In summary, Jaron is saying theres absolutely nothing innovative about IBM's Geronimo (WebSphere Childrens Edition). ;-)

I definitely think Jaron Lanier mis-states the situation of open-source: there is nothing within open-source that prevents its initial development within a closed group - it is only its 'public' release that must be 'open'. The difference between trade secret & copyright.

[From the article]
"The interval of nonopenness - the time before publication - functions like the walls of a cell. It allows a complicated stream of elements to be defined well enough to be explored, tested, and then improved."

"The open-source software community is simply too turbulent to focus its tests and maintain its criteria over an extended duration, and that is a prerequisite to evolving highly original things.

Jaron Lanier does not get the point of OSS.

He said "There's a reason iPhone does not come with Linux". He might equally have said "There's a reason TIVO does not come with Linux ... except that it does. Presumably TIVO makers found Linux valuable, iPhone makers did not. Both have Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, and a host of people in open source communities to thank for having the opportunity.

The point of OSS is that people are free to build on the creative efforts of others (whether the result is innovative or dull and boring) in any way they find useful, rather being forced to re-invent the wheel.

The reason Linux is a highly polished version of an antique is that Linux addresses a problem - a computer operating system - that was substantially solved 30 years ago. Contrast this with Windows which is a re-invention of every wheel in an operating system along with a re-incarnation of every mistake. For example, maybe in another 30 year Microsoft will have learned the mantra "never force the user to restart the OS"� that IBM MVS learned thirty years ago.

If there is one thing that would massively inhibit the innovation of today's software programmer it would be that before he could write one line of innovative code, he first had to create his own version of Linux, Apache, Tomcat, MySQL, NetBeans, and all the other boring software he might need to base his innovation on.

Open Source Software - as in Stallman's concept of free software - has nothing to do with the process by which it is developed. I can think of nothing more distracting to the process of creating an innovative algorithm than having "a community" fiddle with it while in its creative stages. The point of the Open Source Software, as Stallman emphasizes, is the freedom to do what you want- to innovate, to reuse or to reinvent or to ignore - in contrast to a proprietary approach that demands that you don't do anything with it.

When was that last time (or first time) you saw an innovation in Windows, that was not just proprietary snaring of someone else's innovation?

Ahem. Jaron Lanier misses the obvious: the most disruptive, innovative, world-changing software in the history of man was certainly the Internet. There were many proprietary nets before it. They didn't merge; they were buried by software developed collaboratively, in the open.

Read the RFCs, keeping in mind they describe working systems, not whitepapers. Then explain how an iPhone or Blackberry -- neither of which would exist without them -- is more important.

I think it's unfair and uninformed to characterize linux as a "polished copy of unix" and claim that it isn't innovative. Linux was designed to be an implementation of the POSIX standard, it was designed to work with existing UNIX software and have an interface familiar to UNIX users. But it is not UNIX. Under the hood of the kernel, it's a different beast.

It's like saying a hydrogen powered car isn't innovative because it's still shaped like your old gas-powered car, or because it still has a steering wheel, brake, and accelerator pedals.

>> politically correct dogma

That pretty much nails it on the head.

Yawn. Trying to preach to the converted.

Jaron Lanier may not have been completely correct, but from where I sit, he pulled his punches.

FOS has not innovated at all up to this point. FOS is not innovating now. At this point in time, the truth is, FOS is where people with innovative ideas get crucified by a mob with self confidence issues.

attacking the messengers is not strength. It will not make outsiders believe that you lot are innovating.

I am not actively trying to get ANY FOS programmers interested in a number of innovative, and not quite so innovative ideas. It does not work. There are groups now starting up where people with ideas, artists and project managers are trying to get together with programmers. Unfortunately, if it is not "Yet Another Database" or similar back end tool for programmers, programmers just are not interested.

So you have three choices. Continue to whine that people have realised FOS has no clothes, get out there and work with people who are not programmers on projects that are not for other programmers, or just shut up.

Why is this article called "Yes, OSS does Innovate"?

It doesn't include any examples. Not one. Instead, it includes this:

"projects that are truly innovative are developed by vendors whose benefactors want the biggest bang for their investment. Ipso facto, closed source is usually the path taken in these situations."

Shouldn't this article be called "Yes, OSS doesn't innovate shit"? Cause that about sums it up.

I'm not saying OSS doesn't innovate. I haven't looked into it myself. But if you're gonna write an article called "Yes, OSS does Innovate", maybe you ~should~ look into it cause you obviously haven't either.

All you wrote here is an excuse for the lack of innovation, "ipso facto" you agree that there is no innovation.

"This has nothing to do with the type of innovation that OSS can deliver"

Try writing an article that does.

Again, I'm not saying OSS doesn't innovate. I'm just saying this article is a piece of shit.

Look at the Asus Eee, which is currently shaking up the PC market by creating a new, low-cost "ultralight" notebook segment. It runs Linux. Could it have been done with a closed-source operating system? No it couldn't. Even if Dimdows XP can run acceptably on such modest hardware, it still adds too much to the price.

Those who claim Open Source doesn't innovate simply have their heads in the sand.

>>Even if Dimdows XP can run acceptably on such modest hardware....

Dimdows? That is a laugh. FOS can't even GIVE AWAY a OSS Desktop OS for free. If FOS was innovative it would own the Desktop market. Just like communism, FOS strangles itself with it's own dogma.

Unfortunately I will have to side somewhat with the last post. It seems that the motivation of pleasing paying customers definately motivates proprietary OS manufactures to make their products better. I have started using Linux this past year and it seems I use it more for learning and cost reasons then because it is better then Windows. If you listen to Linus he is very arrogant and seemingly careless about the things desktop users want the most. Maybe he could care less about the desktop space but he definately comes off in a way that is not very appealing to businesses looking to invest in thousands of Linux desktops. I'm sure many will disagree and that is fine.

NotSure:
>> FOS has not innovated at all up to this point. FOS is not innovating now.

Stop smoking or say what dictionary you consulted to get the definition of innovation. Then explain how you managed to scour all FOSS projects so as to be able to come to your conclusion.

Your accusation is so full of it on so many levels.

I would like to hear of what you consider an innovation. In fact, since FOSS doesn't innovate, you say, maybe you can come up with 10 or 20 innovations quite easily and they would all satisfy your hypothesis.

I don't have an iphone but can someone tell me what is innovative about it? Can I have a list of things so that I know what criteria is being used? And can I also have explained how the people that put together such a list figured out these things were innovated by Apple and don't exist elsewhere?

I have a lot of junk in my room that I can stitch together to come up with a first, but what would be the point? Virtually anything done by anyone has some element of innovation to it, as likely the whole was not done exactly that way before. Thus I find this argument over innovation stupid.

The closed source world will have to do better than this if they hope to fool anyone into thinking its worthwhile to artificially prop up decaying modes of production.