Open Source > Linux > LQ
May 1, 2007 Leave a comment
I’ll be attending the IT 360 and LinuxWorld Canada expo in Toronto tomorrow. If you’ll be there and would like to connect, drop me a line and we can work out the details. LQ is once again a sponsor for the event. Information on how to get a discount to this, and other events that LQ sponsors, can be found here.
–jeremy
May 1, 2007 Leave a comment
In my opinion, Adobe is near the top of the list of mainly proprietary companies that could most benefit from opening up. Their vision for RIA is compelling, but a key to platform success is ubiquity and in this day and age that’s really hard to reach without Open Source. It seem Adobe has taken a good first step by releasing Flex under the MPL. From Adobe:
Adobe is announcing plans to open source Flex under the Mozilla Public License (MPL). This includes not only the source to the ActionScript components from the Flex SDK, which have been available in source code form with the SDK since Flex 2 was released, but also includes the Java source code for the ActionScript and MXML compilers, the ActionScript debugger and the core ActionScript libraries from the SDK. The Flex SDK includes all of the components needed to create Flex applications that run in any browser – on Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux and on now on the desktop using “Apollo”.
Developers can use the Flex SDK to freely develop and deploy Flex applications using either Adobe Flex Builder or an IDE of their choice.
The source code for the Flex framework is already available within the free distribution of the current Flex 2 SDK. By this summer, Adobe plans to put in place most of the infrastructure (public bug database and public daily builds) required to run the Flex SDK as an open source project. We expect to complete the transition to a fully open source project (source code for the compiler, infrastructure for community contributions, etc.) by the end of 2007.
It should be noted that Linux, Solaris and Max OS X are all on the list of supported platforms. Some may say that this isn’t really big news. After all, it’s not like they are MPL’ing Flash. The thing is, Adobe is a large and established company. You can’t expect them to change overnight. This is a good first step. Hopefully there will be solid next steps. The web is almost certainly the next platform. It needs to be open. I think Adobe gets that.
–jeremy
May 1, 2007 Leave a comment
(Via an InformationWeek article) It looks like Eben Moglen has stepped down from the FSF. From the article:
The Free Software Foundation has lost one of its best-known leaders.
Board member Eben Moglen announced this week that he is stepping down from the board and his position as general counsel now that the latest draft of GPLv3 has been released. A spokesman for the Software Freedom Law Center said that the two organizations will continue working together. Moglen gave a keynote speech at the MySQL Conference and Expo in Santa Clara, Calif., Wednesday and spoke as a leader of the Software Freedom Law Center during a phone interview afterward.
Moglen said he discussed his plans with others at the foundation before posting a blog explaining his reasons for leaving. FSF president Richard Stallman could not be reached immediately for comment, but Moglen said he left on good terms.
“This is not the consequence of disagreement about anything,” he said during an interview Wednesday.
Moglen said timing and other commitments drove his decision and that Stallman remains a friend.
“I have my own young, growing nonprofit to take care of,” he said. “We have a long alliance on working on things that we both consider very important: free software, technological liberty in the 21st century, and free society. I don’t think that can be changed, and I certainly don’t think this does it.”
While interesting that he didn’t stay through the completion of the GPLv3 process, it’s good to see that he left of amicable terms. He’ll surely be missed. I’ve had the pleasure of seeing Eben speak a number of times and it’s always a worthwhile event. This is great news for any student at Columbia who now has a chance to get into one of his classes. Good luck with the SFLC Eben!
–jeremy
April 30, 2007 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
April 19, 2007 Leave a comment
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
April 18, 2007 Leave a comment
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
April 18, 2007 Leave a comment
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
April 16, 2007 Leave a comment
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
April 16, 2007 Leave a comment
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
April 15, 2007 Leave a comment
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
Jeremy's Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.