4 ms·
The only organisation there which really focuses on open source software is Apache. All the rest specialise in proprietary software, and only do open source so
by WhyNotHugo 5y ago
The only organisation there which really focuses on open source software is Apache.
All the rest specialise in proprietary software, and only do open source software as a side thing. They represent open source as much as the gas industry represents renewable energies.
- xxpor 5y agoThey represent the risk. Apache may write the software, but the commercial companies are the ones that actually deploy it and touch sensitive data. Also, IBM owns Red Hat so I don't really agree with the premise.
- Ericson2314 5y agoIdeally the white house should meet separately with the "consumers" on one hand, and the producers like Apache and Red Hat on the other. Also, the government should get way more in-house expertise. I am a firm believe in an all-capable administrative state which should be able to do just about anything in the economy, even if it chooses not to or can't do all at once. The government needs way more in-house programmers doing various things, and those civil servants should be in these meetings so it's not just the vultures tricking the politicians. In general, in-house expertise should be a bulwork aginst regulatory capture. E.g. If HHS/FDA/NSF did its own drug development not just drug research the incentives would be very very different.
- HWR_14 5y agoIs the Linux Open Source Foundation just a misnomer then? And GitHub actually has a vested interest in open source working and working well.
- rg111 5y ago> really focuses I disagree. ML and DL have become core parts of Meta and Google, both. And both of them do it very openly. Meta and Google regularly contribute to open research in AI and all their tools are open source.