OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/19591/Open_Source_Decade_10_Years_After_the_Free_Software_Summit Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:24:57 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Comment by flanque http://osnews.com/thread?308553 http://osnews.com/thread?308553 It was a moment in computing (and maybe other) history which many will look back upon fondly and with appreciation.

Through the passage of time I have been given free access to many great open source tools, so to me it's a moment in time worth remembering. Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (flanque) Comments And the 40 years before that? http://osnews.com/thread?308558 http://osnews.com/thread?308558 Anyone who thinks that coining a name for what developers had been doing since the 50s was some sort of 'revolution' missed the first 40 years of computing. Tue, 08 Apr 2008 02:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Cloudy) Comments RE: And the 40 years before that? http://osnews.com/thread?308562 http://osnews.com/thread?308562 I think this holds a lot of truth and the Internet really opened the doors to mass communication and availability. The BBS before them were great (the memories are fantastic) too. Tue, 08 Apr 2008 03:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (flanque) Comments RE: And the 40 years before that? http://osnews.com/thread?308565 http://osnews.com/thread?308565
Anyone who thinks that coining a name for what developers had been doing since the 50s was some sort of 'revolution' missed the first 40 years of computing.


I get your point, and don't necessarily disagree with it, but I think the 'revolution' was that commercial companies started to see the value in what developers had been doing since the 50s.

That's a pretty significant milestone, because I think the quality and capability of OSS today is due in large part to commercial organizations pouring in code, R&D, and paid development. That they ultimately attempt (or hope) to profit from it is irrelevant, because the community in general still gains the benefit. Tue, 08 Apr 2008 04:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (elsewhere) Comments Blegh http://osnews.com/thread?308567 http://osnews.com/thread?308567 I think this nicely illustrates Eric Raymond's contributions.
http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/wp-content/ep013.jpg Edited 2008-04-08 05:19 UTC Tue, 08 Apr 2008 05:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JMcCarthy) Comments RE: Blegh http://osnews.com/thread?308570 http://osnews.com/thread?308570 You're being unfair, he is doing a lot of actual work in Free Software projects, and not necessarily the most visible ones. See e.g. this:
http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/Credits

That said I don't think that the "Open Source" expression did any service to the community. As Linus uses to say, we are to closed software what science is to witchcraft. The conclusion is that we will win against closed software whatsoever, just like science won against witchcraft: not because of any particular naming strategy, but because we just make more sense.

Important consequence:

Given that we'll win anyway, we can wait.

So there is no need to make any compromise. The expression "open source" represents a compromise because it consists in hiding the freedom ideal so as to avoid scaring away narrow-minded investors who are uncomfortable with anything else than money being the ultimate goal of a project.

And about "free" being ambiguous in English, it is not a problem... as soon as one has the guts to utter the word "freedom" explicitly.

I'll give you my opinion on this group of folks who assembled in 98 discussing "strategy" and coining "open source": while they were (and some still are) making great (i.e. technical) contributions to the community, they were also "men of their time". Specifically I mean two things:
1) they didn't understand that we would win anyway, and that therefore we could afford to take our time.
2) they believed that victory could be accelerated. It cannot. Server adoption came very fast by itself, actually in 98-99 Linux had already a high share of servers so that's not thanks to "open source" which was coined in 98. What I'm really talking about is desktop adoption, and that is not coming fast at all. It's such a deep culture change, from being happy of being a mere consumer to actively self-empowering oneself through knowledge (for this is what Free Software is about). Such a deep change just can't come overnight.

But I'm digressing... just wanted to explain to say why, retrospectively, one can only smile of this group of people coining the "open source" brand in 1998 believing that would help.Edited 2008-04-08 07:26 UTC Tue, 08 Apr 2008 07:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (jacquouille) Comments RE[2]: And the 40 years before that? http://osnews.com/thread?308571 http://osnews.com/thread?308571 Yeah, as the summary says, this is about when open source became mainstream. Tue, 08 Apr 2008 07:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bogomipz) Comments Good article http://osnews.com/thread?308577 http://osnews.com/thread?308577 A good look back at how far open-source / free software has come, and the challenges ahead.

On the topic of promoting OSS / free software, "OpenBSD Journal" has a good (and entertaining) article on "How to win with OpenBSD", but the general approach used is applicable to the other BSDs and Linux as well.

Here's the link - well worth a look -
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20080401170716 Edited 2008-04-08 08:43 UTC Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (obsidian) Comments RE: And the 40 years before that? http://osnews.com/thread?308591 http://osnews.com/thread?308591 Open sourcing Netscape was important, of course. But I'm not sure if it was that revolutionary? It could be described more like going back to the original open source philosophy in software development.

Open source was mainstream, and also used by commercial companies already long before open-sourcing Netscape.

Also, wasn't it so that RMS started his free software movement when some commercial software (printer software etc.), that was previously open source, became proprietary and could not be modified and tweaked anymore?

From Wikipedia:
In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, it was normal for computer users to have the freedoms provided by free software. Software was produced largely by academics and corporate researchers working in collaboration and was not itself seen as a commodity. Software was commonly shared by individuals who used computers and by hardware manufacturers who were glad that people were making software that made their hardware useful. In the 70s and early 80s, the software industry began to apply copyright law, and began using technical measures such as only distributing binary copies, to prevent computer users from being able to study and modify the software.

In 1983, Richard Stallman launched the GNU project after becoming frustrated with the effects of the change in culture of the computer industry and users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_software Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (irbis) Comments RE[3]: And the 40 years before that? http://osnews.com/thread?308804 http://osnews.com/thread?308804 It became 'mainstream' in 1957 when the first Fortran compiler was developed.

This whole silliness about a 'revolution' is confusing the widespread dissemination of computing as a whole with the widespread dissemination of freely available source code.

What happened in the 90s wasn't an "open source" revolution. It was simply that computers became cheap enough to become commodity consumer electronics. Wed, 09 Apr 2008 01:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Cloudy) Comments RE[2]: Blegh http://osnews.com/thread?308806 http://osnews.com/thread?308806 I have no idea who you think is 'we' or why you think it's inevitable that 'we' will win, but proprietary software isn't going away in my life time or yours, and if it does it'll be because of something that has nothing to do with the availability of open source.

It has nothing to do with "freedom" and everything to do with people wanting that which they'd rather pay for than implement themselves, and that's an aspect of human nature that's been with us since people have had the ability to produce more than they needed for their own consumption, probably 6000 years ago. Wed, 09 Apr 2008 01:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Cloudy) Comments I have to agree with the Nay-sayers http://osnews.com/thread?308824 http://osnews.com/thread?308824 If I am to believe this then I must have been dreaming during the late 1980's and early 1990's when I collected and duplicated the Fred Fish Disks for the Amiga. And yes, I knew a number of the programs were used for commercial/industrial use. And yes, those programs came with source.

I must have been dreaming too in the early 1980's when I help supply copies of Commodore's Educational Series to dozens of schools and thousands kids. And yes, the copying was done for free, and teachers were always telling me about improvement they made, and shared between schools.

I must have been dreaming even in the late 1970's when I went to the TPUG meetings and gave/received free program listings.

FreeWare has existed for almost as long as computers have. And Freeware is free far more than GPL code is. Wed, 09 Apr 2008 04:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Earl Colby pottinger) Comments RE[3]: Blegh http://osnews.com/thread?308852 http://osnews.com/thread?308852 Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM. Don't think that just what happens today in computing will be reality in 10 years time.

This of course does not mean that proprietary software companies will go bust. They will just change their business model to suit. Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (RIchard James13) Comments RE[4]: Blegh http://osnews.com/thread?308928 http://osnews.com/thread?308928 What's happening today in computing is no different than what's happened over the last fifty years in computing, beyond the hardware having become cheap enough to make computing ubiquitous.

Proprietary software houses are always changing their business model as the sweet spot changes, but that, too has nothing to do with 'freedom' and everything to do with economics. Thu, 10 Apr 2008 02:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Cloudy) Comments