The Open Road

Open source is used to playing underdog to incumbent proprietary vendors. What will happen when open source dominates, rather than commoditizes, markets?

I ask because several open-source projects are not far from owning dominant market share in their respective markets. Mozilla's Asa Dotzler reports that Firefox is "on track to easily reach 25 percent of global usage by the end of the year." That may not sound like much, but given that Microsoft has been losing five percentage points of browser market share each year while Firefox gains five percentage points, and it's not hard to imagine Firefox surpassing IE's market share by early 2013.

Firefox isn't alone. Indeed, the Apache Web Server already dominates the Web server market, even despite new entrants to the market, as Glyn Moody highlights.

Linux, for its part, is still only 13.8 percent of the paid server market, while Windows Server still claims 38.1 percent market share, according to IDC. It has a long way to go, but in some markets like cloud computing and the growing Web 2.0 market, it plays a more authoritative role.

So, what happens when these and other open-source projects dominate their respective markets? Will it change how we market open source? Will it mean more research and development dollars must be invested?

Traditionally, open source has done a fantastic job of commoditizing expensive, well-understood markets. While I believe open source can innovate, particularly with companies behind open-source projects, it's still an open question as to whether the financial returns from open-source sales can pay for the heavy R&D and marketing costs that are generally required to create new products and new markets.

Open source has been better at business-model innovation than product innovation, though there are some notable exceptions.

Forget innovation for a minute, however: what will we do when Microsoft, Oracle, etc. are the runners-up, not the market leaders? Microsoft is a convenient (if inaccurate) proxy for all things that are bad in the software world for open sourcerors, but imagine the shift in thinking required to compete when, for example, Firefox has 80 percent market share and IE owns less than 20 percent. Who will we blame for our problems when our straw men are gone?

Perhaps none of this matters, however, as we could see dominant community-led open-source projects fork themselves long before they reach critical, market-dominating mass. It's not hard to imagine splinter groups forming within big open-source projects to take them in different directions, even as Joomla did with Mambo, Ubuntu did with Debian, etc.

The antidote to this is the open-source foundation. Among the examples of strong open-source projects that haven't forked--Eclipse, Apache Web Server, Mozilla Firefox--foundations have been critical to keeping these together. Linux, for its part, has been forked many times, but its core is held together by the Linux Foundation.

I believe the key to attaining dominant market share, and to preventing forks, is the open-source foundation. Over time, I suspect we'll see more "open-source companies" separate themselves into foundations, to manage the code, and corporations, to manage the monetization. This may be the only way to both liberate and dominate at the same time.

Linux may not represent the future of all computing, but it sure provides a compelling example of what a dedicated community can accomplish.

With over 1,000 developers actively working on the Linux kernel, representing some 200 different corporations, Linux is an exceptional example of the power of open-source communities, and also speaks to the value of groups like the Linux Foundation that help to shepherd it.

Jonathan Corbet, in conjunction with the Linux Foundation, has co-authored a report focused on who writes Linux code (PDF). I reported last month on a piece of the report's data.

As a reminder, Red Hat remains the top contributor to the Linux kernel, writing 12.3 percent of the kernel, though Intel (6.9 percent) is making a concerted effort to catch up.

Beyond these headline numbers, however, the Linux Foundation's report offers some intriguing data:

• Since 2008, the number of individual developers has increased by 10 percent, "reflecting the ubiquity of Linux across industries," according to the report.
• More than 70 percent of total contributions to the kernel come from "sponsored developers" (i.e., those paid to do Linux development by Red Hat, IBM, Novell, Intel, Oracle, and others).
• 2.7 million lines of net-new lines of code have been added since April 2008, with an average of 10,923 lines of code added each day (nearly triple the rate in 2008). According to the Linux Foundation, this represents a "rate of change larger than any other public software project of any size."
• Equally important as adding to the kernel's size, however, is the fact that an average of 5,547 lines are removed every day, keeping the code lean and relevant.

Clearly, the Linux kernel process is doing something right, given the amount of developers it is able to accommodate, without losing its quality advantages (or its customers). Importantly, expertise in Linux translates into a fatter paycheck, too: up to 50 percent bigger.

Small wonder, then, that Microsoft continues to fret about competition from Linux: competing with Linux effectively represents competing with the entire software and hardware industries...all at once.

Not even Redmond in its prime would want that fight.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

As the founder and program chair for the Open Source Business Conference, I know what a business conference looks like. And as a regular attendee of the excellent O'Reilly Open Source Convention (OSCON), I know what a great developer event looks like, too.

But this year's inaugural LinuxCon, put on by the business and developer-friendly Linux Foundation, is trying to bring the two worlds together this September in Portland.

I think it might succeed.

Linux and all open-source software has matured to a place where end-user involvement in the development process is no longer a nice-to-have, but a requirement, as I suggested earlier today. This collaboration is a critical piece of the development process for any open-source project or company, and it's something the Linux Foundation continues to demonstrate itself well-qualified to generate.

LinuxCon comes at an interesting time in the industry, one of economic uncertainty that Linux and open source are well-suited to overcome. Linux and open-source expertise translate across companies. Knowledge isn't necessarily specialized on one product; it is focused on technologies and a transparent development process where everyone learns by contributing. It's a really smart place to focus a career.

It's also a great place to grow one's understanding. Developers can learn the business issues driving Linux and open-source adoption, while business-minded folks can participate in developer sessions that should provide insight into optimal ways to profit from open source. It's the first time that the Linux Foundation will bring all of the Linux stakeholders into one place to work on the technology and business aspects of advancing the operating system. And, it's open to everyone. No invitation required.

So consider yourself invited.

The LinuxCon program is now public and includes some exceptional speakers, perhaps the biggest name being Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux kernel. LinuxCon also includes Mark Shuttleworth (Canonical), Bob Sutor (IBM), James Bottomley (Novell), and others. I'm privileged to join the LinuxCon faculty, hosting a panel called "Beyond the Hype: The True Cost of Linux and Open Source."

I've become a huge fan of the Linux Foundation. I think it's doing great development work with Linux (including Moblin), but it's also doing a great job of growing and coalescing the Linux community. LinuxCon is a great example of this. I'm looking forward to it.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

For years, Linux enthusiasts have tried to win an unwinnable war: displacing Microsoft's hegemony in personal computers with Windows clones. Though Lindows was perhaps the first to make a serious attempt at replicating the Windows experience, all the Linux "desktop" vendors have tried it, and all with the same result:

Failure.

This isn't because Linux isn't any good as a personal computer operating system. It's because such copycat tactics have doomed Linux to always being a cheap facsimile of Microsoft's idea of what the personal computer should look like and do.

With Moblin version 2.0, the Linux-based operating system Novell and Intel designed specifically for the Netbook market, the Linux "desktop" crowd seems to finally have the right idea: change the game, not simply the price tag.

I spent Thursday working on the Moblin-based Asus Aspire One (AOD150-1165) Netbook. I am still getting used to the somewhat cramped keyboard (with a hyperactive trackpad that is hard to avoid given the lack of space), but Moblin, itself, is pretty impressive, even though it's still very much in beta.

Having used various Linux "desktops" over the years (Canonical Ubuntu- and Novell SUSE-based, primarily), the thing that most impressed me about the Moblin experience is that it's nothing like traditional Linux "desktop" experiences. In fact, it's not really much like Windows, either.

The closest it comes to being a clone of anything is in paying tribute to some of the best Mac OS X features (like Expose), which perhaps isn't surprising given that Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth has suggested Linux must outdo the Mac to win.

One of my favorite things is the concept of the M-Zone ("Me-Zone"):

You can think of it as "home base," as it offers a central place to capture your recent activities (e.g., documents you've been working on, music you were listening to, etc.). Someone that had been using the machine before me had The Pixies geared up on Last.fm, which I simply clicked on and, Voila! "Monkey Gone to Heaven" started to play. Score one for Intel for knowing my musical tastes.

If that sounds business-y and grown up, I suppose it is, but Moblin is about much more than how to get one's corporate job done. Like the Mac, Moblin takes notice that life is more than corporate drudgery, and the UI reflects this. One part that I really liked was the "People" option on the Toolbar panel:

This is a great view into instant messaging conversations and a reflection of Moblin's nod to the real life "work" that we do, and how we do it. Again, very similar to the Mac in its emphasis on "the other work" we do.

Over the next week or two, I expect to spend more time with Moblin, and to give neighbors, co-workers, and family time on the machine to see how they fare. Stay tuned.

Some are projecting that Linux will regain 50 percent of the Netbook market. Perhaps. But if so, it won't come as a result of the clone wars Linux developers have been promoting for years. It will come from the game-changing tactics that Moblin, now under the guidance of the Linux Foundation, and others bring to the personal computer party.

At present there are arguably too many mobile open-source platforms. Based on what I've seen with Moblin, however, it may well be the Linux distribution to beat in the mobile market, at least for Netbooks.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

The more that Microsoft's patent lawsuit against (and subsequent settlement with) TomTom simmers in my consciousness, the more I want to boil.

I gave Microsoft the benefit of the doubt early on: I know a few of the Microsoft personnel involved in the case, and I think that they're wonderful people of integrity and intelligence.

They're also fiercely competitive, and it's becoming apparent to me that the TomTom lawsuit was designed to bludgeon one of Microsoft's biggest competitors, Linux; it was not any serious attempt to protect its intellectual property.

The Linux Foundation's Jim Zemlin captures my sentiments well:

In the last several days, Microsoft has shown that despite claims of acquiring a newly found respect for open principles and technology, developers should be cautious in believing promises made by this "new" Microsoft.

When it counts, it appears that Microsoft still actively seeks to undermine those technologies or standards that are truly open, especially when those technologies pose a significant threat to (its) business.

Microsoft can rightly complain that it's a prisoner of the same patent system that it wields as a cudgel. But I don't believe in using the legal system to give someone--anyone--the edge in a product-driven marketplace. If Microsoft has to compete with lawyers against Linux instead of with product line managers, it should simply pay out a massive dividend and close up shop.

Microsoft is a better company than this. Unfortunately, its recurring rash of legal cunning against open source is getting stale. I want to believe that Microsoft can change. As Zemlin suggests, however, perhaps this leopard really can't change its spots.

Microsoft is asking the world to judge it by its actions. That's what we're doing, and Microsoft loses that case.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

The Linux Foundation's "We're Linux" ad campaign has entered its final hours, with submissions due at midnight Sunday Pacific time.

The Linux Foundation has received more than 40 user-generated video submissions that I and the other judges will begin reviewing next week. The winner will be announced April 8.

To learn a bit more about the Linux Foundation's motivations in starting the contest, I spoke with Amanda McPherson, vice president of marketing and developer programs at the Linux Foundation and a founding member of its management team.

Q: The Linux Foundation has built a reputation for connecting closely with developers and the rest of the community, for growing and helping to coordinate the Linux ecosystem. But why run a video contest?

McPherson: The Apple and Windows advertising campaigns have gotten a lot of attention. In fact, during football season I couldn't get away from either of those campaigns. I was expanding our online community tools and realized that we should let the community express their passion for Linux through video.

Of course, we don't have the budget to produce TV-quality advertisements, and in fact we wouldn't take that top-down approach even if we could, but through the contest the community has the power to showcase Linux in their own voice. And it's so natural. Linux is user-generated technology. Why shouldn't Linux also be promoted by the community?

What has the response been so far?

McPherson: I was not prepared for how interesting, varied, and thoughtful a response we'd get. The contest has produced more fascinating content than I ever expected. That being said, these are clearly user-generated, meaning you won't find a lot of professional, polished videos so far. And, yes, some are certainly better than others, but that is part of the fun.

... Read more

As the global economy continues its slide, U.S. politicians have staked out their positions at the stimulus trough, stopping only long enough to blame the other party for the world's problems. Now, more than ever, we need to focus on sound policy, not savvy politics. President Obama ran on the promise of bipartisanship but has come up against the stiff reality of a deep Republican-Democrat divide.

Given such serious divisions, how can we focus our government on policies, not politics? Mozilla, the creator of the Firefox browser, offers some clues.

Yes, that's right. Mozilla. For those who wonder how software could have anything to do with politics, well, you haven't been around open-source software long enough. There's a good reason the tagline for this blog is, "The business and politics of open source." For something as simple as a collection of ones and zeroes, open-source software drags its diverse adherents through a myriad of ideological minefields on a daily basis.

Just think of the bile spewed over the Windows-Linux war, or the antagonism between free-software revolutionaries and open-source advocates, and you get a taste for how deeply political open source can be.

And yet the Mozilla Foundation largely evades divisive jingoism. It just helps create an exceptional browser without mucking through the mire of ideological debates in the process.

The same holds true for the Eclipse and Linux foundations, in their spheres. Each of these foundations provides an opportunity for corporate and community interests to tackle difficult development projects with minimal rancor and little politicking, at least as exposed to the general public's view.

I've noted before that I think open-source foundations provide a clue as to one bright future for open source, but I'm also starting to wonder if they could provide a clue as to how to enable President Obama in the U.S., and other government executives across the globe, to encourage collaboration toward resolution of difficult, seemingly intractable policy problems.

Much of the problem with politics is that the information that feeds into political debates is suspect because it is so biased. As in computer science, garbage in, garbage out. Information is the "source code" of political debate, yet its nutritional content is sorely lacking here in the States.

Here's how Mozilla and open-source foundations provide a clue as to how to improve things. I liken Mozilla to a Rand of sorts: an organization dedicated to discussing and resolving difficult problems with little concern for who is right.

It may sound utopian, but I wonder if, in similar manner, President Obama couldn't require some form of Rand-esque analysis in congressional disputes to serve as a primary information source, rather than leaving it to competing special interests to funnel biased information into the Congresspersons of their choice?

Or, more broadly still, maybe what the federal government needs is more open caucuses, in which the big, thorny issues are discussed and debated. Perhaps it would help if the people stumping for votes aren't the ones in the debate: perhaps they would simply be consumers of the information, rather creators of it.

This, after all, is how the Linux Foundation and the Eclipse Foundation function. Big, partisan corporate interests fund these foundations, and then largely get out of the way, while developers, sometimes subsidized by this corporate funding, write the code. Congress could do the same.

What we do matters much more than who gets credit. If Congress will fund "open-source foundations" to create information which, in turn, will fuel its votes, perhaps we'd be one step closer to intelligent policies, rather than inane politics.

Too idealistic?

Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.

I came across news this afternoon about the LiMo Foundation endorsing the Open Mobile Terminal Platform specification, and I realized that I didn't care. It's probably big news, but I couldn't get excited.

I feel the same way about most things that come out of the Apache Software Foundation (ASF), but probably because the ASF isn't one for making big announcements (except when it collects cash from Microsoft). Even so, I know the ASF is a hugely important organization. Its only "problem" is that it lacks an active public relations team. But I doubt it sees this as a problem.

The Symbian Foundation, too, shows promise, but it has also been somewhat quiet.

Now contrast these organizations with the Linux Foundation, Eclipse, and Mozilla. All three provide effective, though different, examples of what an open-source foundation should be doing. They're active. They're noisy. They're influential and even critical to the development of key open-source projects.

What do they have in common? Well, each has strong leaders, both technical and business management. Each has a limited but important mission. (Here's the Mozilla Foundation's mission.) Each has the trust and funding of key constituents that contribute both code and cash. And each publicly advocates their projects.

I've suggested before that Eclipse offers a vision of open-source development to come. If anything, this belief grows daily, but it's not just about Eclipse. Foundations offer a way to make open-source development more corporate (organized in such a way that commercial vendors can participate with fewer reservations) without becoming commercial, a turn-off for many would-be code contributors.

Understanding how successful open-source foundations function, and why they succeed while lesser peers fail, is therefore critical to understanding the future of open-source development. Mozilla, Eclipse, and the Linux Foundation offer glimpses of good things to come. As for the other open-source foundations...I think they still have work to do.

The Linux Foundation is running a "We're Linux" video contest, asking participants to create videos that "demonstrate what Linux means to those who use it and inspire others to try it."

The contest started on January 26, and submissions will be accepted until midnight on March 15. The grand prize? A trip to Tokyo, Japan, to join the Linux Foundation's Japanese Linux Symposium.

I'm a judge for the contest, and I'm really excited. Linux has arguably been the flagship and beacon for open source in the enterprise, paving the way for open-source entrepreneurs like myself to make a living by giving software away.

Yet it's the passion underlying Linux and the open-source movement that makes my job so much fun, and it fuels my desire to wake up every morning at or before 6 a,.m. to write posts for this blog. I expect that the passion will permeate the contest's submissions, making it perhaps the most enjoyable contest I've ever judged.

If you love Linux and would like to see more people feel your enthusiasm for it, please consider creating and submitting your video to the "We're Linux" Linux Foundation contest.