack of an outline view in oowriter. To be fair, that’s not even directly Linux related (not to say that it isn’t an issue). Remember, Windows doesn’t even come with a word processor. Congratulations Ubuntu.

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Microsoft, Open Source, Ubuntu

Kudos to Bill Hilf

May 15, 2007 Leave a comment

As the head of Microsoft’s Linux Labs, Bill Hilf needs to have thick skin. I’ve seen Bill speak a number of times and despite his employer I was surprised to see some of his recent quotes:

“They are full-time employees, with 401K stock options. Some work for IBM or Oracle. What does that mean? It means that Linux doesn’t exist any more in 2007. There is no free software movement. If someone says Linux is about Love, Peace and Harmony, I would tell them to do their research. There is no free software movement any more. There is big commercial [firms] like IBM and there is small commercial [firms] like Ubuntu,” he said.

While it should come as no surprise that part of the issue here is overly-sensationalist journalism (a topic I have covered multiple times), it still takes a solid person to make a public correction… as Bill has:

A few folks have emailed or called me about statements I said in the Bangkok Post about the ‘end of Linux’ and ‘there is no free software movement.’ My statements were shaped in a sensationalist way, not surprisingly, this isn’t the first time the press has used shock value to get headlines. It then hit Slashdot and the blogosphere where a couple hundred people have called me every name under the sun. I have a tough skin – need to in this job. But days like this suck, to be honest.

I get asked Linux related questions from the press, most of which are probably obvious to you. One of the questions I often get asked is about the development of Linux by free software developers. I answer this by saying that most customers who use Linux, use a distribution like Red Hat or Ubuntu or SuSE and that although there are certainly a lot of developers who work for free, most of the people who do the daily work on the Linux kernel are paid to do so. Typically they are paid by IT companies who have a commercial interest in Linux. This isn’t FUD, it’s reality (Corbet from LWN did a great analysis of this here citing “at least 65% of the code which went into 2.6.20 was created by people working for companies”). And I answer this question because I get asked about it in press interviews.

But I’m rethinking that last part. Mostly because I don’t think it matters. If the software is open, it’s open, that does not change based on who developed it or why. In this article it sounds like I say ‘because they are paid, then free software is extinct!’ which, of course, is silly. I know this and I think it’s a combination of me not being clear and this particular article shaping it in a certain direction. But I’ll take the blame: I shoved my foot in my mouth and it came across as idiotic.

Thanks for the clarification, and I look forward to the promised comments on the recent Fortune story on ‘Microsoft versus the Free world’.

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Microsoft, MSFT, Open Source

Microsoft takes on the free world II

May 15, 2007 Leave a comment

(a follow up to this post) As was expected, nearly everyone is commenting on the recent Fortune article about Microsoft and Patents. Even Linus has weighed in:

“It’s certainly a lot more likely that Microsoft violates patents than Linux does,” said Torvalds, holder of the Linux trademark. If the source code for Windows could be subjected to the same critical review that Linux has been, Microsoft would find itself in violation of patents held by other companies, said Torvalds.

“Basic operating system theory was pretty much done by the end of the 1960s. IBM probably owned thousands of really ‘fundamental’ patents,” Torvalds said in a response to questions submitted by InformationWeek. But he doesn’t like any form of patent saber rattling. “The fundamental stuff was done about half a century ago and has long, long since lost any patent protection,” he wrote.

“So the whole, ‘We have a list and we’re not telling you,’ itself should tell you something,” Torvalds said of Microsoft’s stance in the Fortune story. And for good measure, he added: “Don’t you think that if Microsoft actually had some really foolproof patent, they’d just tell us and go, ‘nyaah, nyaah, nyaah!'”

There’s so much good commentary on this this it’s not possible to link to everything, but I’d like to highlight a few. The OIN has posted a press release that contains some “facts to provide clarity around Linux and patents” and also points out that “In less than a year, OIN has accumulated more than 100 strategic, worldwide patents and patent applications that span Web / Internet, e-commerce, mobile and communications technologies. These patents are available to all as part of the free Linux ecosystem that OIN is creating around, and in support of Linux. We stand ready to leverage our IP portfolio to maintain the open patent environment OIN has helped create.”

Sun CEO Jonathan gives an extremely apropos summary of what Sun did when faced with adversity and pressure in its market:

So what’s my view on this interview in Fortune – in which one of Sun’s business partners claims the open source community is trampling their patent portfolio?

You would be wise to listen to the customers you’re threatening to sue – they can leave you, especially if you give them motivation. Remember, they wouldn’t be motivated unless your products were somehow missing the mark.

All of which is to say – no amount of fear can stop the rise of free media, or free software (they are the same, after all). The community is vastly more innovative and powerful than a single company. And you will never turn back the clock on elementary school students and developing economies and aid agencies and fledgling universities – or the Fortune 500 – that have found value in the wisdom of the open source community. Open standards and open source software are literally changing the face of the planet – creating opportunity wherever the network can reach.

That’s not a genie any litigator I know can put back in a bottle.

There’s one recurring theme that you’ll see in most of the commentary. This action is fairly definitive proof that Microsoft sees clear and imminent danger. They, for the first time in a long time, see something they can’t kill. It’s starting to show that they don’t know exactly what to do next. Stephe, a former Microsoftie, has the following advice:

Microsoft needs to get back in the business of building exceptional solutions to customer problems, instead of chasing a 1990s dream of IBM’s secondary revenues from hardware patent licensing, or worse yet threatening those same customers.

[Disclaimer: Microsoft is a client. But I swear I’m reconsidering that decision. It’s unclear to me that the mortgage payment is worth this much aggravation.]

What Microsoft will do remains to be seen. It seems the current near-universal consensus is that they won’t sue anyone, but will continue to try to squeeze money out of those willing to pay or partner, while figuring out the next strategic move. That may have an unintended consequence though. I’ve heard Don Marti say many times that much of the software industry is really a recruiting contest. You need look no further than Google for proof of this. The really smart engineers though, like to build cool software… not win by (or even have to deal with) litigation. Now sure, Microsoft has a lot of money to throw at the problem, but with a fairly stagnant stock price and plenty of companies doing really interesting things, money is no longer going to be enough to keep the very best. The long term implications of that should not be underestimated. Neither should the disruptive force of Open Source. Will either lesson be learned?

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Microsoft, MSFT, Open Source, Sun

Using the term "open source"

May 15, 2007 Leave a comment

(a quick follow up to my last post) Matt also struggles with something I’ve brought up multiple times.

Stephe calls out my mistake in calling a company open source. I’m not sure why he chose this time to do it, as I routinely mislabel companies “open source” for two reasons:

1. I don’t have a good, short, alternative descriptor for them, and
2. I’m really hoping that they’ll actually live up to the name.

I’m pretty restrictive on who deserves the term “open source.” For me, it’s simple: someone who publishes their source code under an OSI-approved license. I actually go one step further and don’t really consider someone open source unless they publish all of their customer-consuming source code under such a license.

(But the fact that it’s “simple” doesn’t make it simple. I’ve been struggling with this since early 2006, but more recently I’ve put forth a definition that I think works. Let me know if you do, too.)

Here was my suggestion earlier this year:

An open source company is one that, as its core revenue-generating business, actively produces, distributes, and sells (or sells services around) software under an OSI-approved license.

I still think it fits.

I like Matt’s definition, but Centric CRM doesn’t seem to fit it. As I’ve said, we need a name for companies like this. Many of them, such as Enterprise DB, are doing very good things for Open Source. They deserve some recognition for that. I’ve tossed around a bunch of monikers but none of them have the brevity and clarity I’d like. I’ll keep thinking, but would be glad to hear any options that readers may have. While it seems like a minor issue, I think it’s important. Maybe I’m being trite though – what do others think?

–jeremy

Filed under Open Source

Is Centric CRM an Open Source Company?

May 15, 2007 Leave a comment

I have to agree with Stephe that Centric CRM is not Open Source. You need look no further than the first couple lines of their license to see this:

This Centric Public License is based on United States Copyright law, as defined by Title 17 of the United States Code.

In particular, our intent is that:

You may use, copy, modify, and make derivative works from the code for internal use only.

You may not redistribute the code, and you may not sublicense copies or derivatives of the code, either as software or as a service.

Now, you get the code which is nice and they are certainly more than free to pursue whatever business model they’d like. While I have never used the product, it might even be great software. But it’s not Open Source. I also wonder how the product made it into RHX, which has the stated goal:

Red Hat Exchange helps you compare, buy, and manage open source business applications. All in one place and backed by the open source leader. We’ve collaborated with our open source software partners to validate that RHX applications run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux and are delivered through the Red Hat Network. At RHX, Red Hat provides customers with a single point of contact for support.

Now, it’s possible that I am missing something. Maybe an upcoming version of the product has a different license? If so, I was not able to find any indication of that on the site… but I’ll keep poking around.

–jeremy

Filed under Open Source, Red Hat

Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit

May 14, 2007 Leave a comment

I’m happy to announce that I’ll be attending the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit at Google’s Mountain View Campus. It looks to be a great event to discuss the future direction of Linux and Open Source. If you’ll be attending, I’ll see you there. Trying to work out a decent flight schedule now, but it looks like it’ll be challenging. BTW, I’ll also be in the Bay Area next week for OSBC. If you’ll be attending (or in the area) and would like to connect, drop me a line.

–jeremy

Filed under Google, Linux, LinuxQuestions.org, Open Source, OSBC

Microsoft takes on the free world

May 14, 2007 2 Comments

Some thought it was inevitable, while other thought it would never happen. From a recent Fortune article:

Free software is great, and corporate America loves it. It’s often high-quality stuff that can be downloaded free off the Internet and then copied at will. It’s versatile – it can be customized to perform almost any large-scale computing task – and it’s blessedly crash-resistant.

A broad community of developers, from individuals to large companies like IBM, is constantly working to improve it and introduce new features. No wonder the business world has embraced it so enthusiastically: More than half the companies in the Fortune 500 are thought to be using the free operating system Linux in their data centers.

But now there’s a shadow hanging over Linux and other free software, and it’s being cast by Microsoft. The Redmond behemoth asserts that one reason free software is of such high quality is that it violates more than 200 of Microsoft’s patents. And as a mature company facing unfavorable market trends and fearsome competitors like Google, Microsoft is pulling no punches: It wants royalties. If the company gets its way, free software won’t be free anymore.

The conflict pits Microsoft and its dogged CEO, Steve Ballmer, against the “free world” – people who believe software is pure knowledge. The leader of that faction is Richard Matthew Stallman, a computer visionary with the look and the intransigence of an Old Testament prophet.

Then come the details:

Microsoft counters that it is a matter of principle. “We live in a world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual property,” says Ballmer in an interview. FOSS patrons are going to have to “play by the same rules as the rest of the business,” he insists. “What’s fair is fair.”

Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez sat down with Fortune recently to map out their strategy for getting FOSS users to pay royalties. Revealing the precise figure for the first time, they state that FOSS infringes on no fewer than 235 Microsoft patents.

The 235 number is fairly close to the previously given (and disputed) 228. While the lengthy article does get some minor details wrong, it’s a good way to get up to date on the situation if it’s not one you’ve been following. On to why Microsoft choose to do this now. It could be that they think the GPLv3 has teeth and are trying to get out ahead of its release. It could be that they’ve not been as effective as they thought they’d be at battling Open Source and Linux more directly. Regardless of the reason, I agree with Larry:

If Microsoft believes that Free and Open Source Software violates any of their patents, let them put those patents forward now, in the light of day, where we can all evaluate them on their merits. If not, then stop trying to bully customers into paying royalties to use Open Source. It’s time for Microsoft to put up or shut up.

(Tim put it nice and succinctly: Four Words for Microsoft: Litigate or shut up

It appears that the battle lines are being drawn and the cold war of software patent world may be coming to an end. The players involved here are huge and the amount of money astronomical. Who has the most to lose? I’d say Microsoft. How will this play out? We’ll all be watching closely, that’s for sure. One has to wonder how Novell feels about their recent deal right about now.

–jeremy

Filed under GPLv3, Linux, Microsoft, MSFT, Novell, Open Source

← Older posts

Newer posts →