Open Source Was a LieOkay, now that I have your attention, let me explain what I mean. Part of the promise of the Open Source movement was that it would produce higher quality software. Looking back, it's clear to see that this isn't always true. It turns out, there are many examples on both sides. Sometimes the open source option is better, and sometimes the closed source option is better. For instance, Apache is far more secure and robust than IIS. Linux is far more reliable than Windows 95. On the other hand, Photoshop is way nicer than the GIMP, and my Java friends have told me that Intelli J IDEA is nicer than Eclipse. I've even heard that Solaris still beats Linux when it comes to NFS robustness.
Stallman Was Right All Along (It's about the freedom, baby! Yeah!)Stallman actually predicted the above. In the early days, he was pulling his hair out screaming, "It's not about the quality! It's about the freedom!" That's why I now put myself in the Free Software camp.
Unfortunately, at this point, I don't think a Stallman-esque utopia of Free Software is going to happen. Software is a business. There are many business models that work well with Free Software. However, there are many more business models that can work using a hybrid of open and closed source software. Therefore, it should be no surprise that this is what the industy has settled on.
Absolutes Don't LastAbsolutes always seem to mellow in the long term. Communism fell in the Soviet Union in 1991, but one could argue that capitalism fell in the United States back in 1929. The truth of the matter is that the US has never had pure capitalism. It has steadily become more a composite of capitalism and socialism since the time of Franklin Roosevelt.
Similarly, CISC vs. RISC used to be a hot debate. These days, it's an almost irrelevant distinction. What happened is that chips became RISC on the inside and CISC on the outside.
FOSS Stopped the MonopolyIn a sense, the biggest thing we have to thank Free and Open Source Software for is that it stopped the monopoly. To some degree Microsoft had already won the game. FOSS opened it up again.
At the risk of sounding melodramatic, I like to think of it as an epic war between two semi-autistic geniuses. Gates had conquered the major battle for shrink-wrap software. Stallman simply changed the rules of engagement for future encounters by creating the Free Software movement. Suddenly, small companies could hold their own without being crushed the minute Microsoft decided to enter a new market. After all, it's never a good idea to let your enemy be your supplier.
Of course, it remains to be seen how badly patents will hurt all those small companies. As far as I can tell, it's impossible to write any decently-sized software system without violating someone's patents. The bigger the competitor, the more likely they'll hold patents that your code violates.
FOSS Meant an End to the NightmareWhen I was in college, I didn't have access to the source code for my operating system (Windows 95) or a free compiler (I was using Borland's Turbo Pascal). When I learned C++, I was too poor to afford a C++ compiler. It was then that my professor gave me a Linux distro (Slackware, of course). It was a quasi-religious discovery for me. I was no longer limited by money, and I had access to the source code for everything. The only thing that limited me was my own mind. FOSS meant an end to the nightmare of living in a closed source world.
In a sense, I've never fully recovered from that. That is why I have such a hard time accepting software like OS X, TextMate, Perforce, Jira, etc. Don't get me wrong, I've heard that they're all great. However, to me, they represent a return to a nightmare that I thought I had left behind.
Innovating in a Hybrid WorldThese days, the companies that are doing the best are the ones that are innovating in a hybrid world. For instance, at the surface, LAMP stands for Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP. However, at a deeper level, LAMP represents a gold rush of companies using FOSS to build customer-facing, closed source Web sites in the hope of being overnight millionaires. In a few dozen cases, it's even worked.
AppleOne company that's doing really well in a hybrid world is Apple. OS X is a beautiful mix of open and closed source software. I think the FOSS movement played a large role in bringing them back from the dead. It provided a great base for them on which to innovate.
Frustratingly, much of what they did best (e.g. Cocoa and Aqua) remain closed source. In a hybrid world, that's a very reasonable business decision, but it's still frustrating for me. Of course, the little Stallman voice inside my head likes to remind me that this is nothing new. Cocoa is just another in a line of nice, but closed source GUI toolkits such as Motif and QT (although QT became GPL later).
I hate the way Apple treats its customers. However, what can you do? Fork the source code? In a hybrid world, you have access to a lot of their source code, but forking the whole thing is simply not an option. That's critical for Apple's success, of course. A hybrid world presents a mixed bag of pros and cons for all those involved.
Google (Linux for the win!)Google is another company that's doing extremely well in a hybrid world. Compared to Apple, they've been even more helpful to the FOSS world. It's not just the big things such as Google Code (which includes Summer of Code and project hosting); it's also the little things such as the fact that it lets my local Python interest group host its meetings on campus. They also let Guido van Rossum, the author of Python, spend 50% of his time working on Python with no strings attached.
Like Apple, Google has also strategically withheld the source code for much of its "special sauce." I can understand why they're search algorithms are closed source, but I really do wish they'd open up their implementations of MapReduce, GFS, and BigTable. (To be fair, they did write white papers on them, which was a great help for the rest of the world.)
IBM, Oracle, and SunTransitioning to a hybrid world was great for IBM. After they botched the DOS deal with Microsoft and got their lunch eaten with OS/2, they focused on hardware, mainframes, and consulting. When it turned out that it took specialists to make Linux pay off, they stepped up to the plate saying, "Hey, we can provide consultants for that too!"
Oracle jumped onto the bandwagon as well. They embraced Linux, but I'm not under the delusion that it was based on philanthropy. They used Linux as a way to stab their partner Sun Microsystems in the back and try for a bigger piece of the pie.
As for Sun Microsystems, a whole book could be written about their love hate relationship with FOSS. Does anyone remember downloading Linux from SunSITE? They finally opened up Java after years of fighting against it, but the battle rages on. If you go to download OpenSolaris, you'll quickly find out that the "OpenSolaris project does not provide an end-user product or complete distribution." They open sourced a bunch of code, but not enough to run a complete system. I guess living in a hybrid world is what they've always wanted.
My HeroesIn trying to make sense of this whole mess, I've paid close attention to my heroes.
Guido van Rossum, the author of Python, and Alex Martelli, the author of two Python books, both carry Apple laptops.
Bram Moolenaar, the author of Vim, also totes an Apple. I really look up to Bram since Vim is charityware. (I am sympathetic to Bram's sympathy for orphans.) When I asked Bram about his laptop, he said something like, "Open Source is a lot of fun, but everyone has to make money, and closed source software is an easy way to do it."
More than half of the FreeBSD commiters I know (which is somewhere between 7-10) use Apple laptops or desktops these days. Perhaps this should come as no surprise. OS X uses a lot of FreeBSD code. Jordan Hubbard, who co-founded the FreeBSD project, is now the "Director of Engineering of Unix Technologies" at Apple. The little Stallman voice inside my head likes to remind me that the license used by the FreeBSD project is sympathetic to closed source derivatives.
Even Linus Torvalds, the author of Linux, wasn't against using a closed source revision control system, although he later decided to write his own.
Then there's my mentor Mike Cheponis. Mike is an old-school hacker from MIT. He also worked on Unix back when Unix was an actual OS and not just a "style" of OS. Having worked at Apple, he doesn't share my distaste for it. On the other hand, he agrees with me that behind closed doors Apple is just another Microsoft-wannabe. He carries an Apple laptop that also has Windows and NetBSD on it.
Last (but in no way least), there's Stallman. He still has not given up the dream. He started the Free Software movement as a result of the crushing loneliness he faced when all of his friends left to form Symbolics and excluded him. I met Stallman for the first time a couple months ago. I actually gave him a hug. Love him or hate him, it's impossible to disagree with the fact that he's made the software world a better place. Sometimes we need extremists to push us in the right direction. On a personal note, my only regret writing this is that he would be disappointed in me for conceding to a hybrid world. The little Stallman voice in my head likes to chide me saying, "But we've come so far! How can you give up now?"
Picking the FutureOkay, so we're not going to have a world of absolutes. What do we do about it?
Should we abandon the GPL for more commercial-friendly licenses such as the one used by the FreeBSD project? I don't think so. If a company wants to make use of and contribute to FOSS, that's great. However, if I want to write a library in my spare time, and I don't want anyone else producing closed source derivatives of my work, so be it. Linux and FreeBSD use very different licenses, yet they are both a benefit to the world. Anyone who works at a company and complains that they can't make derivative, closed source works of GPLed software should remember that they can't make any derivative works of proprietary software. A hybrid world is still better than a closed source world.
We'll need to choose what we insist on being Open Source and what we'll concede to using closed source. I strongly believe that any programming language that isn't Open Source isn't worth using. Similarly, it's quite unfortunate to write Open Source software that relies on closed source libraries. Let's also give three cheers for Firefox. Closed source software is one thing, but an entire Web that's only viewable using a closed source browser would be a tragedy indeed (which is the primary reason I don't like Flash).
On the other hand, I don't think it's the end of the world that TurboTax is closed source. Writing tax software has got to suck, and I have no wish whatsoever to ever work on it.
What about TextMate, which I mentioned earlier? From what I've heard, Allan Odgaard has done an excellent job in producing a beautiful, friendly, and powerful editor. I don't fault him in the least for wanting to make a living building such an editor. Nor do I fault anyone else for using it. However, for me personally, using a closed source editor 8-10 hours a day sounds like a nightmare. In general, programmers love writing editors; I know that I've contributed several patches to Vim. There's no reason for me to ever settle on a closed source editor when it's such a core part of my life as a coder. I'd sooner write my own from scratch.
ConclusionWhat we have now and what we will continue to have is a hybrid world of open and closed source software. To those who think that there's no place for Open Source software in the commercial world: Good luck trying to take on Apple and Google! To those who think the Free Software movement will continue and conquer the world: I sympathize. Don't flame me for believing as I do. Go write more Free Software! After all:
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw