5 ms·

The majority of servers are open source, the majority of consumer devices are open source, all super computers are open source. How is open source not eating th

The majority of servers are open source, the majority of consumer devices are open source, all super computers are open source. How is open source not eating the world?

veddox 8y ago
As long as MS Windows still has 89% market share on the desktop/laptop market [1], as long as Google still keeps core parts of Android under lock and key, and as long as all my friends still communicate with Facebook and WhatsApp, I think the claim that "the majority of consumer devices are open source" is a bit early. Look, guys, I'm not saying open-source isn't important! And I'm definitely not saying there aren't any great open-source programs out there! All I'm saying is: on the current market, most companies that produce software choose to distribute this software under a closed-source license. What's so hard to accept about this simple observation?! [1] https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share
- nine_k 8y ago
  Open source makes sense for widely used, preferably infrastructural things. Operating systems, various network servers, programming languages. Most companies' has a very limited audience and a very narrow purpose; it can't benefit from the network effect.
adventured 8y ago
You just named 0.1% of the revenue of the tech industry. Closed: Google search. Windows. Office. Facebook. Cisco. Intel. Amazon AWS. Amazon retail. Most Adobe products. Most Oracle products. iOS and most of what Apple does. Salesforce. Workday. Most of what nVidia does. Most of what Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, and pretty much every other chip maker does. Most of what Samsung does. The core software of: PayPal, Square, Stripe, Visa, Mastercard, et al. The list keeps going. Most of what every major tech company does is closed off. The tools are largely open source. The actual pieces of the companies that generate revenue are not. They love open source, when it isn't about their revenue generation. Ask Facebook to show us all of their source code. Nearly the entire tech industry is built on massive, closed products. Google search by itself generates more operating income every year than every public open source company combined, by a factor of ten. Ask Google to show you all the source code to search.
- zeth___ 8y ago
  That we no longer pay rents to the owners of the kernel is a huge victory for everyone. That you mistake market failures for successes is a rather sad reflection on the state of the soul of most technologists. The commodification of services that used to be cutting edge happens all the time, and if not for artificial patents would happen even faster.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - TimJYoung 8y ago
    Pay rents ? Do you think the Linux kernel just magically appears out of thin air ? If not, then someone is paying for the kernel development. If it isn't you, then that organization(s) or person(s) may have goals that are completely antithetical to your goals.
    - zeth___ 8y ago
      Or I develop part of the kernel for something I need for my day job, send it up stream to make my life easier the next time I to use it and someone accepts it for the same reason. You then need someone to pay what is essentially an administrator to keep track of the changes. The reason why a company would do that is because of the name recognition advantage they get from this. "Oh you need someone to tune your Linux performance for your super computer cluster, we have the guy who it's named after on staff."
      - TimJYoung 8y ago
        Yes, that does indeed happen, and is an example of where you're paying with your time. My point is that if you're not paying with your time, and most people are not, then someone else is paying for it. The rent doesn't go away, it's just getting covered by someone else.
        slrz 8y ago
ekianjo 8y ago
supercomputers are not open source. They may use a linux kernel but they need a proprietary compiler and a bunch of proprietary drivers to interface that are custom made. pretty bad example to pick.
- dpark 8y ago
  You’re asserting that so long as any code is closed, the platform is not “open source”. I disagree. When 99% of software on a device is open source, open source has clearly eaten than device.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    well for supercomputers you are really far from that kind of ratio. even desktop computers are far from 99 percent for that matter.
    - dpark 8y ago
      I bet you’re not that far from 99% on supercomputers running Linux. Drivers are not the bulk of the system. Obviously desktops aren’t at 99% unless you’re running Linux.
      - ekianjo 8y ago
        > I bet you’re not that far from 99% on supercomputers running Linux. Drivers are not the bulk of the system. No, compilers should also count, and i'm not just talking about drivers. Everything from data storage (file system) to data transfer between the different racks of a supercomputer is usually proprietary. Seriously, look it up. > Obviously desktops aren’t at 99% unless you’re running Linux. No, even your Linux desktop is far from being 100% open source. How about the BIOS? The Intel microcode? Even open source GPU drivers interface with proprietary interfaces on the actual hardware. And let's not forget that many Linux distros don't make it very clear if what you are installing is actually free software or a proprietary blob. The reality is that it's very hard to have something fully running on free/open source software from A to Z.
orbifold 8y ago
The relevant portions of a supercomputer are not open source: The MPI implementation, the compilers, the CUDA drivers, some of the tools to monitor the system, the fancy 3D AR wall software and so on...

The majority of servers are open source, the majority of consumer devices are open source, all super computers are open source. How is open source not eating the world?

veddox 8y ago

As long as MS Windows still has 89% market share on the desktop/laptop market [1], as long as Google still keeps core parts of Android under lock and key, and as long as all my friends still communicate with Facebook and WhatsApp, I think the claim that "the majority of consumer devices are open source" is a bit early. Look, guys, I'm not saying open-source isn't important! And I'm definitely not saying there aren't any great open-source programs out there! All I'm saying is: on the current market, most companies that produce software choose to distribute this software under a closed-source license. What's so hard to accept about this simple observation?! [1] https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share

nine_k 8y ago
Open source makes sense for widely used, preferably infrastructural things. Operating systems, various network servers, programming languages. Most companies' has a very limited audience and a very narrow purpose; it can't benefit from the network effect.

adventured 8y ago

You just named 0.1% of the revenue of the tech industry. Closed: Google search. Windows. Office. Facebook. Cisco. Intel. Amazon AWS. Amazon retail. Most Adobe products. Most Oracle products. iOS and most of what Apple does. Salesforce. Workday. Most of what nVidia does. Most of what Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, and pretty much every other chip maker does. Most of what Samsung does. The core software of: PayPal, Square, Stripe, Visa, Mastercard, et al. The list keeps going. Most of what every major tech company does is closed off. The tools are largely open source. The actual pieces of the companies that generate revenue are not. They love open source, when it isn't about their revenue generation. Ask Facebook to show us all of their source code. Nearly the entire tech industry is built on massive, closed products. Google search by itself generates more operating income every year than every public open source company combined, by a factor of ten. Ask Google to show you all the source code to search.

zeth___ 8y ago
That we no longer pay rents to the owners of the kernel is a huge victory for everyone. That you mistake market failures for successes is a rather sad reflection on the state of the soul of most technologists. The commodification of services that used to be cutting edge happens all the time, and if not for artificial patents would happen even faster.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- TimJYoung 8y ago
  Pay rents ? Do you think the Linux kernel just magically appears out of thin air ? If not, then someone is paying for the kernel development. If it isn't you, then that organization(s) or person(s) may have goals that are completely antithetical to your goals.
  - zeth___ 8y ago
    Or I develop part of the kernel for something I need for my day job, send it up stream to make my life easier the next time I to use it and someone accepts it for the same reason. You then need someone to pay what is essentially an administrator to keep track of the changes. The reason why a company would do that is because of the name recognition advantage they get from this. "Oh you need someone to tune your Linux performance for your super computer cluster, we have the guy who it's named after on staff."
    - TimJYoung 8y ago
      Yes, that does indeed happen, and is an example of where you're paying with your time. My point is that if you're not paying with your time, and most people are not, then someone else is paying for it. The rent doesn't go away, it's just getting covered by someone else.
      - slrz 8y ago

ekianjo 8y ago

supercomputers are not open source. They may use a linux kernel but they need a proprietary compiler and a bunch of proprietary drivers to interface that are custom made. pretty bad example to pick.

dpark 8y ago
You’re asserting that so long as any code is closed, the platform is not “open source”. I disagree. When 99% of software on a device is open source, open source has clearly eaten than device.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  well for supercomputers you are really far from that kind of ratio. even desktop computers are far from 99 percent for that matter.
  - dpark 8y ago
    I bet you’re not that far from 99% on supercomputers running Linux. Drivers are not the bulk of the system. Obviously desktops aren’t at 99% unless you’re running Linux.
    - ekianjo 8y ago
      > I bet you’re not that far from 99% on supercomputers running Linux. Drivers are not the bulk of the system. No, compilers should also count, and i'm not just talking about drivers. Everything from data storage (file system) to data transfer between the different racks of a supercomputer is usually proprietary. Seriously, look it up. > Obviously desktops aren’t at 99% unless you’re running Linux. No, even your Linux desktop is far from being 100% open source. How about the BIOS? The Intel microcode? Even open source GPU drivers interface with proprietary interfaces on the actual hardware. And let's not forget that many Linux distros don't make it very clear if what you are installing is actually free software or a proprietary blob. The reality is that it's very hard to have something fully running on free/open source software from A to Z.

orbifold 8y ago

The relevant portions of a supercomputer are not open source: The MPI implementation, the compilers, the CUDA drivers, some of the tools to monitor the system, the fancy 3D AR wall software and so on...