- Debian to rename FireFox in next release
- Netgear's new WiFi Skype phone (Verdict: It's awesome)
- Open sourcing collaboration
- Oracle upgrades open source Berkeley DB
- The other side of the "long tail"
- Ajax: Growing (and fragmenting) like the good ol' days of Linux
- Linux not touching Windows anytime soon
- And now for a little self-congratulation: Alfresco's web content management
- SugarCRM 4.5: How sweet it is!
- Gartner's code reuse suggestion smells like open source advocacy...
September 30, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Debian to rename FireFox in next release
Seems that Debian and Mozilla can't see eye-to-eye on how to deal with patches and tweaks to Firefox. I see the arguments on both sides but while it's a drag to stuck with the Mozilla rules of engagement and distribution it's a better move for them to work together. If nothing else, Firefox is a recognized brand--which tends to help new users feel more comfortable a product (for better or worse.)
Thus far Ubuntu is sticking with Firefox, which I agree with.
Links:
Firefox To Be Renamed In Debian
Firefox Not Really Free?
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 30, 2006 12:41 PM
September 29, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Netgear's new WiFi Skype phone (Verdict: It's awesome)
UPDATED: You can download the source to the phone's firmware here. (Will someone please hack a web browser into it, as suggested in the comments below, so that I can use the phone in web-based authentication hot spots?)
I ordered my Netgear WiFi Skype phone in early August, and it finally arrived today. Given that my 3-year old lost my office phone (don't ask) earlier in the day, it was a welcome package.
Like all good technology (read: Apple-created hardware and software :-), I took it out of the box, turned it on, plugged in my Skype user name and password, and was calling colleagues within five minutes.
Simple.
Sound quality is excellent, and with my SkypeOut account it was a snap to call those not using the Skype network. Now I just need to get a SkypeIn account so that people can reach me on the phone, as well.
Why use it? Well, I travel internationally a fair amount and don't like the roaming charges I get for using my mobile phone abroad. Now all I need to bring is my Netgear Skype phone and find a WiFi zone and I'm set. (Note: It doesn't work with hotspots that require browser-based authentication, but my guess is that this is a momentary problem.) It's as small as a mobile phone and is not tethered to my laptop the way my IPEVO Skype phone was.
I would highly recommend this to anyone that uses Skype for calling, or for those who have historically shied away from using Skype as a telephone medium. This Netgear WiFi phone takes all the pain out of Skype calling. It's super easy to use.
(Btw, I love how Netgear included a copy of the GPL in the box. Does that mean my phone conversations have to be open sourced? ;-)
Posted by Matt Asay on September 29, 2006 01:21 PM
September 29, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Ismael is talking up WebEx's Connect product, which integrates WebEx (web conferencing) with BPM and distributes it over a grid. The demo goes something like this, according to Ismael:
The demo we saw goes something like this: you’re a sales manager, and a prospect sends you an email telling you that a technical problem needs to be fixed before you get your prized PO, look like a hero, and keep your fiancee happy (verbatim). The prospect is asking whether you knew about the trouble ticket that was recently entered into the BMC Remedy system.Pretty cool. But still stuck in whatever a vendor (with some slight help, if they'll accept it, from their customers) can envision, as Ismael unwittingly admits:Upon reception of this email, you check your real-time workspace to see which members of your team are online. You request an online meeting, which leads the system to call you on your cellphone in order to patch you in. You engage in a discussion with your colleagues, while checking the ticket from your dashboard. Once you figure out a solution for your prospect, you update the discount you gave to your customer, by using a Connect-generated user interface that serves as a front-end to your SAP ERP system. This very change is then automatically reflected into your sales forecasts that are managed by a SugarCRM instance deployed on premise.
Once all that has been done, you send an email back to your customer, explaining the resolution that was brought to solve the problem — and the additional discount you gave her, but decide that the overall process should be improved so that similar incidents are handled better and faster in the future. You start the Cordys browser-based process editor, change the workflow definition here and there, and call it a day.
The demo I saw yesterday gave me confidence that the most ambitious players in the field are making the transition from data to process, understand the need for Web 2.0 user interfaces, and acknowledge the fact that next-generation IT systems will be pioneered by your most creative knowledge workers, not your risk-allergic IT department. It will be quite interesting to see how Open Source players will learn from these new ideas, and build similar platforms from existing Open Source components. Alfresco + Intalio + Zimbra, anyone?Bingo! Ismael. The problem with the WebEx Connect idea is that it's still stuck in proprietary land. As such, the vendor controls whatever process innovation might otherwise occur. Open the source code, however, and suddently anyone and everyone can potentially participate. At that point, it's not WebEx dictating the roadmap and vision, but rather the users, themselves. I just can't see any other way for Ismael's "knowledge workers" to shake off their shackles and truly start shaping the collaboration platform (or platforum, if you will) to their needs.
And since Ismael mentioned Alfresco, let me give him/you an idea of what we're already doing in this space. It's not a question of what we might do, but what we're already doing. You can get Alfresco integrated with Asterisk (VoiceRD from Novacoast) and SugarCRM (CRM) today. (And since our 1.4 Business Process Management release, we already have BPM in spades.)
Now extend this. Add some JasperSoft or Pentaho for Business Intelligence (perhaps reporting capabilities). Some DimDim for web conferencing. Some Zimbra or Scalix for email/collaboration. Want to scale this out on a grid? Get yourself some 3Tera. Etc. The great thing about all of this is that we don't have to do all of it ourselves. In many instances, enterprises are already extending Alfresco (or these other projects) to meet these and other needs. Hence, when a large pharmaceutical/medical devices company wanted wiki functionality in Alfresco, it didn't ask us. It just built it in.
That's the power of open source.
Posted by Matt Asay on September 29, 2006 09:28 AM
September 29, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Oracle upgrades open source Berkeley DB
Oracle, contrary to what some of the critics said, has done its Sleepycat acquisition proud. As reported recently, Oracle has added the ability to patch the Berkeley DB on the fly, concurrency, and other things:
Skeptics at the time said Oracle would suppress Berkeley DB development in favor of its existing embeddable systems, which include the Times Ten In-Memory database, Oracle Lite, a mobile application database, and Oracle 10g itself. But Oracle's intentions have been made clearer as it let both the former Sleepycat development team and a community of open source contributors continue to add features to the core system. The 4.5 release also includes improvements in multiversion concurrency, or the ability of the system to respond to multiple users who want information from the database at the same time that it's being updated.Good work, Oracle!
Posted by Matt Asay on September 29, 2006 06:38 AM
September 29, 2006 | Comments: (0)
The other side of the "long tail"
In case you missed its mention on Slashdot, the Financial Times has a funny (and telling) column today by James Boyle (Professor, Duke Law School) on the dark underbelly of the "long tail. You remember the long tail, right? It's manna from heaven - a chance for the Internet to enable a wider variety of sellers to find the wider variety of buyers than our previous markets have allowed.
Well, maybe life under the long tail isn't as rosy as life pontificating about the long tail, as Boyle discovers:
The academic in me has been very interested by the much hyped arrival of the “long tail” economy – the idea that the future lies in using the efficiency of the internet to sell smaller quantities of more goods (think of the astounding range of books on Amazon.com). One optimistic image is that thousands of small producers and entrepreneurs worldwide will be able to bypass the need for large chunks of capital and complex distribution schemes. Instead, they will be able to offer their wares direct to the public, producing a massive democratisation of production and distribution (think of Ebay).Funny and, as I mentioned above, pretty telling. In my world, open source is supposed to make everyone a potential developer, selling (or, at least, sharing) one's wares with other like-minded individuals. But the reality is that it's Red Hat that dominates Linux (not Mom-and-Pop Linux), MySQL that dominates open source databases, etc. People like to rally around a winner, not a tail.The bookseller in me finds a rather different reality. Our centre sells books through Amazon. It was an easy choice – ubiquitous, trusted, familiar and that fabulous customer service! The speed! The responsiveness! I sometimes imagined the Amazon customer service folk borrowing the Tardis to deliver apologies for their incredibly rare mistakes before they even happened. But that was as a purchaser. As a vendor I entered into a shadowy different universe. Where Amazon’s normal customer service seems to be run by suspiciously cheerful MBAs from Stanford, who break off from counting their stock options to write apologies and deliver refunds, “Amazon Advantage”, the ironically named system for selling wares, is clearly based on the last days of the Soviet system.
The problem with their representatives is not that their native language is not English, it is that their native planet is not Earth. Only that could explain the strange delays of weeks in replying to emails, the apparent time distortions that will suddenly lead them to re-enter a months-long dispute in the middle, and the curiously non-terrestrial logic of their replies. When the Amazon system inserted random hieroglyphics into the description of our comic book it took many e-mails to reach a human – or at least sapient – being. When we did we were told reassuringly that Amazon’s system for updating web pages was broken and that there was no prospect of fixing it. For this, we give them 55 cents out of every dollar and an annual fee?
Posted by Matt Asay on September 29, 2006 06:20 AM
September 29, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Ajax: Growing (and fragmenting) like the good ol' days of Linux
Tony Baer of Sandhill.com has a thoughtful post about the rising fragmentation of Ajax "standardization," noting how much it sounds like Linux circa 2000:
...[G]iven the fact that there are relatively few technical barriers to doing mashups with other Ajax web pages floating around, you've got some potential interoperability problems on your hands.Interesting that Tony should bring up "the heavy." He's referring to Linus, of course, the "light heavy" of Linux Land. But he might as well have referred to the Linux distributors/vendors who do 90% of all code development on the Linux kernel. (Note: That means they do basically all of it. :-)Last spring, roughly a dozen vendors formed the OpenAjax Alliance to cut through the interoperability riddle. Today that group has grown to over 50 members and is christening a website, publishing a mission statement. In a couple weeks, they plan to elect a board of directors. Can the attorneys be far behind?
Their first task is developing a hub to mediate the chaos of a couple hundred tools and frameworks....OpenAjax came together in a spate of idealism recalling Linux of 5 - 6 years ago. The resemblances are more than coincidental. Nobody owns either technology, it's accessible, you can get them practically for free, and there's still lots of room to do your own thing. Back at LinuxWorld 2000, we recalled Linus Torvalds praising "the good fragmentation" that came about when open source made the entire Linux community one virtual research lab, spawning rapid innovation. That's what the OpenAjax folks hope to emulate....
At some point, something's gotta give with Ajax standards. Just as happened with Linux, de facto or formal standardization will displace the fragmentation. OpenAjax can serve as a clearinghouse for vetting API candidates. But at some point, somebody's got to play the heavy.
That's the sad truth of standards. Until everyone agrees to use the same standard, it's not standard, no matter what the spec says. It may well be a fact of human nature that de facto standards - imposed by hegemonic vendors (Google in the case of Ajax, Microsoft in the case of office documents, etc.) - are the most likely to create true (yet untrue) "standards."
Good luck, Ajax.
Posted by Matt Asay on September 29, 2006 05:37 AM
September 29, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Linux not touching Windows anytime soon
eWeek's Peter Galli is at the Gartner Open Source Summit, and is reporting on Gartner's George Weiss' session, "Enterprise Linux: Has It Arrived?" Incredibly, the answer is, "Not yet, and not for awhile."
I say "incredibly" because of the following research from Gartner and others:
- Â?Open source software solutions will directly compete with closed-source products in all software infrastructure markets.Â? (Gartner, 2005)
- By 2008, 95% of Global 2000 organizations will have formal open source acquisition and management strategies. (Gartner, 2005)
- Today, 81% of companies have deployed or are considering deploying open source applications (CIO Insight, 2005) and
- 72% plan to expand its use (CIO Insight, 2005). Why? Because
- 65% say open source has sparked innovation inside their companies (CIO Insight, 2005) and
- 67% turn to open source primarily for lowered costs (CIO Insight, 2005)
But I digress. Back to George Weiss, as quoted by Galli:
...[I]n terms of worldwide server operating system revenue, Linux [will] come in below both Windows and Unix by 2011 in spite of its enormous growth....Unix, in fact, won't start to decline until 2011, thanks to heady progress by Sun.While Linux [will] account for some $12 billion in worldwide server operating system revenue in five years time, significantly up from the $8.3 billion predicted for 2006, Unix worldwide server operating system revenue was expected to come in at $15.9 billion by 2011, with Windows revenue leading the pack at $22.5 billion....
What is George's conclusion?
In conclusion, Weiss said that Unix is not dead but new implementations would decline. Xen's adoption success will depend on the development of management and automation tools from the system vendors and third-party software firms, he said, and more focus will shift from islands of Linux to interoperability, management and open source.So, there you have it. If anything, it just goes to show how slowly things move in enterprise IT. You can have an absolutely huge trend like open source, with Linux as a major poster child for it, take years (decades?) to displace the proprietary competition. I guess the upside is that it means there's lots of time, and lots of money, to profit from the trend.Microsoft is also expected to be relatively slow to change its fundamental business and support strategies to cope with the open-source world, and Red Hat's quest for ongoing dominance would face threats from its own partners as it pursues a wider ranging business model.
In other words, you still have time to start that company you've been wanting to start. So do it.
Posted by Matt Asay on September 29, 2006 05:17 AM
September 28, 2006 | Comments: (0)
And now for a little self-congratulation: Alfresco's web content management
-->Begin Self congratulation
CIO Magazine has a great online overview of Alfresco's soon-to-be-released enterprise-grade web content management. This follows on the heels of Alfresco's release of the industry's first open source Records Management (lifecycling of auditability of documents, etc. for compliance and other purposes), Kofax image capture (scanning) integration, and Business Process Management integration (jBPM).
It has been a busy year for Alfresco, with several of the top-10 Financial Services companies, major global government organizations, and others coming on board as customers.
Open source has done web content management pretty well in the past. In fact, that's almost exclusively what it has done. Drupal, Mambo, Magnolia, etc. These are great systems.
How does Alfresco's WCM offering differ? A lot of the difference comes with the team: Alfresco is a composite of exceptional engineers that left Documentum and Interwoven to join Alfresco to build a new, modern ECM architecture from the ground up. Virgin Money is an early adopter of Alfresco's web content management product, as CIO notes:
One of the early testers of Alfresco’s WCM software is Virgin Money, Virgin Group’s financial services arm, in Norwich, U.K.Rewind your website. Fast forward it. Highly innovative (you won't find it in any other CMS, open or closed). Just one reason that Alfresco's web content management product is worth watching. Then downloading. Then buying.The company is looking to move away from its largely static Web sites to make its online presence tailor to individual customers, according to David Scarisbrick, technical program manager at Virgin Money.
"We have had good experience with other open-source products and development frameworks and it made sense to go open source if possible for WCM," he wrote in an e-mail. "Alfresco offers the advantages of open source, open architecture and standards, but also includes a good support model making it a robust enterprise-level solution at low cost." When coming up with a list of suitable WCM tools, Alfresco was the only one that made Virgin Money’s short list, Scarisbrick added....
As a financial services company, compliance is very important to Virgin Money. Alfresco WCM provides the ability for Web designers and applications developers to work collaboratively in a version controlled environment, Scarisbrick wrote. Virgin Money’s compliance team can also use the software to review its Web site and look at any previous versions of the site and roll back to a particular day’s version if necessary.
/Self congratulation
(Most people reading this will already know that I work for Alfresco. I'm usually pretty good about keeping from tooting the Alfresco horn, but I just can't help it this time. Our WCM product is so cool....)
Posted by Matt Asay on September 28, 2006 07:01 PM
September 28, 2006 | Comments: (0)
SugarCRM 4.5: How sweet it is!
Because of my ineptitude, it wasn't until today that I got to take Sugar Professional 4.5 for a drive. Verdict?
It rocks.
I've been using Sugar for the past 9 months or so (no, I'm not pregnant), and have loved most of it (Fast, easy to use UI, very easy to administer, etc.), and put up with some of it (customization features, information saved in Leads not auto-converting into Opportunities). No product is perfect.
I'm struggling to criticize this new version, though. First off, it's absolutely beautiful to look at. The UI has been seriously upgraded - Ajax and such, with dashlets that let me heavily customize my home "portal." It's also much, much easier to add custom fields - it's all drag-and-drop now, whereas Sugar used to require a fairly cumbersome (and hit-and-miss) manual creation of fields. The Sugar team has also added Forecasts, Quotes, Contracts, and a range of other new functionalities that are making it easy for my team to track customer contracts, send out quotations (and have the system keep track of them), etc.
While Dave has to resort to insulting Salesforce.com to get support for his CRM system, Sugar is so easy to use that I don't even need support. For the few occasions when I have, I can go to the Sugar Forums to get support, or log a support incident. Because Sugar is in the business of support, my experience with their support team has been fantastic.
Yes, I'm an advisor to SugarCRM, so perhaps I have a rosy view of the product. But my team isn't, and has also loved Sugar 4.5. It's a fantastic product. You should check it out.
Posted by Matt Asay on September 28, 2006 11:48 AM
September 28, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Gartner's code reuse suggestion smells like open source advocacy...
At Gartner's Application Development Summit, Gartner analysts Dale Veccio and Matt Hoyle opined on the present and future of enterprise application development, as reported by DevSource. Their keynote focused on four themes: the new application development lifecycle (with an emphasis on delivering applications better and faster - imagine that!), project and portfolio management, "frontier" application development, and project management and governance.
Related to that last them, I found this particular commentary revealing:
"The future of application development is not about programmer productivity," said Hoyle during the keynote presentation, "but in assembling functionality from components." While programming will not go away, he stressed, programming has decreasing importance in delivering excellence. "Assembling, buying, and extracting is an increasing part of what you need to do," he said. To be more agile and responsive, application development managers have to manipulate, orchestrate, and compose new business processes, using resources available from outside partners, third-party applications, Web services, and existing code components. Veccio asked, "Why would you ever code an app from scratch again? Why would you need to?"Reading between the lines, or reading into his comments my own bias, this sounds like a clarion call to use more open source software. Yes, application developers can build from scratch as they've often done in the past. But why? If you need a best-in-class content repository, why wouldn't you use Alfresco's? Need to embed a database that looks/smells/acts like Oracle, but isn't? Use EnterpriseDB's version of PostgreSQL. Want web conferencing functionality but don't want the headache (product-based, license-based, and cost-based) of WebEx? Use DimDim. And so on.
There's so much exceptional open source software out there, available at a fraction of the cost of self-development or proprietary software...why would you ever want to do it yourself again?
Posted by Matt Asay on September 28, 2006 09:44 AM
September 28, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Open source databases taking over
Zack Urlocker is at the Gartner Open Source Summit this week, and has been hearing some good things about open source databases. Open source databases (Sleepycat, PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc.) have been around for a long time, but the analysts didn't give them much credit because even though everyone was using them, few were paying for them. Or so they thought. Now, however, open source databases are becoming big business.
Zack cites Gartner's Donald Feinberg:
Overall, Gartner is predicting that the worldwide DBMS market is around $14 billion and will continue to grow by nearly 7% per year. If this was a new market, it would not be a very impressive growth rate, but for a market of this size, it's huge. And there can be lots of movement within the market. We are at the start of a new era where migration to open source technology is going to fuel the DBMS market. That includes migration away from Unix to Linux and from closed source to open source.This is impressive, despite the fact that the "Big Boys" still control 92% of the market, as Gartner reported earlier this year:A few key findings from Gartner / IDC research:
- By 2008, open source databases will be used by more than 70% of IT organizations [Asay note: I'd actually be surprised if the number isn't already closer to 100%. There's a lot of open source database usage that isn't registered by the CIO or whomever it is that talks with Gartner/other analysts.]
- By 2008, MySQL will be a serious choice for mission critical applications [Asay note: See below.]
- 56% of companies surveyed plan to switch to Linux as a DBMS platform
- Linux will surpass Unix as the leading DBMS platform within the next 3 years, even for the most demanding database applications
- 40% of surveyed companies are planning to replace proprietary DBMS with open source
- 49% of respondents have MySQL in deployment with 17% planning to deploy
And it's still funny to me that MySQL isn't considered "mission critical." It would be hard to find more demanding applications than Google, Yahoo!, Orbitz, etc. They all run MySQL. Lots of MySQL. Even Oracle runs MySQL.
Here's a thought: Oracle is quickly building and buying its way into the center of the enterprise software ecosystem, using the database as the hub for all the enterprise application "spokes" it's building/acquiring (CRM, ERP, ECM, etc.). Don't you think that MySQL is well-positioned to do the same, except with open source applications?
Hmm....
Posted by Matt Asay on September 28, 2006 09:28 AM
September 27, 2006 | Comments: (0)
How to drive blog traffic: Insult the right companies
Matt and I have noticed that certain subjects get far more comments and pageviews than others. Pretty much anything negative we post about Apple or OpenOffice get a lot of action, though rarely from the companies themselves.
My post last night on my Salesforce.com actually made me feel a bit uncomfortable. Not in the sense that I feel what I wrote was wrong, but in how fast people from SF.com were all over me. They were trying to fix my issues, keep me as a customer and presumably working to make sure I wouldn't say anything else negative (which BTW you can see in this post that I appreciated the effort.)
As a technology user and a bit of an influencer (snarky or otherwise) it's not my goal to make a big case of the problems I experience, I'm pretty much always looking for help or information. Unless of course we are discussing Microsoft and then all bets are off.
So, kudos to the Salesforce SWAT team for watching blogs and subscribing to google alerts but more importantly addressing the concerns of their users who are without a doubt far more annoying to them then my one sf.com issue was for me.
My only complaint is that I heard from too many sf.com people (though the more readers the better.) Please take that as a kind endorsement that I figured it out, I was confused by the help docs and my own disdain for CRM, the issue is resolved, and I don't need anymore guidance ;>
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 27, 2006 11:51 AM
September 27, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Rumor: Apple's iPhone to launch in early 2007
ThinkSecret is reporting that Cingular just inked a deal with Apple to exclusively carry Apple's new iPhone.
...Apple's phone will feature a candy-bar design with a 2.2-inch display and 3 megapixel camera. Robust iTunes and iSync support will also be delivered with the phone....Sign me up. I'll take two, please![I]nsiders say Apple is internally estimating that shipments of the iPhone will top a staggering 25 million in 2007 alone. Motorola's RAZR, by contrast, has sold more than 50 million units since its launch in late 2004. Apple is betting a phone with Apple's iconic design, elegant interface, and iPod-matching functionality will be a strong draw for users who currently carry both devices on them.
Posted by Matt Asay on September 27, 2006 10:37 AM
September 27, 2006 | Comments: (0)
One of OpenOffice's big problems is that it's, well, big. Monolithic is a term I've used before to describe it.
Well, the times they are a'changin'. Or so we hope. OSDir is reporting OpenOffice's move to a plug-in architecture, a la Firefox, that will enable developers to more easily do "drive-by" development for OpenOffice.
This is a welcome change. Bien fait!
Posted by Matt Asay on September 27, 2006 10:33 AM
September 27, 2006 | Comments: (0)
The Philippines goes open source
Infotech is reporting that the Department of Social Welfare and Development has officially moved to open source software. While it's not throwing out all proprietary software, the agency is making a big push for open source:
The DSWD study also evaluated the long-term cost of proprietary software licenses. This factor, he added, was one of the major considerations that pushed the agency to migrate open source.Fancy that. Paying to improve people, rather than for software licenses. Sounds good to me...."We did some projections and decided that instead of focusing on paying software licenses, we're now shifting this spending to hardware and training of our people," he added.
Armeña stressed that DSWD is now actively "exploring" the benefits and the opportunities of free and open source software as part of its modernization plan.
However, the official said the agency is not totally abandoning proprietary systems.
"We really have to cope with the growing demand of the organization and balance it with requirements of [software] licenses. In the process, we also want to develop skills of employees not only in using software productivity tools. We have people who are talented that we want to tap," he said.
Posted by Matt Asay on September 27, 2006 09:54 AM
September 27, 2006 | Comments: (0)
My data is free from Salesforce.com!
I was pretty infuriated last night when I could see no obvious way to get my data out of Salesforce.com. Fortunately it was fairly easy, just not obvious.
I wanted to note that the Salesforce team took my case and frustration very seriously and I immediately heard from them in relation to an excel plugin as well as just how to export my data from the system (you can run a report to get anything you need.) Good job Salesforce team.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 27, 2006 08:03 AM
September 27, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Following on my "the winning mentality" post, here's a nice little image that Paul Kedrosky clued me into. It shows where the Forbes 400 richest Americans live - the billionaires, that is....
Soon enough, I'm expecting to see one dot in Alabama (Digium....), another few in California (SugarCRM, MySQL, etc.), and heck, let's give North Carolina a few more dollars, too.
Open source will crack the billion-dollar barrier, and a lot of people and companies will see the benefit of it. Fortunately, the difference between wealth in open source and wealth in proprietary is that entire continents of people benefit when open source companies do well - more success generally means more source code, free of charge....
Posted by Matt Asay on September 27, 2006 05:54 AM
September 26, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Salesforce.com lock-in is a huge risk and massive annoyance
I've mentioned before that I am trying to move off of Salesforce.com and onto SugarCRM. The final piece in the process is to export my data from Sf.com and import into Sugar. You would think this option would be available fairly easily for backup purposes but it seems that it's a "feature" that has to be paid for (in addition to every other nickel and dime thing they ding you on.) Note the photo that is missing the link to Export despite everything the help pages tell you.
The weekly export service is available for all Enterprise Edition customers, and is included in your license fees. The weekly export service is available to Professional Edition customers as an add-on service, for $50/month.
The trick to the whole experience is that the 'help' pages all make mention of exporting MY data--they just won't let me do it. This is so obnoxious and offensive to me as a user that I can't wait to get off this platform.
The worst part of this is that I can't actually get MY DATA until a Sf.com sales person writes me back and sets me up to pay for it! What a joke, and what a terrible customer experience.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 26, 2006 06:05 PM
September 26, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Linus Torvalds' "Ode to GPLv2"
Linus is a nice guy. He doesn't want to bash GPLv3. So, instead, over on the Linux Kernel Mailing List he lionizes GPLv2, responding to Pamela Jones (Groklaw):
PJ said: "GPLv2 is not compatible with the Apache license. It doesn't cover Bitstream. It is ambiguous about web downloads. It allows Tivo to forbid modification. It has no patent protection clause. It isn'tBy saying...
internationally useful everywhere, due to not matching the terms of art used elsewhere. It has no DMCA workaround or solution. It is silent about DRM."
"Exactly!Amen.That's why the GPLv2 is so great. Exactly because it doesn't bother or talk about anything else than the very generic issue of "tit-for-tat".
You see it as a failure. I see it as a huge advantage. The GPLv2 covers the only thing that really matters, and the only thing that everybody can agree on ("tit-for-tat" is really something everybody understands, and sees the same way - it's totally independent of any moral judgement and any philosophical, cultural or economic background).
The thing is, exactly because the GPLv2 is not talking about the details, but instead talks entirely about just a very simple issue, people can get together around it. You don't have to believe in the FSF or the tooth fairy to see the point of the GPLv2. It doesn't matter if you're black or white, commercial or non-commercial, man or woman, an individual or a corporation - you understand tit-or-tat.
And that's also why legal details don't matter. Changes in law won't change the notion of "same for same". A change of language doesn't change "Quid pro quo". We can still say "quid pro quo" two thousand years later, in a language that has been dead for centuries, and the saying is still known by any half-educated person in the world.
And that's exactly because the concept is so universal, and so fundamental, and so basic.
And that is why the GPLv2 is a great license.
For more on the GPLv3 debate, see:
- The Free Software Foundation's response to all the hubbub.
- The Linux Kernel Developers' position statement on GPLv3.
- My own take on whether we need fret about Yet Another License in the first place.
Posted by Matt Asay on September 26, 2006 11:22 AM
September 26, 2006 | Comments: (0)
IBM Asks the Court to Throw Out SCO's Entire Case on Summary Judgment
Via Groklaw: Both sides in SCO v. IBM have filed motions for summary judgment. To be precise, SCO has filed one for partial summary judgment (which I'll have up in a minute or two) and IBM has filed several motions for summary judgment, one for each of SCO's claims and two more for good measure on two of IBM's counterclaims. In other words, it is asking the court to throw out SCO's entire case, and to grant it judgment on two counterclaims without even going to trial on those two.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 26, 2006 08:06 AM
September 26, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Vyatta (open source router) taking on Cisco
SearchOpenSource is citing two networking consultants that say that Vyatta's open source router works as well as a Cisco router. The consultants say that "support was great, and usability issues were minimal."
Should Cisco be worried?
Well, I would be, given the man running Vyatta. Kelly Herrell, who was an early force at Cobalt Microsystems and then ran operations for MontaVista, is the CEO, and he's a guy I wouldn't bet against. Says Kelly:
"We understand [Cisco] has an 80% market share and that routing protocols haven't changed much since Methuselah," Herrell said. "But we're taking on the myth that routing requires specialized protocols by offering an open alternative. By doing that, we are allowing the customer to take over what they deploy and manage."Sounds compelling to me. All it has to do is work reasonably well (and it apparently does), and it will have an early adopter market. As it gets better and better, Cisco will have to seriously upgrade the customer experience (and downgrade its price) to keep its 80% market share.Vyatta OFR is targeted against Cisco routers like the 2821 and 3845, which cost about $4,000 and $13,000, respectively. In contrast, Vyatta OFR hardware plus one year of support comes in at "just under $2,000," the company said.
Anyone want to place bets?
Posted by Matt Asay on September 26, 2006 05:43 AM
September 24, 2006 | Comments: (0)
The spirit of winning (and open source)
I was reading this article today about William Gallas, the fullback that Arsenal pulled away from Chelsea just before the transfer window closed (what a great replacement for whiner Ashley Cole). The article quotes Arsene Wenger, Arsenal's brilliant coach, who mentioned an article that talks about commonalities between winners. I tracked down the article, and was surprised to find out that the coach who walks on water also reads...
USA Today, the McNewspaper of the US. The article comes from USA Today. Ugh.
Still, I managed to hold my snobbish nose long enough to read the article, and found it useful. What separates the winners (in athletics) from the also-rans? What are the commonalities of winning athletes?
I see these same attributes in those who dominate the technology world. Marten Mickos and Matthew Szulik, in particular, strike me as preeminent examples of these winning attributes.
- Competitiveness: "This is someone who loves the heat of battle," Cohn says. "They're motivated by testing their skills against the next person. Obviously, they love to win and hate to lose. You need that. People might think, 'Well, isn't everyone competitive?' The answer is 'no.' The really competitive person digs deeper than the next guy."
- Confidence: "Self-confidence is probably the No. 1 mental skill that championship athletes possess," Cohn says.
"Simply put, it is their belief in their ability to perform. They see themselves as winners. They think, act and behave in very confident ways, sometimes to the point it can turn people off."
- Composure: "This one has a couple of connotations," Cohn says. "The first is: Can you keep it together under pressure at crunchtime? It's the last minute of the game, and you're trailing by three: It's how well you can stay under control emotionally and can perform when you need to.
"The other component is how well you deal with mistakes. Can you stay composed and forget about them? Or do you get upset and frustrated and thrown off your game? Athletes who are composed don't get rattled and compound one mistake into many."
- Focus: "The idea is to give focus and attention to what's most important — and, when you do get distracted, to refocus quickly," Cohn says. "This is the key component to success in sports such as gymnastics and diving, but it's important in all sports."
I remember interviewing once with Matthew. The first question he asked me when I walked into his office was, "How much did your plane ticket cost?" It immediately taught me one cardinal Red Hat attribute: a focus on controlling costs (given that the company could only live off its recognized revenues, not its bookings). It helped me to see just how seriously Matthew took the "game," right down to the cost of plane tickets used to bring in potential employees. I respect that.
Both Marten and Matthew have not allowed themselves to be drawn into competitive situations their companies are not yet ready to win. They focus to an amazing degree. Marten refuses to be drawn on "the Oracle question." He's too busy cleaning up the Web 2.0 market. Oracle is dessert. Matthew, for his part, long kept Red Hat tightly focused on the Unix replacement market, refusing to go down desktop, Windows, and other rabbit holes (leaving Novell to do that for him). Part of being a great competitor is defining the competition to advantage your team. Both MySQL and Red Hat do this exceptionally well.
If you're with an open source company, there's a lot to learn from these four attributes. To win, you must care deeply about winning. It's not about peace, love, and Linux. It's about winning (and thereby benefiting a large population of customers). It's about keeping focus on the market you can win today, holding firm when setbacks come (and they will).
It's in knowing that open source is a better way to deliver and support software, and sticking true to its principles even when there appear to be (proprietary) shortcuts.
Posted by Matt Asay on September 24, 2006 05:29 PM
September 22, 2006 | Comments: (0)
My new Lenovo Linux Thinkpad T60p (Verdict: It's great)
A very pleasant surprise awaited me at the PO box today, my very own Linux T60p Thinkpad (loaner) from my new best pals David Churbuck and Jeff Witt at Lenovo. Thanks to SOG for telling me to talk to those guys. Essentially I told them that I wanted to see what it was like to run Linux as a business user and they shipped me out a laptop pre-installed with Suse.
Rather than RTFM I just hit the power button. Lo and behold the Suse window popped up and seconds later I was in the SLED 10 desktop. First impression is that the desktop should case no stress to Windows users. It's very similar and has the nice KDE bottom launch bar. Taking the Office apps out of the equation for a second, Suse is clearly fine for business users. More later...
The system immediately picked up several wireless networks and I was online with no issues--also was able to save my config easily. Initial reaction is that the hardware is still the best in the business for laptops. I have long been a fan of the Thinkpad form factor and stand behind the fact that they have the best keyboards of any laptop. Period. This one feels very much like the old days where the click/mush factor was right on for fast typing and low wrist strain.
I played around with a few apps but have to move my data over to the machine to see how it all goes. So far, it's great and highly usable. Of course I haven't played around much with Novell-hacked OO.org so we'll see what happens.
Thanks Lenovo for hooking me up!
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 22, 2006 09:29 PM
September 22, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Linux kernel developers' position on GPLv3
The core Linux Kernel Maintainers just posted their position on GPL v3--Verdict: they don't like it
Excerpt:
The three key objections noted in section 5 are individually and collectively sufficient reason for us to reject the current licence proposal. However, we also note that the current draft with each of the unacceptable provisions stripped out completely represents at best marginal value over the tested and proven GPLv2. Therefore, as far as we are concerned (and insofar as we control subsystems of the kernel) we cannot foresee any drafts of GPLv3 coming out of the current drafting process that would prove acceptable to us as a licence to move the current Linux Kernel to.Further, since the FSF is proposing to shift all of its projects to GPLv3 and apply pressure to every other GPL licensed project to move, we foresee the release of GPLv3 portends the Balkanisation of the entire Open Source Universe upon which we rely. This Balkanisation, which will be manifested by distributions being forced to fork various packages in order to get consistent licences, has the potential to inflict massive collateral damage upon our entire ecosystem and jeopardise the very utility and survival of Open Source. Since we can see nothing of sufficient value in the current drafts of the GPLv3 to justify this terrible cost, we can only assume the FSF is unaware of the current potential for disaster of the course on which is has embarked. Therefore, we implore the FSF to re-examine the consequences of its actions and to abandon the current GPLv3 process before it becomes too late.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 22, 2006 04:01 PM
September 22, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Open source and creative destruction
Steve Hamm has a great blog entry on Alfresco and other open source (and SaaS) companies that are destroying the incumbents in markets they founded in the first place. Alfresco, of course, we founded by John Newton, who founded Documentum (and, hence, the document management industry). Now Alfresco is cannibalizing that same market.
There are other examples. Paul Doscher and JasperSoft. John Roberts and SugarCRM. Etc. Many open source business managers formerly ran huge swaths of the proprietary market.
I'm just waiting for Larry Ellison to give up his day job at Oracle to get a job at MySQL....
Posted by Matt Asay on September 22, 2006 02:34 PM
September 22, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Open source a rising, disciplined force (The Economist)
Not sure how I missed this story in The Economist, but I stumbled across it today and found it interesting.
One line that I loved: "Rather than a democracy, open source looks like a Darwinian meritocracy." Exactly. But given this understanding, it's unclear why the author erred in saying that
...[I]t is unclear how innovative and sustainable open source can ultimately be. The open-source method has vulnerabilities that must be overcome if it is to live up to its promise. For example, it lacks ways of ensuring quality and it is still working out better ways to handle intellectual property.Did the same person write these two statements? Actually, the author clears it up later by noting that in open source software (as opposed to "open source" encyclopedias, which is a complete misuse - albeit an understandable one - of the term "open source"), things are different:But the biggest worry is that the great benefit of the open-source approach is also its great undoing. Its advantage is that anyone can contribute; the drawback is that sometimes just about anyone does. This leaves projects open to abuse, either by well-meaning dilettantes or intentional disrupters. Constant self-policing is required to ensure its quality.
With software, for instance, the code is written chiefly not by volunteers, but by employees sponsored for their efforts by companies that think they will in some way benefit from the project. Additionally, while the output is free, many companies are finding ways to make tidy sums from it. In other words, open source is starting to look much less like a curiosity of digital culture and more like an enterprise, with its own risks and rewards.Projects that fail to cope with open source's vulnerabilities usually fall by the wayside. Indeed, almost all of them meet this end. Of the roughly 130,000 open-source projects on SourceForge.net, an online hub for open-source software projects, only a few hundred are active, and fewer still will ever lead to a useful product. The most important thing holding back the open-source model, apparently, is itself.
This isn't a fair conclusion - most proprietary products fail, too - but the more important observation is that, in fact, open source doesn't operate willy-nilly, but rather is disciplined, well-controlled, and profitable for an increasing number of companies. I really like the graphic (shown at right) that shows the overall activity in Apache, as compared to core code contributors. It's simply not the case that anyone can contribute - you must earn that distinction, and doing so in an open source project is almost certainly much more difficult than in a proprietary software company.
Anyway, if you work for a company that still doesn't "get" open source, have your boss give The Economist a read.
Posted by Matt Asay on September 22, 2006 02:18 PM
September 22, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Trenches first, then you can lead
It has become an unspoken for me, and should be a common rule throughout the open source business landscape, that no one should become a commander without first having slogged through the trenches as a private. If you've never worked for an open source company, you won't fully grok why this is so important, but for those who have been through one (or three, as in my case) open source company will recognize a cardinal truth:
Open source is different.
It requires a different mentality. Sales, support, marketing, etc. Everything is different in open source (as Larry Augustin expertly points out). Eventually, a company may start to look more "traditional", but not initially. For the first few years of an open source startup's existence, it must behave differently if it wants to survive and thrive.
For this reason, I don't think it's wise to hire management with no open source experience. Now, given that very few people - management or otherwise - have worked within an open source environment, the best way to achieve this is by making the commanders slog like privates for 6-12 months. A VP of Sales should spend at least six months answering emails, setting up demos, etc. before she assumes she understands the open source sales process, and can effectively lead it.
The engineering side is easier, because an engineering lead can spend a year contributing to open source projects and leading their own projects before taking on an engineering management role. Same with support, in a way, as a support manager can attach themselves to an open source project and try to manage incoming bug fixes and such.
The point is that in a significantly altered business landscape, the best managers will be those who first understand the alterations. Only then will they be able to lead a team tasked with leveraging these alterations for competitive advantage. Unfortunately, it's not as easy as reading a book on open source strategy. You must live it.
Posted by Matt Asay on September 22, 2006 01:37 PM
September 22, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Webinar announcement: Everything you ever wanted to know about open source CMS
Optaros invited me to help out with an interactive webinar next week: Ask the Experts Your Questions about Open Source Content Management Solutions. Given the questions we're being asked, however, I suspect the conversation will address the larger issue of open source applications, generally. Should be a lot of fun. Please join us.
Here's a blurb on it:
The latest trends in Internet technologies and the rise of the knowledge worker have put pressure on the enterprise to be more responsive and deliver more usable technologies for collaboration and improved efficiency. To meet these challenges and capitalize on new opportunities for growth, content management technologies must be agile and innovative. Flexible and typically lower in cost, open source content management technologies have the potential to quickly deliver targeted solutions that answer immediate needs and can evolve to the changing demands of the enterprise. At the same time, many new questions need to be answered when considering open source content management solutions.Join leaders in the open source content management space from Optaros, Alfresco, and ZEA Partners as they offer multiple perspectives to address such questions in a panel discussion. Audience participation is encouraged by submitting questions for discussion prior to and during the event.
Panelists include:
Seth Gottlieb, Content Management Practice Lead, Optaros
Matt Asay, Vice President of Business Development, Alfresco
John Eckman, Next Generation Internet Practice Lead, Optaros
Paul Everitt, ZEA PartnersTo register, please visit: https://optaros.webex.com/optaros/onstage/g.php?d=711448316&t=a
Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Time: 1:00 p.m. EDT
Posted by Matt Asay on September 22, 2006 12:33 PM
September 21, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Red Hat stacking the deck in its favor
Nearly 100 days after the close of its JBoss acquisition, Red Hat is delivering the goods. Michael Tiemann said at OSCON that JBoss' business model was fine, but Red Hat would teach them how to really make bank with open source (my words, not his). It looks like the Red Hat model has found room for middleware siblings, as well.
As Peter Galli notes in his eWeek article:
The new Red Hat Application Stack subscription includes RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux), JBoss AS (Application Server) and JBoss Hibernate, as well as support for the MySQL and PostgreSQL open-source databases.A year from now, let's assume that this has worked well and Red Hat is doing even better than it is today. The big question then will be: "What's the next piece of its open source arsenal?"New offerings also include JBoss subscriptions, such as JBoss AS, JBoss Hibernate and the various JEMS (JBoss Enterprise Middleware Suite) components.
All the software will be delivered and updated through the Red Hat Network. Pricing for an annual subscription will start at about $1,999 per server and rise to about $8,499 per server, depending on the level of support required, said Todd Barr, a director in Red Hat's enterprise group.
Thoughts?
Posted by Matt Asay on September 21, 2006 09:42 PM
September 20, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Is there money in them thar open source hills?
Dana Blankenhorn of ZDNet has an interesting interview with Darryl Dewan of VA Software. In the course of the interview, Dana queries Darryl as to whether open source businesses can deliver serious financial heft. The answer?:
Maybe the good old days really are gone for good. But is open source to blame for that? No more, I think, than the end of the gold rush can be blamed on mine automation.I disagree (with all due respect to Dana, to whom much respect is due). Marten Mickos does, too. The longer I work in open source, the more it's clear to me that open source can crack the billion-dollar barrier. I live it every day, and advise a range of companies that are successfully tracking billion-dollar trajectories.There are still fortunes to be made, Dewan said. Look at the money the founders of MySpace made, or those of YouTube will make, and all the gazillion Google-aires.
"You can create things online and do things online and you don't need to program," Dewan concluded. This is not a bad thing. Unless you want to become a millionaire through programming.
Will people pay seven figures-plus for open source? Of course. Just ask SugarCRM, Red Hat, JBoss, or MySQL. I personally see a range of six-figure deals crossing my desk, with seven-figure deals a quarter away. Open source does not equal poverty; open source equals massive opportunity. The industry is rapidly maturing, and that maturity leads to open source, and rising profits therein.
Five years from now, no one will bother selling proprietary bits anymore. Why would they? The only thing that is lacking today is understanding of the business models that are driving open source success. They're out there. You just need to grok them and deploy them properly. (a href="http://www.osbc.com">OSBC is a good source of data on how to do open source business well.)
Posted by Matt Asay on September 20, 2006 10:34 AM
September 19, 2006 | Comments: (0)
A blueprint for a support organization
As Matt wrote earlier today open source is all about support. The difficult part of this model is that very few companies have figured out how to do it well. Most small OSS companies tend to stick with their development teams as their support team which works for awhile but doesn't scale.
I have been trying to figure out how one goes about packaging support in a manner that is repeatable for more than the individual company. Essentially there are two halves, customer facing and internal facing. Here are the components that seem to make up the basis of support for most software organizations:
Internal
CRM-everything about the customer for internal use. Besides the typical customer lifecycle you need other things
--Contract management-managing subscriptions and products owned
--Case management-support request and bug tracking (we're integrating JIRA)
--License management-most OSS support is sold per server or per CPU (no great solution, have to write our own)
Customer facing
Customer portal-everything for customer to see, including assets, licenses and interactions with support organization. Somewhere within here you might have a knowledge base that is not available to non-customers. Most OSS companies use the same data from the project site. (FYI Sugar has a new portal framework coming out soon but not available yet)
It seems like the CRM system is the core and all the other pieces must be able to integrate with it. We are using SugarCRM now and finding that it's pretty straight-forward to make the parts work together but in general the team is struggling getting used to following process.
In general Support still feels like a black art. Hopefully this outline helps, any suggestions are welcome as it's by no means complete.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 19, 2006 09:41 PM
September 19, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Salesforce. com has made its name with its No Software! slogan. but while the company doesn't sell software, per se, its business model is all about software.
Not so open source. Open source, whatever the licensing mechanism, is really about support at the end of the day. This was made very clear to me this morning when meeting with a financial services company.
A few years ago they were having massive problems with their proprietary app server. The worst part about it, as they told me, was that it was impossible to get any help by calling support. they eventually had visits from senior management in the company, but while gratifying, it didn't solve their problem.
So they turned to JBoss. Not only was the software better (JBoss pays for R&D, not sales people), the customer got fantastic support. When they logged support issues, the engineers who had written the code were the ones answering the phone. This customer has been very happy with JBoss, which happiness has translated into opportunities for other open source companies like mine.
Marc Benioff got part of the way to software nirvana when he rid his customers of the hassle of software installation. But he did nothing to focus the software business on the highest customer value: support.
Software is not the enemy. Hollow sales promises and shallow support are. These issues don't go away with 'software as a service' (SaaS).
They do with open source.
Open source is a better model for customers. Period.
Posted by Matt Asay on September 19, 2006 04:33 PM
September 19, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Windows Vista creates EU jobs?
Via Linux Journal: Microsoft's Masterpiece of FUD may be an IDC whitepaper "sponsored" by Microsoft, on "The Economic Impact of Microsoft Windows Vista".
The IDC research shows that the launch of Windows Vista will precipitate cascading economic benefits, from increased employment in the region and increased taxes to a stronger economic base for those 150,000+ local firms that will be selling and servicing products that run on Windows Vista. At least a million IT professionals and industry employees in the region will be working with Windows Vista in 2007.These direct benefits - 100,000 new jobs - will help the local economies grow, improve the labor force, and support the formation of new companies. The indirect benefits of using newer software will help boost productivity, increase competitiveness, and support local innovation.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 19, 2006 04:27 PM
September 19, 2006 | Comments: (0)
I met with one of Alfresco's first customers yesterday, checking in to see how its implementation was going. As we talked, I was shocked to discover that the customer's perspective on our product was a year old. We've added significant new functionality and performance enhancements since the customer bought a support contract, but they didn't know about them....
This despite a monthly newsletter, occasional emails, and a direct pipe to our engineers. All for naught.
One big advantage proprietary companies have over open source vendors is sales people. Sales people make their living by hanging out around a customer's office, upselling and cross-selling. Open source companies, reliant as we are on the product to largely sell itself, don't. While many open source customers are, by definition, heavily involved with the technology, many aren't. They buy into an open source product because it works better than a proprietary dinosaur. They expect a more passive relationship with the technology and its vendor.
So how do we keep such customers' perspectives of our technology from fossilizing? One key way is through our system integrators.
SIs can be an open source vendor's "feet on the street." They can demonstrate the evolution of a project, and help the customer maximize value from it. By effective partnerships, then, open source companies can keep their customers current with product innovations, without wasting early development dollars on sales.
A good SI can be trusted with one's customers to this degree because their fate is closely tied to the vendor's. If the vendor sinks, the SI does, too. Such SIs are a huge boon to the open source company that wants to stay close to its customers.
Posted by Matt Asay on September 19, 2006 03:55 PM
September 17, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Weekend fun from PC World.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 17, 2006 04:54 PM
September 16, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Open source manages the Internet
We've known for years that upwards of 70% of web sites use Apache to power their sites. We also know that much of MySQL's thriving business comes from "Web 2.0" companies - the web runs MySQL (and a heck of a lot of Linux). What has been less clear is how much of the web that we see is managed by open source web content management systems.
Dries Buytaert, lead on the Drupal Project (a leading web content management system), sent me the results of an interesting, 5000-web developer survey that sheds light on the question. The survey was conducted from June 2006 to July 2006, and released by as the "2006 State of Web Development" report by SitePoint Pty Ltd. and Ektron, Inc. This is must-read material for anyone in the WCM space, but also interesting for those tracking the rise of open source.
The results? A huge swath of the web is managed by open source, with the vast majority of the remainder well-positioned to be consumed by open source.
Also in the report: LAMP and Microsoft own the web. They account for the vast majority of server platforms that web developers use. 
This is one reason that Alfresco has a web scripting language interface to a Java backbone - we can be coded quite easily in Ruby, Python, PHP, or Perl, which is a requirement if you want to help power the web. The "P" (and now Ruby) is clearly A Very Big Deal. It's why Zend has such a bright future, for example.
Also of note in the report is how pervasive collaboration-type functionality is becoming. Ajax is being planned by ~47% of web developers, with blogs (38%), podcasts (25%), wikis (20%), syndication (36%), and other features increasingly incorporated into websites.
Much of this functionality will be driven by open source (and/or open standards) -based software. Given how much of our lives is moving to the web, it's just one more indication that open source, not proprietary software, will dominate the next millenium. Sorry, proprietary guys! At least you had a fun ride while it lasted.
Many thanks, Dries, for sharing the link to the report with me!
Posted by Matt Asay on September 16, 2006 04:57 AM
September 15, 2006 | Comments: (0)
The return of 'Fancy' to software
You are to be in all things regulated and governed...by fact. We hope to have, before long, a board of fact, composed of commissioners of fact, who will force the people to be a people of fact, and of nothing but fact. You must discard the word Fancy altogether. You have nothing to do with it. You are not to have, in any object of use or ornament, what would be a contradiction in fact. You don't walk upon flowers in fact; you cannot be allowed to walk upon flowers in carpets. You don't find that foreign birds and butterflies come and perch upon your crockery; you cannot be permitted to paint foreign birds and butterflies upon your crockery. You never meet with quadrupeds going up and down walls; you must not have quadrupeds represented upon walls....This is the new discovery. This is fact. This is taste. (17)Such was Mr. McChoakumchild's doctrine in Mr. Gradgrind's model school, as described by Charles Dickens in his masterful Hard Times.
Reading these words on my flight home to London, I couldn't help but laugh. First, Charles Dickens is one of the five funniest people to have ever walked this earth. Second, because he actually captured much of the feeling that goes into proprietary software.
It is now established as Fact that enterprises don't want to modify source code. They prefer to be mute consumers of others' IP, chewing the cud that comes their way. No room for Fancy. For participating in the code to change its present or future direction. This is unassailable Truth.
Except that it's not. True, that is. I used to think it was true, but that open source mattered, anyway, because the option of choice proved a useful surrogate for the exercise of choice. (I might not choose to view and modify source code, but the fact that you could would tend to improve the initial effort that went into the code, among other things.) I still think this is true.
But it's not as all-encompassing as I had thought. Over the past ten months or so with Alfresco, it has surprised me again and again (I'm a slow learner) at how much our customers want to modify source code. Arguably, this is a short-term, anomalous condition because we're dealing with early adopters. We count several of the world's top-10 financial institutions as our customers, among others - the very type of customer that does want to actively manage code, and not passively accept off-the-shelf code. The kind that believes IT does matter.
But even among those that don't want to grime up their hands with co-development of our software, it's surprising how many want to play a strong, participatory role in our roadmap and the architecture that underlies it all. While in London this past week, I had lunch with one of our customers, and they kicked off the lunch with a 10-item "wish list" of features/improvements they'd like to see in Alfresco. No big deal, right? Microsoft must get feature requests all the time.
The difference here was that they also came to the table with development ideas of how to tweak our code to get there, and an appetite for involvement in the changes. In fact, we're now hooking them up with one of our other customers that had some overlapping requests so that they can collaborate on our code. Try that with BMC, Oracle, SAP, etc. It just won't happen.
I honestly didn't expect this. I thought we had killed the pursuit of "fancy" in software. I assumed it was just the facts now; just whatever the vendor saw fit to drop on its customers. But there is room for fancy in software, and open source enables it. If you're an open source entrepreneur, your goal must be to find ways to unleash Fancy in your customers. Don't impose Fact on them. It didn't work for Mr. Gradgrind's pupils or children. It will no longer work for your customers.
Posted by Matt Asay on September 15, 2006 09:23 PM
September 15, 2006 | Comments: (0)
PC Week: 10 Programming Languages You Should Learn Right Now
PC Mag is running a piece on the top 10 programming languages you should learn. Pretty interesting that PHP and C# rank as number 1 and 2 despite the fact they found 14,000 jobs available for Java developers.
1. PHP
2. C#
3. AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML)
4. JavaScript
5. Perl
6. C
7. Ruby and Ruby on Rails
8. Java
9. Python
10. VB.Net (Visual Basic .Net)
I prefer obscure programming methodologies like Hypercard and OS like Plan 9 in my spare time.
Link: 10 Programming Languages You Should Learn Right Now
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 15, 2006 04:15 PM
September 15, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Editors still matter (in fact, more than ever)
In all the hubbub around Web 2.0 and open source ("Everyone an author!"), we seem to have forgotten that in the increased authorial possibilities, the real winners will be editors. What has changed, however, is the nature of those editors.
Digg. Google. Etc. These are a new breed of editor, with the content being web pages, news stories, or open source software.
It's not a new idea, and I'm certainly not the originator of it. But the thought came to me while pedaling (literally - I've been reading it while riding an exercise bike during this week's trip to London) through Yochai Benkler's mostly satisyfing The Wealth of Networks.
The Internet is useful not only because it increases the diversity and volume of voices we can hear, but also because it limits the ability to force these voices into an NBC, CBS, ABC-like structure where editors are above the influence and control of their users. Benkler suggests:
[The Internet] is the first modern communications medium that expands its reach by decentralizing the capital structure of production and distribution of information, culture, and knowledge. 30He's right, and we're seeing this play out throughout the technology and media world.
The problem (or, at least, one major problem) with this dramatic increase in the volume of content is not, as Nick Carr might argue, that we're left with a huge pile of rubbish. Point well taken, and often true. Even so, depending on the type of content, I may actually prefer something amateurish to something professional. I religiously read Arsenal football blogs - it's the first thing I do when I boot up in the morning. In these, I'd prefer to get the opinion of the average fan, rather than reading highly similar accounts of the team (which I also read - I am, after all, a freak) from The Guardian, The Times, Soccernet, etc.
No, the bigger problem is the so-called "Babel" objection. (If you don't know what Babel refers to, I won't take the time to relieve your ignorance. Go back to Sunday School. :-) Namely, how can one possibly manage the torrents of information? Benkler provides the answer:
First, as a baseline, it is important to recognize the power that inheres in the editorial function. The extent to which information overload inhibits autonomy relative to the autonomy of an individual exposed to a well-edited information flow depends on how much the editor who whittles down the information flow thereby gains powers over the life of the user of the editorial function, and how he or she uses that power. Second, there is the question of whether users can select and change their editor freely, or whether editorial function is bundled with other communicative functions and sold by service providers among which users have little choice. Finally, there is the understanding that filtration and accreditation are themselves information goods, like any other, and that they too can be produced on a commons-based, nonmarket model, and therefore without incurring the autonomy deficit that a reintroduction of property to solve the Babel objection would impose. (169)We are fortunate in many ways, because the Internet makes absolute editorial control less appealing to users and less possible technologically. Software increasingly provides the editorial function - software the harnesses the collective intelligence (or lack thereof) of its users. Users matter, because users are editors in parallel with their usage.
In this way, editors matter more today than they ever have, because they both better reflect the wishes of the 'Average Joe' and because they relieve users from centralized control. Such Internet-age editors will not have the same clout as old economy editors have had, as Benkler notes:
Why, however, is this not a simple reintroduction of heteronomy, of dependence on the judgment of others that subjects individuals to their control? The answer is that, unlike with proprietary filters imposed at bottlenecks or gateways, attention-distribution patterns emerge from many small-scale, independent choices where free choice exists. They are not easily manipulable by anyone. Significantly, the millions of Web sites that do not have high traffic do not "go out of business. (173)Yes, as Nick suggests , there is a tension between openness and control, even in peer-driven editors like Google. But as I think Benkler successfully argues, such "control" is not as absolute in the Internet era. It's potentially much more inane (as a casual glance at Digg's top stories on any given day will reveal), but not more absolute.
How will this apply to open source software? I'm still not sure. We've had a range of startups funded to manage the cacophony that is Sourceforge, but I think this is largely an early response that will pass. Application vendors are the best source of "certified open source stacks," because they deliver the end-user value that enterprises are actually hoping to find.
I suspect the open source world still has some innovating to do here. Open source companies can take a page out of Web 2.0's editorial book and make it easier (and more worthwhile) for outside developers/users to go "inside": contributing patches, finding bugs, writing documentation, etc. Roadmaps need to be even more user-driven. Core code creation will undoubtedly continue to rest with the company or project founders, but there is a wealth of editorial work to be done once true communities begin to flourish around them.
Thoughts?
Posted by Matt Asay on September 15, 2006 12:51 PM
September 15, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft promises not to sue you
Jason Matusow, contrary to popular belief, is not dead. He's actually alive (or his ghost writer is), because he just made a whopping two posts on his blog. I think Jason is one of the most intelligent guys in the business, and always has something useful to say. I'm glad he's finally saying something again.
This time he's talking about Microsoft's new Open Specification Promise. I really, really like what Microsoft has done here. Sure, as Morrissey sings, "such things [they] do just to make [themselves] more attractive to you (have [they] failed?)," but here's something that the most ardent Microsoft hater can't help but admire.
Thus spake Matusow:
This is a simple set of text (less than one page) that is an irrevocable promise to anyone in the world that MS will not sue them for the use of MS patents in an implementing (partially or fully) a covered specification. Full stop. Other companies have gone down this path and have called them Covenants Not To Sue (or CNS) or other such names. Ours is a promise, and it is irrevocable so we named it as such.I am certain that Jason is evil and that there is, in fact, a nefarious purpose behind this, but I can't think of what it might be. So I have put the Matusow warning to "Code Orange" and will keep you posted. :-)I have been involved with the team working on this for many months, and it is a great next addition to the spectrum approach we have for intellectual property. For 5 years now we have been steadily walking down a path of increasing transparency and expanding the availability of MS IP assets to the community. There has been much speculation around our motives for doing this at each step (usually conspiracy theorists who hold that every step we are taking has some nefarious purpose) - yet we have not deviated from our intent to think creatively about intellectual property.
Seriously, this is a great step by Microsoft and, as Jason notes, it's indicative of the increasingly sophisticated intellectual property strategy the company deploys. Kudos to the team responsible for it. It's a welcome move. Now please apply it to Sharepoint so that I can bury it without undue concern. ;-)
Posted by Matt Asay on September 15, 2006 12:45 PM
September 14, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Zimbra is the answer for cross-platform email and calendar
As I have mentioned before, shared calendaring on the Mac has been a burden to say the least. Our problem from a business perspective was that we had no way to share calendars and schedule events across multiple time zones.
Very rarely am I rewarded for my status as a Tier 3 blogger and open source monkey-lord but today was a glorious exception as I was visited by Scott, the Mac/Zimbra Ace.
The story goes like this: We tried Zimbra 3.x previously and the core product worked fine, but the sync client was a little unpredictable. In terms of the web client there are a few minor things you need to get used to but its pretty shocking how quickly you forget you are in a browser. But the sync client was a real drag--it got a little wacky if you killed the sync while in process-something about Mac SyncServices needing to be killed manually.
Thanks to my previous nagging w