Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Brian Behlendorf interview on Forbes.com 19

Posted by Hemos
Brian Behlendorf, of Apache fame (and all around nice guy!), talked to Forbes.com about O'Reilly's new project, sourceXchange Read the interview for the full details.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Brian Behlendorf interview on Forbes.com More

Brian Behlendorf interview on Forbes.com

Comments Filter:
  • Posted by Matt Bartley:

    And I have no problem running Javascript from a promonent site like Forbes. They have a vested interest in not putting anything squirrly up on their site.
    Well, they did put squirrly code on their site. My screen got filled with javascript errors, and the java applet never ran. I'm using Netscape 3.04 and Linux.
  • "You cannot uncook Mushoo pork once is has been cooked"

    Sure you can. Feed it back to the pig! (Ok, you then have to use the poop as fertilizer...)

    The same answer works for "How do you unscramble an egg?"
  • >FDT: Why should a company pay for software it will not control?

    First off, most companies pay lots of money for a whole lot of software they don't control. I work for a company that develops proprietary software, and we certainly pay substantial amounts for development tools, revision control, word processing, etc. over which we have little or no influence. If there's a bug in that software that requires workarounds or (worse) may lead to a problem with our software, we're out of luck.

    Paying for bug fixes or new features in open source tools might be less expensive than buying proprietary stuff, and would allow us to exert more control over the issues that matter to us most. Would sponsors be exerting control over the direction of development? Of course they would be! But that wouldn't necessarily make the software less useful to others; at worst it could be forked.
  • Move it forward then quickly push it back. Boy, this is starting to be a slow morning for me playing shuffle board...
  • Security through obscurity can be used to supplement other security methods, but by itself it does not make things secure. If the only thing making something secure is security through obscurity, one sufficiently-determined person (or 'bot even) will destroy its entire security model. OTOH, STO can be used on top of other methods. But it really shouldn't, since peer review is an excellent way to find things that weaken your security method which you might have missed. If STO is a significant part of your security, than it's a significant part of something that's non-existant but for the temporary ignorance of others.
  • All I got (running NS 4.60 on Linux w/ java{,script} disabled) was a blank screen! Tried loading again, just to be sure (even though it took five minutes each time, mostly waiting).

    So I took a look at the source. I would be ashamed to have such a page on my site. Lots of fancy garbage to do nothing. Has CSS (which doesn't seem to do a thing with any browser currently available) as well as a lot of font codes in the text (both size and face specified).

    Several very long lines. Erratic indentation. Randomly placed comments. The fact that it depends on JavaScript doesn't say much for the mental brilliance of Forbes' readers -- IMHO no one with any sense trusts a public site to run unchecked code like that.

  • Why?
    If you go to the end of the article you accomplish two things:
    1. You increase Forbe's banner impression revenue ;)
    2. You get to read a nice summary of open source defense mechanisms
    I really liked the example of "Briux" but I fear /. folks will take this out of context to say that Linux should be forked.
    All in all it wasn't a bad article. Just turn off Java before you get to the site unless you are running Windows 95/98/NT.

    "You cannot uncook Mushoo pork once is has been cooked" -- wiseman
  • Oh, it was fine, Brian (but you know they will always try to trap you that way :)

    I liked the emphasis on the "whole product" theme from Geoffrey Moore's book. Too many people read Crossing the Chasm and miss that, yet it's really the most important thing among many interesting things he says.

    "Open Source" as a whole is starting to cross the chasm, and you can see how that affects the view of those who judge it from the outside. This is why KDE/GNOME, Samba, 24x7 support, boxes with red hats, VMware and so on are attracting attention more than equally interesting developments like ipchains, Beowulf and the GIMP. The former have more direct relevance to the departmental desktop managers that the slick trade magazines talk to. And that is one of the early steps in crossing the chasm to the mass market.

    Now, it may be that Wintel PCs and to a lesser degree Macs continue to dominate the market, but just as there was always a large slice of personal vehicle drivers who chose pickup trucks and vans, it may not be long before the SUV of operating systems comes along to occupy the same kind of middle ground (with less pollution and more driving stability, to be sure!).

    The branding issue is of less importance, though it was quite prominent in the published part of the interview. Branding is a given, not an option, in my view, but it got the (admittedly limited) attention of the marketeering world in the last couple of years.

    Strong branding doesn't save your butt if the product isn't good or isn't differentiated. Remember the Peanut (PCjr)? Hmm. How about New Coke? That was a good one. There was certainly no problem with Prodigy's brand identity, or dBase, or OS/2 (sorry).

    Again, this is not to dismiss the importance of branding, but just to suggest it's a necessary but not sufficient condition for success. One of the interesting things is how the Open Source/free software world has evolved a sort of organic approach to branding. I mean, that Penguin. Or, that slash and that dot.

    And don't forget that despite a brilliant branding strategy,
  • Hmmm... works fine with IE 4 and 5, guess you should upgrade your browser.

    BTW... CSS has been around and implemented since at least the 4.x versions of IE and NS. And if NS can't handle simple font codes (oh my goodness, specifiying both size and font??? what are they thinking???) them I am really glad I'm not using NS.

    Several very long lines. Erratic indentation. Randomly placed comments. The fact that it depends on JavaScript doesn't say much for the mental brilliance of Forbes' readers -- IMHO no one with any sense trusts a public site to run unchecked code like that.

    You know, a browser has this thing called a parser, so what do you care what the source for a page looks like? Everything on that page is perfectly legal HTML, just because it doesn't fit your aesthetic tastes is no reason to throw a hissy fit.

    And I have no problem running Javascript from a promonent site like Forbes. They have a vested interest in not putting anything squirrly up on their site.
  • I'd bet my money that it is due to NS and Linux's less than impressive Java support than anything else. Write once, crash everywhere, right?
  • Apologies for being slightly off-topic.

    I thought the article was a little flimsy really, but my attention was more focussed on the litle applet to the right. Although it seemed to be running fine the little puck doodad remained stuck to my cursor and wouldn't slide forwards - Anyone else manage ?


  • "FDT: Why should a company pay for software it will not control? "

    When I saw that my first thought was that a lot of company already pay for software they don't control. Do you think anybody else than Microsoft control Windows or any other proprietary software??? In the case of open source you can control the software you use by paying for the first version and modifying it to fit your needs afterwards. What you can't control is the diffusion of the software and the evolution of the software outside of the enterprise (but that still let you use your own version if you want).

    With proprietary software you don't control the distribution if this is not an in-house product, neither do you control the evolution.

    I personnaly think that the eXchange model let you have less control over the software that in-house development but that will probably cost you less money that in-house development. On the other hand you have more control than over a proprietary software and probably for less money in the long run (it's cheaper to pay a developper to add one feature than to pay MS 1000 or 10000 licenses for this feature you need), and for less money if it allow many company to express their needs and pay a part of the project.
  • ....not to give interviews before 9am in the morning! =)

    Brian

  • I think that's likely if a project only has one sponsor. But I just don't see that as a problem. Why would we want to resist bowing to a companies demands? After all, if they are the sole source of requirements, then that is exactly what should be done. I guess I just don't see your point, here.

    However, it seems that sourceXchange is anticipating that some (most?) projects will be funded by several parties (and possibly many partise). I think this would provide a lot of balance. It might also make requirements gathering much more difficult. Well just have to see how it goes.
  • You should hold down the mouse button, then throw (move pointer forward) and release before the line. I got 150 points..
  • Seems to me like a good point BB is making that both open and closed source have its place. Security actually DOES work through obscurity.
  • Check out the first question in the article. It goes to the heart of the matter:

    FDT: Why should a company pay for software it will not control?

    They won't, not in the long run. sourceXchange is kidding itself and so are any developers who sign on. When a company lays down cash as a sponser, they're expecting something. A developer who accepts this cash, no matter how much they espouse open source and its freedom, will know this deep down and eventually bow to the company's demands, direct or indirect. It's human nature not to bite the hand of those who feed you.

    I believe that as an open source developer begins to rely on cash payments from a company (like using the casholine to help make car payments, pay rent, or buy food), they will become less and less likely to turn off the casholine spigot by ignoring a company's demands.
  • Not necessarily. There are plenty of other reasons for sponsering a project other then a monopoly control on the Intelectual Property. For example, suppose a company has a requirement that has no Open Source version, only propritary closed source versions that cost $40. If a company has 1,000 employees that will need to use the program. If they put up $30,000, they can get the software they need and save 25%. Multiply that by several companies that have similar requirements, and it will soon add up to real money. Will this model work for all cases? No. Even the article gives a few examples where the closed source software model works better than the Open Source model. Even Linus admits that Open Source is not a magic bullet to cure all software problems. Remember, only a couple years ago, the Open Source model was being summarily dismissed as an impracticle, "idealistic" model. There is no way a couple of part time programmers can build better software in their free time than paid progremmers do for a company
  • I seethe with cold fury (ok, not really) when I see that a site depends on JavaScript when it doesn't need to. Basic navigation functions should not be done with JavaScript! Anything that CAN be done with HTML/CGI SHOULD be donw with HTML/CGI. Unnecessary use of JavaScript means that people using Lynx get screwed. Sure, I could load some bloatware like Netscape and turn JavaScript on, and hope it doesn't crash when I go visit that one site (assuming I care enough to go that far, which I usually don't), but I still maintain that if something can be done in a Lynx-friendly manner, then it should be.

    grrr...

Slashdot Top Deals

Seen on a button at an SF Convention: Veteran of the Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force. 1990-1951.

Close