Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 14th Apr 2007 20:25 UTC, submitted by npang
GNU, GPL, Open Source David Wheeler's paper, 'Why OSS/FS? Look at the Numbers!', is a collection of quantitative studies on free software, with the goal to "show that you should consider using OSS/FS when acquiring software". It has a set of different studies grouped into the categories market share, reliability, performance, scalability, security, and total cost of ownership. A brand-new 2007 edition is now available.
Order by: Score:
Lengthy
by Abaddon on Sat 14th Apr 2007 21:15 UTC
Abaddon
Member since:
2006-06-23

It's really lengthy...

Reply Score: 0

OSS/FS...?
by memson on Sat 14th Apr 2007 21:20 UTC
memson
Member since:
2006-01-01

Confusing. I read "Open Source Software with File System."

Reply Score: 2

RE: OSS/FS...?
by twenex on Sat 14th Apr 2007 21:41 UTC in reply to "OSS/FS...?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Confusing. I read "Open Source Software with File System."


Same here. I wonder why he did not just use the established acronym "FOSS".

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: OSS/FS...?
by butters on Sun 15th Apr 2007 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE: OSS/FS...?"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

I wonder why he did not just use the established acronym "FOSS".

Near the beginning of the paper he explains that today he prefers the term FLOSS, but that this term had not been coined when he had started writing the paper, so used OSS/FS instead.

Reply Score: 4

v RE: OSS/FS...?
by antik on Sat 14th Apr 2007 22:19 UTC in reply to "OSS/FS...?"
RE[2]: OSS/FS...?
by archiesteel on Sat 14th Apr 2007 22:35 UTC in reply to "RE: OSS/FS...?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Please don't turn this thread into an anti-GPL flamefest. Thanks.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: OSS/FS...?
by hamster on Sat 14th Apr 2007 22:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OSS/FS...?"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

I'm affrid it's to late... Someone will bite on it and then the "party" will get startet. Sadly.

Reply Score: 4

Look at the dates too...
by PowerMacX on Sat 14th Apr 2007 22:09 UTC
PowerMacX
Member since:
2005-11-06

Mildly interesting, but it seems that this article is simply a collection of only links that show a positive image of Linux, some recent (2006 & 2007) but several dating back to 2000 & 2001 which are not so relevant and simply pollute the document with "noise" data.

By picking studies and allowing old figures too, it would be extremely easy for Microsoft to create a "similar" doc "proving" the opposite point. Not that they haven't been doing exactly that, of course ;-)

Reply Score: 4

RE: Look at the dates too...
by systyrant on Sun 15th Apr 2007 05:15 UTC in reply to "Look at the dates too..."
systyrant Member since:
2007-01-18

No, not Microsoft. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: OSS/FS...?
by npang on Sun 15th Apr 2007 00:57 UTC
npang
Member since:
2006-11-26

http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2007/04/12/

I wish I'd used the term "FLOSS" (Free-Libre / Open Source Software) as my all-encompassing term in this paper. FLOSS is much easier to say than some of the alternatives, and the term "Free Software" is widely misunderstood as being "no cost". However, I've used the term OSS/FS all over in the paper, and it's awkward to change now (and people might not find the document they were looking for), so I haven't changed it here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: OSS/FS...?
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 15th Apr 2007 04:26 UTC in reply to "RE: OSS/FS...?"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I think the whole "open source" vs. "free software" debate is starting to get as ridiculous as political correctness. I once co-wrote an article about a particular use of Linux and open source software for a newspaper up here. I tried to explain the whole "free software" / "open source" thing and just ended up wasting about 400 words with a historical/linguistic discussion of the difference between "gratis" and "libre." Incidentally, guess what was first on the editor's chopping block?

Amusingly enough in the course of writing that article, the other person working on it attempted to contact a "free software" figure for a brief interview/a few quotes. The person outright refused to participate if the article used the phrase "open source." Apparently that was more important than the opportunity to talk about his cause in a newspaper read by about ten million people per day.

I won't name names, but the contrarian/jerk in me was tempted to send this person a copy of the article as a Word .DOC after it was published.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: OSS/FS...?
by jessta on Sun 15th Apr 2007 04:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OSS/FS...?"
jessta Member since:
2005-08-17

Well yeah people generally don't like to be misrepresented.
If you wanted to interview me about sprituality for an article about religion I'd be pretty annoyed.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: OSS/FS...?
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 15th Apr 2007 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: OSS/FS...?"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Well yeah people generally don't like to be misrepresented.


People also tend to obsess about really minor distinctions between themselves and other groups and place much more importance on those distinctions than is warranted.

If you wanted to interview me about sprituality for an article about religion I'd be pretty annoyed.


The other writer I was working with gave a much more valid analogy about interviewing someone in a rural area called Margaree. He asked the person how long he had lived in Margaree - his quite angry response was "I'm not from Margaree, I'm from North Margaree Harbour!" Despite the fact that you would have needed a map and a microscope to tell the difference, it was apparently terribly crucial.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: OSS/FS...?
by twenex on Sun 15th Apr 2007 11:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OSS/FS...?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I can see the humour, and I can also guess who you're talking about, but it depends on your perspective. People outside of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland often refer to the UK as "England," but try getting a Scot to respond civilly to the question "What does it mean to be English in the 21st Century?"

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: OSS/FS...?
by raver31 on Mon 16th Apr 2007 07:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: OSS/FS...?"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Exactly, I am from Belfast, in Northern Ireland. Part of the UK.
When I am in work, people on the phone call me Irish, but being from the UK I am British.
But
I have a work colleague who lives about 2km from me, he calls himself Irish.

It is swings and roundabouts and it is only in the last few years we all wised up to it....

After the deaths of 3000 of our friends, family and neighbours.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: OSS/FS...?
by MYOB on Mon 16th Apr 2007 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: OSS/FS...?"
MYOB Member since:
2005-06-29

Except British is both wholly accurate and wholly inaccurate in this case. Northern Ireland isn't part of Britain, nor has it ever been - its part of the United Kingdom, except it appears we're missing a term "United Kingdomnian" for people who are British citizens or subjects, but not from the Britain...

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: OSS/FS...?
by memson on Tue 17th Apr 2007 12:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: OSS/FS...?"
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

Ireland is logically and geographically part of the British Isles. That it is not politically part of "Britain" is just the same as "Canada" not being part of the US, but still being part of North America.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: OSS/FS...?
by pinky on Sun 15th Apr 2007 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OSS/FS...?"
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

personally i don't like terms like FLOSS, FOSS, OSS/FS,... It just doesn't make sense because at the end "Free Software, "Libre Software" and "Open Source" describe the same kind of software.

People should think about this terms and decide by their own what they want to use. But "trying to be nice to everyone" by using terms like FLOSS doesn't make any sense to me.

Personally i prefer the term "Free Software". The reasons:
- It's the term which was defined first (Free Software beginning of the 80s, Open Source 1998) and i think it's just a matter of respect to follow the term and definition which was the first one and don't hijack a term and/or a movement.
- "Free Software" can mean "free as in freedom" and "free as in gratis" but both are correct uses (think about free speech or free labour) so saying on time what you mean and explain it with the 4 freedoms it is easy to understand and the term "Free Software" matches with the definition through the 4 freedoms. "Open Source" has one clear meaning -> open sources. But this just tells you that the sources are open and not what you can do with the sources and the binary. To make "Open Source" to say what it should you have to build a definition which doesn't fits the normal use of the phrase "open source". This definition has 10 points! I think it's much harder to explain "Open Source" with the complete 10 point definition than "Free Software" with the 4 freedoms and i think it's easier to memorise "Free Software" and the 4 point definition than "Open Source" and the 10 point definition.
- "Free Software" can be translated in every language. So you can talk with people in their own language and in many of this languages "Free Software" is unequivocal.

bottom line: The term "Open Source" doesn't match what the Open Source people want to say. "Free Software" doesn't match what the Free Software people want to say in some languages but also in this languages one of the natural meaning is what the Free Software people want to say. The Free Software definition is shorter and easier to understand than the Open Source definition. So at the end i think "Free Software" is the clearer term. Also it's just a question of respect to follow the language and the definition which was first and this was Free Software.

That's my personal opinion and the rationale behind my decision. I respect also people who decided to use the term "Open Source" (even if i believe that my rationale are stronger than theirs). But i think you should make the decision for you and doesn't enmesh you self in terms like FLOSS, FOSS, OSS/FS,..

Edited 2007-04-15 14:15

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: OSS/FS...?
by memson on Sun 15th Apr 2007 10:32 UTC in reply to "RE: OSS/FS...?"
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

Having recently written a lengthy technical spec using a shortening of a product name, only to decide to use the full name at the end of writing it, I can vouch for the fact that "find and replace" will absolutely solve the "issues" he had with changing the terms. Took precisely 5 minutes to change that one and a couple of others and scan through the document to check (as a failsafe.)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: OSS/FS...?
by twenex on Sun 15th Apr 2007 11:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OSS/FS...?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I think his point was that he only found out about the term "FLOSS" after he had published the article, and so editing it to replace all instances of "OSS/FS" with "FLOSS" would have caused searches for the former term to break.

Reply Score: 2

Very good read!
by jsgotangco on Sun 15th Apr 2007 02:20 UTC
jsgotangco
Member since:
2005-10-04

I've read and used as reference the earlier versions of this website and its great to know that its updated to reflect new trends and issues with regards to F/OSS!

Reply Score: 2

FreeBSD Uptime 497 days?
by nullpt on Sun 15th Apr 2007 04:07 UTC
nullpt
Member since:
2006-10-20

FreeBSD uses a struct timeval in sysctl kern.boottime, which is enough for several decades.

Netcraft method to get the system uptime is based on TCP timers which will cause this limitations ;)

HZ=1000 rocks!

Reply Score: 1

IIS 6
by PlatformAgnostic on Sun 15th Apr 2007 08:26 UTC
PlatformAgnostic
Member since:
2006-01-02

No results for IIS 6/Win2K3?

I don't know who this guy is trying to sell to. Sure a bunch of random results for odd time periods is going to paint a picture of the historical trends of the OSes, but it really doesn't tell me what's going on TODAY. The piece about Fuzzing the UI of applications seems a little dumb to me. If your program isn't parsing a file or recieving packets from a network, you're not really to blame for succumbing to fuzz attacks. I don't know what the real threat model is for a user hitting random keys into your app or sending random Windows Messages into your app window... these are not threats worth mitigating.

This guy started with a certain notion and he just started collecting links to support it. It's fair enough, but not really interesting and relevant to today's market.

Reply Score: 3