4 ms·

> 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 stora

by 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.
      - mrsteveman1 13y ago
        Remember, recipients of GPL code (companies in this case) are not affected by the terms of the GPL until they redistribute the code themselves, until then they can add proprietary code all they want, run it on servers and never release a thing. They are completely free to USE the code however they wish. So in this example, no cloud company has to release changes to their running linux kernel because it was never distributed to end users, or at all. Same for all other GPL code running on servers, users of the service, loading web pages and using APIs, are not recipients of the code under the GPL, so they have no rights under the license. If some company decides their changes to the kernel, or nginx, or apache, or php can be released because it won't destroy their business, they frequently do so. Otherwise you'll never hear about it and changes silently remain secret.
      - 13y ago
- lutusp 13y ago
  > ...and untold millions of lines of changes to the Linux kernel are kept secret ... Are you serious? The entire Linux kernel is open-source and public (and it is available here: https://www.kernel.org/ https://www.kernel.org/). Most programs delivered along with the kernel are also open-source. Many Linux distributors of large assemblages of code refuse to include anything that isn't open-source.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    You are ignoring the long list of companies that modify the Linux kernel for their own purposes, never releasing their changes, and sometimes using their modified kernel on a web server that runs web apps for their users. As long as they are not distributing their modified kernel to anyone they can keep their changes secret.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > You are ignoring the long list of companies that modify the Linux kernel for their own purposes ... No, I'm addressing your prior claim that the Linux kernel is not open-source. The claim is false. Also, companies that change the kernel, and then release their changed kernels, cannot do so without also releasing their source. The claim is false, in whatever form it takes.
      - betterunix 13y ago
        I never claimed that, read my post again.
        lutusp 13y ago
        > I never claimed that, read my post again. I did. Here is what you said: > ...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. It's false. Code that is modified and then never released is not what the GPL was meant to prevent.

by lutusp 13y ago

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.
    - mrsteveman1 13y ago
      Remember, recipients of GPL code (companies in this case) are not affected by the terms of the GPL until they redistribute the code themselves, until then they can add proprietary code all they want, run it on servers and never release a thing. They are completely free to USE the code however they wish. So in this example, no cloud company has to release changes to their running linux kernel because it was never distributed to end users, or at all. Same for all other GPL code running on servers, users of the service, loading web pages and using APIs, are not recipients of the code under the GPL, so they have no rights under the license. If some company decides their changes to the kernel, or nginx, or apache, or php can be released because it won't destroy their business, they frequently do so. Otherwise you'll never hear about it and changes silently remain secret.
    - 13y ago
lutusp 13y ago
> ...and untold millions of lines of changes to the Linux kernel are kept secret ... Are you serious? The entire Linux kernel is open-source and public (and it is available here: https://www.kernel.org/ https://www.kernel.org/). Most programs delivered along with the kernel are also open-source. Many Linux distributors of large assemblages of code refuse to include anything that isn't open-source.
- betterunix 13y ago
  You are ignoring the long list of companies that modify the Linux kernel for their own purposes, never releasing their changes, and sometimes using their modified kernel on a web server that runs web apps for their users. As long as they are not distributing their modified kernel to anyone they can keep their changes secret.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > You are ignoring the long list of companies that modify the Linux kernel for their own purposes ... No, I'm addressing your prior claim that the Linux kernel is not open-source. The claim is false. Also, companies that change the kernel, and then release their changed kernels, cannot do so without also releasing their source. The claim is false, in whatever form it takes.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      I never claimed that, read my post again.
      - lutusp 13y ago
        > I never claimed that, read my post again. I did. Here is what you said: > ...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. It's false. Code that is modified and then never released is not what the GPL was meant to prevent.