Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Open Source Book a Collective Effort 95

Posted by CmdrTaco from the smithing-of-words dept.
Hairy1 writes "The New Zealand Open Source Society has begun a project to write a book to put the case for open source use in business and government. There is a need for a book which clearly puts the case for using open source, and provides a clear migration plan. Already five authors and several reviewers have stepped forward to commit time to writing the book. However, other authors and reviewers would be welcome to join the project."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open Source Book a Collective Effort More

Open Source Book a Collective Effort

Comments Filter:

  • This should go further (Score:5, Interesting)

    by amigaluvr ( 644269 ) on Sunday February 09, 2003 @12:08PM (#5264867) Journal
    The best option would be to make this not just a book, but an ebook. preferebly only an ebook

    but not the typical ebook. we should have an open source reader which can be used to create books that are more compatible in content. Use this as a starting point to 'ram the message home'

    Imagine the possibilities. A new large book promoting open source with all reasoning to do so, and have it distributed in an open format so as to demonstrate as well as just preach the positives.

    That is my wish for this project.

    • Re:This should go further (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Coke in a Can ( 577836 ) on Sunday February 09, 2003 @12:19PM (#5264933)
      "but not the typical ebook. we should have an open source reader which can be used to create books that are more compatible in content. Use this as a starting point to 'ram the message home'"

      We already have two. They're called ASCII and HTML.
      • they are not truly open. ASCII is a controlled spec, and html is hinted at by the WWW group, and if you think they're open you have another thing coming.

        Problem there is, they may change it at any time

        Besides, non-open machines, such as Windows and MAC's also use these embedded throughout their OS. ASCII perhaps not so much these days, but certainly HTML
        • Besides, non-open machines, such as Windows and MAC's also use these embedded throughout their OS. ASCII perhaps not so much these days, but certainly HTML
          Sorry, are you saying that an open specification can't and shouldn't be used in closed environments? Do you also believe I shouldn't run open source software on my windows box?
        • Look, HTML and ASCII, are standards. And have bodies that govern them. They are free to use and are cross platform compatible because of standards.

          ASCII is probably the oldest and most standard spec in the computer world(I am saying probably cause I do not really know, and if i say it is the oldest i will get the pundits here with thier Junior exyclopedia guide to the universe saying i am wrong).

          Oh, yeah and ASCII is gonna change all that much. Must be some good hydroponic.

          HTML has matured and can be parsed by all systems.
          Perfect cross platform.

          Why reinvent the wheel?

          And what the hell? Don't use ASCII or HTML because non open OS's use them? WTF? Really, man that is just silly. I am a unix and windows guy. Dont see anything wrong with either on any platform.

          This is the problem with most of the community. If it ain't open dont use it. But this is just so fucking stupid.

          Should we rip all use of ASCII and HTML out of Linux cause Windows ans Apple use them? I mean that is what you are saying. Every computer since the dawn of time has used ASCII(mention Babbage and I will bitch slap you). Non open OS's use TCPIP. Shit rip that outta there. WAIT, IEEE governs how electrons/light flow across any type of medium, FUCK, we gotta throw that out too, cause non OSS systems use cables, hard drives, electricity.

          We need standards, we do not need to throw up another project on source forge everyime someone gets a wild hair.

          And really this is not even an OSS arguement.

          ASCII and HTML would be the best choice because of cross platform.

          We do not need a format when one exits. Easy enough.

          MAN got me going on a sunday.

          Puto

          • The intended audience don't read ebooks, they read paper books. Print quality is a must.

            ASCII doesn't have formatting. The only people who would suggest ASCII are programmers who don't understand their audience.

            HTML doesn't look good in print (yes yes, there's print CSS, but the spec allows too many variances to for print-quality rendering)

            Arguing about output formats is missing the point. You don't write a book in HTML or ASCII. You write it in Docbook or LyX and then from this high-level format you have produce many lower-level formats such as HTML or ASCII or VoiceXML or XHTML 2 or E-book/PDF (via XSL-FO). Ask them what format they want it in and produce it on the fly for all I care - it's no hassle.

      • Don't forget PostScript and LaTeX.
      • I think you've overlooked XML.
      • We already have two. They're called ASCII and HTML.

        Well that's a clever answer, but not a useful one IMO. And moreover, you've specified a content type, not a reader.

        I agree with the original poster. An open source reader that supports the same kind of functionality as, for example, the MS reader would be good. So, a library, variable size fonts, bookmarks, automatic repagination, text-to-speech etc. And cross platform of course, which probably means a C/C++ program to avoid issues with Java runtimes etc. and would hopefully keep the footprint small (required for Palm, WinCE etc).

        As for formats, I would have thought XML might be a way to go, but I'm not sure how that would work for embedded images or other multimedia content.

        That said, for all I know, such an ebook reader might exist. Does anybody know of one ?

      • .. the various breeds of TeX, and also DocBook.
      • Err "I like the way..."
      • Maybe it would make sense to use Mozilla as a starting point for an open-source reader for some kind of openly-documented ebook file format.

        This might argue for something like making the ebook format a gzipped collection of HTML pages. I really like how pdflatex documents look; latex2html output never looks that good. Certainly one would want an ebook to look as good as possible.

        Maybe the open-source ebook reader could just accept gzipped LaTeX as input, and render the output in whatever form the (human) reader wishes.

    • Re:This should go further (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NewbieProgrammerMan ( 558327 ) on Sunday February 09, 2003 @12:29PM (#5264987)

      I don't know about others, but I am partial to printed books. And in this situation, I would think it would be advantageous to have a hard copy. Imagine this exchange:

      Me: "Hey, I would like it if you could take a look at this book and see if you think it makes a good case for using open source applications in-house."

      PHB: "Sure, just leave the book with me and I'll have a look."

      Me: "Well, um, it's only available as an ebook, but the reader is free."

      PHB: "So I have to install something on my computer? It doesn't have a virus in it, does it? "

      Me: "Well, no, but I can just print it out if that would be easier. It's only 500 pages...."

      In the end, I'd rather just spend $30 to pick up a copy of the book and let him read it. Besides, I don't mind spending money on books that support and advocate open source products - even if I never directly contribute to the project(s) involved, I have provided a small amount of monetary incentive for the authors (and publishers) to provide more books and/or resources for the open source community. It's worth it, IMHO.

      • Or, as I do these days with more and more people:

        Me: "Hey, I would like it if you could take a look at this book and see if you think it makes a good case for using open source applications in-house."

        PHP : Sure, beam me a copy and I'll read it later.

        Boss whips out his pda, gets a copy.

        There are many, many reasons for liking dead-tree books. There are even a few reasons for preferring 'em. But like every other argument over virtual-vs.-actual, it ignores the fact that there's nothing wrong with both coexisting. Don't have a Tungsten? Buy the paper version! Couldn't be arsed carting around a ludicrously large tome wherever you go? Download it!

        • And coexisting is fine. As someone else responded, it's nice to be able to bring hundreds of e-books on that business trip on the hard drive of your laptop, so I would probably get the electronic version of any book I found valuable if it were available.

          I didn't mean to imply that having a free e-book reader and a free electronic version of the book would be bad, I just meant that only having the electronic version would be bad, because it would make it harder to get it to the target audience in some cases.

      • Also most higher ups are busy people. A lot of them don't lug around a laptop either. Their reading time is in the limo, on the airplane, or late at night just before bed when their eyes are too tired to stare at a flashing computer screen. Additionally I am a normal person and I prefer to read things in my bed just before I fall asleep. While it does make a statement about an open source e-book, etc., a wider audience will be captured with a paper or dual release. The above argument about installing an ebook reader being too much of a problem is true also.

        Also don't forget that many executives don't even know how to use a computer. Their secretaries print out their e-mail on paper for them to read. Or they know how to barely use a computer. It does happen quite often.
      • I don't know about others, but I am partial to printed books.

        On the other hand, I'd love to be able to bring 50 books onto an airplane with me, so I can pick out what I want to read. As it is now, I can only bring one or two books with me, and I always seem to get bored with them when I'm at 20,000 feet. I'd love to be able to cram 50 books onto an E-reader and be done with it.

        E-readers would also be great if I'm trying to read a novel with an inappropriate (for the little ones) cover. There have been times that I've wanted to read my trashy little novels in public, but I always have to wait.

        --sex [slashdot.org]

    • I was personally hoping to see something more like Wikipedia or a wiki environment of some kind with categories so that those knowledgeable in one area would 'control/edit' the content for that category. Wiki's rock IMHO.
    • ebook... we should have an open source reader which can be used to create books that are more compatible in content. Use this as a starting point to 'ram the message home'

      This is a nice idea. These days I find myself relying more and more heavily on PDFs, because (1) electronic searching is a huge win, (2) lots fit on my laptop's hard disk, and (3) if I really want a paper copy, I can print it, or better yet, I can copy a small range of pages (which I do pretty often).

      PDF is good for that, and pdflatex is wonderful, but Acroread isn't open-source. Adobe could decide to change the format some day, or get rid of the free Acroread download, etc. Something functionally equivalent to Acroread, but as open source, would be a huge win.

      The big thing to do is to select or define the file format. Then it will be relatively straightforward to write progressively better readers. The file format should allow capabilities that may not be implemented in early versions of the reader, but would be desirable in the longer term.

      There are "Unix philosophy" arguments to be made for using a ASCII-ish file format, or maybe a file format that's a gzip of an ASCII format. That would give lots of opportunities to write "baby readers" (e.g. text only) or do handy text-processing hacks (sed, awk, grep...).

      • PDF is good for that, and pdflatex is wonderful, but Acroread isn't open-source. Adobe could ...get rid of the free Acroread download, etc... Something functionally equivalent to Acroread, but as open source, would be a huge win.
        There are already open-source PDF readers, including ones that run on Linux.

        Adobe could decide to change the format
        This is the same as the situation with PostScript, which Unix users have never balked at. In any case, the real issue is whether the author provides the book in a format that can be edited with free software. For instance, this [lightandmatter.com] book is available in both LaTeX and PDF formats. For 99.99999% of all users, the PDF is going to work just fine. But in case something terrible happens with PDF, the LaTeX is still there. It's just like the distinction between source and object files for programs. MS could redefine their .exe format tomorrow, but who cares? Any open-source app that runs on Windows can just be recompiled.

        There are other open, editable source formats as well, e.g., DocBook, XSL-FO, and the one being developed by Oasis.

    • Sounds like a great idea! An open source book promoting open source. I wonder how many different versions will end up being published.
    • If you're going to that, why not publish this book under Prentice Hall's new open source lisence scheme? This way you will also have paper copies available for those of us that would rather read it that way, and you get a well respected publishing label attached to the project.

  • A more difficult task.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by monadicIO ( 602882 ) on Sunday February 09, 2003 @12:09PM (#5264875)
    ..... is going to be to get all those CEO/CFO/CTO types to actually read something like this.
    • More likely the CEO/CFO/CTO will appoint someone else to research and recommend.

      It has been my experience that in companies without a full time tech staff that the younger eager employees are often tasked with making purchasing decisions, and asked to participate in director meetings when technical insight is required.
    • I agree. Nowadays CEOs/CFOs/CTOs are only interested in outsourcing to other companies, that in turn use close source software to keep "trade secrets" propietary, so they can charge an arm and a leg for it.

      I doubt big corps will turn to open source anytime soon... sadly :-(
      • Nowadays CEOs/CFOs/CTOs are only interested in outsourcing to other companies, that in turn use close source software to keep "trade secrets" proprietary, so they can charge an arm and a leg for it.

        Not entirely true. What you say may apply to large corporations, but I can tell you that there are 10,000's of technical managers at medium to small organizations who are looking for solutions that #1 work, and #2 are cost effective to implement and support. A book that builds a solid business case for open source software can go a long ways to helping technical managers introduce open source software technology into these organizations.

        At my start-up company we use open source software extensively and I credit that decision as one of the reasons we can be considered one of the dot-com survivors rather than roadkill. For us, open source software allows a small team of engineers and IT staff to be in tight control over the software that delivers our services. We have access to every line of source code that runs our systems from the initial boot sequence to complex database operations. In the past I worked on projects that were at the mercy of Microsoft and Sun to deliver bug-free software technology in a timely manner. When you are small you don't have the respect or clout to get these companies to be responsive and your ability to fix things yourself are extremely limited. For instance, I went through a nail biting experience of being 2 weeks from shipping a major software product that was heavily dependent on major bugs in the MS and Sun Java VM being fixed before stability and uptime requirements of the product could be proven. In the end we had to punt and ship the product anyway hoping that it was good enough to meet customer requirements. Since mandating open source software at my new company such experiences are a thing of the past because if necessary we can roll up or sleeves and fix thing ourself. In practice this rarely happens, but it let's me sleep a liitle better at night.

  • Why not make the open source book "open source" (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just put all the chapters on sourceforge under CVS.

    • They're actually planning to put the whole book under an "open" license, even if they're still considering whether they're going to do so during developement or right after pubblication.

      What I do hope is that either they succeed in publishing something soon or they decide to release even the earlier drafts, also because this can be a good way to catch the interest of more people.

      For the CVS part, they're already using it, with their own server (I believe).

  • I read thru the prerelease versions of this manual but was very suprised & disapointed to see a strong bias against many well known and popular case studies that include Linux as the primery variable in the software+hardware ``equation".

    I think that with all the amazing examples of Linux powering powerful business to business and Web portal shopping sites, it'd be a simple tale to examinne Linux in the ``real" corporate enviorment as opposed to the very theoritecial and academic feel to the current manual page.

    Linux just plain works for all businesses ---- so lets use it to our advantage. Stop getting general and get more specific?!

  • I don't want to sound like a troll but (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 09, 2003 @12:20PM (#5264934)
    I don't want to sound like a troll or feed them but, wouldn't it be better if there was one single author for this? A book like this would need to capsure the feeling of readers therefore a collective attempt will sound more "scientific" and boring.

    A paper or collecion of papers or a large recruition network sounds better as a collective work, but for a single book I believe a single author would do better, solid work
    • If you have several authors then each one could focus in what is more specialized. Open Source as a philosophy could have one author if you want, but the use of open source in several fields have to be several, unless you have a good writer specialized in each one of possible fields.

      In the other hand, an evolutive work could be better than the work of a single person... think in open source software, and the strenght of being developed by a large community.
    • With enough eyes, all stylistic errors are transparent.

  • good on ya Kiwis (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aoteoroa ( 596031 ) on Sunday February 09, 2003 @12:23PM (#5264951)
    Open source could really use better marketing.

    On the topic of desktop software was CRM (customer relations management) intentially left off the list or just overlooked. Time management is probably the second biggest killer app for businesses next to spreadsheets. Some open source alternatives are available like compier
  • not a book on Open Source.

    Long ago I had a hairbrained idea to start an Open Source type project where people could openly contribute to a fiction novel using current open source software practices.

    I got really exited at the title "Open Source Book a Collective Effort".

    But alas, it was not what I hoped

  • Nothing personal but (insert insult here) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pharmboy ( 216950 ) on Sunday February 09, 2003 @12:41PM (#5265046) Journal
    Many of you are making it sound as if it is a software project. Everyone puts in how it should work and then majority rules. Sadly, that is how it may turn out.

    What open source needs is MARKETING. It is no longer whether or not its better or not, its the fact that not enough decision makers understand what OSS really is. We often focus too much on factual representation, and not enough on presentation.

    Put it in whatever format the market dictates, write it to be easy to read by the persons you want to read it. Give examples that apply to their situation. This means that people that are already OSS advocates will probably not like the book, which is fine. The goal, it appears, is NOT to reaffirm what hackers think, its to expose decision makers to an alternative to proprietary systems where licensing can change with every necessary update.

    If you and I love it, then its probably not written very well for its intended market.

    • Re:Nothing personal but (insert insult here) (Score:5, Insightful)

      by plierhead ( 570797 ) on Sunday February 09, 2003 @08:40PM (#5267849) Journal
      I live in New Zealand, love open source and in particular would welcome the idea that my tax $$ don't get thrown down the gaping jaws of MS. But I hardly think a book is the way to "communicate with the decision makers - such as politicians, heads of departments, CIO's and CEO's.".

      As anyone who has ever sold anything to government (or anyone) knows, such people do not read books (well, certainly not a book like this). They would hardly even be likely to read a brochure.

      The thing that persuades these people is other people. "OK, the Microsoft salesman just left. What a great guy !! He says that their stuff will save us a fortune and he's got real case studies to prove it. So now, send in the open source salesman. Whats that ? They don't even have a salesman ? Are these guys serious ?"

      IT procurement decisions in government in New Zealand are made exactly the same as in any other government (and many companies) in the world. Typically all that the buyer is looking for is a way to tick off the task with as little risk as possible to his job. Who cares if he can save $M using open source - after all, its not like he'll see any of it in his pay check. The safest course is just to use whatever the Victorian state government, or the state of Minnesota used. Even if that costs $M. And even if the open source alternative is free. All he's looking for is, in IBM's jargon, a "meets expectations".

      The only exception to this is when a individualist champion emerges inside government as has happened inother countries. No such individual has stood up in New Zealand, where sadly, the individuals charged with IT policy resemble all too closely the country's majority population - sheep.

      I can see why these guys are steamed about writing this book, and more power to them. But at best, its use will be in fleshing in some of the details as to "how" - perhaps for consumption by a few low level managers - once someone else has already taken the brave decisions. It will not influence any of the key people.

  • Amazon has this:

    "The Business and Economics of Linux and Open Source"

    So, are we doubling our effort?
    • Yes, as you mention a book making a very strong case for the open source model has already been published. I recently had the pleasure of meeting Marting Fink, HP's Linux evangelist and author of "The Business & Economics of Open Source [linuxjournal.com]" when he gave the keynote speech to the OSW/Business of Open Source Conference [www.osw.ca] in Ottawa two weeks ago. Mr Fink's book sounds very similar to parts of the one the NZOSS is trying to create; perhaps they could ask him to write the Economics and When not to Migrate sections?

      BTW, Mr Fink was an engaging speaker and there was good Conference attendance all 'round, even though this was only the first year for the OSW event (2nd for BOSS). Perhaps because it was in Ottawa, there seemed to be many more government/business types than computer types at the Conference. Good sign or Bad sign? Maybe it's time Canada considered more of a paltform-neutral stance à la other governments [zdnet.com]?
    • He spoke at the OSHCA meeting in Los Angeles last year. Well.

      He also handled the Perens question well.

      I recommend the book, not for you and I but for the bean counters.

      But a multi-author onw will do no harm, there is a lot to write about. I may have to do one on Open Source in medicine, and even that leaves spaces for nurses, Physios, receptionists....
  • Hasn't anyone else heard the saying "too many cooks spoil the broth"?
  • Open source is great for software, which has a limited amount of stylistic influence, but you can't write a book by committee. It's the ultimate showcase of form versus function. Not that I'm wishing these folks ills. I hope they prove me wrong, but history shows that you just can't have more than 2 or 3 authors collaborate successfully (Please, don't post the 4 exceptions to this, I'm talking in general. Let's not get mired in details, al affliction infamous on /. ). You get a mishmash of styles and views that makes it hard to read. With a strong editorial staff, it could work though...

  • Get a salesman.

    Pay him a commission.

    Guess how far you'll get.
  • From my seminal paper, written in 1999 (BEFORE the dotcom collapse):

    The High Priests of the Bazaar

    This paper presents a case against the open source movement and explains why the open source model does not work for the vast majority of those involved. There are several arguments against the OS (open source) model.

    Open Source Doesn't Make Economic Sense For Most

    The open source organization has presented a few cases that supposedly explain why OS works economically. However, if you examine the cases objectively you will find that the cases are flimsy and non-specific and do not address any specific concerns. They attempt to bolster their case by pointing out a few "successes", among which Caldera and Red Hat are displayed as shining examples.

    The real economic question of the OS model is how is money made, and who is making the money. Who is being rewarded financially for the enormous development effort? The open source initiative claims that there are at least four different models that allow someone to reap rewards. Oddly, it is not mentioned that it is not necessarily the people who did the development work that gain financially.

    The four primary business cases mentioned by OS proponents are "Selling Support", "Loss Leader", "Widget Frosting" and "Accessorizing."

    The first case proposes that money can be made via selling support for the free software product. This is by far the strongest case and is proven to work, for a few small companies. The two companies that are shown as positive examples of this business model are Red Hat and Caldera, who distribute and support the Linux operating system. What is never mentioned is that neither of these two companies has contributed significantly in relative terms to the Linux development process. Its important to note that using this business model, the people that make the money are usually not the ones who have invested in the development process. So much for the strongest case.

    The second case is based on the idea that you give away a product as open source so you can make money selling a closed source program. This also can work, but it should be noted that the money is being made off the closed source product and not off of the open source. An example of this model would be Netscape, who gives away the source code of their client browser so the OS community can do development, but keeps their "cash cow" products completely closed. Obviously, this case may only work if you have a software product that lends itself to this sort of "give away the razor and make money on the blades" system. The truth is that the vast majority of software is monolithic. So much for the loss leader case.

    The third case, "Widget Frosting", sounds completely practical. The premise that hardware makers produce open source software so that the OS development community will work for free to produce better drivers and interface tools for their hardware products. It sounds great on the surface, especially for the company that produces the hardware: they get free drivers and do not have to pay for expensive developers. The OS community wins by getting presumably stable drivers and tools. What is not mentioned is the reason hardware makers usually don't do this is because they do not want to reveal trade secrets regarding their hardware design. Production of efficient drivers requires an intimate knowledge of the hardware the driver is for. It is almost always the case that it is in the hardware developers' best interest to keep their hardware secrets close to home. This also brings up the question of why isn't hardware "open"? So much for the frosting case.

    The final case, "Accessorizing", is similar to the first, but throws in the idea of selling books and complete systems with the open source software, and other accessories as well. It is obvious that selling books qualifies as support, and that it really belongs in the first case. The idea of selling computer systems, T-Shirts, dolls, again begs the question: "Who is making the money?" As with the first case, it is not necessarily the people who have done the development work. Additionally, the question of how much money can be made selling books, t-shirts, mugs, etc, is never answered. O'Reilly Associates is frequently used as an example to be a company who has made money using this case. The reader should notice that O'Reilly Associates are not the people doing the development work. Indeed, it is never asked why all the O'Reilly books are not available for free or at least at manufacturing cost? This also brings up the question of why isn't book production "open"? Perhaps they are waiting to see if they could sell enough O'Reilly T-Shirts to pay their bills. So much for the accessories.

    Open Source Does Not Necessarily Produce Better Software

    The open source proponents frequently state that OS necessarily produces better software. This statement is made without any evidence. Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary. GCC is a standard compiler produced by the GNU organization. It lags its commercial counterparts in both efficiency and features. The reason behind is illustrates the largest weakness in the OS plan. It is very hard to convince qualified engineers that they should do such boring and unglamorous work without any sort of financial reward. The idea of throwing large quantities of people at the source does not work in this case, since there are not large quantities of qualified individuals available.

    Open Source Did Not Make the Internet Successful

    Another statement made by the OS community is that somehow open source was responsible for the success of the Internet. The reason behind this is probably a result of the confusion between what is open source and what is an open protocol. It is easy to see that the foundation of the Internet was built on open protocols. This does not equate to open source, for the two are quite different. The vast majority of the machines on the Internet run on closed source operating systems running mostly closed source software, which communicate using open protocols.

    Where Does Open Source Work?

    Open source does work in certain cases. A good example of where it may work well is Netscape. The act of giving away the source to the OS community so they can work for free and produce a product that helps the sales of their server software was a stroke of genius and proved very profitable for the relatively few at Netscape. But is this truly making money off of open source? Isn't the money is made off of the closed source software?

    Another example of where it does work is the aforementioned Red Hat. Red Hat has been successful making money off of the work of thousands of others who have contributed to the Linux operating system and the associated GNU programs that have shipped with the Linux distributions. The question is: do those who work at Red Hat deserve to be rewarded, or do the people who do the actual development work deserve to be rewarded? Should the money go to the few, or to the many? It seems that the High Priests of the Bazaar believe the former.

    THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE RECOPIED AND REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT RESTRICTION, HOWEVER ADDITIONS/MODIFICATIONS/CORRECTIONS SHOULD BE LABELED AS SUCH WHERE THEY OCCUR.
    • Another thing I would like to point out, and which I will include in an updated version of the paper, is the fact that by contributing to Open Source you are decreasing the financial value of software. The reason for this is because you have eliminated the artificial scarcity of the product. This only serves to lessen the financia value of the product, which leads to lower compensation for those that produce software.

      Music and book publishers create scarcity via the copyright mechanism, the software industry should be no different.

      For those of you who have bit hit hard by the recent economic downturn in the software world may want to consider this before giving away your efforts to the corporations for free.
    • I'm not sure who you're trying to convince of your view on open source software. If it's software companies then you probably shouldn't bother because their whole existence revolves around the proprietary nature of their products. If it's hardware vendors then it surely depends on the hardware. Companies such as HP, IBM, and Sun Microsystems are all selling servers with Linux for good reason. They can offer their customers a good OS with no licensing fees. The hardware companies know that their individual OS's are not always going to be able to compete with the constantly evolving open source OS's. They have to spend a lot of money to maintain a proprietary OS, a fraction of which they'll need to get open software running on their systems. For businesses the choice is clear... a great product at reduced cost. Intel and AMD seem to have no problems releasing the information they need to get open OS's working. The reason that open source is sustainable is that the business's that need to change software for their purposes can pay developers to do it, but if the results are beneficial to society they are added to the software pool.
      • I am trying to convince the naiive developers who give away their services for free to corporations. As you pointed out in your post, Open Source can be good for corporations - but they arent the ones who did the development work! Who is getting rewarded here?
        • It seems as though this situation could work itself out. Developers dont' get paid anymore because people don't buy software. Software starts to break. Companies scream help. Enter developers.

          • Well developers will always be needed. The problem is that with Open Source less are needed and they are less highly valued.

            This is presumably good for the corporations, but bad for the developer.
  • The book could have various "branches" tailored to varying target audiences.

    cout "\nOpen source will ";

    #ifdef TARGET_CORPORATE_SUIT
    cout "save you on licensing fees, while providing a reliable, interoperable platform for your e-business solutions.";
    #endif

    #ifdef TARGET_LINUX_ZEALOT
    cout "take over the world, protecting your freedoms from soulless corporations.";
    #endif

    #ifdef TARGET_BILL_GATES
    cout "fail miserably once people realize that Windows XP provides a lower TCO. You can stop reading now. You have nothing to worry about. Go back to diving naked into your money pool.";
    #endif

    Okay, stupid examples. But I think there's an opportunity there to stretch the definition of what a book is.

  • A Book? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jefu ( 53450 )
    A book is a good thing. It is a nice compact way to deliver the message to someone. However, most managers really only have time for a "whitepaper", less than 20 pages.

    I think a better thing might be a whole website. Include on it the whitepaper and the book - prominantly (front page). But it also would allow the creation of other kinds of information for people interested in the topic: forums (like slashdot) for discussing current issues in the area, announcements (like freshmeat) for software of interest, mailing lists and so on. The site would need to be carefully moderated and edited or it could get out of control quickly with trolls and flamewars. This also allows for people to post articles saying open source does not work - this provides a good balance for the advocates. Such criticism and counter-opinions are important to hear (see the whole thread on Java at Sun).

    On a related note though, there could be a fun chance for open source. The state of Oregon recently voted to not raise taxes - thus putting the government in a serious budget crunch. They're already laying off state police and there are threats/promises of more to come.

    But if Oregon moved most of its office desktops to open source alternatives the savings could be pretty high. I don't know how many computers the state buys each year for office use, but the software costs - OS + Office + other software - probably adds up pretty quickly. That doesn't count upgrades which will add up to a bit more. I know that as part of the university system we only got a discount (hardware or software) if we bought through the right sources - and most machines came with Windows and Office pre-installed so the discounts didn't always apply on first purchase.

  • This book, of course, will need to be bound in loose-leaf format. Businessmen who are given a copy of it will need to turn it in every few days to a maintainer who will pull out the pages that have changed and update them. Firms that keep several copies of the book in their library will have to hire a maintainer to pore over Usenet each day and read of new 'exploits' and bugs.

    Bookstores that sell it will have to keep a working printing press on the premesis so that people who want to examine the printing plates, tweak the rollers and possibly print a copy with a different color of ink can be allowed to do so.

  • At least one already exists (Score:2, Interesting)

    by CAB ( 19473 )
    Skåne Sjælland Linux User Group in eastern Denmark already has a similar project.
    Its called "Friheden til..." - "The Freedom to...".

    Currently, it consists of 12 books on different topics. Thats 1541 pages all together.

    Find it here [sslug.dk].

    The only drawback for the international audience is that it is written in danish.


  • We are not only moving toward Open Source, we are moving away from closed source software. That's because closed source software companies have become extraordinarily abusive. Anyone who wants to avoid their abuse must stay away from their products.

    See the article, Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going [futurepower.net], for documentation of Microsoft's abusive practices.

    I think the NZOSS book should include chapters about what is driving people away from closed source software, as well as the chapters about what is moving them toward Open Source software.

  • Kozmo (Score:2, Funny)

    by t0ny ( 590331 )
    An open-source book on open source... that reminds me of Kramer's Coffee Table book about coffee tables.
  • We have done the same thing in Italy:
    [itmentor.it]
    http://www.itmentor.it/download/wintolin.pdf

    Alas, it's only in Italian (because it's targeted at our market), may we ask for volunteers for the translation? (it is FDL)

    Bye

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close