h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Open Your Source - A2953334
Author: Baryonic Being - U234603

This has been in PR before. I've taken time to touch a few things up but otherwise it's the same.

Remember: this is a collaborative Entry - i.e. it was Topic of the Week once. It has been compiled, and given heavy additions, from the discussions thereto.

I do need to know whether the history of open source gets enough of a mention here, or whether it's adequately covered in the Linux entry.

Is it all too biased?

Can I be honest? I'm only posting here because this has been in PR for nearly an entire day and you've had no comments. So really I'm bumping it up for you.

I did try to read the entry, but I think in its current form it's only going to be interesting to the sort of people who perhaps already know what open source is. And I know I've got a short attention span for things that I'm not persoanlly interested in, so please don't take that personally anyone I'm just a bit lazy.

But at least you've had a bump.

Yes. It is too biased. I've said this before and I'll say it again because this is still an exercise in advocacy rather than an attempt at an objective EG entry.

My primary objections. First, much of it is anecdotal and based upon opinion. Lots of comments are included from OS advocates, none from its detractors. There is little about the history of OS and how the Internet has allowed the concept to flourish.

Also, quoting hearsay like 'My school uses Windows to run its server. It crashes so much very few people can ever get any work done' is just not good enough. I could say 'I've run a Windows server for a year now as a mission critical server and I've not had to reboot it once'. What precisely does that tell us? That I have chose the right OS, or that I'm techincally comptent enough to manage it properly? We could, in the interests of balance, include both statements, and end up with an entry that was even less informative.

Finally, there are highly questionable statements. For instance: 'Unix is designed for extreme power, security and reliability'. No it isn't: I can tell you that Unix was adopted at many universities because much of the security-heavy code one finds in OS's like VMS and Windows NT slows the OS down to some degree in comparison, and uni's needed to get every possible bang for their buck because they couldn't afford expensive hardware. Unix *was* designed because Multics, it's predecessor, was over-the-top in just about every aspect you could mention. Unix is minimalist, that's all.

So, to sum up, it's too preachy. It should *not* get into the EG because it is biased and not very informative. It might keep some people happy who think that this is the most important issue in the world today. But you're either simply preaching to the converted or trying to tell the rest of the computer-using world how misguided they are. Hardly a basis for a good EG entry, is it?

You make good points. But, like before, I must point out that this was a collaborative topic of the week thing. I have seen other such entries, and I tried to follow the format of putting in embedded quotes, which I see as acceptable in such an Entry because it is clear that these are opinions.

"Lots of comments are included from OS advocates, none from its detractors."

That was because there *were* no detractors in the collaborative discussion. Well, you can check if you like: A2520163. I could be wrong.

"Unix is designed for extreme power, security and reliability"

What somebody probably meant that people use it for mission critical purposes, capitalising on its security and reliability.

Of course, all the disadvantages I could possibly think of are included (I had to put them in myself because as I say, the discussions didn't seem to mention them).

I'll tell you what I'll do:
I'll write an objective piece, giving the facts. But I'll keep this in PR for the moment to see what other people think of the whole Topic of the Week complication-shebang.

Well, you *wouldn't* get any detractors posting to a conversation thread as the type of person who would contribute tends to think that OS is the most important issue in computing today.

As it happens, Windows XP/2003 is probably a more secure system fundamentally than Unix. It has a *huge* security layer over the OS, even having 14 different security levels applied to registry keys. It is also used for mission-critical applications. I know, because I do just that. Like I said, this entry is mainly a collection of opinions, predictable ones at that too and in the large part highly contestable. There is little hard fact, nothing about the history of the movement and why it has become so important. EG readers wanted to be informed, not proselytised.

As I say, I will write something else - maybe a collaborative topic was not the best way to go for an Entry like this.

But don't go branding people who contribute to topics as particular 'types' of people. It probably isn't the most important issue in computing today - but if we're not to be fanatical about open souce, don't start to be fanatical about Windows. I'm not saying you have started, but you sound as though you might.

How about this for a template: A4151918.

And thanks, Mina for your comment. I'm trying to make my new version easy to understand.

No, I'm neutral. I just want to get my job done as easily as possible. And that often means working with the grain, by using Windows, than against it, by adopting Linux.

Yes, I think we've been through that before haven't we?

But it obviously needed reiterating. Some people seem to think that because you aren't 100% pro-OS you must be a pawn of Microsoft. The real world (one where people actually have to use computers to run businesses) tends to be a bit more complicated. Like I said in the previous thread, over the past year, I've found fundamentalist attitudes far more obstructive than dodgy commercial practices.

Can I just say that the new template is much more promising? It actually contains some hard fact. What people like me want to read is the background to and ins-and-outs of the whole OS phenomenon. This is what makes it interesting.

Sorry, but I'm 100% with FM on this one. I'd better admit that I work in IT, and am currently managing in the region of 1200 windows servers, 1800 Unix boxes, 200 OS systems, 14 MVS systems, and 3 Linux systems.

Commercially Linux isn't in it.

There are a lot of reasons why Linux doesn't do business, one of which is encapsulated in your opening paragraph, another of which is security, and another of which is culpability. I'm not a Windows fan, far from it in fact, but the truth is they've got the weight of modern computing, and where IBM seemed unassailable a few years ago, Microsoft sit today.

Well it's no good telling me. Just because I've done my best to compile one of those sprawling topics of the week, and just because you know I'm pro-OS, doesn't mean I think everybody who uses Windows is evil.

Will you be happy if I admit, truthfully, that yes, in the real world, Windows has its place in the market, and so does Mac OS at that. Yes, there's a lot to be said for Microsoft technologies, their ease of use and so on, and yes, they're very clever to make as much money as they have - but alternatives have their place too; and these alternatives are very clever to have gotten the success that they too have managed.

You have to remember that, as far as I can see, the *predominant* attitude of open source developers is that they make software "in the hope that it will be useful", not in the hope that it will thwart the commercial competitors. Because they've made it in this spirit, and not provided a warranty of any kind, it's sometimes rather unfair to start comparing it to the commercial alternatives - more often than not, it's a hobby, and if people do find that the end result has a lot of things going for it that actually better the commercial stuff, then that's a massive achievement for the programmer personally.

"Commercially Linux isn't in it."

What's that got to do with it anyway? This is a Guide Entry, not a commercial viability report. OK, it's hardly a balanced Entry as it stands, but I'm working on it.

Sorry. Anyway, it is good to see that we've all at least tried out the other alternatives. It's also interesting to see that none of us are completely satisfied with what we've got.

'You have to remember that, as far as I can see, the *predominant* attitude of open source developers is that they make software "in the hope that it will be useful", not in the hope that it will thwart the commercial competitors. '

Is it now? Is this why there are so many trivial and ultimately pointless projects on SourceForge? Is this why, when I tried to get an Open Source project going to produce a WYSIWYG editor for this site, people refused to join because I was using Microsoft components?

No, it's not.

But I have found a great many OS projects where this is definitely the presiding attitude. The Linux kernel is one of them.

(By the way, I'm sorry I haven't had chance to contribute to GuideDog; if you still need help I'd probably have time to take a good delve into it in the summer, if that's all right).

If you fancy doing some nasty programming, you're more than welcome.

I do hope we can finally get this heading Edited Guideward, so can we look at the comments that have been made so far?

There's a suggestion that it's a bit biased. One possible way around this is to look at the title. If you change it to something closer to what the entry is actually about - eg 'The Pros of Open Source' - this might show how it's a limited view. But you'd still need to at least acknowledge some of the criticisms for it to be balanced. Could I suggest you dedicate a paragraph to some of the common criticisms?

The second point is that the ideals of OS are that it's not doen to outdo commercial operators, but if you can acknowledge that some programmers do actively promote a more disuptive approach, that would at least show that it's not all a bed of roses.

"Could I suggest you dedicate a paragraph to some of the common criticisms?"

Yes, there are several such paragraphs at the end.

Your second point is a good idea, and will take all of this on board. I am attempting to re-write it, but I am afraid I have been very busy. Sorry about the delays [the ones we've had and the ones to come]. By the way, the EU parliament rejected the software patent directive! Sorry - I couldn't contain my excitement. [Please let's not let that spark a debate; at least, not here.]

It simply needs to be less of a polemic and more of an objective historical account of the movement and its achievements. As someone once said (and I think it was with respect to 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' always preaching about the evils of slavery), 'show, don't tell'.

Also, check your assertions and lay off the sweeping generalisations: much of it is opinion, and I personally couldn't give a damn what Smiley Ben or any other dilletante thinks about the whole issue.