Planet JM

Blog

  • Dirk Riehle: Total Growth of Open Source




    Via Dana Blankenhorn’s blog, I came across an excellent article, “The Total Growth of Open Source” from Amit Deshpande and Dirk Riehle from SAP Research. In it, they look at over 5,000 active and popular Open Source projects and concluded


    “…that the total amount of source code as well as the total number of open source projects is growing at an exponential rate. Previous research showed linear and quadratic growth in lines of source code of individual open source projects. Our work shows that open source is expanding into new domains and applications at an exponential rate.”


    It’s one thing to read that. It’s quite another to actually see it in action (see graph above tracking lines of source code over time).

    This is pretty heady stuff. One of my assumptions has been that Open Source, being a child of the internet, directly benefited from the sheer numbers of people who understood more about software development. My hypothesis was that, as more knowledge was distributed online, the growth in Open Source development would continue. The evidence would seem to corroborate that assumption.


    Also interesting was the methodology of the study. As online tools grow ever deeper, the data at Riehle’s disposal is richer than ever. In fact, they pulled their data from Ohloh.net, using their data pulls from source code repositories to measure the additions and subtractions for Open Source projects. They used a measure of the number of incoming links to project home pages to determine the top projects to measure, and then tracked their growth over time.


    One thing I would have liked to see and didn’t – at least, not that I can tell – is how much of the growth was “organic” and how much was due to more projects springing up. It’s great to know the total number of lines of code and the total number of projects. What we don’t know is which of these projects are chiefly responsible for the growth, or what the average “health” rating is for each project. Even better still would be to divy up the projects into general categories based on growth in lines of code: would that give an accurate representation of a project’s overall “health”?


    Back in 2001, when it seemed that our world was imploding, I recall some folks wondering aloud whether Open Source contributions would stop. Judging from this study, at least, it seems pretty clear that the .com implosion had little impact on Open Source growth, if any at all.

  • Adios, Mexico! El Tri Crashes Out of Olympic Qualifying

    Poor Mexico – they sustain yet another soccer disappointment after crashing out of the olympic qualifiers in a wild game against Haiti (they actually won this match 5-1, but didn’t make it out of their group due to goal differential).

    Mexican arrogance about soccer is almost entirely undeserved – and inexplicable. The fact is, they’ve always been on the wrong side of Brazil and Argentina and really have not fared better than your run of the mill South American contenders. Yet, from hearing them describe their love affair with futbol, you would think they deserved to be in the upper soccer echelon. They don’t.

    In many ways, and this will bring a tear to many a Mexican eye, their soccer history really isn’t so much further along than the USA. Until very recently, many of their players were just as tactically naive as Americans – everyone knows the craftiest footballers come from the big 2 in South America. Everyone else is just fighting over the scraps. Other than better foot skills, which does count for something, Mexico really doesn’t have any better coaching, better soccer IQ, or for the last 10 or so years, a better team.

  • Yahoo’s Zawodny: We’re Open, Too!

    I’ve met Jeremy Zawodny, although I don’t know him. From what I have gathered, he and a bunch of people at Yahoo are doing some great work on the Open Source side of the house. In a blog post, Jeremy talks about how Yahoo! has “been on the openness road for a long, long time.” The focus of his post was in response to an absurd Mary Jo Foley post about Yahoo’s openness being a poison pill for MSFT. Matt Asay also picked up on this and gives Yahoo well-deserved kudos for their efforts. But I couldn’t help but notice this little nugget from Jeremy:

    Some times it hasn’t been as visible as others, but believe me, the trend is quite clear when you look at all the data.



    Er, not as visible as what others? Well, we know the answer to that one. You would think that with this admission that Yahoo’s efforts lack the same visibility as Google, that the higher-ups might, you know, take notice and learn from the success of others. I know Jeremy has promised more openness, and I look forward to it, but something tells me that they lack Google’s knack for maximizing the exposure of their Open Source contributions. It’s one thing to make real Open Source contributions and give your community value. It’s quite another to make those contributions *and* get real value in return. When it comes to reaping benefits from Open Source efforts, no one comes close to Google.


    But Yahoo’s not the only one who fails to understand this. I continue to be amazed at those companies who insist on repeating mistakes from the past and refuse to learn from successes and failures. Google has already shown how a major technology company can use Open Source to its advantage. “Tier 1” tech companies should be lambasted by shareholders for not following a winning example.

  • Navy to focus only on open systems

    Federal Computer Week has a story covering the US Navy’s position on open source software and open standards. There are a few choice quotes from Vice Adm. Mark Edwards which show the navy understands benefit of unhindered access to information.

    “The days of proprietary technology must come to an end,” he said. “We will no longer accept systems that couple hardware, software and data.”

    “Above all, we must break the stovepipes of data so that we can share information across domains”

    Vice Adm. Edwards is referring to innovation and cost savings which come about when they are able to share data with in the Naval organization. We applaud these forward thinking policies, and believe that these same benefits can be realized when the general citizenry has open access to information. jeux casino rouletteblack jack bettingjeu la roulettele crapsjeux de casino virtuelcasino en ligne gratuites ,casino en ligne,casino barriere en lignejack black productsjeux baccarat en ligne gratuitescasino black jackjeux d casinole supermarché casino en lignewww jeux casino comwww casino on netwww jeux casino frjeu de video poker gratuitesjeux slots en lignewww jeux casinoroulette gratuitementjeu de roulette gratuitesjeu casino 770black jack andblack tailed jackbonus casino 770la roulette rustrecasino roulette gratuitescasino 888jouer a la roulette gratuitementjeu slotsjeux roulette russejeux de cartes casinojeux casinos en lignecoupons bonus casino sans depotjack black soundboardbonus enquete casinojouer au jeu de casinojeu slots gratiscasino gratuites pour le funcasino jeux francejeux pc casinole casino machine à sous gratuiteswww casino 770casino de baccaratcasino blackjackcasino bonus 100jeux casino gratuisjouer roulette casinowww casino en lignegagner a la roulettejeux baccarat en lignebonus des casino

    Tags:

  • Lost in the OOXML Fog

    There’s been a lot of reporting about the ISO fiasco with OOXML. You can read writeups from people much more tuned in to the process than me. You can start here, here and here (the last is a highly recommended roundup from Andy Updegrove).

    But somewhere in this process, much of the coverage of this event grew into a horse race spectacle: will OOXML pass? Will developing countries vote no? How will the US vote? And for perfectly understandable reasons – it *was* a spectacle, and many were interested.

    The purpose of this post is an attempt to bring the discussion back to why we care about standards in the first place. There are plenty of good, common-sense IT business reasons to do so. But, as this organization is dedicated to advocating for information rights, I’d like to point out that the standardization process will have an effect on real people in their daily lives, as standards efforts will impact their ability to participate in the information economy. Basically, do we want to hand over to the world the keys to massive IT innovation? Unparalleled ability to participate in a global culture and economy?

    I haven’t read enough of the OOXML spec to know if it meets my definition of “open”, but I have read enough commentary to feel uneasy about its adoption. In fact, we still don’t know how much the MS Office implementation will differ from the OOXML spec. Nor do we know if it’s possible to create an open ecosystem around the standard. All of these things will impact the ability to view, edit and collaborate and thus will determine how much of a disadvantage the world’s poor will face. This is the central question.

    The questions surrounding the ISO processes are no doubt important, and I’m very glad that some reporters are devoting significant time to them. However, as we go through the tug-of-war between OOXML supporters and detractors, let’s not forget the central reason for why we care about this stuff in the first place: its impact on people.

    Tags:

  • Toward a $0 Cost Future?

    By now, you’ve no doubt heard of Chris Anderson, Wired’s Editor, and his recent article, Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business. If you haven’t, you should read it – it’s an interesting compendium of how technology is changing the value of things. However, as was the case with ‘The Long Tail’, it’s a bit light on analysis and a bit heavy on broad proclamations that don’t stand up to further critique. However, all told, reading the article in a commercial open source context can be rather revealing.

    I’ll summarize some of the article’s tasty bits: what Chris calls “cross-product subsidies” are becoming more and more prevalent as technology allows companies greater flexibility than ever to create free complements to what they actually sell. This creation of more and more free complements means there are more and more free things to consume, and this will continue. Thus, everything will be free! Or not… This is a nice, elegant idea, but the article tends to deviate from this elegant description into a hodgepodge of pseudo-economics and other seemingly random bits of information that may or may not prove the author’s point.

    But before I get into that, a word about how the media is treating this article. You would think, based on the fawning reports in the mainstream press, that Anderson had somehow written some groundbreaking thesis on economics. He hasn’t. And in fact, he’s far from the first to describe this in the popular media. As I was reminded by a friend earlier today, Joel Spolsky of Joel on Software fame wrote a brilliant, concise article on the same subject way back in 2002, a whole 6 years ago. Considering that the half-life of news in the Internet era is measured in days, if not hours, I suppose our hardworking media members can be forgiven for not realizing they were scooped by about a century in Internet years. Once upon a time, it was the job of the media to suss out fact from fiction and empirical facts from parlor tricks. To, you know, critically analyze something.

    As someone who also likes to dabble in economics and technology, Anderson’s vision of the free(r) future is tantalizing. However, the primary failing of his article is the lack of any explanation of *why* this is happening. He starts with the premise that technology gets cheaper, particularly Internet-driven technology, and then tells us that this cheaper technology gives companies greater flexibility to give away products and services. But there’s something missing here – a big something, fundamental to the whole article. Why does “anything that touches digital networks” quickly feel “the effect of falling costs?” He never bothers to explain. Perhaps he doesn’t think it’s interesting.

    As I mentioned, the basic points are stated well, and I find them interesting. The bit about disruption of markets due to the increasing number of free things is right on the money. But again, this point has been made several times when describing the function of the internet. It’s also a point used to often describe how companies can make money off of Open Source software – give away something to drive other lines of revenue. But mostly, my issue with the article is that it pretends to be something its not – it could have stated the point in less than two pages, but it trudges on through a narcoleptic seven pages in a misguided attempt to appear to have found cutting-edge answers to a perplexing problem. Oh well, at least with all the media coverage, maybe we won’t have to deal so much with annoying questions about how people are going to get paid for producing free things. I won’t hold my breath.

    I probably would have never written this without all the media coverage given to the article, but I found all the hubbub incomprehensible. It appears Anderson has an upcoming book about free stuff. I’m sure it will be an interesting read. I, too, am working on a book on this subject. Except, in my case, I’m going to publish it as a work-in-progress wiki book and collect money via adwords (thank you, Google!). *That’s* how you do it.

  • The Google Open Source Program Office – A Model to Emulate?

    At a recent SDForum event, I was doing my usual schtick about communities, when I happened to mention one of my recent thoughts: that Google’s Open Source Program Office kicks major ass. I can think of no other company that has merged marketing, PR, real code, real community events, and real *stuff* that geeks find enthralling as cohesively as Google. It seems to me, as an outsider, to be an almost perfect blend of how you develop community and derive real value from it. And as I always like to point out – in order to do that, you must first give your community real value. Google seems particularly good at both giving and getting value. Better, in fact, than anyone else.


    And yet, you would have thought that the audience were a collection of cows staring at a newly-installed gate. Crickets chirped. And then I heard some push-back:

    They do it for recruiting!


    Well, yes, this is true. But then, I didn’t say they were altruistic, but rather that they knew what they were doing with respect to community development. They invest in communities, many of them related to Open Source, and this devotion to community helps them tremendously. It helps them when they launch a new set of services, because the communities they target will no doubt be the early adopters. It helps when Google launches a new platform, such as Android, because their communities will be the source of a great number of hackers who will enjoy bending Android to their will.


    As is often the case, whenever I say something that meets with any sort of vehement disagreement, I obsess over why my view differs so greatly from those whose opinions I normally agree with. So, expect to see more posts as I dive more deeply into this issue. It also helps that this happens to coincide with the latest installment of the Google Summer of Code.

  • Groklaw: ISO Statement on the BRM: Public Stay Out – Updated

    The ISO folk have put out a press release about how wonderful the BRM worked out and what happens next. However, it tells us little people to stay out. Here’s the operative language:

    The BRM was not intended to be a public event but followed the orderly and inclusive process of ISO and IEC. With the BRM review completed, it is now up to national bodies to determine whether approval of ISO/IEC DIS 29500 is warranted.

    Read the rest at groklaw.net.

  • Thoughts on Open Source Users and Freedom

    I posted this over at BytesFree.org. The subject matter is about Linux, specifically, but really it could apply to any Open Source software user. Re-posting below:

    Over at the TuxToday blog, there’s a post about Linux users not caring about freedom – because they’d rather just use Adobe’s Flash plugin in lieu of Free Software like Gnash. Or they think Richard Stallman and the FSF are morons who are hurting the Open Source movement.

    I’m torn by this argument, because I can see both sides of this. On one hand, it is true that fewer Linux and FLOSS users today care about the “free” in Free Software, and I lament this occurrence. On the other hand, however, I would be remiss not to point out that, at times, the FSF and Richard Stallman can be their own worst enemies. Note, however, that I am in full agreement with the stated goals of the FSF.

    Also, we must understand why this phenomenon is taking place. I think a big part of it is that simply Free Software has expanded beyond the traditional techno-libertarian space it once occupied. And furthermore – and this is why groups like BytesFree.org even exist at the moment – we have done a very poor job of explaining to people why they should care. If you look beyond the techno elite, very few people understand the underlying problems of the lack of protected freedoms in the digital space.

    This is why BytesFree.org is dedicated to the idea that everyone deserves the protected right to access what we own, on our terms. Because identifying the problem in that language makes it apparent to the layman what is wrong, ie. we *don’t* currently have the protected right to access what we own. And in fact, with laws like the DMCA, not only do we not have that right, but we can run afoul of the law simply by acting on the supposition that we have that right.

    We believe that the secret to these issues lies in addressing them in a language that everyone can understand. This is about the right to education, our mandate as human beings to wipe out the digital divide and ensure tech access for everyone, and the simple fact that the prominence of technology in 2008 raises information rights to the level of human rights. Note the term I chose there: information rights. Not “digital rights”. “Digital rights” seems to be a term reserved for the technorati, something that everyday people need not care about. “Information rights” – ok, that’s a term more people can identify with.

    So, if we want things to change, we’re going to have to get organized and make an effort to speak “right down to earth, in a language that everybody can understand.” At BytesFree.org, we’re working on political efforts to make sure that both politicians and the non-techie audience can understand why we care.

    Won’t you consider joining bytesfree.org?

  • Open Source Politics BoF at SCALE

    For those of you with a dislike of all things political, I strongly suggest you avert your eyes from this post.

    If you’ve already booked your ticket to SCALE, I hope you’ll drop by the Open Source Politics birds-of-a-feather on Friday at 8pm in the appropriately named “Kennedy” room. There, I and Ilan Rabinovitch, one of SCALE’s co-founders, will discuss a Voter Information Project as well as some of our other thoughts around bytesfree.org. Of most importance is how to approach the upcoming June primaries in California (Feb. 5 is “just” the presidential primary).

    If you want to know more, sign up for the mailing list.