Bob Metcalfe On NPR 110
linux slacker writes "Bob Metcalfe, Inventor of ethernet, writer of a
weekly columnn on Infoworld, was on Boston U's NPR show
The Connection this morning. Among other topics, he predicted the eventual downfall Open Source and Linux, citing as one reason the old argument that "Open Source leads to security breaches". Now, this guy did support the Microsoft anti-trust case and opposes monopolies, but he just doesn't like the Open Source idea. " To be fair, he did talk about a lot of other stuff - it was a pretty good show.
cat Metcalfe /dev/null (Score:1)
really is sad seeing the media displaying has-beens,
like geeks (original sence) in a side show. Though
to be fair, Bob is not so much as a has-been as a never-
was. His one claim to fame is not so much as inovative,
as appearing at the right time. Bob Metcalfe sorta
reminds me of Al Bundy, continualy reliving the
gloriouse day of scoring four touchdowns.
Over the years, the man has said so many assinine
things, that even the ignorant news media (including
oh hallowed NPR) probably realises he's an idiot.
Maybe they are just parading him about so we can all make fun of him.
It's actually on, right now (8:14PM EDT) (Score:1)
Enough Already (Score:2)
Free Software and Open Source Software has been around since before I was born. In fact, the idea that you DON'T get the source code is newer than completely closed source projects. Sure there were some NDAs and whatnot before (which I agree hamper progress) but the source was still there.
This kind of prediction is frivolous and basically a higher form of trolling--and the poster and Slashdot bit. We've heard about the coming death of USENET, IRC, UNIX(tm) and even the Internet--none of which have died. In fact, most have seen a massive resurgence in recent years.
Open Source will die when all of the hardware that runs Open Source software is gone. I'm not forseeing that soon.
I think, Mr. Metcalfe, you'd find your time better spent solving technical problems. Leave the punditry to persons more deserving of the ridicule that goes with that job.
-fp
Re:Right on! (Score:1)
Why hasn't there been any class-action suits against Microsoft right now?
I do agree though, that *right now* the open source 'movement' hasn't gained enough momentum to really compete directly with a proprietary-based corporations. Granted, there are exceptions like Apache for web-serving, but most all software (not most popular - most software in general) that is opensourced is very lousy. Things are improving though.
Re:Finally someone who agrees with me... (Score:1)
Gee an I thought I actually had something. I didn't know I could get hype to function as if it was software.
Re:Open source and the business market (Score:2)
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
Quite wrong. (Score:2)
Hmm. Hardware engineering. Tell you what, let's repackage this in terms of more conventional engineering--civil engineering, to be exact:
"Now imagine a world in which 3com published the schematics for their [bridges] with instructions on how to build your own [bridge]..."
Okay, we already have this world. Whenever an engineer drafts a bridge, that blueprint is put on file somewhere and any engineer who wants to look at how it's made is free to do so. This engineer can then use anything they've learned from studying the design, provided it hasn't been patented, in their own designs.
How many times do bridges collapse? With the occasional glaring exception (Tacoma Narrows), not often at all. This model works extremely well for civil engineers.
"Now imagine the 3Com Public License which states that not only are they giving away the schematic [to their bridges], but you don't owe them anything... Make as many of these [bridges] as you want, give them to your friends and neighbors. No licensing fees, no royalties, etc."
Well, here's the real question: why would I want to? If I can study their bridge as much as I want, both by studying schematics and walking across it a few times, then I'll probably find things I'd do differently. I might not like the curve of this arch, or I might want to use a higher grade of steel, or any of a thousand other small changes. I wouldn't make a slavish copy, but an incremental improvement.
Again, this world is not hard to imagine. It's the world we live in today.
"Do you think [bridges] would have evolved to [the Golden Gate Bridge or other masterpieces of engineering] if that had been the case?"
Well, judging from the fact that we have a Golden Gate Bridge exactly because of this being the case? Yes, I do think the state of the art would have evolved to that point!
"Do you think 3Com would have survived 5 years in the [bridge-building] business?"
Sure. In fact, I think they'd have survived 17 years. They could patent the nonobvious and useful portions of their bridge design and deny other people the ability to duplicate it without permission. That gives them 17 years of profitability, provided their patent is a good and sound one. Hopefully, by the time 17 years are up, 3Com would have found a new and even better way to build bridges--and would have received another patent, and have another 17 years, etc..
Moral of the story: We already have all the intellectual-property protections we need, without needing to make things proprietary.
(Before the anti-IP crowd flames me to death here, let me say that patents need serious revision. 17 years for a nonobvious, useful invention that makes for safer bridges is one thing--17 years on XOR encryption is another!)
Re:Open source and the business market (Score:2)
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
You have to be a big customer to get any clout! (Score:2)
I hope you know you have to be a big customer to get any clout. Otherwise, your complaints don't mean squat.
And it is getting to the point that some Microsoft licensees are finding out that they have to screw with the source themselves, Microsoft doesn't care about anything that doesn't affect at least 1 million people anymore -- seriously! And getting access to the source code of Windows is a tricky game. It's costly, and Microsoft could still withhold it from you at any time (e.g., Bristol Technology).
So, unless you are a Fortune 500 company, I really don't see the "somebody to sue" factor even being remotely applicable. The result is what we see in Internet servers ... big business chooses Microsoft, smaller businesses choose Open Source.
And it even goes deeper than that! 90% of those big businesses don't run their business on the Internet (and the ones that do choose UNIX/OSS), nor do they entrust Microsoft for most of their back-ends. It's still tried and true big iron and/or UNIX -- which is more of a testament to UNIX, and not so much Open Source (but wasn't UNIX developed akin?).
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Re:Predictions and Metcalf (Score:1)
Re:Bob (Score:1)
monopolies (Score:1)
I take issue with Metcalfe's assertion. I don't know about switches and such, although as far as I know there isn't much innovation going on in that area, but neither Intel nor Microsoft is leading the technology in its field. In fact, neither chips nor office suites nor any of the other areas those two companies are involved in are really doing anything exciting these days. Intel is consistently being bested by AMD, but continues to feel the benefits of its monopoly position.
One of the only areas of the hardware field that is experiencing qualitative, rather than quantitative, improvement, is that of 3D acceleration. By that distinction, I mean that CPUs are merely getting faster, not better in any radical way. However, video cards, products of a field with several major players, namely nVidia, 3dfx, Matrox and ATI, are getting better, with additions of things like better texturemapping, lighting, motion blurs, lens flares, and other improvements. I think that this competition is a result of the fact that the field enjoys fierce competition.
Of course, it's a little unfair to compare Intel to 3d card makers, because there isn't much you can really do to chips that wouldn't completely break backwards compatibility. That is, Intel couldn't start manufacturing DNA processors tomorrow, because besides the fact that they're not really extant, they would need massive engineering in order to be useful. The same goes for hard drives, which are getting bigger, faster and cheaper, but not more interesting, even though they are in a competetive field, because there, again, isn't really much you can do with a hard drive except those things. Microsoft, however, hasn't had an original thought in its life, except maybe in their mouse-making division, and that's an area where (ahem) they don't have a monopoly.
Re:Different kind of Open... (Score:1)
"What made ethernet the ultimate victor was not technical superiority or speed but Metcalfe's vision to turn Ethernet into an industry standard and not keep it a vendor-specific proprietary technology."
That's why I always wonder what's up with Bob. From what I read, Bob got Xerox (Where he worked when it was invented.) to turn over the patents to the IEEE to make sure ethernet would be open. So apparently they gave up the IP for free. It's just seems like he would have more of an open mind...
Like crypto? (Score:1)
Metcalfe is old hat (Score:3)
Anyway, he wields his thusly-won fame to create the impression of much wider-reaching expertise and authority. He loves sitting on all sorts of panels and boards (watch those splinters now!) and taking his mouth for a spin. I've read his column at InfoWorld for years, and on average he has less to say than most of our development team members on a good day. He certainly is very fond of name dropping and all sorts of allusions to the lofty company he circulates in.
My favorite was his vitriolic article a couple of years ago or so to "impeach Clinton." He pretty much exposed himself as a troll and a person of little emotional consequence. He is in bed with Big Business, loves everything Big Business--as any good Republican should--and from that perspective he certainly has no love lost on Open Source. As far as the Internet is concerned, he'd probably much rather have it converted to one LARGE Ethernet network and do away with this pesky network-agnostic protocol called TCP/IP.
Uwe Wolfgang Radu
Absolutely right (Score:2)
The only exception is custom written software. If you contract a software project out, the boundaries for success and failure are usually very clearly defined and can lead to successful legal recourse. But that's not what open source detractors talk about. They're talking about shrink-wrapped software, or its functional equivalents.
Uwe Wolfgang Radu
Keep it in perspective... (Score:1)
Strangely, the rest of the marketplace hasn't seen things quite the same way.
I think the lesson here is similar: no amount of controversial punditry is going to change the fundamental truth that people are going to make decisions about their operating environment based on suitability to purpose--zealotry (whether open- or closed-source) isn't going to be the force that shapes the market.
Here's an earlier Metcalfe rant (Score:1)
[excerpts]
(After talking about the slowness of the Internet) "Such annoyances are commonplace on the Net these days, but to Bob Metcalfe, networking pioneer turned cyberalarmist, they are evidence of impending disaster. In his thinking, the Net is a fish already hooked; those routine brownouts are but the first few twinges at its mouth. Soon the fish will find itself reeled in, and we will witness the pathetic spectacle of the once mighty Internet, the darling of our economy and the object of our millennial dreams, flopping aimlessly like snagged red snapper on a boat deck. Web sites will become cobweb sittes. E-mail will be dead-lettered. Stock prices will fall to Earth."
"'Maybe the Internet has already collapsed,' Metcalfe says to me later that day, in a lecture that lasts the dinner hour. 'Everyone complains about brownouts every day. But it's going to get worse. Worse! Worse! Worse!' The inventer of the Ethernet networking system and founder of the 3Com corporation has risked his considerable reputation by publicly predicting a 'gigalapse' - in which a billion hours of access time are lost - by the end of the year."
The rest of the article is just as amusing.
Re:Does open / closed have to equal good / bad? (Score:2)
So what's the application that will lend credible validation to Open Source?
Sendmail and Bind have been Open Source and running the internet for about 20 years...
Where have you been?
"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
Re:Enough Already (Score:1)
Hear, hear. Why does nobody ever bring this up? The open source "movement" is no less than a return to our roots...
Heck, how do people think we got Unix?
How'dya know the space shuttle has 'good' sw? (Score:1)
Hmm. I believe one of the latest missions admitted to running NT on a bunch of networked laptops for some sort of experiment... 802.11 of course
But I think you're talking about the actual operating system software - life support, propulsion, etc. etc. - in which case, how do you know it's 'good'? A moot point in your comment I know, but I'm curious... seems to me that the most obvious thing NASA could have done was whip up something along the lines of NASA-DOS that was programmed in a language even the Obfuscated C Contest winners couldn't decipher to make sure that all the 'talent' was kept in-house. Certainly, by OSS standards, this system would, well, suck. But it works, right?
Conversely, what if NASA used OSS systems? Wouldn't that be an interesting scenario...
Loading linux-2.2.17
updating gyroscope orientation...done
verifying CO2 filters...done
testing O2-N mixtures...OH MY GOD THE RING HAS FAILED WE'RE ALL GOING TO EXPLODE
challenger login:
Cheers,
levine
Boo (Score:1)
Re:Open source and the business market (Score:1)
I know Microsoft will survive the next three years, however, even if they get broken up (a stupid idea, if you ask me, but let the government have their fun). I can go to them to get support. I can find an MCSE (not necessarily a talented one, mind you, but I can find one). I can find training materials, software updates, tools and extensions, order replacement media, and do all the other things that keep my machines running.
Re:Bob (Score:1)
and was playing at applications for it in 1977 and
1978, when I was a teenager. So what? Its an
obviouse idea like Ethernet, Metcalfe just published
befor someone, and someone published fuzzy theory
befor me ( actualy I did'nt think it was that big
a deal nor did the good folks who got the credit).
Re:Ethernet Inventor? (Score:1)
Hmm. Maybe, but I'd have to say the main reason Ethernet was successful was because it was simple to implement, and worked. There were (and are) other LAN protocols standardized at roughly the same time (other IEEE 802's include Token Ring and Token Bus, among others) that haven't been nearly as popular, not because they have significant failings, but because they're more expensive to implement. The IEEE specifications for things like Token Ring were just as "open" as Ethernet.
Inventor, not! (Score:1)
You can see it for yourself in the relevant patent here [ibm.com]. What is it that this guys keeps on telling HE invented it, without ever mentioning the (at least) 3 other inventors name ?
Now, as he always comes with the same provocative and dumb ideas (remember the "Linux sucks" article ?), one often speaks about him, which only encourages him to keep on writing the same kind of articles.
I don't read his column in Infoworld anymore for the same reason, and don't find I miss anything by doing so.
Did anyone say professional troll ?
I still remember... (Score:1)
What is it with this guy? He's a good inventor; ethernet is great! Invent more stuff! Stop being the party pooper!
Re:Open source and the business market (Score:3)
I'm beginning to empathize with RMS (that scares me...really). I understand his frustration. People just don't pay attention. HP is contributing significant resources to the SAMBA project which is, in my opinion, one of the most significant pieces of open source software available. IBM has devoted manpower and hardware resources to various linux porting efforts (specifically RS/6000). Apache, though not predominantly on Linux, still runs most of the web. Sendmail routes enomous amounts of mail. BIND works...what else can I say? XFree86 is in heavy use among commercial entities. SGI, SUN, IBM, HP are all involved in OSS. Are there bigger names in computing? Anyone?
Open Source basically isn't catching on in the Wintel world. I'm sorry, I missed the part where Microsoft won. Last time I checked, the battle was raging and OSS is still on the assault.
No, open source software is in use every day by companies the world over. They may not know it, but they use it, they fund it, and they LIKE it.
-fp
Different kind of Open... (Score:2)
Take your analogy... Now imagine a world in which 3com published the schematics for their devices with instructions on how to build your own.
Ok, that's not hard to believe. A lot of electrical devices have readily available schematics for use by repair technicians.
Now imagine the 3Com Public License which states that not only are they giving away the schematic, but you don't owe them anything... Make as many of these devices as you want, give them to friends and neighbors. No licensing fees, no royalties, etc.
Do you think ethernet would have evolved to 1Gbps if that had been the case?
Do you think 3Com would have survived 5 years in business?
That's all he's saying. Without income there is no incentive to improve the product.
Re:Not sure (Score:2)
He probably thinks blacks are still 2/3rd of a human being and women shouldn't be able to vote.
We should just ignore these relics and get on with it.
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
Re:Open source and the business market (Score:1)
Linux companies have the inverse model -- a free product and a per incident support model leads to products which (A) Are much more complex to support, often by being highly configurable and tunable, but (B) are also easier to support for the knowledgeable person.
The real problem with the OSS model is that companies will usually happily pay for a product, but hate to pay recurring charges for support, and only do it if they really have to. Not to mention the fact that many of them don't realize that you often need to spend money to save money in long run support costs.
I'm not sure (Score:1)
MSCEs must be listening and they don't see much that they like so... the one they agree with, regardless of how lame, is moded up. Or, it could be the folks in Redmond have a new office in their public relations department. This has got to be cheap advertising next to all that ZDNet pulp. On the other hand..
If you do it with your left hand, it will feel like someone else.
Miller fuzz test (Score:1)
We can talk all we want about logical reasons why open source software does not produce greater security holes, but empirical comparison studies of a stable distribution are in many ways far more convincing.
For more information on the Fuzz test, see
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~bart/fuzz/fuzz.html
(Note especially the conclusions of the 2000 NT Fuzz test)
Re:Open source and the business market (Score:1)
I don't remember any. But I'm not on Microsoft's side on this. What I'm really saying is that THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT IS A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!
I have yet to work in an organization that gets more than the technet CD's for support. Granted thay are pretty good, they're just one step away from being community support.
The two times I did call Microsoft support was for Visual Basic. I burned one of my free support calls to be told there was a bug in the installation builder. Another free support call was burned on a follow up call to get the update sent to me without charging me for it. Barring the three free support calls that came with VB each of these calls would have cost $100.
Most of the time Microsoft support is really just farmed out to the PC Vendors, and don't get me started on dealing with them.
I have had very good luck dealing with the Linux community to get support. I've had success with getting Voodoo Banshee to work, finding the approprite hardware to buy, troubleshooting netowrking problems, setting up networking configurations that would just be a fantasy on NT.
Basically I'll sum it up again. This support argument for Windows is a load of crap!!
Oh, and to finish up on that blame when things go wrong argument. Well you need to have that if you are using windows. When we split our Mail/Print/File server to be one Mail server and one Print/File server, it was a total nightmare we had to change the configuration of every client PC. You bet I'm pointing my finger at Microsoft on that one.
Re:Bob Metcalfe talking about security? (Score:1)
I'm not talking about this pussy 10base2 stuff. I mean the real deal. 10Base5 baby.
It was so secure that all traffic was readable by everyone on the network, including people who had clipped vampire taps into the wire.
You kids don't know how easy you've got it.
Bob M. (Score:1)
Bob Metcalfe is hanging up his pen... (Score:2)
"Open Source will fritter away" (Score:1)
If I write closed source code for a company, a couple of people in the company might see it. It may last until the company decides to sell that product.
I'd much rather write open source code because I feel I can really make a difference. And that difference can be felt as long as the code is worthwhile.
Re:monopolies (Score:1)
I take exception to that. I think they're getting way better... but we don't seem to be using these 'better' CPUs as they're not x86 compatible. The x86 design is old, and outdated. There are much better alternatives out there (for example, power-PC and MIPS), but we don't seem to be using them very much. Why? Because there's a large bottleneck in getting these much better CPU's running with, for example, our linux systems.
As soon as a large hardware manufacturer decides to up the ante and design a MB and CPU-slot combination that allows us to chop-and-change our CPU types, thus commoditizing the CPU, then we're gonna see some real improvements.
Of course, Intel and AMD are going to try and stop this, as it reduces the value of their product... which would explain the frivilous CPU-slot changes we've been seeing in the past couple of weeks.
Leave Bob alone! (Score:2)
Remember, this guy's technical specialty in in networking, yet he predicited in 1995 that the Internet would cease to exist in 1996. Why in hell would anyone expect his predictions in non-networking areas to have any more validity?
Steven E. Ehrbar
Re:Different kind of Open... (Score:1)
As to your thoughts on communism, I can only conclude that you've been sharing some killer weed. Communism didn't work, it's not working now, and IMHO it isn't ever going to work. Show me a society where people take only what they NEED, not what they want, and maybe we'll see communism actually work.
Metcalfe's predictions are overrated (Score:1)
Okay, so he figured out how to put the ALOHA radio network protocol on a wire called "Ethernet." He based a company on this and got wealthy doing so. That doesn't make him a visionary any more than ALTAIR BASIC makes Bill Gates a visionary or VI makes Bill Joy a visionary.
Ignore the visionaries. Write code and prove Bob wrong. Again.
Unix != Free Software (Score:2)
I agree with what you say, but what you say also applies to Solaris, and many other good proprietary (read: closed-source) Unixes. And Metcalfe was specifically talking about Free software-- and not just Linux.
I happen to disagree with him. Free software has typically had better staying power than closed source alternatives. That's why Sendmail is still around and going strong, as is tcl/Tk, Perl, Bind, Linux, and even Unix in general, while NT has gone through 2 major re-writes since its introduction-- the last amounting to over 75% of the codebase.
In any case, I believe Metcalfe is wrong. Very, very wrong.
Open Source at work (Score:2)
http://www.phpbuilder.com/snippet/detail.php?ty
It all started with this itch...
PHP had no function for directly sending e-mail thru an outside server, instead assuming you had local mail services.
I hunted around for some means to get the prototype out the door, and managed to (quickly) hack together something that more or less did it.
I posted it, sloppy tho it may be, to help whoever else might use it.
And used it is! Somebody else came along and added to it, somebody else made a class out of it, somebody else extended the class, I fixed a few bugs when I needed it for something else, somebody else fixed something I missed...
It's a small example, but it communicates the idea...
This is open-source at work! Everybody contributes a bit, and everybody reaps the rewards!
Would I open-source my work? In many cases, YES! I can now produce better software for my boss because of open-sourcing this particular function!
It's really a no-brainer.
-Ben
Burn My Book (Score:1)
Re:Not sure (Score:1)
I'm not particularly sure that letting your competitors steal truly innovative work simply because the Management is unable to comprehend your inventions counts as "open source"... if that's the case at your current place of employment, I'd suggest finding a company that actually has a clue.
Re:Bob Metcalfe talking about security? (Score:2)
Goal or no, it's still not secure.
Not (Score:3)
I also think it's true about security too. If there is something open in Unix, it is easy to fix, or get answers on how to fix it. On NT, you either have to work around it or wait until a service pack comes out to fix it.
Finally someone who agrees with me... (Score:1)
Open source = Bad security? (Score:1)
Re:Right on! (Score:1)
I agree with that. RedHat (which I'd like to nickname OldHat) has constant problems with GNOME crashing. If Solaris had so much problems, Sun would be hip-deep in complaints and lawsuits.
How Odd.. (Score:2)
I hate to say this, but... (Score:2)
Open source and the business market (Score:3)
That said, it's never going to be the predominant model for software development, nor will Open Source programs ever be the prevailing supply of software for businesses. Why? Businesses like dealing with other businesses. When things fuck up (and they do), it's nice to have someone to blame, someone who has a responsibility to back up their product.
No IT staffer will want their server support to come solely from the community. And the Linux IPO's are all hype - they're not a serious alternative.
In short, it's not MS's OS that everyone's buying - it's the support. Granted, Win2000 is an excellent OS, but that's not why it gets bought.
Bob (Score:1)
The impression I get from somebody who has to have his 20-year-old accomplishments tacked onto every page he writes is that of somebody who really doesn't have any good ideas left.
Not sure (Score:3)
Since he is the creator of ethernet, then obviously he has been in the industry for awhile (back to the beginning even). And way back when, most developing (like ethernet) was done in a pretty much open-source enviornment.
I was just wondering if his objections to open-source is only in relation to how it is going now (linux users fighting with *BSD users etc.) or if he doubts all of the open-source ideals (including the time when he used to work under them). And if the latter is true, if he thinks this because he has been at 3COM too long...
Devil Ducky
Does open / closed have to equal good / bad? (Score:5)
It can be argued that open source increases the chances of a program being robust, but is not a panacea; at the end of the day it boils down to whether correct software engineering and testing principles have been applied. In many ways the open source movement is a backlash against appalling software quality in over-the-counter commercial applications - maybe it mightn't have been so popular if there had been more 'engineering' in software development from the outset?
-- briggers
Re:Not sure (Score:1)
>open-source enviornment.
huh? What glue are you sniffing?
The whole 'open-source' gestapo has quite a interesting track record of historical revisionism.
For the record, he came up with ethernet while at Xerox Parc. Um - not even CLOSE to being 'open-source'.
But this is slashdot, don't let knowing nothing about something stop you from posting....
Wrong! (Score:1)
Oh wait, you said "Ethernet..."
Well, he probably invented that, too! ;>
what bob doesent see (Score:1)
I'm listening to the feed right now . . (Score:4)
Metcalf on Open Source:
"The idea is that the modern, high tech modern capitolist corporation, is an out-moded model for the development of software and that there's this new model, this sort of co-operative comunity and that will work better, and I don't think it will. I think that ummm co-operatiave..ummm.. uh you have a day job and go home to your programing..has it's limits.
uhhh I have yet a third paradym which I call the ethernet pardaym where the standards are open but the implemtations are owned, so that a corporation has property ..and economics can work.
In the internet world, there is an open standard .. like the ethernet and internet world both have open standards but fierce comitition between companies, corporations who own the implementations of the standards and I think that's a superior model to open source movement which suspect will sorta fritter away.
(Interviewer interupts) If a hacker can improve a product and introduce to the rest of the world, umm why shouldn't the world be like that...in other words, why does ford have to make every car the same . . we understand that well, because I, tinkering with my V8 engine can improve yours . .but in software you can't.
Well, you could tinker with my engine too . .there are chips, I mean . people don't do this!, I mean. . btw Ford is not the only car manufactuer there are many others you could choose from. You're allowed to let your neibor tinker with your car, but no one does , or very few people do because it's dangrous.
There are very few people qualified to muck with the inards of an operating system like Linux, so the notion that there will be thousands of them, or hundreds of thousands of them ...
(Interviewer interupts)
It only takes one to improve it.
yea, but it's very hard to tell what's an improvement..the software development process is very very complicated and it's all about the control of complexity and uhh testing and uhh btw, who's to say one of these hackers isn't putting software in the system that say a security breach that they may want to exploit later, I mean there are many issues . umm
(Interviewer interupts)
It leaves a lot of the choice in the world to Bill Gates=, tho, doesn't it ?
Bill Gates isn't the only software developer. There's also such likeable fellows as Larry Ellison, I mean . anyone can develop software, start a company and try to vy for it uhhh look at Linus Torvalds, the champion of all this, a really great guy, but he works at a company called Transmeta. There products are not open source for a very good reason they need to have a product, they need to control it's content, they need to make money by selling it. "
Re:Does open / closed have to equal good / bad? (Score:1)
Igor Stravinsky once said that there are only two types of music - good music and bad music.
YM "Duke Ellington".
Bob Metcalf has already predicted ... (Score:1)
you are a fool. (Score:2)
We use them because even we can evaluate 20 of them without having to get spending authorisation every time.
even if it's small potatoes the bean counters tend to go red if i ask for another cheque every day without deploying anything.
photoshop may or may not be better than the GIMP. but its easier to write plug-ins for the GIMP, its easier to experiment with it before committing to it (because its free) and the GIMP revs more often (its getting better faster).
That and the uncomfortable truth that RMS is a prophet. And like all prophets he says things we don't want to hear, smells like something we don't want to smell, and look slike something we don't want to hear.
And much to our chagrin he's probably right. At least the things he says are not self serving.
So i've got more reason to trust him than the rest of the liars out there.
If you've got a limitless budget and want to be lazy then pay for something off the shelf from a bozo trapping you into an upgrade path.
or you can buy a book, learn something new, and make something better.
Obviously and intellegent individual...BUT... (Score:1)
And to be honest, this comes as quite a surprise to me. Not because of his apparent mental aptitude as we have all encountered, at one time or another, a well respected, intelligent person whom is a non-believer in the "open source" model. Rather, I am perplexed by his position on this subject in light of his past accomplishments with Ethernet.
After all of the adversity and disbelief in his ideas that he faced during his innovative work with Ethernet, one would imagine that he would be very supportive and optimistic with the potential for advancement that the "open source" approach brings to the software world. I, for one, would have thought this man to be a vocal, public proponent of the "sharing" of source code and standards to better a product or technology. Especially when considering that it was this type of openness and willingness to cooperate that not only made the advent of Ethernet possible, but eventually aided in its acceptance as a widely used standard.
All that said, however, I still have a great deal of respect and admiration for this great man and his achievements. As does anyone, he has a right to his own opinion.... even if it is wrong!!! :-)
- J
Re:Open source and the business market (Score:2)
I keep hearing this but I just don't get it. Say your business depends on Microsoft software and it abends or fails to perform as you expected. What's there to do? Sue Microsoft? Go to them and ask them to fix it for you by the next business day?
Now commercial UNIX vendors, that's a different ball game. I've had experience with DG/UX (Data General) for example. On the rare occasion a system panics, it "phones home" and sends diag packets to them, they call me, tell me what caused the panic, and then issue an STR for it. I then get a patch a day or so later.
We pay a pretty penny for it too, and there's no reason why that level of support can not be had for free-source OSes either.
But Microsoft, you call them for high-end support, some tech searches the KB for you (big deal) and ends up telling you to reboot and see if it happens again...
In short, it doesn't matter if the OS is closed or free, it's the support and what you're willing to pay for that matters...
Now, getting back to topic... Metcalfe has a horrible track record when it comes to him and his predictions. He'll be eating these words as well eventually!
Bob Metcalfe is a genius (Score:1)
I'll say it again: Bob Metcalfe is a genius.
And he's a perfect illustration of the fact, abundantly illustrated throughout history by geniuses greater and smaller than Mr. Metcalfe, that being a genius doesn't prevent you from being a crank, from holding firm to ideas that the rest of us consider, well, odd, to put the most charitable face on it.
I respect a lot of what Mr. Metcalfe has to say. And I consider a lot of what he says to be pure bunk. He'd probably think the same of me if he knew me. Such is life.
Re:Open source and the business market (Score:4)
Businesses like dealing with other businesses.
OK. So what's stopping people from buying support contracts for OSS? I don't tend to do that myself, because I've been a C programmer and Unix administrator for over a decade.
OK, so I blame M$ all the time for the problems I have using Windows. But does assigning blame fix the problem? Does it necessarily fix the problem any faster? No. If I submit a bug report to M$, is it likely that they'll look at it before next year? The only time a big software company like M$ pays attention to you is if you have a big, fat support contract.
In short, it's not MS's OS that everyone's buying - it's the support.
That's exactly right. However, with OSS, you get to pick who supports you. With proprietary software, you have no choice.
Sounds like a slam-dunk for OSS to me. Of course, it'll take the marketplace a while to come around. I believe the change is inevitable.
open source security - time to re-evaluate? (Score:2)
I count "the most secure" OS not as which one theoretically should be more secure, but which one I am more likely to be rooted using. I LOVE linux and I am not into microsoft, but I think it is MORE than fair to say that in the year 1999, you were far, far more likely to be compromised if you were using a Unix-like OS than using NT. I am not saying you could not secure any OS to be virtually intrusion-proof, but it really does seem now that there are many more exploits being discovered for *nix.
Now, don't get me wrong, I know that Microsoft probably has lots of un-found vulnerabilities, but that is my point: they are un-found, and unexploited. I know what you'll say next: "But Happystink, when they ARE found, they take months to be patched"... Is this really true? Microsoft respond very quickly now, just as fast as Redhat, Mandrake or whoever else.
So enough theory about which source model is more secure in a perfect world, let's re-evaluate and see which model works in the real world before we start posting comments like "I don't know who this Metcalfe guy is but he must be new to computers cause I've been using Linux 4 months and never ain't gotten rooted yet!" ok?
sig:
It's actually on whenever you want (Score:1)
Umm....if you have a sound card and can play RealAuido .rm files, you can hear it any time you like at: the link [bu.edu] from the originally referenced page -- which goes to The Connection's archive of it (at Boston University).
Re:Open source and the business market (Score:2)
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
3COM vs. Cisco (Score:1)
Metcalfe is always wrong about the big things (Score:1)
Meanwhile, he keeps predicting the "megalapse" where the internet will be crushed under the weight of its own traffic. He thinks traffic will grow faster than bandwidth and one day it will all come to a screeching halt, kind of like when TCP's re-xmit algorithm gets out of hand.
The thing is he has been predicting this event every year for something like that last four years. So far he hasn't been anywhere near close to being right, but that hasn't stopped him from blindly continuing with the predictions.
Meanwhile he's using this "megalapse" theory as one reason to argue for metered access. Geezus! Metcalfe may have been at the centre of a fundamental technology in networking, but he's clearly an old-school thinker when it comes to the Net at large.
Re:Open source and the business market (Score:1)
This isn't just "AoE" won't work either. I've dealt with their customer service (crap), their tech support (rather knowledgeable, if you can find a human), and their developer support (decent, but they'll tell you to buy some MSPress book. To their credit, the book really does help.)
As for the MCSE's, well, one I know is a networking god (and yes, he also knows Linux), while another can't find his ass with both hands and a TDR.
Re:Open source and the business market (Score:1)
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" --Voltaire
-psxndc
Not odd. You missed his point (Score:1)
Open standards, NOT open source. I suspect he's right, but it's really too early to be sure.
tj
I hate replying to my own posts, but... (Score:1)
Yes, big names are playing the Linux game now. Sun HP, and IBM would be among them.
Who really trusts Sun anyway? They're as bad as MS sometimes.
IBM - yeah, they're going Linux now. But they've still got tons of other stuff. It's a new fad to them - can you guarantee they'll support it? What happens when they decide Linux development is no longer financially viable? Then you've got an expenditure in Linux support and hardware that won't run most of IBM's proprietary software.
HP - do they really have any software of their own?
Now, some people have stated that they can buy support for their Linux software. What about when supporting it no longer is a profitable business? Then it's back to the web. And if your web browser doesn't work... now yer screwed.
But what about LUG's? Well, you can't count on your friends to solve your problems. A friend who went MCSE recently found out that those eight hours I spend at my desk, I'm actually doing work for a company, and I can't spend time to fix his problems at work. Unless they're living on unemployment, all the people in your LUG have jobs and have to be at them. And if you're down for the entire day, well, you're going to be explaining yourself to some very irate people the next day.
Now, this is NOT a slam on Linux, or a troll, as some have mislabeled me. Linux is a very good OS, and will do things that Windows will never do. But the fact remains that it's not ready for prime time. You can't depend on the community the way you can depend on a major software vendor.
And who said this is pro-MS? I'm just pointing them out as the oft-maligned example. Since you're all so infinitely familiar with them, they're the best example I have. You'd rather discuss another company, that's fine - we'll talk about Macromedia or Adobe or Autodesk or something.
In fact, let's do that. The firm I work for is a major manufacturer of flow control products. In english, we make pipe. Lots of it. This requires very complex machines, with many moving parts, which need to be fabricated at a moment's notice for installation during the next shift. To do this, we have a drawing database we're developing using a combination of AutoCAD 2000 and some proprietary software written for archiving
Those drawings are our business. If they go down, it's someone's job. Given that, can you trust the parts supply for a mill that can make a thousand feet of tube in one minute to a community project like Linux? One that doesn't have credentials attached to it; professional reputations that live or die on the support of their products? I can't go to my boss and say, "I'd like to use this program I got online. It won't cost us much, but the only support we can get comes from either:
A. Startups cashing in on a fad.
B. People on the Internet."
He'd laugh me out of his office. Now, not to slight the community - it's a great resource to me. But I don't rely on it professionally. I won't stake my reputation on software that isn't sold to me by a reputable business. And I'm relatively liberal. Imagine explaining to your stockholderw why you can't get your product distributed because the system is down and there's no one to call.
Re:Does open / closed have to equal good / bad? (Score:1)
With professional packages, if they even think they're going to make a sale, they'll send eval copies your way. It's not quite like AOL where you can begin making furniture from the discs they send you, but there's a lot of eval software available, often times without much looking.
Oh, and C Lee, what am I peddling? I could care less what you use, and I would like to see Open Source succeed. Sure, you may feel that your elite community doesn't need me, and it probably doesn't. It doesn't really matter to me nearly as much as getting what I need to do the job... and to hell with who has the source.
Re:Open source and the business market (Score:1)
Oh, and you clarified a point that I don't think I made very well. It's not me I'm talking about, it's corporate America.
I hate getting support, be it from the internet, or from Linuxcare, or from MS. I hate explaining the problem to others. I can solve it faster myself. But some people, usually those who haven't the slighest idea what keeps the servers running, or what goes into setting them up, like having a number to call and hold someone responsible for getting some answers.
bah, don't listen to this crank (Score:3)
He had written this during the time of the CDA, when people were really frightened about censorship on the Internet, naturally people were using the internet to discuss this. It was Metcalf's hypothesis that since people were using so much bandwidth discussing pornography, and censorship actual porn would be drowned out. Without porn, he figured, the Internet was pointless.
Yup, if there's thing wrong with the internet today, its not enough porn [thehun.net].
He also predicted (incorrectly, he admitted) that the internet stock bubble would collapse in 1997, and that Yahoo stock would be worthless. While stock went down a bit in 1999/2000, and new IPOs didn't go so crazy, he was way of with that to.
The Internet, pornography, E-commerce, dot-coms, and Linux. Clearly Metcalf knows a loser when he sees one....
Predictions and Metcalf (Score:1)
The internet will fail in 1997(?) from too much growth.
The stock market will crash last fall (and 11k dow and 3k Nasdaq don't count).
He's not often right. But yeah, hear him as representing OSS backlash. He makes good points. He's just wrong a bunch.
Open Source as "everyone will work for free for the good of society and make money based on charitable feelings of corporations" will fail.
Open Source as "groups of people can do good project work and will do it for personal gain and better products" DOES work (apache comes to mind - people wanted a web server that worked and worked on bits that made their own lives better - personal gain - PLUS they got other people's hacks on top of that.)
Other models about (I want the freaking source for the product I just paid a lot for because I need to support, debug, improve it).
I've been paid by my bosses to do work which has made it back into OSS projects. Not out of charity but out of "I need to fix this; I'll also share those changes" and there's little problem recognizing that.
Instant Karma.
old angry man (Score:1)
--
And Justice for None [geocities.com]
Bob has a Security Breach in his head... (Score:2)
why?
because if the source code is available, the alien underground mafia cannot sneak thier backdoors into our software, and that will ruin thier plan to TAKE OVER THE WORLD.
Oh wait, that was pinky and the brain.
s/alien underground mafia/pinky and the brain/g
Re:Bob (Score:1)
Re:Finally someone who agrees with me... (Score:2)
I could buy hardware from IBM and use AIX, but then I would be stuck wuth expensive IBM hardware upgrades. I could go with the Solaris - SPARC configuration but I have only been annoyed during my experiexnces with both. There's the SGI-IRIX combo, but I certainly can't afford that...
So let's see I can afford common X86/IDE/etc hardware intended for WinUsers. I can afford linux (or FreeBSD, etc.). So I can't choose a vendor that creates the OS and the hardware.
Devil Ducky
Re:Does open / closed have to equal good / bad? (Score:1)
So what's the application that will lend credible validation to Open Source? Something that provides a "killer app"? What's going to get people in the door?
As for good/bad software, I think that a dedicated and methodical team on a closed source project will make better software 9 out of 10 times than 20 kids in their basements. On the other hand, no commercial development team would have written DeCSS.
Students (Score:3)
I think the whole Open Source thing has a few more good decades in it. It's just now gotten back on it's feet. The 60's and early 70's had some great free software. Then we had the Unix wars, late 70's and 80's were somewhat mediocre. But the mid to late 90's saw a huge surge in open source popularity.
And now there are a whole generation of students who have always had free OS's, dev tools, and all sorts of software. When they get out of school and in to the business world they will bring some of that with them. Much like students past brought Unix from the campus to the work place.
And it's more likely to happen now because there are so many young execs (usally coder turned suit) that aren't afraid to use open source porducts at the enterprise level (Yahoo! is a great example)
I think we are just getting started.
Re:How Odd.. (Score:1)
Ethernet doesn't really have an "open specification". It has roots in the official IEEE 802.3 specification, but this isn't really "open" by today's open-source standards.
Bob (IMHO) is really more of a hardware/low-level person, so he's really looking at things from a different perspective. OpenSource and hardware is still working out some kinks (c.f. open-source video and network drivers). Oh, and there's that whole CEO-of-3COM thing he did for a while, so assume that he has a slight corporate slant.
Re:Bob Metcalfe talking about security? (Score:1)
Ethernet's goal is carrying electrons down a wire. That's it. It is as secure or insecure as the high level protocols you are running on it. Perhaps you are confusing Ethernet with the Internet (in the form of TCP/IP)?
Re:Open source and the business market (Score:1)
http://www.microsoft.com/support/customer/bussm
Predictions (Score:1)
Maybe Metcalf should spend less time on that sailboat of his and more time on line.
Thumbs up on amazon comment, thumbs down on ASPs (Score:1)
On the other hand, I don't think he had any idea what's new about Application Service Providers. He called amazon.com an ASP because you submit information to them and they run a program to handle your order. By that definition, just about every site with a form and a CGI program would be an ASP.
Re:Open source and the business market (Score:1)
So support availability isn't really an issue. Further, Solaris is going open source (at least under the SCPL), and I don't hear anything about Sun ending support for customers. Support and open source can happily coexist; the issues aren't related to each other at all. Clearly you don't have much understanding of business models.
Anyway, what's so great about MS's support? Why should I have to pay ridiculous per incident fees for problems with their product (when things fuck up (and they do with MS
Finally, explain how Linux IPOs are all hype? Redhat is expected to be profitable in a year or two. That's a major accomplishment considering the fate of the vast majority of dotcoms. VA Linux is also expected to become profitable soon too. Its revenues are booming; it's hard to say the same thing about pets.com or amazon.com or any number of foo.coms. Linux companies have a lot of promise and it's justified by the cold hard facts: revenue and growth.
Re:Open source and the business market (Score:1)
2. So don't buy per incident support - I know companies that sell yearly support contracts - they have an incentive to make certain the code works right (less work, more money).
3. Those companies that don't think about recurring charges ought to be the happiest - no upfront costs!
Metcalfe will eat his words.... Again? (Score:1)
Original article is at http://www.in foworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/metcalfe/bm1204 95.htm [infoworld.com]
Here's a good story about the result: http://computer.muni.cz/internet /v1n3/eats9702.htm [computer.muni.cz]
I wouldn't worry about Metcalfe. He Has apparently has lost a few clues since inventing Ethernet.
Re:Open source and the business market (Score:1)
Bob Metcalfe is not psychic nor a psychologist. (Score:3)
Being a good engineer doesn't make you good at seeing what uses people will put products created by engineers to. An engineer only understands the motivational structure of other engineers, unless he or she is uncommonly perceptive. It is possible that Metcalfe could be so perceptive. Of course his idea that the internet was doomed buries that idea six feet under.
I expect to see him on the Psychic Friends Network sitting beside Dionne Warwick any day now.
Lee
Re:OT: 3/5 Compromise (Score:1)
Actualy, the northern states said that the southern ones shouldn't get to count slaves in their population whatsoever, since, of course, they couldn't vote, wern't citizens, were not protected by the constitution, and were certanly not going to be represented fairly by the people in the house. Southern states wanted one black person to count as a whole person for purposes of assigning house seats.
Re:Open source and the business market (Score:1)
Sorry to quote but this is a *very* good point. There are too many people in business who are paranoid about fscking up. This has always helped dominant suppliers in the past like IBM then and Microsoft now.
When a high-profile incident occurs (for example a securities exchange failing), there is an immediate pressure to apportion blame. It is a brave peron who then stands up and says: "I chose Open Source". I have even seen a vendor take the blame for a problem caused by client mismanagement - there's serv ice for you!
I disagree that MS Support is worth very much, however I agree that it has a psychological value far in excess of its true worth.
Slowly though, I would rather have source code on 24*7 mission critical operations. In truth, the out-of-hours support on software isn't up to much but if you have source code, you at least have a chance of fixing it yourself.
Oh, an auditors don't like Open SOurce much. It makes reviews a lot more difficult.
Bob Metcalfe talking about security? (Score:2)
Chalking another one up to windbagism...