Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Open Source Needs Leadership? 197

Posted by michael from the cat-herders-needed-apply-within dept.
alessio writes: "At Webmonkey there is an article from Jay Greenspan which reports from Open Source Conference 2001, and I cannot agree with 99% of what he says. However, there is a point worth of discussion: do the Open Source/Free Software movement need a 'leadership' to better fight back new stuff from Redmond? His answer is yes, my would be no, but maybe it's not obvious."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open Source Needs Leadership? More

Open Source Needs Leadership?

Comments Filter:
  • Listen, I'm not a particularly huge supporter of Linux, just because I've tried it before and, though I'm hardly a tech novice, I just found it too bothersome to do the things that I wanted to do. The UI was rather annoying, and over all I just found Windows 2000 to be easier for ME to use. Now, if Linux works for some people (as it obviously does), that's great, and I'm glad for it, so don't flame me or whatnot. Here's the thing... What the OSS and Free Software crowd are looking for out there is basically a revolution. You'd like to overthrow the (oppressive) powers-that-be and erect a new temple built on the ground of sharing, cooperation, and equality. Laudable goals. The problem is that no revolution has ever really been staged without a visionary that is able to guide and mould the revolution. Look at politics for your examples: Italy, Russia, France, the United States...they all required leaders who had the vision and drive to unite the factions within each nation that wanted change and tell the sides to shut the hell up about the minor things and do the major things right. That's what has to be done in order to win at anything. Businesses are the same way. You can't run a business by proxy: it just doesn't work. The most successful businesses are ones that have a leader that will go out on a limb, take a risk, but at the same time gather and consolidate his employees into a working, functioning machine. That's the only way that works. If you want further examples, look at early humans: we lived in tribes, we had a leader who was there because he was the strongest (ergo, he could tell everyone else what to do), and everyone listened to him. You know why? Because if they didn't, infighting would result, and everyone would die. Same thing with the OSS/FS community: if you really want to beat the other side, you have to have someone who can call the shots and say "listen, we all need to work on *THIS* in order to make the next step." Without that, people (especially smart ones) have too many of their own ideas to be productive...energies have to be focused, and that's what a leader does. Just my 2 cents. KGod
  • Looks like this guy just doesn't get it.

    1: Free software (& 'open source') is not about killing Microsoft. Microsoft is bent on screwing the user over for as much cash as they can take. Free software is about freeing the user from that domination, and giving the user control of their own software destiny.

    2: Leader? We don't need to steenking leader! This is a grassroots movement in what is probably the most egalitarian forum ever devised. If you can write good code, people respect that. What's a leader going to do? Enforce project timelines? Talk to the press? We've already got lots of people doing that e.g.: RMS & ESR.

    3: Left to themselves, the people writing the code will go through their own darwinian selection process. Some projects will gain at the expense of others, some will merge, some will die, some will co-exist. This process takes time, (sometimes _too_long_ [mozilla.org]), but so what? If you want something to move faster, contribute to it! With so many good coders contributing to the community, the richness and quality of Free Software accretes over time. At some point, the sheer mass of high-quality free software will overwhelm the ability of proprietary software to compete. This is already starting to happen with Linux vs. proprietary Unix, and will likely happen in other areas in the next few years.
  • So, I will agree that Mozilla is still in its alpha/beta stages, but I'm sorry, more than half the Internet runs off Apache web servers, that sounds pretty complete to me, so how can it be considered any more unfinished than Microsoft's IIS? Is it because they don't use version numbers to try and make it sound liek their product is more mature? Gah, and databases? I'm sorry, what about PostgreSQL, mySQL, etc? I think the author of this article was just a bit uninformed. :P
  • well how did this whole open source movement get this far? Seems to me OS has done fairly well for itself with a lesser degree of distributed leadership. Just because it seems like the correct "traditional" route to go (with leadership) doesn't mean that it's the right thing for OS, or how things will work in the future. Especially since Linux has already proven that OS (the perposterous rule breaker itself) CAN work, and DOES work with a lack of leadership. I think what most OS projects really need is an arbitrator. Instead of having programmers bicker about doing this or that, there needs to be someone who says we'll do it this way, and if it sucks we'll do it the other way.

  • Ahh... "organizations [dictionary.com]" (e.g. Microsoft, IBM, etc) derive from the word "organize [dictionary.com]". Despite how much you may hate Microsoft and Adobe, they have something that is really fundamental to growth, organization.

    I have found in my own "big business" experience that not everything that goes on at the big business level is "right" or "the best way of doing things" but things still get done. What any business needs is a management chain that understands the best ways AND does them. Some companies have this, some don't, and some fall in the middle.

    The problem with OSS has been stated, waring distros, KDE vs GNOME, 10+ window managers, 10+ distros, 10+ console text editors, 3 browsers, etc etc etc... the list can go on forever. If OSS was made into an organizational unit, these things would be minimized (or maybe 2-3 organizational units). For instance, why do we need 10 text editors? We don't... we have "preferences" but I think newbies "prefer" pico because it's easy to use (okay dont argue that XYZ is easier than pico, it's not the point).

    In an organizational unit, a group of people would sit down and evaluate (to the best of their abilities) how one solution outperforms another solution. They'd run performance tests, user tests, and more importantly how easy it is to maintain a particular set of code. Once they've added everything together, they'd choose a single text editor, linux distro, etc etc.

    Where, right now, let's say there are 10 text editors, each has a group of 3 people working on it. If we were to evaluate and eliminate the worthless projects (as an organization would do) we can better pool our resources together so we can have 2 maybe 3 text editors, each with 10 to 15 people working on them. Doing this increasing the time and manpower each project has and increases the power, flexibility, and usefulness of the application.

    Someone mentioned the *BSD distros, there being too many of them, well there are only really 3 major ones, but then the comment was made about Theo. I don't really know Theo and I haven't spoken to him, but I don't think many of you have either. Theo had disputes with people, which he felt were strong enough to leave a particular project and start OpenBSD. This has been done all over the Linux community as well on multiple projects, so to say Theo is the only one who "can't get along" is rediculous.

    Right now, every Linux project is like a bunch of a warring factions. This is a form of anarchy, and it has proven through history that anarchies do not do well in the bigger scheme of things.

    The linux community, as a whole, needs some kind of organization.. and I don't mean letting Linus and Cox run the show. We need people who are business-oriented and not technical to run the organization. This way decisions can be made to better utilize the resources of the Linux community.

    • This thing about anarchy is that it provides freedoms beyond the contraints of a corporate mindset. "Organization" places definite boundaries on the way people think and invent. As a consultant, I have found myself in a position to witness brilliant ideas being killed because they did not fit in with the current corporate initiatives.

      When I hear things like this, I get really nervous:
      "If we were to evaluate and eliminate the worthless projects (as an organization would do)"
      ...especially if you are suggesting that this approach be applied to OSS. It is certainly reasonable for a company to standardize on a os/software suite, but I'm not sure how culling "worthless" projects would work here. A few points:
      • Who determines which development initiative is worthless? Some projects are started for the sake of starting a project, even if they duplicate the effort of another. There may still be value in this; the architecture and code is not going to be identical to other similar projects. But many projects that are similar to others are started because someone wanted to do something differently. In the current OSS model, developers are free to pursue these avenues. Sure, there is some redundancy, but it's not worthless; it's evolution.
      • How would you impose any form of organization on a body that refuses to be organized in this way? I fear that any such effort will simply create another faction (Organized OSS - OOSS? :) while the rest of the OSS community continues on its merry way.
      But the point of the article was a call for unity of the OSS community under a common leadership, not a reorganization of the way things are currently working. The implied aim is to pull together and defend the OSS way of operating by presenting a unified front.

      The fact that there are many distros, text editors, etc. is a positive thing in my eyes. As OSS matures, certain projects/products have and will become recognized as true leaders and will gain the prominence and effort they deserve. But you never know... one of those future stars could be one of those "worthless" projects that is just a gleam in some developer's eye.

    • How could a leader lead opensource community?
      If a person is working on project A because he likes it, then you cannot just tell him to work on project B. If project A is useless and redundant, then the programmer will switch to using and developing a superior product eventually anyway(w/o leadership), but otherwise he would just tell any self-called 'leader' to stop bugging him.
    • Edit
      Notepad
      Wordpad
      Word
      and some olders ones
      Write
      Works Wordprocessor

      It's amazing how many people will tell me spell-checker wasn't installed on their Word only to find they are running Wordpad

    • This has been done all over the Linux community as well on multiple projects, so to say Theo is the only one who "can't get along" is rediculous.

      Actually, it's "ridiculous".

    • "We need people who are business-oriented and not technical to run the organization."

      maybe if theres a propaganda side that needs filling out, but im not sure by "leaders" he meant PR.

      i was gonna say perhaps linux needs a proper standards group to keep everyone focused at one goal. but then thats not what linux needs is it? gargh, im not sure now. i was going to say you need someone/group to work on the "desktop" and ui side of things, one on technology, etc.

      maybe i dont have a clue :]

    • Basically, you're saying that open-source should work more like a corporation in order to compete with Microsoft.

      But there used to be many corporations competing with MS. Most are either gone (DRI), bought (Lotus, WordPerfect) or have given up (IBM). I'd bet at least half the people writing open-source would like to start companies and get funding for what they do.

      But it's not going to happen. Venture capitalists don't want to fund MS competitors, because experience shows too much likelihood of failure. So the people who want to write operating systems, or word-processors, or GUI toolkits just do it for fun, supporting themselves with work in other areas.

      And rather than look for the limitations, I think it's damned amazing how good lots of the free stuff is.

    • Where, right now, let's say there are 10 text editors, each has a group of 3 people working on it. If we were to evaluate and eliminate the worthless projects (as an organization would do) we can better pool our resources together so we can have 2 maybe 3 text editors, each with 10 to 15 people working on them.

      OK, you're making a big wrong assumption here, and it is that people will do what you tell them.

      These people aren't doing their text editors to further some cause! They are doing it because it is fun, or to learn, or to fill a specific need, or to waste time, or a million other different reasons. They are NOT working on their text editors simply to make Open Source Software as a whole better. If they were, your scheme would work fine. However, if your "organizational unit" disbands the Text Editor XY team and "assigns" all its coders to Text Editor AB, what makes you think they will want to work on it? Anyway, how are you proposing to stop them from continuing to work on their old text editor? They can do whatever they darn well please.

      The problem with your proposal is that open source people aren't working toward a common goal like the people in a business. No common committee can address their individual reasons and goals. Business management techniques are totally inapplicable to any traditional open-source project. I think the dept. line for this article said it best: cat-herders-needed-apply-within

  • Isn't it already taken for granted that the "open source" design methodology is not an instant panacea, but still needs rules, goals, milestones, leadership, etc.? One only need observe that most of the successful open source projects have rather anti-"free for all" leadership - the Linux kernel passes through the judgement of one or two human beings, Apache foundation is pretty strict, the BSD structures are rather hierarchical and dense near the top, and just do a cursory search on SourceForge to find tens (probably hundreds?) of projects who are at the stage: "planning to think about sometime writing down an opinion on how to clone something for which there are already a gazillion clones". It's a bazaar in a cathedral man - a bazedral!
  • When you want to get something done right damn now, pick a highly competent dictator.

    We need Somebody of Stature (Yes, Linus would be perfect, but he's smart enough to duck the headache) to step up to bat and Set Forth The Plan. We need a Sanctioned List of What Linux Needs Today. Make it a list of tasks, broken up into the smallest reasonable size, tasks that one programmer or a small clan of programmers could tackle inside a reasonably specific timeframe.

    Now, what incentive could we offer programmers to work on the Official Projects instead of their own?

    We offer them Karma of course. Call it whatever you want, brownie points, geek cred, whatever. We need to come to an understanding inside the programming community that "open source karma" will be taken into consideration at job interviews.

    In a community of fiercely competitive geeks who want to quantify everything, we give them a perfect way to do it. Make it the goal of every CS student to have 100 OSK (open source karma) points before they graduate. Let those older coders know that if they want to switch from COBOL to O'Caml in the job market, then 50 OSK points granted in the O'Caml category will get them taken seriously in a job interview.

    Is this a perfect plan? Hell, no. I'm not even sure I like it. Would I expect bitching somewhere down the line? Yes, and in copious amounts.

    But I do think this might at least help herd the cats in the same general direction.

  • I think can speculate as to the basis of the author's desire for leadership. Here is all this energy and talent out there doing a million different things, each with their own motivations and agendas. One need only go as far as to look as some open source repositories, such as SourceForge.net [sourceforge.net]. I suspect that the author would like to see an authoritative body that says, okay Joe, you work in X, Sally, you on Y. You know, bring it under some form of project management.

    But while you're looking at places like FreshMeat.net [freshmeat.net], you might also notice that many of these endeavours reflect the wide variety personalities and desires that comprise the Open Source movement. In other words, in many ways, many Open Source softwares are the unique artistic expression of the individuals behind them. Instead of stroking paint and palette, we blast bits and bytes. And instead of museums and art stores, we the internet and individual computers as our showplace.

    My fear is that bringing Open Source under a centralized effort _MAY_ have as chilling effect as Communism did on the arts in the former Soviet Union.

  • I think along with leadership, we need restraint and critical thinking. It's a lot more exciting to start your own massive infrastructure project than to work with someone else, but there are only so many available smart-person hours around. I think the chasing tail lights assessment of OS was correct to some extent. Spend some time every day thinking about ways to change this. It's hard but there are a lot of us.
  • The last thing OS needs is leadership - plenty of that to go around, and really why should any of us listen to any particular leader? That's the way companies work and it doesn't make any sense to adopt that model.

    What OS needs is strategy - some group to say "I believe strongly in a goal of X. If we has OS projects A, B, C, and D we could achieve that goal - here are a list of projects currently closest in line with these goals, we plead with those in the community to take up the remaining tasks."

    Thus strategic needs would thus be met through a structure that mirrors the way OS projects themselves work - there could be any number of strategic groups dedicated to different goals, each painting a picture of how a specific set of applications can help move everyone forward. These groups could also make enhancement requests for projects they see as fitting the mission in order to help unify sets of applications to some degree.

    This idea is only half thought out and obviously has some issues but I think overall it's pretty sound and would give rise to a number of all OS based business "solutions" composed of many apps.

  • Open Source needs companies (Score:3, Insightful)

    by costas ( 38724 ) on Friday August 03, 2001 @07:29AM (#2120040) Homepage
    Open Source needs detail-oriented, small-time, painstaking *work*. Not vision, not tirades against the Evil Empire of Redmond, not manifestos. It needs a lot of people to sit down and clean things up. Small things, things that collectively annoy the user, but individually are too boring for an OSS developer to bother with.

    That's how good software, how good *anything* gets done. The OSS way however, has been that for something to be refined, polished, it has to "scratch an itch", it has to annoy someone enough *and* have that someone be skilled or talented enough to go fix it him/herself.

    How do you get people to work on minute trivial things that they normally donot care about? the one time-tested way is, well, to *pay* them to do it. Where do you get the money? well, you will probably need a corporate structure that will fund these developers and that will be able to stand on its own two feet.

    In other words you need companies, companies like Active State, theKompany, Digital Creations (now Zope) and a few (very few) others. You need to let companies sell OSS without bitching all the time that they are ruining your free lunch. You need to let companies have pay-to-play versions that are ahead of the OSS one so that they can financially support development, QA and documentation. You need to have companies have non-GPL licenses on their products without going Homeini on them.

    Preferrably all of the above do not involve flammage and mail-bombing and invocations of Rights and Freedom. Writing software is not Speech, it is *not* equivalent to expressing one's opinion on common matters ("politics", people call them). Writing software is hard, painful and mostly boring work, engineering work. It needs good design, a painstaking devotion to quality and most of all someone to be paying that budget.
    • Absolutely.

      Communism, Marxism and to a lesser extent Socialism don't work in the political world, so why do we expect the same philosophy to produce high-quality OSS?

      Good software requires motivation, either monetary or personal. People don't do good work without it. OSS based companies are probably the best way to accomplish this. Employees in traditional companies convincing management of the benefits of using and supporting OSS would go a long way as well.

      Personally, I would like to spend time improving OSS software, but my non-working hours are too valuable to be spent doing work for free,
  • More than Leadership ,what it needs is a good Marketing Department...
  • A feature that would be cool on a site like sourceforge is an organization that could channel aspiring developers to the right project.

    For instance: Developer A is thinking of developing a text editor, just for the experience. He posts his request along with his skill list on sourceforge. At the other end, someone (a volunteer?), goes through his request, or resumé if you wish, and helps him join the right project group. A simple thing as this one could probably get rid of many duplicate projects, and make it easier for newbies to join the OSS movement.

    Maybe I am just being naive, but I really think there is a lot that could be done for OSS in terms of virtual organization that could really make a difference.

    Even if the thought of scaling back all work on a product except the pure programming bit is tempting to any techie, it doesn't really work for very complex projects, with a complex user base. If you want to make a niche product like Doom then that's ok, because every user will play doom more or less the same way. But if you are going to build a truly competitive OS, then you need to think hard about all the different types of customers, who they are, what they know, and what they want.
  • Unfortunately power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    It would be nice to have someone who guided the open source movement, however it is like the way the US government is heading. People want to believe in a benevolent dictator but there is no such thing. The first one may very well put everything on a track that is good for everybody, after that, forget it. There would be no difference between that position and Bill Gates. Yes, market share is important, but no it's not the end all and be all of software. After it becomes self-sustaining the focus should be on 'where do we go now?' and that's where most leaders screw up.

    DanH

  • Yes (Score:1)

    by Jakubo ( 512540 )
    If the open source movement had some definite leadership and organazation, there would be no reason for anyone to use commercial software again.
  • Maybe what we need, instead of a leader, is a PR department...

    --RJ

  • Isn't the whole aim of the Open Source movement to create 'Software that doesn't suck', maintain a community atmosphere for developers, help people out, and just have fun in general? I don't see what 'fighting back stuff from Redmond' has to do with the issue because open software is about choices, not trying to supress another product from market success.

    All in all, I think that Open Source is doing it's job just fine without centralized leadership, which is creating high quality software and keeping it's devlopers busy and happy.

  • We did not get to the place we are with a leader. What we need to do, is continue to write, debug, improve and release code under the fearsome GPL. If anything, faster than before.

  • Fringe Fanatics (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gamorck ( 151734 ) <jaylittle AT jaylittle DOT com> on Friday August 03, 2001 @06:40AM (#2127677) Homepage
    What you people really need is to change the stereotypical image that most IT departments have of the Linux community.

    Stop acting like children. Stop crying about everything Microsoft does (Hell even Sun has SOME restraint when it comes to that).

    The Operating System market is NOT Cuba and Linus/RMS is NOT Fidel Castro. Until you learn the simple fact that you must show respect towards your competitors in order to be respected, you guys will always just be Fringe Fanatics.

    Gam
    "Flame at Will"
    • Stop acting like children. Stop crying about everything Microsoft does (Hell even Sun has SOME restraint when it comes to that).

      Like it or not, a lot of that animus serves the world quite well by fueling a passion for open source.

    • The Operating System market is NOT Cuba and Linus/RMS is NOT Fidel Castro.

      So by this analogy, what are all of the other countries? Embedded operating systems? Batch job processors? And why are so many people smuggling users of operating systems by small boat to these other countries? And does this make Linus analogous Elian?

    • Sun also has the benefits of an internal network where their guys can do their whining and they have the luxury of being able to get rid of anyone who embarasses them publically.

      I don't know about Sun, but the amount of MS Related bitterness I used to see on the IBM interal OS/2 Forums makes Slashdot look like the Microsoft fan club web page.

  • We are Borg
    Resistance Is Futile
    Prepare To Be Assimilated

    [had to get that in before someone else does]

  • Leadership or Charisma? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Copperhead ( 187748 ) <talbrech@speakeasy . n et> on Friday August 03, 2001 @06:37AM (#2131834) Homepage
    It seems to be that Open Source does not need "leadership" so much as it needs a charismatic advocate to put a face on the idea.

    While Bill Gates may be the person that many of us love to hate, he is the icon of Microsoft, and puts a human face on an otherwise impersonal corporation. He just looks unassuming, and mild mannered... kind of a "geek next door" look.

    If someone in the open source community were to step forward to become the poster boy and PR representative to counter the FUD that Gates distributes to the media, it would probably help immensely.

    Of course, with a 20 in charisma [theonion.com], he's going to be rather hard to defeat.

    • I think the Linux community needs a small group of people who espouse the OS in a positive manner without having to resorting to too-fashionable Microsoft bashing.

      People like Richard Stallman are unfortunately viewed as too vociferous and radical and ends up turning off way too many IT managers along the way. That IMHO is why some folks in the anti-Microsoft crowd (namely Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy) are not viewed in a positive light at times.
    • If only I had some mod points, you would get some for the Gates Character Sheet link... ...fantastic bit of work by The Onion! :o)

  • The OSS Politicians need a leader, not the coders (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Otis_INF ( 130595 ) on Friday August 03, 2001 @06:49AM (#2132025) Homepage
    The coders just use and need code, to produce better code. Just as the 2 words say: "Open" and "Source". That is: not closed source. Very simple. You don't need a leader to open up YOUR source. Every 3 year old can do that by him/herself.

    The fanatics however, who think politics instead of just sourcecode, need a leader, to 'fight' (haha, it's sourcecode, not a war) whatever they declare an enemy.

  • Open Source needs several things if it is going to become a MAJOR influence on the programming world.

    First, the "unsexy" work needs to get done. The problem is, people who are not getting payed can not be forced to do the "boring" work. An easy solution for this problem would be finding a way to give people who work on certain listed projects credit for their work. Maybe a website with a list of boring but neccessary projects, anyone who submits code for those projects will have their name listed next to their contribution, a donations page would also be a good idea.

    Open Source also needs one BIG cross-platform application that EVERYONE will have to use, something absolutely huge. This will draw attention to the Open Source movement, a lot of attention.

    Finally, Open Source needs to take a page from the "Book of Proven Corporate Tactics" and start spewing (like the exorcist chick) large amounts of propaganda. If Joe sixpack can be scared into looking into Open Source projects by horror stories of proprietary software then thats what we need. A news webpage of some type that is linked to by several major sites and a bunch of volunteer "scare" reporters should suffice.

    Oh yeah, one last thing. Open Source NEEDS CODE. (note period)

  • Annoying (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ubi_NL ( 313657 )
    It took me towo pages to find that OS did not stand for Operating Sytem (as it usually does) but for Open Source.
    It would be nice if articles that describe Operating Systems and Open Source at the same time find it usefull to be a bit more clear about it.
    In all other sciences it is custom to explain abbreviations in the text at least once.
    • Get used to it.

      People have wonderful NL processors that allow us to resolve ambiguities in words by placing context..

  • There is no reason why we cannot pursue all the options you have listed. We have many times more developers than Microsoft. Not all options will be correct, of course, but one of them likely will be, and it will succeed.
    -russ
    • We have many times more developers than Microsoft
      Yes, but we most of us are not nearly as co-ordinated and motivated (read: well-payed) as the Microsoft guys.And Microsoft is not the 'Closed Source Movement', it's the movement's leader.There is a huge number of closed-source companies following, so it's not as simple as you say it is.
      The OS(Open Source) movement desperately needs a leader if it wants to succeed as a major movement. But, as always, leaders tend to slowly become evil dictators. Don't fool yourselves that the OSS is a society of do-gooders.Nuh-uh. It's leader (be it RedHat or any other OS company you can think of) is just as vulnerable to evil manipulating actions as Microsoft itself(though IMHO there are no evil companies, just clumsy and greedy ones).
      • The OS(Open Source) movement desperately needs a leader if it wants to succeed as a major movement. But, as always, leaders tend to slowly become evil dictators.

        That's probably true and I'm sure it would happen to an extent, but isn't there something to be said for competition benefiting the consumer? The OS(Open Source) movement has resulted in something that Microsoft can't ignore. However, it seems that it needs a leader to move it to the next level. Even if that leader became somewhat of an evil dictator, maybe that next level would be enough competition to have a good effect on Microsoft. The evilness of the dictator could be buffered by implementing a community process similar to Sun's Java Community Process.
      • Oh, so we need a leader who is powerful enough to direct extremely intelligent people (and have them voluntarily obey), but who is also incorruptible when presented with that power.

        I'm not holding my breath.
        -russ

  • Don't we have leaders? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stephen ( 20676 ) on Friday August 03, 2001 @06:33AM (#2133749) Homepage
    It's in the nature of the open source movement that there's no-one who can actually appoint leaders. But don't we already have de facto leaders? People like ESR, RMS, Perens, O'Reilly etc. who speak up for open source when there is some controversy? In fact, Jay Greenspan seems to acknowledge this in his article.

    • Re:Don't we have leaders? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cthugha ( 185672 ) on Friday August 03, 2001 @06:47AM (#2112798)

      To my mind, the more important leaders of the OS/Free movement are the leaders of headline projects. Linus Torvalds is the most obvious, but people like Miguel de Icaza are also important. It's these guys who actually provide a focus and a vision for the abundant supply of open source labour that would otherwise go to waste. They provide actual goals and actual directions for the community to follow, which results in getting something done. The philosophers like Stallman are important (and I realize they've contributed significantly on the practical side), but the ultimate goal of OSS is to produce software that people like and use, not write treatises. That's how we'll achieve Total World Domination.

      To those who wish the community to go in a certain direction I would say: do what Torvalds and ESR (and the Mono guys) did (albeit somewhat unintentionally in Torvalds' case). Create the beginnings of a project that embodies your ideas and put it up for your peers to assess and maybe contribute to. And be prepared to take on the administrative duties (filtering, reviewing and applying patches mainly) that go with keeping the project going. It doesn't matter if it sucks or not, that's for others to decide. If it sucks, no one will contribute and the project will go nowhere, no harm done.

      • ...The philosophers like Stallman are important (and I realize they've contributed significantly on the practical side), but the ultimate goal of OSS is to produce software that people like and use, not write treatises...

        ...do what Torvalds and ESR (and the Mono guys) did (albeit somewhat unintentionally in Torvalds' case). Create the beginnings of a project...

        So if I understand what you're saying, you view ESR as more of a coder and RMS as a mere philosopher? What do you base that on?

    • Re:Don't we have leaders? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mr ( 88570 )
      Your list is hardly a list of LEADERS. A list of oppertunists, yes. Leaders, no.

      RMS comes the closest. He stays on target when he talks. Yet, the FSF had their spokesperson whine that *RMS was not invited to the Open Source conference*, yet RMS is the 1st to say "GNU/GPL is not Open Source". (if you are not Open Source, tell everyone that, THEN don:t get invited to an Open Source conference, your message is being heard and understood)

      ESR spends his time promoting GNU/Linux, but when asked, he says "BSD deserves more press than it gets". Yet, ESR will not lift a finger to get BSD more press. But, hey, free trips to speak on GNU/Linux, why mess that up with being inclusive rather than exclusive eh?

      Bruce Perens has a web page where he talks about how he is all for Open Source. Yet, when you read his works, all he does is talk about the GPL. In fact, he admits that he is "linux advocate". Again, so much for being inclusive.

      Miguel de Icaza referes to the GNOME project and the MONO efforts as "Linux software". Yet, the main GNOME web page point out that it is Open Source, and runs on MANY platforms.....the software is not "Linux Software".

      OSDN. It is not about Open Source as it is about Linux. Same goes for the Open Source development Lab (Yea, the one funded by Red Hat) Call it the Linux lab or the Lnux development network if you are unwilling to be inclusive.

      Tim O`Reilly is a better leader for Open Source than the others. Mr. O`Reilly says Linux when he manes Linux, and when he says Open Source, he includes BSD/Artistic/X licensed software.

      Unlike the "other" "leaders" who wrap themselfs up in a cape of "open source leader" because it gives them a soapbox to preach from. Or, puts some money in their pocket.

  • A leader is a figure head for a community. You can 't put the entire open source community into a room with all the other citizens of the united states and sign bills and pass laws everyone can agree on. No, you need one, or a few, people to represent the community. We need a leader to talk to politicians, senators, etc. Other leaders who need to be convinced of our ideas.

    Yes I did say the 'P' word, politics. Most of the people in this world can't understand technology, and so that's why we need politics, to convince all the techno-illiterate that technology is really a good thing. Do you really want to convince your average human being about your standpoint on technology? Read this [rinkworks.com] first.

    The OpenSource community needs an intermediary to water down its views of technology so that the average person can understand it. There's more stupid people in the world than techno-literate people.

  • I can understand some points of the article, but if history has taught us anything, the wrong leadership [congressproject.org] can be more destructive than none at all.

    With abusive leaders also comes the cronyism and worse ... the [montrosebaptist.org]bureaucrats [house.gov] that can take a fast moving project and/or movement and grind it down to a painful crawl.

    I mean are there that many hills we have to charge up, is someone throwing the ball, is the system that broke that we need to attempt fix it with a leader ?

    • If we need anything, it is not pundits but some form of consortium (like the W3C) that does not manage so much as protect and encourage Open Source development. Perhaps 'recommendations' rather than edicts should be passed along. However, this brings up the issue of just who the hell is in a position to make up this consortium and how it will be supported by a community that thrives on grants, donations and the simple generosity of its constituents as it is. It's a bigger picture than just control vs. no control. The latter is simple, but the former brings up a new subset of issues to be hashed out. Again... hashed out by whom??? Etc...

      Root DOWN
      grep what -i sed?

  • To lead or not to lead (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Matthias Wiesmann ( 221411 ) on Friday August 03, 2001 @06:50AM (#2135680) Homepage Journal

    You need leaders if you want to lead the market...

    I think the issue of leadership that rises with open source project is often the lack of focus. People code what they feel is missing, or what they feel like coding. This means the devellopement follow a more organic and darwinist path, not a strategic one.

    I don't think that the organic way is worse than the strategic way. While things might be less focuses, they also are not so easily distracted by fads. Sure people will add new skins and UI gimicks to programs, but those who believe their software should do this or that will simply not change ways because this or that is the fad.

    I would say that the main issue nowadays with open source is simply political. Most people I know that program something open source do it because they feel it is missing, or they want to fiddle with the code or notion, or want a variant of this or that, or a doing research in universities. They have only a vague political vision - they certainly don't do it to overthrow microsoft - it might be a nice side effect, but it's not the main motivation - they do things for themselves.

    But of course this does not fit with the dominant capitalism credo. And this psychology is not liked by the media: can't do headlines with people doing things in their corner because they feel like it. Real geeks don't go to discuss with the media, they code in the basement...

    What happens is simply the corporations noticing that open source does not behave they way a corporation does, big surprise. So of course they think that if open-sources wants to take strategic positions in the market it should have strategic leadership...

    Of course this premise is broken, because open-source is a good approach do build sturdy systems which might not make economical sense (at least for MS), most killer apps where first closed source. Eventually, an open-source contender came, but generally the original app was closed source. I don't think this will change tomorow, but then again I don't think this is tragical.

    It's easy to convince people to code to get their PC and their hardware do this or that - to support a card, or to crash less, or to build a clone of this cool game, or to have a window manager like this system. It's another game to convince them to build a framework whose goal is not so clear...

  • Rant (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Friday August 03, 2001 @06:31AM (#2135939)
    Warning: Rant: The biggest problem with open source is user interface. I see plenty of programmers involved, but few UI experts, let alone serious usability testing. Until this happens, I'm sorry, but open source doesn't have a chance. Done mark me as a "traitor". I'm a big fan of the open source movement, but I'm also a programmer with 22 years in the field. The fact that most open source software is difficult for me to use is proof enough. Sorry, but that's the cold hard facts.
    • I'm a big fan of the open source movement, but I'm also a programmer with 22 years in the field. The fact that most open source software is difficult for me to use is proof enough. Sorry, but that's the cold hard facts.

      Don't look at this as a problem, but look at this as an opportunity to make a name for yourself. If you know of some programs you think are hard to use, fix them!

      BTW, I have been paid to code for over 23 years and I find most of the Unix/OSS tools much easier to use for serious development. Maybe these tools are harder to learn at first, but are much more powerful once you know how to use them.

      ...richie "Emacs rules!" :-)

      • If you know of some programs you think are hard to use, fix them!

        And how exactly am I supposed to do this? The problem with usability is that testing is difficult (and/or expensive). With a piece of "technical" code, you can look which is more stable, which has a better architecture, which runs faster, etc. With usability, such simple tests are not possible, and there are often good arguments for more than one design.

        Just one example, menubars: Should each window have its own, or should they be a global menubar on the screen's top edge? There are valid arguments for both possibilities. The choice of open source projects in those cases is far too often to leave the choice to the user. This might be the right decision in some cases, but in many cases, I think it is not. Effectively, it means giving the job of the interface designer to the user.

        There are also problems with convincing the maintainers that there actually is a problem. Too many developers simply don't realize that their software has a bad usability.

      • If you know of some programs you think are hard to use, fix them!

        Great! Should I tell the user testing labs to bill the facilities, time, gratuities, food and tapes to you?

        People don't seem to get the fact that user interface design isn't something you do at home in your underwear. It requires real-world data. There's no way to get that data without spending money.

        Tim

    • You are just /so/ right. I don't have 22 years of experience (22 comes close to my age), but I too noticed that the UI still is what really holds most OS projects back from broader acceptance.
      I'm really disappointed with KDE2, it is full of compromises due to the lack of leadership. They didn't even decide wether to put the menu bar on top of the screen or inside the window, they just made it an option! Making such essential decisions an option is a bad mistake. To me it really seems like they could not decide wether to make a true SDI or a true MDI environment, thus running into serious problems.
      Take a look at KWord for Example: For every document instance, you get a new window with lots of space-wasting buttons on the top. This does not happen with true MDI like in Word 97 for Windows nor with true SDI like in Word for Macintosh.
    • More mod points to you ! Bang on, on the UI issue.

      But on an OT note, i wonder what Open source needs leadership for ? More people to use it ? More money to be made out of it? Kill Microsoft ?

      From what i've read, this movement is about sharing your work, without restrictions..In my opinion, no one person is/should be *responsible* for an Open-Source product,unless the person happens to be the sole developer.

      As for the PR work, yes there needs to be a few spokespersons, which we already have.
      All the same, a good product would hardly need an advertisement - Proof is Apache,Linux,and number of BSD installations.

    • Traitor! (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Kill him, mod him down, GPL him.
      Ignore his heretical(although well thought out and reasoned) arguments.
      Be different from the rest by being just like every other fat manchild living in their parent's houses.
    • All the wonderful [iarchitect.com] user interfaces that professional companies do.

      in my experience, Open Source apps are usually more intuitive and more stable than the professional ones I've seen. Lotus Notes in particular takes the booby prize as the least intuitive app with the most horribe UI I've ever run across.

      That being said, I do have to wonder why Lokisoft's dialogs are the exact reverse of everyone else's in terms of button placement. They always put cancel on the left. What's up with that? I've bitched at them about it several times (I forgot to corner Draeker and ask him about it at the last CLIQ.) I've never got a response with an explanation, though.

      • It comes from, I believe, the Mac OS, where OK is on the right and Cancel on the left. This si because normally the user will wish to OK, and the user spends most of his time on the right hand of the screen: scrollbars, expanding windows, opening volumes &c. The only things on the left hand side are the dangerous close-window button and the Cancel button. The Mac OS UI, while it does have some nasty problems, had a better layout than anyone else's, and still does.
      • Gee...in their rush to bash MS, they left out the Motif "check" boxes. They piss me off everytime I see them. They are either one shade or blue or another, with a little beveling that makes it ambigious as to whether they are pushed in or not.

        In my experience Open Source apps are no better (or no worse) than many of the winders apps out there. There are some gems and there are some turds...on both sides of the fence.
    • > Done mark me as a "traitor"

      Just go on with your rant, just go on. However, please know that you won't kontour. OSS is stronger than that.

  • Hey, what an idea!

    Yeah we need someone like RMS to lead something like FSF...

    Oh wait..

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Flamebait)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday August 03, 2001 @06:43AM (#2137371)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Great post!
      I think that we don't need a Leader, but more of a humongous to-do list, and try to convince the developers to be a bit more focussed on what needs to be done, instead of what *can* be done. IMHO it's, just like you say, a complete waste of energy to develope yet another tool (editor, IDE, debugger, MP3 player, CD-player, shell, etc). Choice is good, too much choice is spilled energy!
      • Everyone of those 'redundant' projects has been made because the programmer couldn't find what she wanted in the existing options.

        I'm writing a mp3 jukebox right now, there are dozens I could have downloaded, but none had the features I was looking for.

    • Why merge Gnome and KDE? They're pretty much compatible, and from the arguments it's fairly obvious that people prefer one or the other. Oh, hang on, you want an OS with one desktop? Try Windows. We prefer choice here.

      BTW, KDE doesn't just run on Linux. AFAIK Gnome is Linux-only.

      • BTW, KDE doesn't just run on Linux. AFAIK Gnome is Linux-only.

        Since Sun and HP are both adopting Gnome as their standard desktops I think it's reasonable to assume that Gnome doesn't only run on Linux. But just to be clear about it, no Gnome doesn't only run on Linux.

        HTH
    • it is not all about economics.
      Consider for a moment:

      A) How many microsoft wage-slaves are truly happy doing their programming?

      B) How many volunteer OSS coders are truly happy doing their programming?

      anyone like to hazard a guess which number would be larger... place bets NOW!!!

    • MS has 48,000 employees, and carries a product line of over 1,200 products. 48k may seem big, but really, its not a lot. Half of those are active engineers.

      The other half are lawyers.

    • Re:Of Course. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jesser ( 77961 )
      Choice is good, fragmentation is bad.

      It sounds like you're saying: If KDE and Gnome both produce a desktop, that's wasted effort. But if Microsoft and Corel both produce an office suite, that's competition and choice for the user. I don't see how those two statements can be compatible.
      • Well, I think that the idea that he (and most others with that mentality) have is that the KDE and GNOME user bases are from the same group; and therefore working on both is fragmenting the users of open source.

        I happen to think that's wrong -- not everyone in the open source community needs/wants the same thing. I happen to be very jealous of my CPU cycles; so I don't use either. I'm sure there are similar differences that help people make the choice between KDE/GNOME (I don't really know the specifics of how they're different.) I wouldn't want One True Desktop, as I'm pretty much guaranteed that it wouldn't be what I want, and many others feel the same way.

  • Self description (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Friday August 03, 2001 @06:27AM (#2138060) Homepage Journal
    ay Greenspan is ... the "industry thought leader"
    If I needed a reason to totally ignore this article, there it is. WTF does an "industry thought leader" do, besides stroke his on ego?

    Besides, what is peoples obsessions with writing dull essays and "papers" about the topic du jour. Write some bloody code, instead of feeding the techie webs insatiable appetite for content, usually (as in this case) the same six or seven ideas endlessly rehashed.

    • Greenspan is ... the "industry thought leader"
      I agree. Anyone who describes himself as a thought leader has got my immediate disdain, but give the buy a break. At least he didn't describe himself as an actual leader - since a leader is defined by his actions rather than his thouhts. Gee, well, I thought I was a leader...

      That said, he has a few good points he makes regarding lack of consolidated leadership. Interestingly, OpenSOurce is about distributied activities - namely, distributed development. What we're finding here is that regardless of how well distributed development may work, distributed leadership doesn't work. As much as it pains me to say this, the OSS comunity needs to adopt a more corporate style hirarchical leadership model, sith some accountability built in. It fas fascinatinf to me that Microsoft was the consolidating force inthe OSS comunity for those first few months after Mundie's initial speech in which he bashed the GPL and made the initial announcement of the Microsoft PR initiative known as Shared Source. Imediately after this, there was a consolidated, well reasoned and organized response [slashdot.org]. Since then though, things have deteriorated substancially.

      OSS likes to organize itself into projects - perhaps we need the OSS Political Action Comittee Project, who's mission it is to raise awareness andprovide a unified political direction for member software projects.

      --CTH

    • Re:Self description (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kragg ( 300602 )
      Sorry, I'd have to disagree with you.

      I work at a consultancy that provides technology solutions, and from my experience, if you want people to actually use something, you need to do a lot more than just code it.
      You need (among other things) an understanding of your users (this was covered in more detail here [slashdot.org]) and the way they think, a proper direction (no point doing stuff that no-one will use) and so on. Thought leadership may sound like verbal wankage, but if they get you in the news, get you addressing the right issues, get you more generally understood and recognised, then you're on to a winner.

      Of course, if they try to take credit for it all, and then go ahead and make millions from their status as open-source movement leader, then you've either got to condemn them or think 'I wish I'd done that'...

      Disclaimer : As i said, i work for a consultancy. Therefore most of what I say is bullshit. Oh well

  • Open source Leaders? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by michaelsimms ( 141209 ) on Friday August 03, 2001 @07:02AM (#2138324) Homepage
    Open source doesnt need a leader. We already have a leader. OURSELVES. Open source lets ANY one of us become a leader, if, by ability and personality, we are capable of it. Why appoint anyone? The fluid leadership status of various projects gives those projects a far greater dynamic than a project where you are forced to work under someone, regardless of their suitability.
    • I have to agree with this. I really get tired of the endless hand-wringing that is spewed forth by various pundits who are upset that Open Source/Free Software doesn't follow enough of the time-tested corporate rules. The absence of clear leadership is one of the defining characteristics of both the OS and FS movements. Their are no real leaders -- there are only advisers, and that advice need not be followed. This is what true freedom is about, and freedom is an integral part of both movements. I have the freedom to waste my own time starting my own failing project that needlessly reproduces the functionality of a dozen other projects. This bothers a lot of people. Too bad for them. I also have the freedom to contribute to successful and original projects in a meaningful way. This also bothers a lot of people. Too bad for them, too.

      What the weak-spined hand-wringers need to realize is that OS/FS is as much a cultural movement as it is a technological movement. It's about doing things differently as well as doing them better. Of course, this leads to waste, as many critics are fond of pointing out. We have dozens of window managers, hundreds (maybe thousands) of text editors, dead projects galore. But does this really matter? How many projects have been abandoned because the authors discovered more established projects to contribute to instead? How many were the result of inexperienced developers getting in over their heads? This may all look like wasted effort, but it is really nothing more than the process of learning and creation. Every novice programmer needs toy projects to sharpen his skills. Is there any harm done by allowing others to see and comment on what he has done (and maybe take some ideas from it)? Sometimes it's better to add small improvements to an existing project, but there are also great benefits to going it alone. Some failed projects were also started by experienced developers. Again, this is not something to worry about. Most creative people have a lot more bad ideas than good ideas. They will sometimes convince themselves that bad ideas are good and proceed with a new project. Leaders don't stop this kind of thing, they just hide it from view.

      So, why should we take one of the most important features of the success of OS/FS and throw it away? Why should we adopt the old, corporate way of doing things? Sure, it's risky to start doing things in a new way, but cultural movements always carry risks. I am glad that I can develop Free software and only have to risk my time and maybe a little money. No one will hang me or put me in a concentration camp for my efforts. No one will turn fire hoses against me or burn a cross in my front yard. It disturbs me that even the relatively minor risks imposed by abandoning corporate culture are too much for those who claim to be fans of Open Source and then go on to enumerate the features of a corporation that are needed to "make it successful." Develop some passion and do something to contribute, but please don't claim to be a fan of OS/FS and then disparage it for being too Free.

  • There is no war (Score:2, Insightful)

    by khuber ( 5664 )
    Jay clearly doesn't get it.

    I'm tired of the attitude that there's some kind of open source vs. closed source war going on, which is pushed by the popular media. There is not.

    If there is a genuine need for something, or an interest in an open source version of some technology, then someone can build it. But don't make open source out to be some kind of single-minded mission. There are many many different kinds of people with different interests that happen to do open source work. To me, this is a bottom-up self organizing process, not anything that needs one leader or governing body and global strategies. That will never work! So what if there are ten .NET-like projects? So much the better I think.

    Hackers dislike authority. Welcome to anarchy, baby.

    I think this antagonistic attitude is very destructive. The best stuff comes out of need and genuine interest in developing good software.

    Fair competition is good, but rememember that the people developing closed source applications are people too before you pick up that gun! In fact, some of us do it as our day job.

    -Kevin

  • Disclaimer: vague generalities and wooly arguments follow:

    I've recently watched some war documentaries, read some stuff about history, some films like Napoleon, etc. etc -- the totality of which has formed in me the impression that:

    People in the field know what's going on. Distributed units can take advantage of local situations as they change. Autonomous units can do things which advancing columns can't. Rapid reaction requires an ear to the ground and the autonomous authority to carry out immediate maneuvers and strategies. The Queen Bee doesn't direct her troops, but they independently seek out targets and communicate with each other. Etc. Etc. (add your own here)

    Basically, the world is too big... and we can't just stand on a hilltop like Napoleon did, directing the battle as he surveyed the field laid out neatly in front of him. Today's hilltop is the boardroom, and comfy chairs -- hardly the same.

    Ok, so please flesh out this wooly argument of mine with some concrete knowledge and examples of your own.
    PS. I haven't read the article.

  • .Net is "innovative" (Score:2, Interesting)

    by arbours ( 302317 )
    Looking over the last 7 years of Windows development,, the .Net runtime to me is a fruition of all the OCX/Active X/OLE initiatives: a way for all Windows programming languages to share code easily. C#, VB, C++, Delphi, Perl, Python: all can create code that can be used in other languages, easily. This is a huge advantage to MS and to programmers - everyone leveraging everyone else's code

    The problem i see with open source, especially Linux, is that no person thought of bringing the same to that world. No one has created their own CLR that everyone can add into, sharing code much more easily and helping each other more: which would be a truly open source ideal.

    Instead, in ONLY 1 shocking example, there still isn't even a unified ODBC standard in Linux - totally unbelievable. Perl, Python, Lisp, on and on, each have to create their own interfaces to databases - tens of thousands of lines of code re-written over and over again to do the SAME thing.

    Do you see, just from this 1 example, that with .NET Microsoft is going to be eating Open Source's lunch? OSS is wasting time re-writing, while MS builds a pluggable component architecture, letting programmers everywhere leverage each other's work, no matter what the language.

    I think that is why the writer was complaining there is no leadership in OSS. Why didn't someone think of this before for the OSS world? Why are you still programming in the dark ages, like in the ODBC example? And Mono isn't the answer, as Ximian won't be around long enough to make it happen, and it isn't innovative at all, it is just a copycat.

    alex
    • Well, this jibes with Miguel of Gnome fame's decription of why Unix "sucks". Everyone is providing infrastructure, and nobody is providing any policy. His point was that most of the major components of a Unix system share no code other than libc and maybe X11.

      Of course, the people who do provide policy (like Gnome themselves) are isolated by groups writing competing applicaitons and never have enough critical mass to 'win' the policy battle. In a culture of 'free software' nobody wants to give up their freedom to make a decision about what to use. It's programmer versus programmer over questions such as what widgets to use (did any user ever complain they didn't have enough different widgets?) My theory is that this is a continuation of the commercial Unix tradition of adhering to certain base standards while still promoting vendor lock-in.

      Of course going with a single vendor also give that vendor the right to change their mind (as MS has done many times on the DB driver issue!). It also leads to interesting contradictions such as "Managed runtime environments like Java are great! Write Windows software with J++." which transforms into "Managed runtime environments like Java are bad! Write Windows software." which transforms into "Managed runtime environments like .NET are good! BTW, we're seriously breaking your VB code." But at least there is some direction at any given time rather than the policy menu approach in the Unix world.

  • I'm ready to be the open source leader (Score:4, Funny)

    by JiveDonut ( 135491 ) on Friday August 03, 2001 @06:45AM (#2145460) Homepage
    I will be happy to act as your leader.

    Bow down before me and worship.

    Go forth and develop software that is good and plentiful.

    Send me donations.

    Live long and prosper.

    Be nice to each other.

    Who's with me?

    • I will be happy to act as your leader.
      Bow down before me and worship.
      Go forth and develop software that is good and plentiful.
      Send me donations.
      Live long and prosper.
      Be nice to each other.

      Ummm, how much worship time do you need, and will you accept AOL CDs as offerings/donations??

      And didn't someone get nailed to a dead tree for inciting people to be nice to each other??

      Would you consider "abolition of all armies and deadly weapons" as an addition to your supreme commandments?? Please???

      • I only need the a modicum of worship. Two or three times per week, 40 minutes at a time. AOL CDs should be sacrificed in order to keep me pleased. Donations should be cash. US dollars, please.

        I'll pass on the dead tree nailing, but thanks for mentioning it.

        I'll take your last suggestion under advisement, but deadly weapons will help me vanquish any of our enemies.

    • The Leader is good,
      The Leader is great!
      We surrender our wills,
      As of this date!

  • Easy solution (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dr_Cheeks ( 110261 ) on Friday August 03, 2001 @07:01AM (#2147551) Homepage Journal
    All we need is to plow some of our considerable energies into genetically engineering a giant monster Tux (with a whole army of little lieutenant Tux's passing on his commands), who can then co-ordinate our jihad against MS.

    Or, y'know, alternatively we could continue to fight on all fronts exactly as we've been doing already (and people do actually seem to be making money after all). Anyway, who the hell wants to spend their spare time working for a giant multinational Linux Corp? Not me.

    BTW, I think I should point out that Jay's doesn't always hit the mark quite right. Take a look at his premature eulogy for Slashdot [lycos.com]. Take what he says with a pinch of salt, folks.

    • Take a look at his premature eulogy for Slashdot. Take what he says with a pinch of salt, folks.

      OK, I'll take a look.

      "The camaraderie and high spirits will soon be replaced by the same rancor and factiousness that permeates the rest of the capitalist world."

      Hang on, are you saying Jay was wrong with this prediction??

      • *grin*

        Ahhh, you're just saying that cos you're old-skool, Stormie (not that I'm bitter that your UID# is only 1/2 as long as mine or anything).

        But I have a fine counter to your argument; I'm currently posting to Slashdot from work, i.e. it's still preferential hanging out here than it is actually joining in with the "capitalist world" : )

    • All we need is to plow some of our considerable energies into genetically engineering a giant monster Tux

      Unfortunately, (as can be seen here [ebi.ac.uk]) only very few stretches of DNA are known for penguins!

  • Since when... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Psiren ( 6145 ) on Friday August 03, 2001 @07:09AM (#2147566)
    .. was the object of open source to "fight back against Redmond"? Sure, if they create some new product that's a good idea, theres no reason not to implement our own open version. This happens all the time. But if Microsoft released "Inflatable Dartboard v1.0" I get the impression that some jerk would release a free version, just because they feel the need to compete with MS.

    From my point of view, I just want tools to get the jobs done that I need to do. If those tools happen to be similar to something released by MS, then fine. If not, thats just fine too. In my opinion, some of the best free software is that which was created to fill a niche of its own, not to compete against MS.

  • Leadership? In Open Source? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MartyJG ( 41978 ) on Friday August 03, 2001 @07:05AM (#2147575) Homepage
    "But now, as we move into the next phase of the Internet, it's time to pick one overall strategy and stick to it. If OS continues on its lovably factioned way, it risks losing its important role in the future of the Internet."

    Here read: ".NET is coming out, should there be Linux support?". This article was not about leadership for Open Source, it's about supporting M$ technologies - and this arguement has already happened with all the other Ximian/Mono articles that came out before this one. ( = 'bandwagon' + 'missed')

    "Can O'Reilly, Stallman, and others agree on one approach and convince others to follow it"

    Short answer: 'no'. It being Open Source, some people may want to work on supporting stufflikethis(tm), other mights not - but there should never be anyone standing up and saying 'Open Source should/should not support this project, and any work done to provide this support is valid/invalid.'

    At the end of the day, it's going to be a bigger audience than this who decides whether it was worthwhile or useful.
  • Who cares about this, for crying out loud? Such 'commentators' should matter little to the OS movement. I am sick and tired (and sick and tired) of hearing the same old arguments from the same old, tired hacks, who have to make a living somehow. The strength of the open source movement is it's variety and this very lack leadership that everybody so bemoans. The current set-up leads to an anarchic, chaotic, but often happy and innovative playground the open source used to sit quite happily, before we discovered the what the initials VC stood for. The reason OS works is because it moves fast and sometimes in unexpected directions. Innovations are always going to come from this kind of background, and thank goodness for that. The OS movement is a testing ground, and ultimately a killing ground for ideas that don't work. Where movement OS leads, commercial concerns follow. Let's keep that way. Not stultify it with this Western Obsession with top-down hierarchies. Celebrate diversity, not uniformity.
  • The embarassing feature of the open source community is that most open source projects are reimplementations of commercial products. And not necessarily better ones, just cheaper ones.

    Linux is a reimplementation of UNIX. The whole GNU tool suite is basically reimplementations of the UNIX Programmer's Workbench from the 1970s. "vi", claimed by some to be innovative, is a reimplementation of an overpriced product called the RAND Editor. [home.cern.ch] X windows is a second system approach to the early UNIX window systems.

    During the brief period that Linux companies had money, we didn't see much vision, either. Nobody came out with a desktop system that looked good and was easy to use. Nobody got a top graphic designer and a top interaction designer (yes, there are such people, and you should know who they are) to rework the user interface. The open source industry blew its chance to take on Microsoft.

    That's the real problem.

Slashdot Top Deals

There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it reluctantly. -- Publius Terentius Afer (Terence)

Close