Open Source Initiative

Last month I was honored to be a keynote speaker at the Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T) annual meeting. Open Source has become a major topic on campuses, not just the enterprise, and I was delighted to meet with some of the leaders in setting the agenda for software engineering education.

When I was a student in the School of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Pennsylvania, I did not give to much thought about how the faculty chose to teach Sorting and Searching and not DOS for Idiots or why the core curriculum was constructed in one way and not another. At the time it all seemed like useful and exciting stuff to me, and I learned it all (as best I could).

For the past several years I've printed various documents at home by sending them to my wife Amy with a request "Please print...". And after several years we both know that Adobe Acrobat version 5 for Mac works far, far better than any subsequent release from Apple or Adobe, at least for the pdf documents I create on Linux. But how crazy is it that I don't have my own printer?

Last weekend I found myself at Staples and I decided to make a $300 bet with myself that I could get good value from an Epson Stylus Photo 1400 printer (with a maximum format size of 13"x19" borderless prints).

The subtitle of this Computer World report quotes Nicholas Negroponte as saying that insitence on Open Source scares people away.

Boggle.

In 1997, Eric Raymond first presented The Cathedral and the Bazaar at Linux Kongress. I was not there, but I read the paper, and it struck me as no less revolutionary in thought or effect than must have been Thomas Paine's publication of Common Sense or Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

In my day job at Red Hat I see daily examples of open source best practices, be it at the architecture, infrastructure, or application level.

An Information Week article published last week appears to position Microsoft as trying to do something right when it comes to open source. And it positions the open source community as being not quite ready to make nice after past insults, threats, and abuse.

This is the text of a comment I made on a blog posting by Matt Asay:

Matt,

Thanks for saying what I would have said. I'll go a few steps futher:

Simon, I'm beginning to think that you were right and I was wrong. You said a standard's process is a crucial aspect of the standard's product, and a process that is not open cannot be trusted to produce a product that can be considered open. I maintained that I had seen and used many wonderful standards that took absolutely zero input from me, and therefore I didn't see my participation as a necessary prerequisite for assuring quality in the future. I believed that no matter what the process, a standard should be judged by the product.

The OSI adopted a mandate of working on Open Standards two years ago. We put forward a statement on requirements for an Open Standard which boiled down to a simple proposition: if the standard could not be implemented fully and faithfully in Open Source, the standard should never be declared nor considered open.

On November 2nd, 2006, Microsoft and Novell announced a business agreement that, without adding any prejudice of my own, was characterized as worse than useless by Bradly Kuhn, CTO of the Software Freedom Law Center.