4 ms·

The real issue is that the open source world doesn't have an answer to the rise of the cloud. As the integration of the phone and the cloud becomes more central

by guelo 13y ago

The real issue is that the open source world doesn't have an answer to the rise of the cloud. As the integration of the phone and the cloud becomes more central, it becomes impossible for open source to provide a matching experience. The open source movement was born when the pendulum was swinging from the centralized mainframe to the PC revolution. But now as the pendulum is swinging back to centralized computing there will be fewer chances for small individualistic rebels to make an impact.

betterunix 13y ago
There are two free software answers to "the cloud:" 1. Open APIs that allow useful, meaningful, and complete interoperability between different services and local software. This is a compromise that allows cloud services to continue to be proprietary while not locking users in to any one particular service or platform. 2. The Affero GPL, which requires service providers to make their source available to their users. Personally I think that (1) is not only a more realistic option, but in the long run a more beneficial option for users.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  1. Open APIs that allow useful, meaningful, and complete interoperability between different services Also: competition. A lot of people only put up with things Facebook, Google, and Apple get up to because they feel there's no viable alternative that meets their needs. A climate that fosters competition better will encourage upstarts.
lutusp 13y ago
> The real issue is that the open source world doesn't have an answer to the rise of the cloud. Nonsense. you're speaking as though open-source and cloud storage are somehow related or in competition. But they're orthogonal -- one can obviously make open-source applications available from the cloud, and you can construct the cloud's infrastructure out of open-source elements. > The open source movement was born when the pendulum was swinging from the centralized mainframe to the PC revolution. That's true, but the two were coincidental and unrelated. Correlation doesn't prove causation. > But now as the pendulum is swinging back to centralized computing there will be fewer chances for small individualistic rebels to make an impact. Wait, what? How does open-source relate to centralized computing? For that matter, how does cloud storage relate to centralized computing? It's not as though cloud storage requires a central repository, any more than the Internet must be a central repository in order to function. Just one example: Linux (a) dominates the Internet's servers and (b) is open-source.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "Just one example: Linux (a) dominates the Internet's servers and (b) is open-source." ...and untold millions of lines of changes to the Linux kernel are kept secret and are not at all available to other Linux users or even to Linux contributors. That is exactly the sort of the thing the GPL was meant to prevent. Furthermore, while it is true that quite a bit of web services and "cloud computing" was built with free software, the effect is very different than distributing free software on desktops. If you do not like some new feature of the Linux kernel, you can just not use it -- nobody forces you to upgrade, and in extreme cases it is possible to fork the project. On the other hand, if you do not like a new feature in Facebook...tough luck, you have no authority. Similarly, if you want a new feature in the Linux kernel, you can add it -- maybe Linus won't merge it with the official source, but you can still have the feature and distribute it to others. Your next great idea for a GMail feature is irrelevant, because you cannot add features to GMail.
  - css771 13y ago
    > ...and untold millions of lines of changes to the Linux kernel are kept secret and are not at all available to other Linux users or even to Linux contributors Kept secret by whom?
    - betterunix 13y ago
      By the people who made the changes but never had to release them, by NDAs that people sign before they work for web companies, etc. There is nothing in the GPLv2 that says, "All your changes must be released." What it says is that if you give a modified version to another person, your changes must be GPL'd also. Since web companies do not give modified versions of the kernel to others, they are not in any way obligated to make their changes available to others, and more often than not they do not make those changes available.
      - lutusp 13y ago
        > By the people who made the changes but never had to release them, by NDAs that people sign before they work for web companies, etc. This is complete nonsense. There is no proprietary, closed-source code in the Linux kernel.

by guelo 13y ago

betterunix 13y ago

There are two free software answers to "the cloud:" 1. Open APIs that allow useful, meaningful, and complete interoperability between different services and local software. This is a compromise that allows cloud services to continue to be proprietary while not locking users in to any one particular service or platform. 2. The Affero GPL, which requires service providers to make their source available to their users. Personally I think that (1) is not only a more realistic option, but in the long run a more beneficial option for users.

stcredzero 13y ago
1. Open APIs that allow useful, meaningful, and complete interoperability between different services Also: competition. A lot of people only put up with things Facebook, Google, and Apple get up to because they feel there's no viable alternative that meets their needs. A climate that fosters competition better will encourage upstarts.

lutusp 13y ago

> The real issue is that the open source world doesn't have an answer to the rise of the cloud. Nonsense. you're speaking as though open-source and cloud storage are somehow related or in competition. But they're orthogonal -- one can obviously make open-source applications available from the cloud, and you can construct the cloud's infrastructure out of open-source elements. > The open source movement was born when the pendulum was swinging from the centralized mainframe to the PC revolution. That's true, but the two were coincidental and unrelated. Correlation doesn't prove causation. > But now as the pendulum is swinging back to centralized computing there will be fewer chances for small individualistic rebels to make an impact. Wait, what? How does open-source relate to centralized computing? For that matter, how does cloud storage relate to centralized computing? It's not as though cloud storage requires a central repository, any more than the Internet must be a central repository in order to function. Just one example: Linux (a) dominates the Internet's servers and (b) is open-source.

betterunix 13y ago
"Just one example: Linux (a) dominates the Internet's servers and (b) is open-source." ...and untold millions of lines of changes to the Linux kernel are kept secret and are not at all available to other Linux users or even to Linux contributors. That is exactly the sort of the thing the GPL was meant to prevent. Furthermore, while it is true that quite a bit of web services and "cloud computing" was built with free software, the effect is very different than distributing free software on desktops. If you do not like some new feature of the Linux kernel, you can just not use it -- nobody forces you to upgrade, and in extreme cases it is possible to fork the project. On the other hand, if you do not like a new feature in Facebook...tough luck, you have no authority. Similarly, if you want a new feature in the Linux kernel, you can add it -- maybe Linus won't merge it with the official source, but you can still have the feature and distribute it to others. Your next great idea for a GMail feature is irrelevant, because you cannot add features to GMail.
- css771 13y ago
  > ...and untold millions of lines of changes to the Linux kernel are kept secret and are not at all available to other Linux users or even to Linux contributors Kept secret by whom?
  - betterunix 13y ago
    By the people who made the changes but never had to release them, by NDAs that people sign before they work for web companies, etc. There is nothing in the GPLv2 that says, "All your changes must be released." What it says is that if you give a modified version to another person, your changes must be GPL'd also. Since web companies do not give modified versions of the kernel to others, they are not in any way obligated to make their changes available to others, and more often than not they do not make those changes available.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > By the people who made the changes but never had to release them, by NDAs that people sign before they work for web companies, etc. This is complete nonsense. There is no proprietary, closed-source code in the Linux kernel.