- Big Company Behavior Patterns Around Open Source
- Open Source Community: Needing to Be Needed
- Freeriding LinkedIn (Updated)
- How much code should be open?
- Open source success: A matter of 'Trust'
- Some ideas on constructing open source revenue models
- Web 2.0 trademark nonsense: Killing its biggest benefactor?
- Cellphone Carriers are worse than Microsoft
- Google/Dell deal : Good or Bad?
- Funding news: Sourcefire nabs $20 million
May 31, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Big Company Behavior Patterns Around Open Source
ActiveGrid CEO Peter Yared is back again -- this time with some analysis of different types of big company reactions to open source.
Open source has definitely challenged the business models of existing infrastructure software players. Following is an ontology of different types of big company reactions to open source, and an example of each type of behavior pattern.
Join the Party - IBM
"Join the Party" open source players contribute extensively to existing open source projects, even those that are competing with their proprietary products. IBM has regularly made major contributions to open source technologies that compete with their own products. Examples include IBM's support of Linux, which competes with their AIX UNIX operating system, and Geronimo and PHP, which compete with its WebSphere business. IBM is clearly the most sophisticated large player in the open source space - IBM follows its customers, and if the customers want open source, IBM is going to be the one to deliver it to them, and make money with services along the way.
Run like Hell - Oracle
"Run like Hell" open source players move out of rapidly commoditizing open source areas and into new markets. Oracle knows more than anyone that databases are quickly becoming a commodity. That's why they are moving into applications, snapping up Peoplesoft and Siebel to build marketshare in a growing, high margin business.
Screw with It - SCO, Oracle
"Screw with It" companies inherently dislike open source and do what they can to sabotage it. Some people like to kick puppies that can one day grow into big dogs. Which is why SCO sued IBM over Linux, and Oracle buys little companies that MySQL depends on. None of this will do much, but it makes the folks running the companies feel a little better about their respective declining UNIX and database futures.
We're Open, Too - Sun
"We're Open, Too" players open source their competing proprietary products long after a successful open source project has eclipsed their proprietary alternatives. Sun open sources their products in this way to much fanfare, but not much avail, examples include Solaris vs. Linux, NetBeans vs. Eclipse, SunONE Application Server vs. JBOSS, SPARC vs. x86, etc. This strategy is a stark contrast to the IBM "join the party" strategy, where IBM takes the best of their proprietary products and adds it to existing successful open source project like Linux.
Buy Your Way In - Novell
"Buy Your Way In" players acquire successful open source technologies and attempt to sell and service them through their existing channels. Novell has aggressively acquired open source technologies, including Ximian and SuSe. While their stock has been stagnant, it is not as stagnant as if they had still been selling Netware all along.
Open Source Trashcan - BEA, SAP
"Open Source Trashcan" companies are completely tone-deaf to open source software, regularly state that open source is insecure and not going anywhere, and basically have no open source strategy beyond orphaning failed products into open source, like BEA's Beehive and SAP Database.
Previously:
Three Simple Things Sun Should Do to Win
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 31, 2006 09:29 PM
May 31, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Open Source Community: Needing to Be Needed
I just finished Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, and have been reflecting on one of the closing dialogues between the protagonist, Jane Eyre, and her unlikely anti-hero, Mr. Rochester. (For those inclined to read the book - and you should (though you can largely skip 50% of the verbiage in the book - Bronte goes on and on and on with 2000-3000 words when 20-30 would do...a bit like me, I suppose :-) - you should skip this next section, as it gives everything away.
Jane Eyre, previously engaged to marry Rochester, had left him when she found out he was already married (to a lunatic wife that lived in his attic and occasionally set fire to people or stabbed them - Bronte obviously had an active imagination). After nearly a year's absence, she returns, only to find him blind (having lost his eyesight in a fire that his lunatic wife had started) and crippled. After some discussion, he asks her:
"...Jane, will you marry me?"And so (nearly) concludes an excellent novel. And so, in turn, the novel reflects a great truth about people, generally, and open source software, specifically."Yes, sir."
"A poor blind man, whom you will have to lead about by the hand?"
"Yes, sir."
"A crippled man, twenty years older than you, whom you will have to wait on?"
"Yes, sir."
"Truly, Jane?"
"Most truly, sir." [At this point, Matt is blubbering in his airplane seat - I'm such a softie.]
"Oh! my darling! God bless you and reward you!"
"Mr. Rochester, if ever i did a good deed in my life - if ever I thought a good thought - if ever I prayed a sincere and blameless prayer - if ever I wished a righteous wish - I am rewarded now. To be your wife is, for me, to be as happy as I can be on earth."
"Because you delight in sacrifice."
"Sacrifice! What do I sacrifice? Famine for food, expectation for content. To be privileged to put my arms around what I value - to press my lips to what I love - to repose on what I trust: is that to make a sacrifice? If so, then certainly I delight in sacrifice."
"And to bear with my infirmities, Jane: to overlook my deficiencies."
"Which are none, sir, to me. I love you better now, when I can really be useful to you, than I did in your state of proud independence, when you disdained every part but that of the giver and protector." [My fellow Delta passengers are eyeing me suspiciously, wondering why a) a seemingly male personage is reading Jane Eyre and b) he is sniffling as he does so.]
"Hitherto I have hated to be helped - to be led: henceforth, I feel, I shall hate it no more. I did not like to put my hand into a hireling's, but it is pleasant to feel it circled by Jane's little fingers. I preferred utter loneliness to the constant attendance of servants; but Jane's soft ministry will be a perpetual joy. Jane suits me: do I suit her?"
"To the finest fibre of my nature, sir."
"The case being so, we have nothing in the world to wait for: we must be married instantly."
The best open source projects are those that invite and facilitate community. I've talked before about the right mechanics for facilitating communities, but one of the key ingredients - perhaps the key ingredient, is a sense of community within a project. People must feel that they belong. As with the TV show Cheers, "You want to be where everybody knows your name."
Lest this be passed off as a trite or easy-to-accomplish task, let me give some examples of how open source companies (including mine) routinely get this wrong.
- Coding in private. It is a natural human tendency to want to keep our work private until we feel it suitably presentable to share. At Alfresco, we've fallen into this error several times. In one case, we were working on an integration with SugarCRM. Customers and partners kept asking for integration between the two, and we kept promising "We're working on it, and will be releasing it soon." But what they really wanted was both visibility into the project - they wanted to be able to go to our forge, or Sugar's, and see the work in progress - as well as the ability to participate in the project. We ultimately rectified this and posted the ongoing work, but we should have opened it up from the start. Perhaps, had we done so even before we started coding, a partner or customer would have taken up the project on their own, allowing us to spend our development resources elsewhere.
Open source companies shouldn't behave like this. Our strength is in permeability. Roadmaps, pricing, code, etc. should be open, so that they can be forked or augmented in the best directions. Yes, there will undoubtedly be times when we develop initial betas of features/technology/products outside the public eye for competitive reasons, but generally, the inclination should be toward openness.
- Investment in a community engenders devotion to that community. This seems intuitively wrong. One would think that those organizations which require least of us are those we'll prize most, but the inverse is actually true. Not to wax religious, but if you look at the fastest growing religions in the world, they're generally those that demand the most time, resources, etc. of their members. John F. Kennedy is famous for telling the American people not to ask what the country can do for them, but what they can do for the country. Parenthood is the same: it's absolutely insane that I have four children, since I'm one of the most selfish people on the planet when it comes to my time. The more they demand of me, however, the more I appreciate them. The principle seems clear: we want to give to those things that need us (or that we believe need us - my daughter, Greta, seems to do just fine without me :-).
Now, in software, I'm not suggesting that CIOs will drop boatloads of cash on projects that are "needy." Not at all. Rather, I'm saying that there will be more psychological connection to software that allows us, even encourages us, to give to it. I can much more easily walk away from a failed financial investment than I can an investment of my time, reputation, and interest. Norm was never going to go to a different bar, not with how much Sam, Woody, Cliff, and the rest needed him.
- Open source communities, then, will be strongest when they actively court new entrants. Related to #1 above, it's easy to structure a "community" as a gated community that allows only the privileged few (usually a company's employees and partners). This is no community at all.
To encourage community, code needs to be modular (to make it easier to contribute in small doses - most third-party open source development is what I call "drive-by development"), forums need to be open and well-maintained (SugarCRM, which does commercial community better than anyone else I've seen, made its best investment in Clint, one of its founders, who actively works with its community to make it a welcoming place, and to ensure questions are answered), documentation needs to be solid (to make it easier to grok the code and get started), and it must quickly become community-maintained, if company-led (If the vast majority of the most active members remain the company's development team after the first 6-12 months, you're doing something wrong).
- The company must be willing to relinquish (some) control. Related to the above, at some point the company must be willing to be forked. On its own forums. Otherwise, it doesn't feel like a community of equals, and no one likes to be subservient. I'm not arguing that a company should invite forking of its code, but rather that without a willingness to see this happen, it likely holds too strong a grip on its community, which will stifle interest in the community. Jane says it well when she alludes to her preference to be a full partner in the marriage (now that she's needed), rather than a doted on, half-servant to her husband. Strong communities take the risk of being forked (as Mambo/Joomla was in my ECM world). This is a good thing. Painful. But good.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 31, 2006 06:20 PM
May 30, 2006 | Comments: (0)
UPDATE: After Konstantin's comment below, I decided to investigate the referencing features. Plus I felt even guiltier than I had before. So I paid $200 to use the advanced LinkedIn features for a year. So far, so good - given the tens of thousands I'd normally spend on a recruiter, this is a great investment.
......
Given all my pejorative blather about open source freeriders, I figured I'd fess up to one of my many sins.
I freeride on LinkedIn.
Through LinkedIn I found my director of solutions engineering - one of the best people I've ever worked with. I'm hiring a sales engineer, technical support, and 1-2 other positions now, and I'm doing it through personal, offline connections and through LinkedIn. I tend to use LinkedIn as a talent database, and rarely use it to actually link with someone. If I know a person's company, I can figure out their email address. No need for LinkedIn to help me connect.
As an attempt at penance for freeriding, however, I thought I'd offer LinkedIn a suggestion:
Charge for honest references.
The one thing that I can't get offline, but probably could get through LinkedIn, is candid commentary on people that I'd like to hire. I've thought about this before, but LinkedIn is perfectly suited for this.
It already allows me to leave endorsements for others, but what I'd really like to do is privately leave an honest appraisal of people I know. I don't want to flame them (though I'm sure this would happen within the system), but rather be able to speak openly about my experience with someone. More to the point, I'd like to see anonymous (or public, if the person leaving the comments prefers) commentary on someone I'm thinking of hiring. As mentioned, this could be abused, and I'd hate to see someone abused through the system. But I suspect that such a "rating" or commentary system would work over time, just as eBay and other systems get more accurate as more people vote on sellers, buyers, etc.
Again, I'm not interested in paying for the ability to email someone. I can do that for free. But I would dearly like to get an honest appraisal of the people I'm thinking of hiring through the LinkedIn network. Offline, you get references from someone and they're usually so incapable of saying anything negative about the prospect that it's nearly useless to talk with them. I'd rather hear the good and the bad, and make a decision accordingly.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 30, 2006 09:31 AM
May 29, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Some friends of the Open Sources blog are asking for advice on how they should consider options relating to the open-sourcing of their project. All feedback is welcome and the person providing the best advice gets to have lunch with Matt and I at OSCON where we will bore you with talk of Soccer and Heavy Metal.
We are developing a very sophisticated Ajax Development Platform primarily for Java developers. To enable developers to easily access the product, try it out, understand how it works, and provide feedback, we think it would be best to have some type of 'free' version.We are wondering if there are any strong feelings among developers regarding how much, if any, of the source we make available. For example, should we just make a freeware/community version of the product available or is Open Source really critical for people to feel comfortable with it? Also, if we do go Open Source, is it best to be 100% Open Source or is some lesser amount, like 80/20, considered to be 'ok'?
Please don't be obnoxious. These are guys new to the market who support OSS and need help understanding. It could be you someday :>
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 29, 2006 01:58 PM
May 28, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Open source success: A matter of 'Trust'
In a former life, I did a Masters degree in International Conflict Analysis (a fancy way to say "International Relations"). As part of my thesis ("The End of American Empire," a discussion of the source of the United States' ideological hegemony and reasons for its imminent collapse), I read Francis Fukuyama's Trust. Basically, Fukuyama argues that high-trust societies (Germany, Japan, United States) tend to be more productive and economically prosperous than low-trust societies (Italy, France, Korea). Trust matters, and translates into cash.
Whether Fukuyama's theory matches up with the real-world economies or not, I do think it applies well to software. Jason Matusow of Microsoft once related an interesting survey that he/Microsoft had conducted. (This is public information - he related it at a conference in Toronto.) 60% of the surveyed customers felt that access to source code was very important. Of these, 95% said they would never look at the source code, and 98% said they would never modify it. So why did they care?
Trust. Or lack thereof. Not lack of trust that Microsoft had their best interests at heart (I actually think Microsoft generally does have its customers' best interests at heart, but goes about securing them in the wrong way), but just a desire to have a safety net under their relationship with the vendor.
One of the great things about open source is that it heightens product permeability - you can see what you're getting before you come to the decision point: buy or don't buy. As in a strong-trust society, the barriers to enter into contracts, associations, etc. are diminished. IT decisions are based on maximum information (perhaps too much information at times?), not marketing messages and sales guys with good hair. That's why I like this slide we use at Alfresco:
No, trust isn't unique to open source companies, and an open source company is just as capable of acting in ways harmful to trust as a proprietary software company is. But the foundation is more amenable to trust. And, if Fukuyama is right, this means that over time, trust-based software economies (open source) will trump the closed software economies.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 28, 2006 10:30 AM
May 28, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Some ideas on constructing open source revenue models
At the risk of raising Larry's ire again, as the end of Alfresco's quarter draws to a close (giving me a little more time to think), I wanted to write down some additional thoughts on revenue models in open source. So, in no particular order, here are some important things to consider when building your open source revenue model:
- Price matters. This seems obvious, but if you have an exceptional product (as an increasing number of open source companies do), there's a strong temptation to position your pricing just below, at parity, or even a little above (if you believe Microsoft) the proprietary competition. Don't. Part of the drive toward open source is price. It's not the most important part by a long stretch, but it is important. By the same token, be careful not to price your product too low. Alfresco has actually lost customer interest in a few cases (and I'm aware of other open source companies who have experienced the same thing) because the price was too low. You want to be in the same ballpark, but markedly less.
- Open source is never 100% pull. By "pull" I'm referring to Larry Augustin's excellent discussion on this topic. I agree wholeheartedly with Larry that open source can create an inexpensive mechanism to enable pull: you create a great product, prospective customers download it, they evaluate it, they call you to buy. But this last part depends, to a large extent, on what kind of product they're downloading, and how easy it is to install, configure, and evaluate. A CRM system is, arguably, easier to evaluate than EAI or ECM or ERP. In short, some products are relatively self-evident, while other products are not.
So, when do you start to push the pull? At Alfresco we get involved with companies evaluating our products early into the pull cycle - this has worked well for us. We're able to help would-be customers understand how to derive maximum value from the system, assist them with configuration, etc.
As a result, however, we don't get as much of the automated sales cycle that some other open source companies do. As a tradeoff, however, we do tend to get larger deal sizes than the industry average (just as Medsphere does, an open source medical information systems company). We're still fine-tuning how we interact with open source's natural pull mechanism, but I'm generally quite pleased with the results. Open source shouldn't be about push, but it's never completely about pull, either. Not if you're looking to grow a serious company.
- Document everything. Related to #2 above, one way to facilitate the pull phenomenon is to heavily, clearly document your product. This tends to be the last thing that open source projects think about, but it's the first thing you should do. It will dramatically lower your cost of sales, because it will mean far less "pushing the pull." This is something that I've learned the hard way - don't follow my lead on this. Document first, then worry about selling.
- Revenues now. Every good corporation as revenue and profit as its two primary goals. I like the way Jack and Suzy Welch recently put it in their BusinessWeek column ("The Whining Game"):
You are running a company, not a social club or a counseling service. Your No. 1 priority is to win in the marketplace so that you can continue to grow and provide opportunities for your people. Of course, you want your employees to be happy. But their happiness must stem from the company's success, not from their every need being met. When the company does well because of their performance, they will thrive, personally and professionally. Not the other way around.
Money matters. It matters now, not two years from now.Of course, as Larry wisely suggests, you don't want to ramrod sales conversions from downloads - if you try, you'll fail in the short term (would-be customers will walk away) and the long term (you'll find yourself more sales-focused than product-focused, and will lose your price and product advantages). But you need to be thinking about how to convert downloads into dollars every second of every day - it should be second only to creating an exceptional product (and directly correlated with how you'll serve/support customers).
Red Hat isn't the company it is today because it made a lot of friends gifting great technology to the world (and people happily paid for the brand), as Bob Young once implied. Red Hat became the most successful open source company on the planet (ranking #2 on Business 2.0's 100 Fastest Growing Tech Companies list) out of dire necessity: it went public on hype and bubble-esque thinking, and then had to hunker down to justify its (then) bloated valuation. In the process it quickly discovered that the we-give-things-away-and-people-pay-us-for-our-brand model simply didn't work (sorry, Bob). It had to find some way to push all that pull, and came up with an ingenious business model.
(Incidentally, on that note, it's strange to me that very few open source companies have followed Red Hat's business/revenue model. There are at least two reasons for this, I suspect: 1) It's hard to fully let go and believe that customers will buy a tested, certified (that third-party apps will work with it), supported product. But they do. (Alfresco recently made the move to 100% open source and it has been an unqualified success for us.) 2) The model has been hard to understand, because there are some legal nuances to it that aren't immediately self-evident. But once you grok it, it's a thing of beauty. These are just two reasons - I'm sure there are others (including potentially better business models). But I think Red Hat's success is directly tied to its model - something worth studying.)
- Be open and permeable. By this I don't mean your source code. I mean the company itself. Put your pricing, business model, product information, forums, etc. online. Accessible to all. Including competitors (especially them, actually - it will strike holy fear into them when they see customers leaving them in droves with the ability to see exactly why their customers are deserting them, and not being able to do anything about it). You want to lower the bar to doing business with you. No one should have to wonder about your pricing or anything else. John Powell, Alfresco's CEO, often laughs when we sign mutual NDAs - "Matt, be sure to keep secret what you learn about the other company. They already know everything there is to know about us." That's the way an open source company should be: open.
Enjoy!
Posted by Matt Asay on May 28, 2006 09:55 AM
May 27, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Web 2.0 trademark nonsense: Killing its biggest benefactor?
I stopped by Bryce's house on a walk with my youngest yesterday, only to find out that the world was crucifying one of the advisors to his venture fund (Tim O'Reilly) who, as near as I can tell, is both innocent and also stranded on vacation without a cell phone, unable to defend himself from the libel/slander/mindnumbing ignorance that is spewing his way in his absence.
Missed the uproar?
Nick Carr captures it well. You may not remember this, but there was a time when everyone and her dog didn't blather on about Web 2.0. Then Tim crowned it real, a business partner sought trademark on the term (remember: back then few talked about Web 2.0 - it was Tim who got the meme rolling, which Paul Kedrosky, not being a lawyer or a historian, seems to have forgotten), and lately his business partner (CMP Media/MediaLive!) on the O'Reilly Web 2.0 Conference sought to enjoin an Irish company from putting on its own Web 2.0 conference.
Rudimentary trademark law 101, you think? Mostly.
In this ruckus, those who are personally attacking Tim can be ignored - they're buffoons.
For the rest, I think the real problem is not that Tim's business partner is seeking to enforce a trademark, but rather that it has not sought to do so before now. I think, in other words, that the real problem here is that O'Reilly (the company, not Tim, the person) has been inconsistent. Had O'Reilly aggressively slapped at TM on every use of Web 2.0, no one would be complaining now. But they didn't. Because O'Reilly isn't that sort of company. Now they're being castigated for not being IP fiends (though the mob is dressing it up as if they are IP fiends).
It is clear (to me, at least) that Tim largely invented Web 2.0. Not that he coined the term first (though he may have), but that he was the first to really centralize discussion around the topic. I think it's therefore still reasonable for his company and its partners to want to hold some exclusive right to put on a conference that deals with the meme.
At some point, however, it will have to become open. Like open source. I co-founded the Open Source Business Conference. It never occurred to me to try to trademark "open source," though we definitely trademarked "open source business conference." Open source is simply too generic. It may well be that "Web 2.0" is now too generic to hold claim to legitimate trademark.
If so, it is through the good graces of Tim and company. People should remember that before they grease up the guillotine.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 27, 2006 07:28 AM
May 26, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Cellphone Carriers are worse than Microsoft
The mobile phone walled garden puts the burden on users, both in terms of cost and complexity. For a few months I have been contemplating how to deal with my schedule/to-do's/contact management situation which has gotten completely out-of-control. I have been yearning for the Treo 700p but Palm didn't take me up on my test-drive offer and since carriers punish existing customers for moving to new devices I am test driving the Blackberry 870c on my own dime...or should I say my own $100/month. It's appalling how much mobile service costs when you consider just how mediocre the service is. And I can't make any sense of why VZW and Cingular charge for data services and Sprint doesn't. I can't tell for even a second that the EDGE network is any faster than existing networks. And yet 3G is the justification for this extra charge. May as well give me the under-coating too.
Within this miasma I keep contemplating what scenario would solve my problem. I realized what I need is a browser-based, sync enabled PIM application suite similar Outlook's functionality, but accessible via any computing platform. This should all be done on a smartphone that costs no more than $200 and no more than $60/month for 1000 minutes of talk and data inclusive. I should be able to sync over the air and I shouldn't have to spend an extra $40/month for Goodlink or Blackberry support (seriously, those "data charges" for network access are a slap in the face to business users-and how to do they justify those insane charges for Goodlink when Blackberry is 25% of the price?)
So despite 10 years of Palm loyalty I am trying the Crackberry. I hate RIM too, but not as much as I hate the ways that carriers abuse customers. Somehow the Treo has become my breaking point.
My point here is that we have minimal choice when it comes to mobile phone services. All of the carriers are monopolies in their own ways. But we do have choices when we consume software. If you don't understand why open source and open standards matter so much go try and change your cell phone carrier. You're locked into a contract with a high exit cost, a device that isn't standards based and an ongoing frustration with the service itself. It's the same as buying proprietary software where you relinquish control to a monolithic vendor concerned only with its own profits, not the interests of its users.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 26, 2006 07:34 PM
May 26, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Google/Dell deal : Good or Bad?
Yesterday's deal to ship Dell PCs with Google apps pre-installed is much more interesting than I had originally thought. In the near term it means Firefox as a default browser and productivity apps that are far better (though not as well integrated) as Microsoft offerings.
Besides being a direct affront to Microsoft it leads the way for Google to create a Linux based OS and drop it onto Dell computers. Being that Google is so proficient in creating browser-based applications, my obvious slant here is that a Google Linux should become the base for Dell PCs. This would eliminate the hassle of online/offline applications and means that PC makers can get out from under the MS thumb.
For the moment Google is still far less evil than Microsoft.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 26, 2006 10:02 AM
May 25, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Funding news: Sourcefire nabs $20 million
SNORT developer Sourcefire closed a $20 million Series D round of venture capital led by late-stage specialist Meritech Capital Partners of Palo Alto, Calif., to boost its balance sheet and position the company for an initial public offering as early as the end of this year.
Will Sourcefire IPO before MySQL?
Link: Sourcefire gets second wind
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 25, 2006 06:41 PM
May 24, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Open sourcing Java = incompatibility risk?
Thus spake Simon Phipps, in this eWeek article. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think the answer is relatively simple: GPL it. Not one of those newfangled modern corporate-created licenses. The stubborn old GPL.
Yes, from the GPL you still get various flavors of Linux. Ubuntu. Red Hat. Gentoo. Etc.
But the differences between these are more in the assembly of packages than anything else - they're much more similar than they are different.
So, GPL it, Sun. Set Java free.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 24, 2006 08:42 PM
May 24, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Open source publishing is Lulu
John Heilemann has a great profile of Red Hat founder Bob Young and his publishing startup, Lulu, in June 2006's edition of Business 2.0. Bob and I spoke at an open source conference together 2-3 years ago in Toronto, and I remember my reaction when he told me about Lulu. It was, as best I can remember:
"Huh? He left Red Hat for this?"
Today Lulu is doing $1M each month, and it's clear that his open source publishing business has got legs (36,000 - 91,000 book sales/legs per month, to be exact). The whole user-generated content hoopla largely leaves me unmoved, but there's something to Bob's idea.
"We're trying to empower this exchange of content between creators and consumers, so we think of ourselves more like being the eBay of digital content.A big aspiration, but Bob has never thought small.
There's something to it. I'm with Nick Carr on most things - "expert" content is probably best handled by experts. But in the world of fiction, I'm not sure I trust the editors and publishers to find the best literature. At least, not always. Yes, they've given me Mark Twain, Flannery O'Connor, and Fyodor Dostoevsky, but they've also given me (well, you - I refuse to read him) Dan Brown and those Fabio "novels."
I'm sure Lulu will churn out its share of Dan Brown-esque rubbish, but if it can find even one Dreiser or Trollope for me, it's worth it. (And what genius to not actually print the book until someone pays. I might even put together a collection of blog posts and essays, or perhaps my Masters thesis - I'm not out anything if no one cares, and maybe I'll make a few dollars....)
Posted by Matt Asay on May 24, 2006 07:37 PM
May 24, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Why Mozilla still hasn't cracked the enterprise
If you live in the 21st century, you stopped using Internet Explorer some time ago. It's ugly, invites unwanted malware, and has been behind the innovation curve for years.
All of which makes it the more frustrating that corporate IT generally shackles users to the ugly old IE beast, as CNET notes. The article quotes Mitchell Baker, head of Mozilla, who gives two reasons for corporate IT's silly adherence to an outdated technology:
While many IT directors do allow the open-source browser to be used on company time, those who don't are often held back by the proprietary technologies employed on their intranets.I remember this poignantly from my Novell days - we used Concur for expense reporting. Even when the company went to Linux desktops, we still had to use Crossover Office for IE support, because Concur only supports Internet Explorer. When a knuckleheaded decision by an ISV (to only support IE) forces a company to spend wads of cash on otherwise unnecessary products (either buy Crossover or maintain a Windows desktop, as I did, solely to do expense reports), that knuckleheaded ISV should ceremoniously tossed out of the enterprise."Enterprises have intranets that only work with (Microsoft's) IE," Baker said. "We can't fix their intranet."
Another hurdle Firefox must overcome is the "heartbreakingly slow" process many enterprises go through to certify the use of a tool as critical as a Web browser, according to Baker.
It's this need to comply with proprietary technology--as well as general quality issues--which, Baker claims, keeps IT departments from going with client-side open-source applications, not merely the fact they're open source.
Off my soapbox.
Note: A great friend of mine, Bryce Roberts, who sent this to me, still uses a VCR. Kind of ironic....
Posted by Matt Asay on May 24, 2006 07:12 PM
May 24, 2006 | Comments: (0)
News: Nokia open sources its mobile browser (Yawn?)
So, Nokia is open sourcing its mobile browser. I might think this bigger news if I had ever used a Nokia phone in my mortal existence, but I haven't, and I can't find any information on the browser to make me think it's a big deal. (Besides, I'd much rather use Mozilla's Minimo browser, if they ever support a real mobile operating system.)
The real trick is not in the browser, anyway. It's in the HTML/code that goes into mobile websites. It's nice to have a browser, but useless (or nearly so) if the websites it's rendering are written for the fat web. (dotMobi is a step in the right direction, but it, too, does nothing more than register mobilized websites - it doesn't actually write them. People do. The best solution I've seen to the mobile Internet is a company called Volantis.)
Anyway, here's what Nokia has to say for itself:
Nokia designed the browser for its S60 line of phones using the same open-source frameworks used by Apple Computer for its Safari browser, and adding enhancements designed to improve mobile browsing. Mobile phone makers or operators can now access the engine that runs the Nokia-developed browser and customize it for their own needs.OK. So there are some cool things about this. First off, they're licensing it under the BSD, so they're completely relinquishing control (though not the fragmentation/forking that may well occur)."We want to reduce the fragmentation currently in place in mobile browsing," said Lee Epting, vice president of Forum Nokia, Nokia’s software development support program. [ASAY: By further fragmenting the mobile browser market? How polite. :-) ]....
Features of the browser include the capability to work well in low-memory situations, a mouse pointer for a similar navigation experience as on the desktop, and support for dynamic HTML and Ajax. Developers will be able to create their own user interface for the browser, a key way for them to differentiate their products, Epting said.
Second, I like the Ajax support. I'm not a Web 2.0 worshipper (far from it), but I do think mobile is one place where Ajax makes a huge amount of sense, because mobile is a world where people are not (yet) married to fat-client apps. Ajax on mobile could actually be useful, whereas on the fat web it's mostly just eye candy.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 24, 2006 07:00 PM
May 24, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Open the Door for Open Source Deals
BusinessWeek online is running a great piece on consolidation amongst open source companies. The author is clearly some kind of genius bastard-child of Henry David Thoreau and Joseph Mitchell.
The business models associated with open source software -- code that is open to developers and freely distributed -- are rapidly evolving, but still nascent. Recent events show one thing clearly: there is money to be made in open source. Not content to rest on their laurels while smaller open source players garner market share and revenue, both Oracle and Red Hat recently struck deals that have thus far proven to be wise.
Disclosure: I wrote the article referenced above...I am so sneaky
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 24, 2006 10:00 AM
May 23, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Does Ingres Matter? Conversation with Dave Dargo
I spent some time with Ingres CTO Dave Dargo today talking about Ingres and the market in general. Dave was at Oracle for many moons and is definitely one of the important database thinkers.
My initial conversation question to Dave was simple: Why does Ingres matter?
Dargo responded that he joined because Ingres had some good technology and a strong customer base. He also said that market-wise database customers were not terribly pleased with the existing products from Oracle and Microsoft.
"The success of Linux and Apache emboldened people to experiment with open source. Customers felt like they could go with free and not get features, or go with closed and be stuck. Ingres was already through the maturity process and had better technology than the other open source databases. I wanted to take Ingres beyond the database. If you look at MySQL and EnterpriseDB, they are consciously following the market. It's a valid model for them, but I wanted to do something Oracle couldn't do. Since there was already a good customer base, this was much easier for Ingres. Ingres can do things in the market that haven't been done before."
This last statement is interesting as it shows that the Ingres generic strategy is one of differentiation rather than the low-cost provider strategy often seen in open source.
One of the key pieces to new user adoption is the software appliance that Ingres is working on. Dargo cited this as an important development in that the appliance delivers a complete stack, tuned to run the Ingres database. The appliance prototype will be out in June and is expected to be in production this year.
Ingres is positioned and structured as a more traditional software company than say MySQL or EnterpriseDB. With over 10,000 customers (primarily from the CA spin-off) there is a sustained revenue stream. The business question is more related to where the growth comes from. I think the appliance idea is very interesting, I just don't know that anyone outside of the existing user base is looking to use the Ingres database. I also wonder if the execs embrace of the traditional software sales model is the right way to go. It makes sense in some ways, but also defeats some of the benefits of open source, namely lower COGS in relation to sales and marketing. Regardless, it will be interesting to see what happens.
Link: Dave Dargo's Blog
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 23, 2006 09:11 PM
May 23, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Open source: Empowering the customer
I had a funny "customer win" last week that reminded me (and the new customer) that signing on with an open source company can be much more than a passive relationship....
Let me explain.
The customer was looking to cluster Alfresco in a way that we don't currently support. "We," meaning Alfresco. But they told me that "Danruss" was working on the code solution to the problem, and would have it by July.
"Danruss?" I queried. "Who the heck is Danruss? We don't have anyone by that name working for us."
"He's all over your forums," they replied. "He told us he's backlogged right now, but will be issuing a beta by July 1."
I couldn't figure out what (or, rather, whom) they were talking about. But then it hit me:
Russ is with The Christian Science Monitor, and has proven to me once and for all that open source enables a highly interactive, dramatically innovative way of developing software. No, Russ doesn't work at or for Alfresco. He works for The Christian Science Monitor. But he definitely works with Alfresco, and in a way that proprietary software has never been able to replicate.
So, Russ, you won't be getting a paycheck from us, but you will be getting (and giving) exceptional software. Thanks to you. To Alfresco. To all of us. That's the power of open source.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 23, 2006 08:19 PM
May 23, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Via Newsforge: The Free Software Foundation (FSF) launched its anti-Digital Rights Management (DRM) campaign in Seattle this morning. When attendees of the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC) 2006 arrived at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center to hear a keynote address by Bill Gates, a small group of FSF members and their local allies were waiting to greet them, dressed in yellow hazmat suits and handing out pamphlets explaining that Microsoft products are -- in the words of the key slogan for the campaign -- "defective by design" because of the DRM technologies included in them.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 23, 2006 06:49 PM
May 22, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Key Questions About Java's Move To Open Source
"It's not a question of whether, but a question of how." Said Jonathan Schwartz...InformationWeek has taken a pass at what matters in the Open Source Java conundrum in 7 Answers To Key Questions About Java's Move To Open Source.
Previously:
Sun's Open Source Outreach
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 22, 2006 02:50 PM
May 21, 2006 | Comments: (0)
An answer to Linux device driver issues?
Novell announced a new device driver strategy to make it easier for 3rd parties and end-users add drivers to their Linux systems.
Linux drivers are usually baked into the kernel itself, with third-party drivers be installed manually, a process that generally involves re-compiling. The ability to install drivers in a convenient fashion is key to the adoption of desktop Linux, where users are unlikely to recompile or wait until the next release of the software.
The new driver process allows customers to obtain drivers independently of Novell kernel updates and supplies a straightforward approach third parties can use when developing device drivers for Novell's SUSE® Linux Enterprise products. The new Linux driver process developed by Novell allows hardware and software vendors to provide Linux drivers and driver updates for their products to customers directly and transparently, in a way that is completely integrated with SUSE Linux Enterprise delivery and support.
Drivers will be delivered via YaST.
Link: Ars Technica
Link: Official FAQ
Link: OSDL Works to Clear Hurdles to Desktop Linux Adoption
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 21, 2006 05:19 PM
May 21, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Open source needs more competition
Jose Mourinho is quoted today about how pleased he is that the best striker on this planet - Thierry Henry - turned down two record offers of nearly $90M from Barcelona and Real Madrid to stay with Arsenal. Why would the coach of the world's most competitive team (in the transfer market, anyway) be happy that Arsenal will be stronger next year?
Because competition is good.
Who cares if Chelsea wins if they have no competition? Indeed, Mourinho has bemoaned this fact lately - no one takes him seriously as a coach since he has billions to spend on buying up every good player on the planet.
It's the same in the open source world. First, it's becoming a bit distressing to me that the proprietary players have come up with such anemic rationales for why IT buyers should choose them. Innovation? Open source has that in spades. Or how about this one from Microsoft, arguing that open source is not reliable or dependable? I think Redmond has failed to notice the mass exodus away from its rainy shores for stable, reliable, dependable open source in the form of Linux, MySQL, Apache, etc. etc. etc.
In short, I hope the proprietary vendors learn to put up a real fight. Right now, they're looking pathetic.
Of equal importance to me is that open source breeds an increasing number of quality projects. We need more, not fewer, Alfrescos, SugarCRMs, MySQLs, etc. Too often we think that because one has been funded or grown in popularity, that it's time to move on. The proprietary world doesn't think that way - why should the open world fall into this trap? Where would Oracle be without DB2? And Sybase, Ingres, etc.?
Competition is good. Lots of competition is better. Even for you, Jose "Big Bucks" Mourinho.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 21, 2006 08:14 AM
May 19, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Always interesting to hear what Linus has to say. And I can't help but enjoy the fact that he wants no face-to-face contact with the development team. "For example I long ago decided I will never go to meetings again because I think face to face meetings are the biggest waste of time you can ever have." Full interview on CNN this weekend.
CNN: Over the years, Linux has spawned other open technologies and even an open source spirit or open source philosophy. It has engendered stuff like Wikipedia, the online open source encyclopedia or even, some could argue, citizen journalism. What are your thoughts about that?LT: We shouldn't give credit to Linux per se. There were open source projects and free software before Linux was there. Linux in many ways is one of the more visible and one of the bigger technical projects in this area and it changed how people looked at it because Linux took both the practical and ideological approach. At the same time I don't think this whole "openness" notion is new. In fact I often compare open source to science. To where science took this whole notion of developing ideas in the open and improving on other peoples' ideas and making it into what science is today, and the incredible advances that we have had. And I compare that to witchcraft and alchemy, where openness was something you didn't do. So openness is not something new, it is something that actually has worked for a long time.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 19, 2006 10:02 AM
May 17, 2006 | Comments: (0)
First off, let it be known that Enomaly is one of the most interesting open source SIs on the planet. Reuven and his team have hacked Alfresco, Zimbra, Plone, Typo3, and virtually every piece of open source software ever conceived. Now they're tying them all together in cool ways.
In the latest salvo from its open source arsenal, Enomaly just released Enomalism, a pre-packaged virtualization infrastructure solution based on Xen 3.0 and available under the LGPL open source license. The Enomalism Virtualized Management Console (VMC) is a web-based systems administrator management tool for XEN hypervisor that enables the management of multiple isolated Virtual Private Servers (VPS) to be managed from a central web based interface.
So what, you say? Well, Enomalism offers the performance, stability, security and openness of the Xen hypervisor while simultaneously making it super easy to use, deploy, and manage. So, enterprises will tend to get higher server utilization and lower costs without having to be uber-geeks to do so. Nice.
Check out the download here.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 17, 2006 09:37 PM
May 17, 2006 | Comments: (0)
If I seem dismissive about ODF and Microsoft Office generally, it's because I am. Over the past 2-3 years I've watched Microsoft build a new, growing bastion of lock-in.
The battle is no longer being fought at the file level. It's being fought at the network level.
The network of files, that is, within an organization. People in the open source world make a fetish out of defeating .doc, .xls, and .ppt with .odf. Fine. But in Microsoft's new world, even ODF documents would be locked into its network. Of which network am I speaking?
SharePoint.
I first encountered SharePoint at Novell, where Microsoft was using it to nudge Linux out of organizations. See, SharePoint is insidious. The basic version of it (Services) comes free with every Windows 2003 server. It costs departments nothing to deploy it. Given a taste (it's a decent, though not great product), a significant number upgrade to SharePoint Portal, start storing their content in this SharePoint repository, and kiss their freedom goodbye.
This is the same for any proprietary content repository. Documentum, Vignette, etc. have been locking in customers for years with their respective repositories. But Microsoft is more dangerous, because SharePoint is integrated with Office, Windows, SQL Server, and every other Microsoft product. Once you get a taste for SharePoint you have to keep buying more and more Microsoft product to leverage it, and the more content you store in the repository, the less likely you will ever get it out.
You're locked in.
This is one reason that companies should be extremely wary about using SharePoint, in particular. It is your content, not Microsoft's. If you want to keep it yours, you need to keep it in a secure but open place.
There are a range of great open source repositories out there (Alfresco (Truth in advertising - I work for Alfresco), Apache's Jackrabbit, Plone, etc.). This is where you want your content stored, because each of these offers easy ways to get the content in and, more importantly, out.
So, yes, I am a bit blase about file formats. That is yesterday's battle - an important one, but an old one. Today's battle is being fought in the network of files. You may not realize it now - though companies like Novell are already waging a fierce battle on this front - but you will. Get your data/content out now.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 17, 2006 08:56 AM
May 16, 2006 | Comments: (0)
No shame in being less expensive than proprietary bloatware
I've been having a discussion with a group of friends on the advisability of calling out the fact that open source is cheaper. With other benefits (Flexibility. Open standards. Performance. Quality of code. Etc.) arguably trumping cost, I decided to ask the only person that matters in the debate:
A customer.
This particular (Alfresco) customer vetted various proprietary ECM solutions before going with Alfresco. The price for Alfresco's top competitor in the deal was 20 times Alfresco's. 20 times. They eventually discounted it so that it was only 10 times more expensive. We sold them a similar system for under $30K (one that actually performs better, is easier to use, and won't lock the customer's data into Alfresco).
You do the math.
Now, if I'm a CIO, I'd better have a darn good reason for not choosing Alfresco in this scenario. (And if I'm that other vendor, I'd better be buying indulgences or something to assuage my guilt for over-charging so much for a relatively simple ECM requirement.) Is open source primarily about lower cost? Absolutely not. But should buyers care about cost? Of course they should. And they do.
Price may not be a long-term competitive barrier, but it sure is an excellent short-term opportunity for open source. Use it.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 16, 2006 02:19 PM
May 16, 2006 | Comments: (0)
I figure I might as well maintain my status as Resident Inquisitor of Open Source Myths with a discussion on the value of choice. A friend at a Fortune 500 company recently set me to thinking on the problems (and opportunities) that open source affords vis-a-vis choice. (I've opined on open source choice before, in case you're interested.)
I'm very fond of telling enterprises that open source maximizes their choice. I often use one of Larry's graphics to illustrate how much better off they are:
Look at all that choice the CIO now has! She can spend her money in a variety of different ways.
Oddly enough, that can be a problem. In many ways, it's easier to be forced into a decision: if I only have $10 to spend, in some ways I'm glad to have $9.95 in Arsenal tickets staring at me. My choice is made. No need to worry about spending $2 to send condolences to the Barca fans. :-)
However, there's a much more difficult angle on choice for CIOs: how to figure out what to choose in the first place. My friend tells me that it can be hugely time consuming to download and try out open source software. Vendors like MySQL and Alfresco take it as a matter of course that our would-be buyers will first download, test, and evaluate our software, and then opt to buy it. However, what if they go through all that effort only to find out the product is rubbish? Lots of man hours on the road less traveled...and it will have made all the (negative) difference.
Oddly enough, in the commercial world, the buyer gets the product largely "site-unseen" and then has the pleasure of beating up the vendor to get them to make it work. They paid big money for it, so they're a) not going to recognize the sunk cost and move on and b) have given the vendor a strong incentive to fix the problems or face a battering in the word-of-mouth press.
For many, they would prefer to throw down the cash and pray it works. For others, they'd prefer to invest their time/money in experimenting toward a good fit (though, let's face it, the process for winnowing down a universe of products/projects to a small group for a bake-off is the same - IT buyers are always going to talk to peers, read what the media has to say, etc., as I've noted before).
Over time, I think it will become increasingly easy to find good open source software. So, some of the "cost of choice" will be removed for my friend. But for now, there are real costs associated with choosing open source. Worthwhile costs, yes. But costs, nonetheless.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 16, 2006 02:10 PM
May 16, 2006 | Comments: (0)
How I Work: Barry Klawans, CTO, Jaspersoft
What is your role?
My official role is Chief Technical Officer of JasperSoft. My real role seems to be Doing What Needs To Be Done, which is a lot of fun. I get to focus on our community, and look for places that could benefit from our technology. For example, I launched the JasperReports for SugarCRM project on SugarForge a couple of months ago.
What is your computer setup?
I use a PowerMac at work, with a Microsoft mouse and a Dell LCD. Rather funny when you think of it. I'm an old Berkeley guy, so I love having a laptop with BSD on it.
What desktop software applications do you use daily?
Apps I use daily include Apple's Mail (with SpamSieve), iCal, BBEdit for text and code, Fire and iChat for IM, Camino, and Office X. For fun I use iTunes (with Synergy and Growl). Frequently used (but not daily) apps include Eclipse, OmniGraffle for tech drawings (think Visio for the Mac) and Photoshop.
What websites do you visit every day?
Our forums, SugarForge, MyYahoo, NYTimes.com, and xlr8yourmac.com
What mobile device or cell phone do you use?
Treo 650, using Missing Sync to sync with OS X. I don't want constant email on my cell phone, so a Blackberry does nothing for me.
Do you use IM?
All the time. I work with folks on the east coast of the US, Australia, Romania and Italy, so IM is a way of life.
Do you use a VoIP phone?
Does Skype count? Its not really a dedicated VoIP phone.
Do you have a personal organization/time management theory?
Do what it takes to succeed, and trust other folks to do the same. When people take a risk and fail, don't penalize them.
Communications are critical, especially with an open source project. Listen to your community and collaborators, and support them as much as you can. I'm a firm believer that a small group working together can come up with a better idea than any member of the group could come up with by themselves.
Never accidently call your kids by the dog's name - it causes problems.
Anything else?
Don't do all of your communications on line - actually talk to people. And when you go home, focus on your family, not work. (Guess that is another reason why I'm not crazy about Blackberries - I've seen too many folks let them distract them from their families.)
And finally, have some fun.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 16, 2006 10:58 AM
May 16, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Will Microsoft go on an acquisition spree?
Some notes from the Microsoft VC shindig via Alarm:Clock
- MSFT has launched a Web site at StartupZone.com that is meant to serve as a connection point for tech vassals and their over-lord.
- About a third of the companies that MSFT acquired were not yet VC funded.
- Acquisitions are rarely made based on revenues or profits because the price and multiples for these types of companies are too high.
Acquisitions in 2005
VirtualEarth aka MapPoint - Vexcel and GeoTango do 3D imaging and remote sensing.
MSN - DeepMetrix (web site stats), Massive (videogame advertising), Onfolio (web research), Teleo (VoIP), Media-Streams (VoIP), MotionBridge (mobile search), TSSX (China mobile services), SeaDragon (Large Image manipulation)
Windows Live - FolderShare (file synch), MessageCast (MSN Alerts)
Speech Server - Unveil Technologies (call center SW)
Security - Alacris (Identity Mgmt), FutureSoft (Web filtering)
Systems Management - AssetMetrix (License tracking)
Business Intelligence - ProClarity (analysis and visualization)
Microsoft Game Studios - Lionhead Studios (games developer)
Exchange Server - FrontBridge (email security)
Microsoft Project - UMT (Portfolio Mgmt)
Storage Server - Stringbean Software (iSCSI SAN)
Vista - Apptimum (Application transfer)
In case anyone is wondering I have travel downtime so am catching up on news...don't expect me to be this prolific normally.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 16, 2006 10:41 AM
May 16, 2006 | Comments: (0)
eWeek makes it easy to get the full picture of what might be called the recent JavaOne non-event...where Sun didn't open source Java.
Comments from both me and Matt within the article means that we don't have to fight over who is more important (it's me FYI).
"Java, however, is an inexplicable blight on Sun's otherwise enviable open-source record. It is unfathomable to me how such a basic building block of technology—Java—can remain closed source."Especially when to do so yields net positives for Sun. I can't think of a single, credible negative side effect for Sun [if it were] to open-source Java.
Sun's reasons for continued closure can't be competitive or capitalist in nature, Asay said.
"Java generates very little revenue for Sun. It gives Sun no competitive advantage. In short, Sun has no good capitalist reason for keeping Java closed, and every capitalist incentive to open it up.
"Historically, Sun has done well at building community, but this continuous cycle of open-sourcing software that people aren't begging for feels more like desperation than it does strategic or beneficial to the community.
Weird to quote in the 3rd person, but here it is.
Principal Analyst Dave Rosenberg of the Open Source Development Lab in Beaverton, Ore., told eWEEK, "I applaud Sun's philosophy to open-source all of its software, but the community is asking for Java. Until Sun open-sources Java, their open-source credibility flag will still fly at half-mast."Rosenberg said he is pleased that Sun is making it easier for Linux distributions to include the newly opened Java components, but he doesn't think it will be viewed as a panacea—merely a stopgap measure.
"I would also argue that Sun had to do this or risk total irrelevance in respect to Linux," he said.
"Historically, Sun has done well at building community, but this continuous cycle of open-sourcing software that people aren't begging for feels more like desperation than it does strategic or beneficial to the community.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 16, 2006 10:08 AM
May 16, 2006 | Comments: (0)
How I Work: Jason Gilmore, Open Source Editorial Director, Apress
What is your role?
I'm the Open Source Editorial Director for Apress. I spend my days helping authors create great books, talking tech with some of the brightest guys in the computing industry, and travelling to various technical conferences around the country. I'm also the author of several books, and regularly contribute to various publications such as TechTarget's SearchOpenSource.com. My leisure time is spent working on various development projects and slowly remodeling my home.
What is your computer setup?
I use two laptops, one Windows XP and the second running Ubuntu. When working from my home office, I use dual monitors, the second being a 17" flat-panel Samsung. Using dual monitors is by far one of the greatest productivity gains I've ever encountered.
What desktop software applications do you use daily?
The vast majority of my time is spent within just eight applications: Firefox, Outlook, Thunderbird, MS Word, MS Excel, Gaim, Skype, and Eclipse.
What websites do you visit every day?
Due to the enormous amount of research we do at Apress, I practically live on Google. However, my RSS aggregator consists of roughly 50 sites (mostly tech-related, including InfoWorld!) that I regularly monitor. Some of my favorites include SearchOpenSource, Techdirt, TechCrunch, CNET, Digg, Slashdot, SiliconValley.com, as well as all of the developer feeds for the Ruby, PHP, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Perl, and Python projects. My personal SugarCRM installation is also visited daily.
What mobile device or cell phone do you use?
I have a Motorola Razr and more recently, a Dell Axim X51. I bought the Axim after forgetting about a phone appointment, figured information overload had finally won, and accordingly I needed a babysitter. So far it's working out quite well, provided I remember to bring it with me.
Do you use IM?
Authors tend to use a variety of IM applications, and therefore I use Gaim (http://gaim.sourceforge.net) to consolidate accounts under one client. It's much more convenient than simultaneously running numerous IM clients.
Do you use a VoIP phone?
I use Skype extensively to communicate with my colleagues around the U.S. and in the U.K., and with authors all around the world. Up until recently I had Vonage installed at the house, but Skype's great SkypeOut service finally won me over and now I use it exclusively.
Do you have a personal organization/time management theory?
It's so easy to become sidetracked by matters that ultimately prove irrelevant to the bigger picture. Avoid succumbing to trivialities by ruthlessly prioritizing tasks, delegating matters more effectively handled by others, and learning from how others effectively manage their daily affairs. Also, I've always been keen on creating written lists, be it for grocery shopping or managing the lifecycle of a book project. These lists are updated either on an ever-present notepad or on a Wiki hosted on my personal web server. Finally, don't allow yourself to fall into the trap of doing multiple things at once. Constantly checking your inbox while attempting to proofread a document is a sure route to doing a poor job. Perform one task, and one task only, and then move on to the next.
Anything else?
Check out my (very new) blog on technical writing and other matters at http://www.wjgilmore.com/.
Previously:
How I Work: Steven Smith, CEO FiveRuns
How I Work: Lonn Johnston, President, Page One PR
How I Work: Matt Asay, VP of Business Development, Alfresco
How I Work: Brian Aker, Dir. Architecture, MySQL
How I Work: Mike Olson, VP, Oracle
How I Work: Peter Yared, CEO, ActiveGrid
How I work: Dave Rosenberg, The Yeti of Open Source
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 16, 2006 09:32 AM
May 16, 2006 | Comments: (0)
The World Is Clamoring for ODF! (Not)
Jason Matusow (former shared source king at Microsoft, now shared standards king at Microsoft) has a good post today about customer demand for ODF. Tim Bray and others have hounded Microsoft to open up and support ODF.
Jason's response? We're customer-driven, and few customers care about ODF. He provides a little data to support this:
To try to put some kind of weight behind my statement about the demand, the following data comes from the March timeframe, and falls into the world of blog data (meaning it would be great to see some neutral party do this type of research so that it could be verified and substantiated). I received this from a friend of mine who did some Google research. He found that of the non HTM or HTML files on the internet, ~70% are .pdf, Office formats represent ~17%, .txt ~7%, StarOffice (including swx, sxi, sxc) about .03%, and OpenOffice not registering with only ~1000 documents surfacing (including .odt, .ods, .odp). This data comes from a total set of ~446 million documents. So - I'm not completely in dream land Tim, just not in alignment with your company's goals on ODF and the sale of your products and services.Whatever your open source politics, I think it's fair to say that Jason is right on this one. We can argue that the world would appreciate open document standards if they were just given them (i.e., people are too ignorant to know what would be good for them). But I think it's a specious argument to say that hordes of people are clamoring for ODF today.
They're not.
I, as a vendor who manages Microsoft Office content, would be very happy to see ODF succeed, because it would make my job easier. But I'm not sure that's a good reason to hound Microsoft to give up its competitive advantage, no matter how much I might prefer that they do so.
Besides, the kinds of content that increasingly matter in today's world make .doc increasingly irrelevant. Email. HTML. PDF. I care about these. Microsoft Office formats are increasingly 'furniture' for me. My most important data aren't there. So why fixate on yesterday's battleground?
Posted by Matt Asay on May 16, 2006 08:56 AM
May 16, 2006 | Comments: (0)
How I Work: Steven Smith, CEO FiveRuns
What is your role?
I'm the CEO of FiveRuns, an Open Source systems management company. I'm the founder of the company, but have surrounded myself with a great team on the sales, marketing, and engineering sides. I provide overall strategic direction to the company as well as work closely with the engineering team on system architecture. Additionally, I'm actively involved in the development of our UI itself, which is built using Ruby on Rails with an appropriate amount of AJAX to enhance the overall user experience. Our company also supports the Rico project (http://www.openrico.org) which is a javascript library for Rich Internet Applications.
What is your computer setup?
15-in PowerBook (G4), 23-in Apple Cinema Display (yes, it is quite nice). The bulk of my team runs the MacBook Pro (Intel-based), but I started the company with the G4, so I'm somewhat sentimental about it. The remainder of the team runs Linux.
What desktop software applications do you use daily?
TextMate, a great editor, in particular for Ruby / Rails, etc., and XyleScope, an incredible HTML, CSS debugging tool, Various MS Office Apps (Work, Excel) and KeyNote for presentations.
What websites do you visit everyday?
Bloglines primarily, which might drive me to other websites based on articles I read there.
What mobile device or cell phone do you use?
Samsung, A650. Basic cell phone, but it does have apps for email, and weather (which comes in handy when traveling).
Do you use IM?
Never use IM directly, although as a group we use Campfire from 37 Signals for a business-oriented chat.
Do you use a VoIP phone?
Yes, our entire office utilizes VoIP phones.
Do you have a personal organization theory?
Eliminate distractions, and focus on what really matters in your business. If it's not strategic, it's a distraction.
Anything else?
We have a fundamental belief in less software (a concept pioneered by 37 Signals). The last thing our industry needs is another bloated management product. We believe in less software that does more, acts smarter, and provides an incredible user experience. We're in private beta now and welcome anyone interested to sign up (http://www.fiveruns.com)
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 16, 2006 04:25 AM
May 15, 2006 | Comments: (0)
How I Work--what I have learned so far (send us your profile)
I've spoken with all of the participants in our "How I Work" series and we're all having the same reaction. Not only is it cool to see how our peers do things, but you can actually put this stuff into practice. After reading Brian Akers' profile, I immediately started using OmniOutliner for my todo list. Now if only I could somehow sync it to a web interface...
All of us were surprised how many others use Macs and Treos. In fact, it seems that those who use Macs use Treos and those who use Windows lean towards BlackBerry. To that end, none of us have gotten a damn thing for free from either company. One of my Bschool chums works for Palm and thinks he can pry a 700p out of their coffers using the family discount, but not for free. I still can't believe Cingular and RIM haven't hit us up to test drive the 8700, which Peter was raving about and has made me rethink my Palm choice.
Anyway, if you want to do your "How I work" just follow the format we used for the others and send them on over.
How I Work: Lonn Johnston, President, Page One PR
How I Work: Matt Asay, VP of Business Development, Alfresco
How I Work: Brian Aker, Dir. Architecture, MySQL
How I Work: Mike Olson, VP, Oracle
How I Work: Peter Yared, CEO, ActiveGrid
How I work: Dave Rosenberg, The Yeti of Open Source
What is your role?
What is your computer setup?
What desktop software applications do you use daily?
What websites do you visit every day?
What mobile device or cell phone do you use?
Do you use IM?
Do you use a VoIP phone?
Do you have a personal organization/time management theory?
Anything else?
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 15, 2006 08:08 PM
May 15, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Why you should volunteer to help an open source project
After the Open Source panel at TIEcon we had the chance to chat with some of the attendees. The topics ranged from the obvious (do you need any offshore development work) to things that I found more interesting. For example the fact that there are a number of open source consultancies with global presences that I had never heard of, or the number of people who are trying to start companies but can’t find engineering talent to help them finish their projects—turns out the giant vortex sucking every engineer into Google is a drag for many people.
The conversation that was most interesting was a recent Masters grad who works as a software developer for a huge telco. She wants to make the transition from coder to product manager and was wondering how one goes from technical to marketing. At first I was a bit stumped, and gave her some ideas of things that product managers do, all of which she felt qualified for, but didn’t have direct work experience with. Then I realized the obvious thing. She should volunteer to help an open source project.
Trying to break into a new role is tough, especially if you have only ever been in one type of job and can’t seem to get out. But, one of the great things about open source projects (or really any .org for that matter) is that they always need help.
There are a number of reasons why helping OSS projects can be good career moves:
-Networking with other interested parties
-A level of visibility in the market that will be attractive to hiring managers
-You will learn a ton
-This knowledge should also lead to job offers as you will now have relevant experience in an emerging space where you can have a direct impact on the success of a project.
After we all basked in the glow of our admiring fans, Zack, Peter and I joined Mike Devries for lunch where we talked smack for nearly an hour. Good times, despite having to be in Santa Clara on a Saturday morning.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 15, 2006 07:54 PM
May 15, 2006 | Comments: (0)
How I Work: Lonn Johnston, President, Page One PR
What is your role?
I'm the founder of Page One PR, a PR agency in Palo Alto that works with some of the coolest open source companies. We're about 4 years old. I first got involved with open source in 1998 when I helped launch TurboLinux in North America. My Page One PR partner, Craig Oda, was the original founder of the Tokyo Linux Users' Group back in 1993. He and I worked together on the executive team at TurboLinux (and burned through $95M in venture money). I think we made every mistake possible around open source business at TurboLinux and we try to help our clients avoid the mistakes that we made. We also made a lot of friends along the way with reporters, analysts and vendors. In open source, it's good to know a lot of people and have a decent reputation.
What is your computer setup?
It's amazing to me how many folks responding to this survey run Mac notebooks for their work computer. I switched my shop to Macs half a year ago to escape the Windows plague of viruses and spyware. Many of our people work in distributed offices. We lost 4 hard drives to Windows pests in three months. It was just awful. Call Dell or IBM under the warranty and they'll fix it, but both claim spyware and viruses are by far the leading cause of drive failures in notebooks. I still find Linux on the desktop not worth the hassles (please don't flame me; I tried for 2 years).
What desktop software applications do you use daily?
Apple mail, iCal, Microsoft Office, Skype, iTunes, FileMaker Pro, Firefox for browsing, and Adium (IM for lots of different clients, inlcuding Yahoo, AIM, etc...).
What websites do you visit every day?
All the news sites plus Slashdot. I haven't figured out RSS yet.
Don't forget dead trees. I read four dailies every morning: The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the San Jose Mercury News and the San Francisco Chronicle. I was a reporter for years at the LA Times and taught journalism at UC Berkeley. I still love the daily printed word. I know there are only about 11 of us left in high tech, however.
What mobile device or cell phone do you use?
Treo 650. It's much more reliable than the old 600s. You still can't read the screen in daylight, though.
Do you use IM?
I love it. And I was a very late adopter. It's the best way to ask quick questions, work with clients during a call, check if someone's available for a call, etc...
Do you use a VoIP phone?
I like Skype a lot but most of our clients who have installed company-wide VoIP phone systems have had a ton of trouble. It's not there yet, IMHO.
Do you have a personal organization theory?
I'm a flat guy. Our agency has no titles. Everyone does everything. It's like a start-up. I write press releases, build editorial calendars and do all kinds of tasks that are typically delegated down. But I find these tasks a great way to stay close to the game, close to reporters, and close to clients. Make time to think and run your business, but keep your hands in the day-to-day operations, too.
Anything else?
Free PR advice. Don't just call reporters when you need them. Build relationships, have something to say, be genuine, don't be boring, never tell a lie, and don't be afraid to gossip.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 15, 2006 11:04 AM
May 15, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Larry Augustin and "Natural Revenue Growth"
Yes, that does sound like a line from half the spam I get, but in this case it's actually an astute observation from Larry Augustin, the source of the email on which I commented late last week.
Larry raises some great points, both in his initial "rant" (his word, not mine) and in the follow up. I definitely concur, for example, that sometimes (in any business) VC money causes the startup to do things that natural, organic growth would never countenance.
I'm not a big fan of huge piles of VC cash, because I think they skew the right business mentality for long-term success: impatient for profit, patient for growth (in Clayton Christensen's words). In other words, entrepreneurs must have every incentive to operate sensibly today with a prudent growth plan that doesn't trade near-term profit for long-term inanity.
However, I disagree with Larry's implication that all open source startups are alike. I think a middleware company is different from an applications company, and that bigger ticket items will have a different (however slight) sales model than a business that thrives on smaller transactions. Not all startups are alike.
It's too soon to settle on any one model. I suspect that it will always be too soon for such. This is one reason that we need continued, open dialogue like this: to help figure out what is the best for vendors and, more importantly, what is the best for customers.
Along that path, Stephen, don't worry about "picking on Matt." Having truth on my side always makes me feel amply armed. ;-)
Posted by Matt Asay on May 15, 2006 07:17 AM
May 14, 2006 | Comments: (0)
OpenClovis-Open Source Telecom Middleware
Here at the Open Sources Blog we are often lucky to get an early look at new open source companies and besides helping them get some press, we also inform the world of products that might be interesting.
Today we have an example of an audacious play backed by investment from AT&T and Intel as well as industry partnerships with HP, IBM and others. And it's in one of the most conservative IT markets of all -- telecommunications.
The company, OpenClovis (