Excellent Gartner Group report: Debunking Open Source Myths

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Dag-Erling Smorgrav

unread,
Jan 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/28/00
to
<URL:http://gartner12.gartnerweb.com/public/static/hotc/hc00085832.html>

This is *just* the thing to drop in your boss' mailbox if you're
having trouble convincing him that Open Source is just as viable as
commercial software.

DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - d...@flood.ping.uio.no


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message

Brett Glass

unread,
Jan 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/28/00
to
Alas, it's factually incorrect on several points. In particular, it
credits Stallman with originating the idea of open source software
"in 1984."

--Brett

Christopher Masto

unread,
Jan 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/28/00
to
On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 01:49:28PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:

> On Friday, 28 January 2000 at 13:10:15 -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> > Alas, it's factually incorrect on several points. In particular, it
> > credits Stallman with originating the idea of open source software
> > "in 1984."
>
> Well, no, that's not what it says. To quote:
>
> The decision by AT&T to commercialize Unix in 1984 prompted the
> first attempt to organize the concept of free software ("free" as in
> freedom, not free of charge) around a license and a development
> project (see Note 2).
>
> What part of that do you consider incorrect?

Just ignore him, he hates GNU so much, the mere mention of rms
destroys any chance he has of reacting objectively.
--
Christopher Masto Senior Network Monkey NetMonger Communications
ch...@netmonger.net in...@netmonger.net http://www.netmonger.net

Free yourself, free your machine, free the daemon -- http://www.freebsd.org/

Arun Sharma

unread,
Jan 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/28/00
to
Greg Lehey wrote:
> > Alas, it's factually incorrect on several points. In particular, it
> > credits Stallman with originating the idea of open source software
> > "in 1984."
>
> Well, no, that's not what it says. To quote:
>
> The decision by AT&T to commercialize Unix in 1984 prompted the
> first attempt to organize the concept of free software ("free" as in
> freedom, not free of charge) around a license and a development
> project (see Note 2).
>
> What part of that do you consider incorrect?

The interesting part is the definition of "free", which has been a point
of contention lately. I don't think RMS accepts 1984 Unix as free
software. I don't think it meets ESR's Open source definition either.

The "free as in speech and not free as in beer" campaign has been very
successful as a marketing campaign. Traditional UNIX and lately Solaris 8
make it even more interesting. They also are "free as in speech" provided
you pay fat sums of money.

My assessment is that this only highlights the logical flaw in the above
campaign. Free as in speech and free as in beer are one and the same,
because the motivation to curtail the freedom comes from the money.

-Arun

Greg Lehey

unread,
Jan 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/29/00
to
On Friday, 28 January 2000 at 13:10:15 -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 08:56 AM 1/28/2000 , Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
>> <URL:http://gartner12.gartnerweb.com/public/static/hotc/hc00085832.html>
>>
>> This is *just* the thing to drop in your boss' mailbox if you're
>> having trouble convincing him that Open Source is just as viable as
>> commercial software.
>
> Alas, it's factually incorrect on several points. In particular, it
> credits Stallman with originating the idea of open source software
> "in 1984."

Well, no, that's not what it says. To quote:

The decision by AT&T to commercialize Unix in 1984 prompted the
first attempt to organize the concept of free software ("free" as in
freedom, not free of charge) around a license and a development
project (see Note 2).

What part of that do you consider incorrect?

Greg
--
Finger gr...@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers

Jonathan M. Bresler

unread,
Jan 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/29/00
to
>
> The "free as in speech and not free as in beer" campaign has been very
> successful as a marketing campaign. Traditional UNIX and lately Solaris 8
> make it even more interesting. They also are "free as in speech" provided
> you pay fat sums of money.
>
> My assessment is that this only highlights the logical flaw in the above
> campaign. Free as in speech and free as in beer are one and the same,
> because the motivation to curtail the freedom comes from the money.
>

"free as in speech"....my obtaining a copy of your speech does
not lessen the number of copies that can be made. witness our own
cvsup system. once person can cvsup and provide the results to
another with decreasing the usefullness of their own csvup (yes, if
we all cvsup together it can create a denial of service attack, hence
the statement A cvsup's and provides to results to B...not A and B
both cvsup).

"free as in beer"....if i drink this here beer (its a Bass Pale
Ale by appointment to her Majesty the Queen), then you can not drink
the very same beer. you could buy another and drink that, but its not
the same bottle of beer.

that's my understanding of the difference.

jmb

Ask Bjoern Hansen

unread,
Jan 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/29/00
to
On 28 Jan 2000, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:

> <URL:http://gartner12.gartnerweb.com/public/static/hotc/hc00085832.html>
>
> This is *just* the thing to drop in your boss' mailbox if you're
> having trouble convincing him that Open Source is just as viable as
> commercial software.

"The Apache and PERL projects are maintained in large part by full-time
employees of O'Reilly and Associates."

eh...

but it is good to see that something like the GartnerGroup can be so
relatively clued.


oh well,

- ask

--
ask bjoern hansen - <http://www.netcetera.dk/~ask/>
more than 60M impressions per day, <http://valueclick.com>

Matthew Hunt

unread,
Jan 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/29/00
to
On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:40:00PM -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:

> "The Apache and PERL projects are maintained in large part by full-time
> employees of O'Reilly and Associates."
>
> eh...

I heard that they hired Larry Wall for that purpose. Dunno about
Apache.

--
Matthew Hunt <m...@astro.caltech.edu> * Science rules.
http://www.pobox.com/~mph/ *

Brett Glass

unread,
Jan 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/30/00
to
At 08:19 PM 1/28/2000 , Greg Lehey wrote:

> > Alas, it's factually incorrect on several points. In particular, it
> > credits Stallman with originating the idea of open source software
> > "in 1984."
>
>Well, no, that's not what it says. To quote:
>
> The decision by AT&T to commercialize Unix in 1984 prompted the
> first attempt to organize the concept of free software ("free" as in
> freedom, not free of charge) around a license and a development
> project (see Note 2).
>
>What part of that do you consider incorrect?

The date (Stallman started his campaign to destroy commercial software
developers before 1984) and also the motivation (it was the spinoff of
Symbolics from the MIT AI Lab that started him on his vendetta). Also,
AT&T sold commercial licenses for UNIX well before 1984; it started doing
so immediately after divestiture. So, just about everything in the paragraph
is incorrect.

--Brett

Brett Glass

unread,
Jan 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/30/00
to
At 08:48 PM 1/28/2000 , Christopher Masto wrote:

>Just ignore him, he hates GNU so much, the mere mention of rms
>destroys any chance he has of reacting objectively.

Incorrect. I do not "hate" the GNU project or RMS. However, I
do believe very strongly that both are unethical and destructive.
There is also irrefutable evidence that the GPL was not the product
of altruism, as some claim, but of spite on the part of a frustrated
academic who resented commercial spinoffs of work done at the
MIT AI Lab.

The world should understand the GPL, its origins, its motives,
and its intended and actual effects. The truth is that RMS is
more of a pathetic figure than a hero. And the true nature
of the GPL shows as well: it is an attempt to turn open source
into a weapon of spite.

--Brett Glass

Brett Glass

unread,
Jan 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/30/00
to
At 05:06 PM 1/29/2000 , Jonathan M. Bresler wrote:

> "free as in beer"....if i drink this here beer (its a Bass Pale
>Ale by appointment to her Majesty the Queen), then you can not drink
>the very same beer. you could buy another and drink that, but its not
>the same bottle of beer.

Sort of a paraphrase of the old Buddhist saying: You can never drink
the same beer twice. ;-)

Seriously: the multiple meanings of the word "free" in the GNU rhetoric
are intended to confuse. The word "free" is used as what rhetoricians
call a "pivot word;" a subtle switch between meanings of the word in
the middle of an argument leads to a fallacious conclusion.

"Free software" is, as Richard Stallman might say, a "confusing term
which it is best to avoid." ;-)

--Brett

Greg Lehey

unread,
Jan 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/31/00
to
On Sunday, 30 January 2000 at 21:56:31 -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 08:19 PM 1/28/2000 , Greg Lehey wrote:
>
>>> Alas, it's factually incorrect on several points. In particular, it
>>> credits Stallman with originating the idea of open source software
>>> "in 1984."
>>
>> Well, no, that's not what it says. To quote:
>>
>> The decision by AT&T to commercialize Unix in 1984 prompted the
>> first attempt to organize the concept of free software ("free" as in
>> freedom, not free of charge) around a license and a development
>> project (see Note 2).
>>
>> What part of that do you consider incorrect?
>
> The date (Stallman started his campaign to destroy commercial
> software developers before 1984) and also the motivation (it was the
> spinoff of Symbolics from the MIT AI Lab that started him on his
> vendetta). Also, AT&T sold commercial licenses for UNIX well before
> 1984; it started doing so immediately after divestiture. So, just
> about everything in the paragraph is incorrect.

It seems that you are saying "except for one date, everything in the
paragraph is correct".

Greg
--
Finger gr...@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers

G. Adam Stanislav

unread,
Jan 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/31/00
to
At 22:06 30-01-2000 -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
>Sort of a paraphrase of the old Buddhist saying: You can never drink
>the same beer twice. ;-)

I never realized Heraclitus was a Buddhist. :)

===> Whiz Kid Technomagic <===
http://www.whizkidtech.net/
The resource center for webmasters and web users
Winner of the Starting Point Hot Site award
Winner of the Lighthouse Award
Home of the Web Magic Award

Ask Bjoern Hansen

unread,
Jan 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/31/00
to
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Matthew Hunt wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 05:40:00PM -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
>
> > "The Apache and PERL projects are maintained in large part by full-time
> > employees of O'Reilly and Associates."
> >
> > eh...
>
> I heard that they hired Larry Wall for that purpose. Dunno about
> Apache.

No, they didn't.

Tim O'Reilly puts it better than I could:

From t...@oreilly.com Mon Jan 31 10:17:25 2000
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 15:35:09 -0800
From: Tim O'Reilly <t...@oreilly.com>
Reply-To: new-...@apache.org
To: new-...@apache.org, la...@wall.org, mer...@stonehenge.com,
br...@collab.net, al...@oreilly.com, da...@oreilly.com
Subject: Correction message sent to Gartner

Ken Coar brought to my attention the incorrect assertions in a recent
Gartner report. Just wanted to let you know that I have sent them the
following correction. Hopefully, they'll do something about it.

(Randal--you might want to forward this to clpm and p5p; Brian, I've
sent it to new-httpd@apache, since it was the discussion there that
brought it to my attention. If you want to forward it to other apache
lists, feel free.) (I suppose that we could put something up on our
site as well.)

Here's the message that I sent to Gartner:


In your report at
http://gartner12.gartnerweb.com/public/static/hotc/hc00085832.html, you
make
an erroneous statement regarding my company and its relationship to Perl
and Apache:

"Note 3 OSS and Commercial Support

The Apache and PERL projects are maintained in large part by full-time

employees of O'Reilly and Associates. Red Hat (as a consequence of its
Cygnus acquisition) is
the primary maintainer of the GNU C/C++ compiler that is essential to
most OSS projects. Finally, even established IT vendors such as IBM are
active participants in
the OSS community; IBM has ported Apache to the AS/400 platform."

While it is true that Larry Wall, the original author of Perl, is on the
O'Reilly
staff as a kind of "open source fellow", and continues to direct the
evolution
of Perl from that position, it is completely untrue that "PERL projects


are
maintained in large part by full-time employees of O'Reilly and
Associates."

Larry himself does little or no coding any more; the core language of
Perl is
developed via a mailing list called perl5-porters; it has over a hundred
members,
from individual consultants, to university staff, to employees of
proprietary
and open source companies. The coordinator for the upcoming release,
Gurusamy
Sarathy, works for Vancouver-based Perl company ActiveState, but even
Sarathy
is coordinating input from a large independent developer team, not doing
all the work
himself. And even beyond the core language, the robust growth of Perl
is happening
in new modules, which are submitted to CPAN (the Comprehensive Perl
Archive Network)
by many hundreds of independent developers.

Similarly, while O'Reilly briefly employed Apache co-founder Brian
Behlendorf
as a kind of "entrepreneur in residence" while he developed the
business plan for his new venture, Collab.net (in which O'Reilly remains
a major shareholder), the Apache Group itself has no relationship to
O'Reilly. Apache development is controlled by the Apache Software
Foundation,
which coordinates the activities of a group of dozens of core
developers, plus several related project teams (see jakarta.apache.org
and xml.apache.org).

Please correct the misinformation in your report.
--
Tim O'Reilly @ O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
101 Morris Street, Sebastopol, CA 95472
+1 707-829-0515, FAX +1 707-829-0104
t...@oreilly.com, http://www.oreilly.com


--
ask bjoern hansen - <http://www.netcetera.dk/~ask/>
more than 60M impressions per day, <http://valueclick.com>

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org

Brett Glass

unread,
Jan 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/31/00
to
At 10:19 PM 1/30/2000 , Greg Lehey wrote:

> >> What part of that do you consider incorrect?
> >
> > The date (Stallman started his campaign to destroy commercial
> > software developers before 1984) and also the motivation (it was the
> > spinoff of Symbolics from the MIT AI Lab that started him on his
> > vendetta). Also, AT&T sold commercial licenses for UNIX well before
> > 1984; it started doing so immediately after divestiture. So, just
> > about everything in the paragraph is incorrect.
>
>It seems that you are saying "except for one date, everything in the
>paragraph is correct".

In that case, your comprehension of what I wrote is not good. As I said,
the paragraph mis-states Stallman's motivation and says that events were
concurrent when they were not.

--Brett

Brett Glass

unread,
Jan 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/31/00
to
At 02:02 AM 1/31/2000 , G. Adam Stanislav wrote:

>I never realized Heraclitus was a Buddhist. :)

Was it Heraclitus who said that one? I thought it had been
attributed, variously, to Buddha and also Confucius.

In any event, who on the list is at LinuxWorld tonight?
Even if I can't drink the same beer twice, I wouldn't
mind having a couple, once each. ;-)

Brett Glass

unread,
Jan 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/31/00
to
At 05:57 PM 1/31/2000 , G. Adam Stanislav wrote:

> >From what I learned in High School (which was 35 years ago, so I may not be
>remembering it correctly), it was Heraclitus who said you cannot enter the
>same river twice because by the time you re-enter, water has flowed, hence
>the river has changed.

It's part of Buddhist lore, too. Have you read Hesse's "Siddhartha?" He
uses this at the climax of the book.

I suspect that the name of the TRUE originator is lost forever, and several
others have claimed the saying as their own over time.

David Scheidt

unread,
Feb 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/1/00
to
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Brett Glass wrote:

> At 05:57 PM 1/31/2000 , G. Adam Stanislav wrote:
>
> > >From what I learned in High School (which was 35 years ago, so I may not be
> >remembering it correctly), it was Heraclitus who said you cannot enter the
> >same river twice because by the time you re-enter, water has flowed, hence
> >the river has changed.
>
> It's part of Buddhist lore, too. Have you read Hesse's "Siddhartha?" He
> uses this at the climax of the book.

I'm not sure how far I would be willing to use Hesse as an example of
Buddhist thought. Anyways, Heraclitus predates Buddha. Heraclitus was born
in ca 535 BCE in Ephesos. historically Buddha was thought to have been
born in 560 (or 563?) BCE; however, current thought is that he is somewhat
younger than that, dating from the fourth century BCE.

David
--
Upon those that step into the same rivers different and different waters
flow....

Brett Glass

unread,
Feb 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/1/00
to
At 07:35 AM 2/1/2000 , David Scheidt wrote:

>I'm not sure how far I would be willing to use Hesse as an example of
>Buddhist thought.

Obviously, he's not an exemplary Buddhist, but he WAS trying to write a
biography of the Buddha nonetheless.

> Anyways, Heraclitus predates Buddha.

Indeed he does. What I was saying was that the REAL originator of
the saying was probably much older than either.

--Brett

Crist J. Clark

unread,
Feb 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/1/00
to
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 12:26:19PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 07:35 AM 2/1/2000 , David Scheidt wrote:
>
> >I'm not sure how far I would be willing to use Hesse as an example of
> >Buddhist thought.
>
> Obviously, he's not an exemplary Buddhist, but he WAS trying to write a
> biography of the Buddha nonetheless.
>
> > Anyways, Heraclitus predates Buddha.
>
> Indeed he does. What I was saying was that the REAL originator of
> the saying was probably much older than either.

Maybe Bob Dole?

That joke is only four years old.
--
Crist J. Clark cjc...@home.com

Pat Lynch

unread,
Feb 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/1/00
to
Brett, I might be around tomorrow, just send a page to pag...@bsdunix.net

unfirtunately my new job keeps me extra busy, but Friday night I'm
thinking of inviting everyone out to NJ for a small, but fun party.

I'll send you info privately

-Pat

__

Pat Lynch ly...@rush.net
ly...@bsdunix.net
ly...@unix.sh
ly...@blowfi.sh
Systems Administrator Rush Networking

On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Brett Glass wrote:

> At 02:02 AM 1/31/2000 , G. Adam Stanislav wrote:
>
> >I never realized Heraclitus was a Buddhist. :)
>
> Was it Heraclitus who said that one? I thought it had been
> attributed, variously, to Buddha and also Confucius.
>
> In any event, who on the list is at LinuxWorld tonight?
> Even if I can't drink the same beer twice, I wouldn't
> mind having a couple, once each. ;-)
>
> --Brett
>
>
>

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages