in Search
Welcome to Neopoleon - Sign in | Join | Help
Navigation: Home | Forums | Galleries

My New Job: Open Source?

ChrisA says in my comments:

Hey Rory,

Maybe it time to swing to the other side of the fence and work on UNIX or Linux.  Both are in desperate need for innovation and original thinking and you definately have enough creativity to supply.

That’d be a pretty definite no. A big fat NO with a helping of forgetabout it and, just for good measure, a side order of fuckthat.

I mean absolutely no disrespect whatsoever to the OSS community and the products they’ve created. Some of the work has actually been quite good. I’m reasonably impressed with Ubuntu, for example, although I’d rather give birth to the Statue of Liberty through my asshole than have to use Knoppix again. It really varies.

But the reason I wouldn’t want to work in an open source position has to do with these lines from The Empire Strikes Back (taking place when Han and crew are stuck in the belly of a gigantic space asteroid worm monster puppet thing):


INT. ASTEROID CAVE - MILLENNIUM FALCON - ENTRY AREA

As soon as Han and Leia are on board, Chewie closes the main hatch.  
The ship continues to shake and heave.

				HAN
		All right, Chewie, let's get 
		out of here!

The Wookiee heads for the cockpit as Han, followed by Threepio, rushes 
to the hold area and checks the scopes on the control panel.  Leia 
hurries after.

				LEIA
		The Empire is still out there.
		I don't think it's wise to...

Han rushes past her and heads for the cockpit.

				HAN
			(interrupting)
		No time to discuss this in
		committee.

And with that he is gone.  The main engines of the Falcon begin to 
whine.  Leia races after him, bouncing around in the shaking ship.

				LEIA
			(angry)
		I am not a committee!

You might recall that this scene ends with everybody still alive. Why? Because Han, that uber suave, handsome, sexy-ass bastard of a space pirate (who reminds me just a little of myself), decided to ignore Leia’s pleas and head back out to the asteroid field without (and this it the key part) discussing it as a committee.

If Han had hung around and debated over the finer points of space worm escape while still in the midst of an Empire Search and Destroy mission, then everybody on board the Millennium Falcon would have died, and then there wouldn’t have been a third movie, and then there wouldn’t have been any bloody ewoks, so maybe it wouldn’t have been so bad, but the ewok thing isn’t the point.

The point is that it was Han’s quick thinking as a leader, and his bypassing of the usual democratic process which led to the survival of himself and his crew, that led to success.

Do you see where I’m going with this?

Have any of you read The Republic? I hope not, as it’s a dreadful book, but Plato made a couple good points, and one of them was that the democratic process is an effing waste of time unless the voters are educated.

Do you see where I’m going with this?

The open source world, which, by the by, is actually where I lived and breathed before I hopped over to the Microsoft side of things when XP and .NET hit, is this giant, dreamy, cyber-hippy world where everybody’s wearing rose colored glasses, binary-Birkenstocks, and smoking the demon weed while making tons of really bad decisions, partly due to the Feel Good reliance on things like the democratic process, which, again, is only useful if the people involved are more intelligent than oatmeal, and partly due to the involvement of the uneducated, unwashed (literally), and downright stupid masses.

Again, I mean no disrespect to the open source world, but this is the reality.

Look at Knoppix – when you open the Start menu (I know they don’t call it that, but that’s what it is), it looks like there were so many people working on the project that:

1. There was one separate person each to design a single pixel for each of the menu icons, so there’s no sense of visual consistency whatsoever

2. Twelve people were assigned the task of creating something which more or less approximates Windows’ Control Panel – and all attempts were included

3. Half the apps start with “K” while the other half don’t, and so seem as though they don’t belong

4. Some apps run in full-blown KDE mode, while others run in console mode (very confusing for your average end user)

That’s just the beginning – a few things off the top of my head. It looks like what it is: a project created like a group attempt at a Jackson Pollock painting:


"Knoppix" - By a Committee of Jackson Pollocks

It’s this reliance on group-think, committees (or “community processes” as they’re called in the nerd-world), and complete zealot idiocy that keeps me from wanting to work on open source projects. The truth is, I like the idea – I want to be part of something large and great and wonderful that’s the equivalent of a digital rainbow being shot out of a virtual Care-Bear’s belly, but the reality is where it all falls apart. When the major qualification to be part of a project is enthusiasm, it’s probably best to run, not walk, in the other direction.

At heart, what I really care about is getting shit done. The open source world is more about politics, licenses, community discussions, and so on than it is about actually making things that work. There are a few excellent examples to the contrary, but most open source projects die before they even go beyond the planning stage. That’s not something I want to be a part of.

And, to be fair, Microsoft isn’t immune to this. I feel, for example, that the team I’m currently on has been putting too much weight on functioning as a team, and not enough on actually getting work done. Working as a team is important, but only to the extent that it contributes a practical benefit. Sometimes you just have to be Han and tell Leia to shut up. Inside Microsoft, there are quite a few Leias. So, like I said, we’re not immune.

But, it’s still better for someone like me. While we listen to and value customer feedback, we don’t implement every customer’s desire. I’ve been approached about every feature of every application in our catalog going back to Donkey.bas, and there’s just no way in hell I’m going to pass all that feedback along. You have to choose which ideas are important and discard the rest. Somewhere, there needs to be a very real executive branch which just says, “STOP – this is as far as it goes.” In the open source world, with the exception of the higher profile projects, it’s going to be tough to do this because there is often not clear ownership over a project, and most people are not natural born leaders. The open source hippy method works around the idea of including people, making them feel valuable, and taking all ideas into consideration – like there’s no incoming filter on ideas. There’s also the freedom of the “It’s done when it’s done” deadline since so many projects have absolutely nothing to do with, say, making money. Release dates are unimportant (or simply non-existent), and this can mean feature creep.

Let’s face it. It’s just a clusterfuck mess.

If you want to see a company that’s done a fantastic job of implementing the Han Solo method of development while maintaining the democratic process, take a look at Google.

Those Fridays where Google employees are supposed to work on their pet projects? Absolutely freaking brilliant. For four days out of the week, these employees act as part of the Google machine. But, on the fifth day, they act as individuals, tinkering away on their own projects. Sure, most of the projects probably suck and will never see the light of day, but some of Google’s greatest successes are the result of these Friday loner sessions. It’s the best of both worlds – you get intelligent people working on collaborative projects four days out of the week, and then spending one day on their own interests, quickly producing successful products for the company without having to deal with the bureaucratic overhead of process. It’s the middle way, and it kicks ass. It’s also probably the closest thing I’ve ever seen to Renaissance Italy in our time, but that’s another post altogether.

(And, no, I’m not going to work for Google.)

So, while I take ChrisA’s comment as a compliment, I hope my reasons for avoiding open source are clear, and I haven’t even addressed why there’s a lack of “innovation and original thinking.” That, too, is another post.

I’m quite happy in the commercial, proprietary world. It’s not perfect, but it’s a place where things actually get done. Maybe not always on time, or with all the features originally planned, but still, done is done. And sometimes, to finish a project, you have to push it through, bypass the democratic process, go over people’s heads, and just finish what you’re working on.

In short, as I said earlier, to get things done, you need to be able to tell Leia to shut up.

That’s (just one reason) why I’m not moving back to the open source world.

Any questions?

Published Thursday, September 14, 2006 3:17 AM by Rory

Filed Under: ,

Comments

 

Christopher Hawkins said:

That's funny: I was in the middle of my English homework and I thought "I really need to read something written by Rory" and lo and behold Neopoleon was all bold-like in the RSS-thingy. Yay! :)
September 14, 2006 3:38 AM
 

stic said:

Thanks, that was refreshing ;-)
September 14, 2006 4:49 AM
 

moondog said:

Rory's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!!!!!

:-)
September 14, 2006 5:06 AM
 

-dn said:


So just to sum this all up, you're going to go to work on an open source version of Google.

Brilliant.


On another note, that MS like borg gear that you were fitted with a few years back, does that come off easlily?



September 14, 2006 5:26 AM
 

Rob said:


I forgot: the google techtalk about Django.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-70449010942275062
September 14, 2006 6:02 AM
 

Go Rory! « Toasted Code said:

September 14, 2006 6:59 AM
 

Tee said:

Why'd you spell Birkenstocks wrong?

I used to work in a shoe store...sorry that I noticed such a small detail...it's not my fault though.  Plus, I have no real idea what the rest of this post is about.  I got the whole ::slap Leia while shouting "Shutupbitch!" at her and pushing her down so you can drive your ship out of a worm's digestive tract::.  Was there something else?  Something important?

;)
September 14, 2006 7:31 AM
 

cK said:

As a professional developer I totally dislike open source.  I believe that as a professional we should be compensated for things we create.  Music created by musician get PAID, why shouldn't we.  What makes software so different from other forms of creative outputs.  A good portion of the open source developer are professional developers themselve.  They just start a pet project, usually similar to things they work on at their day job.  By and large, if this pet project get popular, it practically put himself out of work because the pet project doesn't bring him any monetary gains at all.  My 2 cents!
September 14, 2006 8:30 AM
 

Dana said:

I thought that you made a pretty good argument for why you should work for an OSS company ;-)
September 14, 2006 9:02 AM
 

rob said:

@ cK

You have a good point perhaps we can find a mix. For example, source code can be closed for a period of 5 years and after that it becomes opensource. This hopefully creates a more equal powerbalance sort of. Or is this too hippy?, i don't know, but it now seems some musicians or programmers get more than their fair share. On the other hand the options of that (lawchange) happening is probably very slim and free-software is our only alternative, pehaps technically not as good but it's ours.
September 14, 2006 10:21 AM
 

Rob said:

For webdevelopment you might want to checkout Django on FreeBSD with postgres as the backend, it's super clean:

http://www.freebsd.org/
http://www.djangoproject.com/
http://www.postgresql.org/

and the 'enterprise manager' for postgres:
http://www.pgadmin.org/

Or read this tutorial to get a feel for it:
http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/tutorial1/

For the desktop i agree with you
September 14, 2006 11:33 AM
 

Kev said:

"to get things done, you need to be able to tell Leia to shut up"

Those are words for the ages.
Definite t-shirt material...
September 14, 2006 11:39 AM
 

cK said:

rob:

What you're describing regarding the 5 year close source is exactly what id (makers of games such as the Doom series and Quake series) is doing.  They open source their source once they feel they no long making money out of their engines.  Typically for them it's about 5 years :)

Software developer are still not on equal par with musician and such.  The software that we help develop doesn't give up the residual income that a lot of musician enjoys.  We get a salary and that's about it.  There is no ownership to the creative output...only the company owns that.  And if you're lucky to work for a company such as adobe, they actually list that developers/artist/blah blah on their "about" page.  Which acknowledge who help made the product.  At most companies that isn't the case, not even M$.

I feel we, as software engineer/developer have create this problem for ourselves.  A good example is the software automation industry. They made some good software that does automation... and before they know it, their jobs have been automated.  The next wave is programming made so simple that code generator will be replacing programmers ;)

That's the state of innovation though! :)
September 14, 2006 11:53 AM
 

Eric said:

I now know you are totally sane rory.  I judge the worth of a person if they are part of the self love fest called Open Source.  If I have to read one more technical article on how, "This time Linux is going to catch on." I'm gonna kill someone.  They've been saying it for 10 years now and it's still gone nowhere.  Microsoft isn't all that, but it works and the average user can use it.  Which if you talk to an average user is just AMAZING since half of them can barely turn a computer on.
September 14, 2006 1:04 PM
 

Blue said:

Rory,

I don't know a thing about the open source world and I'm barely computer-literate (must read Html for Dummies, mind you!) but you drive your point home brillantly. May the Force be with you. ;-)
September 14, 2006 1:15 PM
 

Erwin Blonk said:

Still Han gambled because he had no clue of what he'd meet outside. It was a coin flip for the lack of info. But it looks so much better to look tough ;)
But I'm not one to debate yes/no on open source, I don't give a damn as long as it sort of runs on a computer. I'm an IT junkie and I'll install anything with a 10+ userbase (yeah, ok, unless it's spam/spyware: I want my substance to be somewhat clean - so Linux and Windows pass my standards [barely]). I mean, choosing between open and closed source, between unix, linux, bsd, windows and Commodore Basic v2.0? If you can do that without a tear in your eye, without it tearing your soul apart, you have no business in IT.
September 14, 2006 1:29 PM
 

malcolm9999 said:

Tee said:
I got the whole ::slap Leia while shouting "Shutupbitch!" at her and pushing her down so you can drive your ship out of a worm's digestive tract::.  Was there something else?  Something important?

Malcolm said:
Wow!
I now know everything I need to know about why Rory loves this woman.
September 14, 2006 6:20 PM
 

Tee said:

:)

Thanks Malcolm.

I *am* pretty awesome...now that I think about it.

Just kidding.

But thanks...really.
September 14, 2006 9:37 PM
 

TheTodd said:

Fucking awesome.
My theory is the whole OSS crowd are the bastard children of 1960's hippies who, on the whole, had no idea how to raise children.  Some of those children that are half-way technically inclined are playing dungeons and dragons in their mommy's basement or working for the OSS community.
They are trying to create a world wide utopia through software.
It Will Never Happen. Ever.
September 15, 2006 2:32 PM
 

Koon said:

First of all, my condolences for the fact that you have to work for Microsoft. A lot of your frustration leaks out in blogs.

Open source, if anything, has enabled small mom-and-pop shops and other small organizations with limited budget to get things done, fast.

You use Knoppix as an example to prove your point, and you look at it with a very biased Microsoft microscope (a pixel here, start-menu etc.), but don't consider the fact that Windows as an OS has been around how long(?) but still can't get the most basic feature (file search) right. You very conveniently stay away from some HUGE open-source successes, namely: The Apache foundation.

Case in point:

Here are the top web-servers:
Apache 21
Netscape (Enterprise, FastTrack, Communications) 17
Microsoft IIS 13
Unknown 7
AltaVista 1
NaviServer/AOLServer 1
Roxen 1
StrongHold 1
Yug 1
link: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html

I am sure the above numbers don't look very good to a lot of the executives pouring in millions into IIS.

Anyways, the irony is that you use the Star Wars example, where if aything in today's corporate world comes anywhere close to the *Committee*, it is Microsoft. You give an example of how people like you get things done at Microsoft (against the Leas of Microsoft .. ), but when was the last major release of the flagship product, Windows? But yeah, in Redmond, [get things done] = [release something crappy every few years so people send us more $$$].

A lot of people in the world are running successful businesses with open-source offerings like Apache21, Tomcat, The Spring Framework, Hibernate, JIRA .. the list goes on without sending faft checks to Microsoft. You at microsoft must be ignorant of this though, and I understand.

To update your ignorant view of the open-source world, Mr. Rory, open source [does not have to] = free. Ever heard of services? Well, never mind, you are in the sheltered world of Redmond.

All the best, and I hope you frequently visit the free Therapist on the Redmond campus!
September 15, 2006 9:25 PM
 

Charles said:

Money, besides being the root of all evil, is truely the only universal motivator.  Open source will never be good until someone comes up with a good capital model, or until programmers do become like musicians and the dedicated ones who don't make money can still get pussy from stupid chicks.
September 16, 2006 8:26 AM
 

Rory said:

Koon -

"First of all, my condolences for the fact that you have to work for Microsoft. A lot of your frustration leaks out in blogs."

I don't have to work for Microsoft. It's a choice.

The frustrations I express have more to do with Microsoft having unrealized potential than with Microsoft being a bad place to work. I actually get job offers fairly regularly that offer more cash than what MS is paying me, but MS is where I want to be. I like the tech, and I like (most of) the people.

But I'm someone who will *always* be frustrated when I feel there is a lot of unrealized potential in an organization. I feel the exact same way about OSS, as a matter of fact.

"Open source, if anything, has enabled small mom-and-pop shops and other small organizations with limited budget to get things done, fast."

Show me the numbers.

"You use Knoppix as an example to prove your point, and you look at it with a very biased Microsoft microscope (a pixel here, start-menu etc.)"

First off, I didn't use Knoppix to "prove" anything. This isn't an academic thesis. It's an editorial commentary in response to a comment. I'm not trying to change the world with this post. My point was that design by comittee sucks - not that OSS or the ideas behind it suck. I'm arguing that the *reality* sucks. Remember, I said Ubuntu was pretty good for what it is (although it, shiny and polished as it is, has its own problems - that said, I still think it's a nicely done package, but this post wasn't about liking Ubuntu - it's about WHY I DON'T WANT TO WORK WITH OSS - I put that in caps so that you'd have a context in which to understand everything I'm saying, even though I was perfectly clear about it at the beginning of the post).

As for my Microsoft-o-Vision - of *course* I'm biased. Everybody is. Not one of us can be objective, but I think I give OSS a fair run. I don't slam it - I slam *instances* of OSS projects that fucking suck, but I absolutlely do not dismiss the entire phenomenon. Not in any way. And, again, remember: I *came* from the OSS side of the fence, and it was only a couple years ago. With what I know, I've been able to keep up fairly well on what's happening.

"but don't consider the fact that Windows as an OS has been around how long(?) but still can't get the most basic feature (file search) right."

File search works on my machine. With "the dog," with our own desktop search product, with Google's, and with others.

What about search isn't working for you?

"You very conveniently stay away from some HUGE open-source successes, namely: The Apache foundation."

No I don't. I'm sorry, and I hate to be rude, but you're really asking for it.

This paragraph is in the post (which you read in its entirety, right?):

"At heart, what I really care about is getting shit done. The open source world is more about politics, licenses, community discussions, and so on than it is about actually making things that work. There are a few excellent examples to the contrary, but most open source projects die before they even go beyond the planning stage. That’s not something I want to be a part of."

Notice the line "There are a few excellent examples to the contrary..."

I didn't name them because that's not the point of the post (hello-ooo-o-o-oo). I acknowledged that there are some great examples of OSS products simply to point out that I don't see OSS as a failure - but that many, many projects are just graveyards. Sourceforge is a graveyard. There's so much shit on there that will *never* go beyond the planning stage - it's all the "I'm working on an OSS project!" feel good crap, but without the implementation.

So, don't fuck with me on this. I didn't "conveniently stay away" from anything. The point of my post (again) is that I don't want to work on OSS projects, and I presented my reasons why.

"I am sure the above numbers don't look very good to a lot of the executives pouring in millions into IIS."

Those numbers on their own are meaningless without explanation and context.

Keep in mind that Microsoft isn't just profitable, but *hugely* profitable.

Although I'll keep what you said in mind and pass along a note to "the executives": "STOP POURING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO IIS!!!!! WE'RE MAKING A PROFIT! WE MUST STOP!!!!! YOU GUYS ARE CRAZY!!! SOME GUY ON MY BLOG SAID SO!!!!"

"Anyways, the irony is that you use the Star Wars example, where if aything in today's corporate world comes anywhere close to the *Committee*, it is Microsoft. You give an example of how people like you get things done at Microsoft (against the Leas of Microsoft .. ), but when was the last major release of the flagship product, Windows? But yeah, in Redmond, [get things done] = [release something crappy every few years so people send us more $$$]."

I'm sorry, but your paragraph started in one place, and never ended. It just sort of stopped.

Was there a point in there that you could clarify for me? I read the baseless accusation about Microsoft being a committee, and I read something about "$$$," but I'm otherwise lost.

"A lot of people in the world are running successful businesses with open-source offerings like Apache21, Tomcat, The Spring Framework, Hibernate, JIRA .. the list goes on without sending faft checks to Microsoft. You at microsoft must be ignorant of this though, and I understand."

I wrote a textbook on Linux, my dear. When I was an independent, I spent years implementing solutions using products from both sides of the fence. If my client wanted Apache on Linux with JSP, then that was what I did.

Hang on - before I continue, I just want to make sure that everybody reading this thread takes a moment of silence to observe all the incredibly stupid things you've said so far. I, myself, am quite astounded.

Hang on...

Wait...

OK. Moment's over. Let's continue.

"To update your ignorant view of the open-source world, Mr. Rory, open source [does not have to] = free. Ever heard of services? Well, never mind, you are in the sheltered world of Redmond."

Was I making an argument about OSS products not being able to be capitalized on through services? Do you think I'm not aware of what's been happening at IBM all these years? Why are you even bringing this up? It's like the first day of tech industry 101. I know you probably think you're opening my eyes to all sorts of profound truths, but the fact is, I'm quite well versed both in the competition and how money is being made "over there." My argument wasn't that I didn't want to work with OSS because I wouldn't make money - to the contrary, I *know* I could make serious dough in the OSS world. My whole bloody point was that I think the OSS world is full of thicky-thickheads who are borderline retarded, and I'd rather not keep company with them.

"All the best, and I hope you frequently visit the free Therapist on the Redmond campus!"

I get excellent benefits, and I *do* visit my shrink regularly, although it's mainly just to talk about how great I am. There's a satisfaction to knowing that someone is getting paid to just sit there and listen to you say whatever you want to, so I often go on and on about what a fabulous human being I am.
September 16, 2006 7:38 PM
 

Ian said:

^^

+1.

Your original post pretty muich summed up my view of the OSS world and your response to this retard just reinforced it.

Along with my rule of not reading slashdot articles (or at least the comments) any more, I also make pretty quick,usually accurate decisions about the kind of posts that use M$ as a substitute for Microsoft.

I'm too drunk (which is partly an apology for any typo's) to get into a serious discussion about open source, other than to just agree with you in general.
I've watched Sun's and IBM's (and others) involvement with Open source as a way to push technology platforms (and therefore try to actually make a business case out of 'free' software) with interest and we'll see how well they do I guess.

Anywho, I'm off to sleep off the effects of a shrimp boil/bbq in boulder creek, am glad to see you're responding with your usual aplomb and hope whatever decision you've made regarding the future work out as you hope.

look forward to not shaking hands soon bud,
Ian

PS. My shrink thinks you're great too - I've tried to get him to see someone about that but he says he doesn't believe in all that mumbo jumbo. What can you do?
September 16, 2006 9:39 PM
 

Koon said:

[Show me the numbers.]

It is really not that hard [at least not as hard as writing a “textbook” (blurp .. pardon me .. just had dinner) on linux] to find numbers. Google pretty much does the work for you. Following is one of the references, but I can find more if you so intend ..

http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html

"You use Knoppix as an example to prove your point, and you look at it with a very biased Microsoft microscope (a pixel here, start-menu etc.)"

[First off, I didn't use Knoppix to "prove" anything. This isn't an academic thesis. It's an editorial commentary in response to a comment. I'm not trying to change the world with this post. My point was that design by comittee sucks - not that OSS or the ideas behind it suck. I'm arguing that the *reality* sucks. Remember, I said Ubuntu was pretty good for what it is (although it, shiny and polished as it is, has its own problems - that said, I still think it's a nicely done package, but this post wasn't about liking Ubuntu - it's about WHY I DON'T WANT TO WORK WITH OSS - I put that in caps so that you'd have a context in which to understand everything I'm saying, even though I was perfectly clear about it at the beginning of the post). ]

By prove I meant you were trying to justify your decision. Else why this blog entry? Why mention Knoppix. Besides, anyone who has even barely read anything on your blod, knows very well there is nothing close to academic here, let alone a thesis. But thanks for pointing it out. I was about to send this entry out to the science journal.

[As for my Microsoft-o-Vision - of *course* I'm biased. Everybody is. Not one of us can be objective, but I think I give OSS a fair run. I don't slam it - I slam *instances* of OSS projects that fucking suck, but I absolutlely do not dismiss the entire phenomenon. Not in any way. And, again, remember: I *came* from the OSS side of the fence, and it was only a couple years ago. With what I know, I've been able to keep up fairly well on what's happening. ]

Of course you are biased and objective. The corporation has that affect on its employees. My “personal” observation was that you were not being “fair” to the entire OSS community (your quote -> “…is only useful if the people involved are more intelligent than oatmeal, and partly due to the involvement of the uneducated, unwashed (literally), and downright stupid masses.”)

[File search works on my machine. With "the dog," with our own desktop search product, with Google's, and with others.

What about search isn't working for you? ]

Try searching for a 2K file on a 80 Gig disk, frustrating. Let alone searching for text within various files. Hence the need for “Desktop” search. Let’s admit it, the native file search sucks. I can point out many other instances like this in Microsoft products e.g. Microsoft Outlook – try deleting 50000 mails from the exchange server – it is retarded. Ever heard of indexing?

[No I don't. I'm sorry, and I hate to be rude, but you're really asking for it.

This paragraph is in the post (which you read in its entirety, right?):

"At heart, what I really care about is getting shit done. The open source world is more about politics, licenses, community discussions, and so on than it is about actually making things that work. There are a few excellent examples to the contrary, but most open source projects die before they even go beyond the planning stage. That’s not something I want to be a part of."

Notice the line "There are a few excellent examples to the contrary..."

I didn't name them because that's not the point of the post (hello-ooo-o-o-oo). I acknowledged that there are some great examples of OSS products simply to point out that I don't see OSS as a failure - but that many, many projects are just graveyards. Sourceforge is a graveyard. There's so much shit on there that will *never* go beyond the planning stage - it's all the "I'm working on an OSS project!" feel good crap, but without the implementation.

So, don't fuck with me on this. I didn't "conveniently stay away" from anything. The point of my post (again) is that I don't want to work on OSS projects, and I presented my reasons why. ]

I wasn’t trying to fuck with you, I am straight. Pardon me that you felt threatened. The feel I got from you was that OSS is a failure barring a few instances here and there, which is not the reality. But you are contradicting yourself now. I understand that it is just your point of view and your choice, and I was expressing mine.

[Those numbers on their own are meaningless without explanation and context.

Keep in mind that Microsoft isn't just profitable, but *hugely* profitable.

Although I'll keep what you said in mind and pass along a note to "the executives": "STOP POURING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO IIS!!!!! WE'RE MAKING A PROFIT! WE MUST STOP!!!!! YOU GUYS ARE CRAZY!!! SOME GUY ON MY BLOG SAID SO!!!!"]

The point of those numbers wasn’t that Microsoft isn’t *hugely* profitable. On the contrary, with such economic power comes great responsibility. I don’t think Microsoft has embraced the responsibility. The point of those numbers was that the OSS world is not full of retarded chimps eating fleas. OSS community has plenty of smart people and has the potential of competing with Capitalistic Juggernauts like Microsoft.

[I'm sorry, but your paragraph started in one place, and never ended. It just sort of stopped.

Was there a point in there that you could clarify for me? I read the baseless accusation about Microsoft being a committee, and I read something about "$$$," but I'm otherwise lost.]

I know my response was a little longer than usual, and your attention span must be limited. Let me spell it out for you, here is the paragraph again:

"Anyways, the irony is that you use the Star Wars example, where if aything in today's corporate world comes anywhere close to the *Committee*, it is Microsoft. You give an example of how people like you get things done at Microsoft (against the Leas of Microsoft .. ), but when was the last major release of the flagship product, Windows? But yeah, in Redmond, [get things done] = [release something crappy every few years so people send us more $$$]."

Definition of committee – in a broader sense: A committee comprises a mechanism of bureaucracy or of proto-bureaucracy whereby a limited number of people receive delegated functions of government or administration.

The point, Rory, is that your use of the little Start Wars episode as an analogy is ironical, as Microsoft represents the “committee” more than anything else I can think of within the context of this discussion. You state:

“It’s this reliance on group-think, committees (or “community processes” as they’re called in the nerd-world), and complete zealot idiocy that keeps me from wanting to work on open source projects.”

Your stating that you [by you I don’t mean you “Rory” but I mean you “Microsoft as a group of people”] get shit done is merely an illusion. Otherwise, it wouldn’t take so long for Microsoft to release a really bad clone of Mac OS (read “Vista”). So there must be more “processes” in Microsoft compared to any OSS group I can think of.

Again, the entire point of my reply was that there is a fair amount of overhead in terms of processes, red-tapism and all that BS introduced when any team grows, be it within Microsoft or anywhere else. I am sure you personally get shit done, and you will continue to do so weather you are at Microsoft or not.

[I wrote a textbook on Linux, my dear. When I was an independent, I spent years implementing solutions using products from both sides of the fence. If my client wanted Apache on Linux with JSP, then that was what I did. ]

I really didn’t get the point of this paragraph. You did what your clients needed, good boy! By the way, I couldn’t find any references to the “textbook” you speak of, though I didn’t look hard enough.

[Hang on - before I continue, I just want to make sure that everybody reading this thread takes a moment of silence to observe all the incredibly stupid things you've said so far. I, myself, am quite astounded.

Hang on...

Wait...

OK. Moment's over. Let's continue.]

You must be easily astounded. It is incredibly stupid to take the time to reply to the incredibly stupid things I have said, don’t you think?  

[Was I making an argument about OSS products not being able to be capitalized on through services? Do you think I'm not aware of what's been happening at IBM all these years? Why are you even bringing this up? It's like the first day of tech industry 101. I know you probably think you're opening my eyes to all sorts of profound truths, but the fact is, I'm quite well versed both in the competition and how money is being made "over there." My argument wasn't that I didn't want to work with OSS because I wouldn't make money - to the contrary, I *know* I could make serious dough in the OSS world. My whole bloody point was that I think the OSS world is full of thicky-thickheads who are borderline retarded, and I'd rather not keep company with them.]

Even providing services involves “getting shit done”. You state here that you are aware that there is serious dough in the OSS world. AND you also state that the OSS world is full of retards. So, the OSS world is full of retards making serious dough without getting shit done. Hmm ..

[I get excellent benefits, and I *do* visit my shrink regularly, although it's mainly just to talk about how great I am. There's a satisfaction to knowing that someone is getting paid to just sit there and listen to you say whatever you want to, so I often go on and on about what a fabulous human being I am.]

Good for you!

To sum it up, I have nothing personal against you. I am sure you can walk on water and guide the world in the right direction and rule the universe one day. So, this is not personal. I happened to come across your blog entry, and thought some of your observations and assumptions were not fair. I understand they are “your” assumptions on “your” blog, and don’t have to be fair. I was just giving my point of view. That’s all.
September 17, 2006 1:44 AM
 

anon said:

Trying to read Koon's response is like trying to find a useful finished project on sourceforge.

I bet you don't put your curly braces on a separate line.

:-)
September 17, 2006 4:58 AM
 

Erwin Blonk said:

"When I was an independent, I spent years implementing solutions using products from both sides of the fence."

And you get away from that without it tearing your soul apart? I'm mainly a wage-slave MS-admin (right now working on bringing my certificates up to the standard of my priceless excellence - talking MCSE here, much better than that MCSD/MCAD stuff ;) ) but I'd love to throw in OSS/Mac/whatever.

"and I *do* visit my shrink regularly, although it's mainly just to talk about how great I am."

Zaphod Beeblebrox ain't got nothing on you, does he? :D
September 17, 2006 5:14 AM
 

Erwin Blonk said:

"is like trying to find a useful finished project on sourceforge."

Actually I was able to solve a long standing problem last year with a third party application with sourceforge thingy.

The supplier said the problem was in Excel/Windows. The only thing we had was an error message that dissapeared within about 10 milliseconds/ I got a freeware screencam from there, caught the message and was able to say 'no, your fault, not Excel/Windows'. Sweet, especially because Camtasia costs money ;)
September 17, 2006 5:24 AM
 

adam said:

"Trying to read Koon's response is like trying to find a useful finished project on sourceforge. "

The guy does have a point though. It is good to see someone make an argument here. Everyone else just kisses Rory's ass. :-)
September 17, 2006 3:16 PM
 

Tee said:

I argue with Rory all the time...

*and* I kick his ass...

*and* I make him do my laundry...

he knows he's my bitch...

;)
September 17, 2006 7:41 PM
 

Ian said:

"Trying to read Koon's response is like trying to find a useful finished project on sourceforge."

I was thinking the same thing..

"I bet you don't put your curly braces on a separate line"

I hate it when people don't do that. Make it legible and let the compiler optimize it away. grrr. Can you tell I've been buried in C code for the last couple weeks?

September 17, 2006 9:08 PM
 

Rory said:

Koon -

I'm going to be honest here.

I don't have time to respond to your comments. I have a two-day job interview starting tomorrow, and I need to sleep.

Also, I don't want to respond to your comments because you aren't responding to the post. The post, for the last bloody time, was about why *I* don't want to work in OSS. It's not a slam on OSS. You've completely skewed the topic to fit your own interests.

Normally, I'd engage under such circumstances, but I value rest and prep time for an interview over arguing with someone I genuinely feel might be slightly retarded.

Good night.
September 17, 2006 11:04 PM
 

Rory said:

adam -

"The guy does have a point though. It is good to see someone make an argument here. Everyone else just kisses Rory's ass."

I don't agree that he has a point (he's arguing against an entirely different post - one which exists only in his head).

But I will agree that it's nice to see the opposition. It would have been nice if it had been relevant, but whatever.

That said, I'm really not looking for fights around here - or for ass kissing. The reason I switched to Community Server is that I feel a kinship with many of my readers. I actually *like* them. So it could be argued that some of them kiss my ass (although I really don't think they do), but it could also be argued that I write because it brings some of them pleasure. I like to entertain - and to spark thought.

Some people like escargot. Some people like Coca-Cola.

I like starting conversations.
September 17, 2006 11:07 PM
 

Koon said:

Rory -

All the best with your interview.
September 18, 2006 12:35 AM
 

Rory said:

Koon -

"All the best with your interview."

If that's sincere, then thank you.
September 18, 2006 1:01 AM
 

Chris said:

Rory, first of all, since this is my first comment, I really enjoy reading your blog! On this post, however, I am rather with Koon.

IMHO you are writing about decision making processes, not about open vs. closed source. You claim that lengthy and inefficient processes are prevalent in the Open Source world. Fair enough, this may often be the case, but does it <i>have</i> to be that way?

To be honest, I take issue with your creating an artificial dualism between two "worlds" whereas I think the future belongs to some sort of hybrid models. I believe we should look at
- decision making processes
- licensing models
- open vs. closed code base
separately instead of mixing them all up to create the idea of two "camps" in a way.
September 18, 2006 6:51 AM
 

Chris said:

oh, and all the best with your interview! (had not read those last comments)
September 18, 2006 6:53 AM
 

Rory said:

Chris -

"Rory, first of all, since this is my first comment, I really enjoy reading your blog!"

Thank you :)

"On this post, however, I am rather with Koon."

Okee-dokee.

"IMHO you are writing about decision making processes, not about open vs. closed source."

Well, that's exactly the point. Like I said, I have nothing at all against OSS - I just don't like the "community." I pointed out a few reasons in this post why, but I can tell you from personal experience, that it could have been *much* longer.

"You claim that lengthy and inefficient processes are prevalent in the Open Source world. Fair enough, this may often be the case, but does it <i>have</i> to be that way?"

Absolutely not - it doesn't have to be that way at all.

It just is in many cases.

I know it's a mistake to associate OSS with Free (as in beer (as they say)) across the board, but it pretty much is true that most OSS projects are released to the public for free.

One issue with that is that, unless the head of the project (and other involved leaders) aren't *really* driving the process, nothing's going to get done. It's *exactly* the same case in the commercial world, except that people will just fire your ass if you don't do anything.

"To be honest, I take issue with your creating an artificial dualism between two 'worlds' whereas I think the future belongs to some sort of hybrid models."

I'd say we're actually already there - as in the case of MS giving out source to some products to companies demonstrating a need to see it. However, it's a one-way deal. We say, "Yeah - you can take a look, but we're not making this project a community effort."

"I believe we should look at
- decision making processes
- licensing models
- open vs. closed code base
separately instead of mixing them all up to create the idea of two "camps" in a way."

There is gray area - but for the *most* part, there simply are two camps.

If this were a post about something other than why *I* don't want my job to be centered around OSS, then it *would* be interesting to look at each of those topics individually.

But it isn't. I just gave the 40,000 foot view of my feelings. Just for kicks, I might go ahead and adress each of those subjects in a series of posts, but I get the feeling it'd just be fuel for a flamewar. I've found that most people (at least the ones who comment) have a very difficult time telling the difference between honest criticism and slamming.

I might say things about OSS that *seem* cruel or malicious, but they're really the result of my experience with that Other World Over There. I'm being honest from *my point of view* - not trying to convince anyone else to think differently.
September 18, 2006 7:21 AM
 

Koon said:

"If that's sincere, then thank you."

I am always sincere. You are welcome.
September 18, 2006 10:20 AM
 

Rory said:

Koon -

"I am always sincere. You are welcome."

Then you have my apologies for what I said to you.

I thought you were just being a troll, looking for trouble.
September 18, 2006 6:42 PM
 

Koon said:

You don't have to apologise. We are both entitled to our opinions. You are welcome to be my bitch instead :-). j/k
September 19, 2006 11:05 PM
 

Mike Dimmick said:

My position on OSS remains that I'm happy to use OSS software that is tested to the same standards as the equivalent commercial software. Linux kernel has no regression tests, no test suite, no test plan. QED. Ditto Apache, Firefox (well, to be fair that does have a test plan). I don't consider unleashing your latest brain dump onto a bunch of willing masochists as testing. They may test it rigorously but you have no guarantees of that, so you probably end up with miniscule test coverage.

The Linux distro makers - the commercial ones - do have QA departments and claim to take QA seriously but does this arm's length approach actually work?

I have no idea where Koon pulled those web server 'statistics' from, because they don't match up at all with the link he posted. I'm not a fan of Netcraft's statistics because of the disproportionate influence of shared hosting on there - one server can be hosting dozens, even millions of sites using HTTP 1.1 Host: headers, and this applies to both Apache and IIS, although I think it disproportionately favours Apache. One hostname does not equal one web server software acquisition decision.
September 20, 2006 9:19 AM
 

Innovation for Partners in the UK said:

Technically speaking, it's the introduction of new things or methods . Innovation is a topic I've debated
December 3, 2006 3:45 AM
New Comments to this post are disabled

About Rory

I *own* this site, you loser.