Tech media doesn't get open source

July 19, 2007 By 38 Comments

The problem with the tech media (conventional media and tech blogosphere) is that they are way too deep into proprietary software and hit based economic models. This has resulted in way too many misinterpretations about open source. We saw how Nicholas Carr had completely misunderstood the functioning of open source. We also saw how Dan Farber and others used the term open source to purely imply a business model whereas open source is a platform on which various business models plays out. When the open source movement was formed, it was done with an idea to create an environment where various business models can be implemented on top of a platform developed by the free software movement. The proponents of open source, at least most of them, didn’t roll out open source as a yet another business model. Rather, they created an environment, with a pool of more accommodative licenses, so that the business community (and consumers) could benefit from the advantages of the freedom behind the free software. The underlying principle between both the free software movement and open source movement is the freedom to do anything you want with the software, the freedom to choose any version of the software, the freedom to choose any flavor of the software, etc. Open source movement has taken this freedom to business community and their customers with their accommodative approach. Unfortunately, the tech media doesn’t seem to get this point at all. This misunderstanding (or, rather, non understanding) is the reason why we have Nicholas Carr, Dan Farber and, even to some extent, Tim O’ Reilly making predictions about the demise of open source. If they understand that open source is just a platform on which various business models compete with each other, they will be able to avoid making such predictions about the death of open source and concentrate on finding out business models that can better utilize the freedom offered by open source, thereby offering consumers with better user experience.

I am writing this post today because I saw another article based on the misunderstanding of the term open source. Alexander Wolfe, of the Information Week, makes a claim that too many Linux distributions are responsible for the open source mess. Lemme state here at the outset. There is no mess in the open source world. It resides only in the imagination of the media which couldn’t grasp the open source approach at all. The basic foundation of open source (and free software) is the freedom the user gets to do with the software, when he/she acquires it (either for free or for a price). This basic freedom results in people developing different Linux distributions. They do that because they didn’t like something in a distribution and they want to have a Linux based OS suited to their own liking or needs. Fortunately, in open source, they have a choice to have the Linux OS in their own way. Also, their intentions are totally different from the intentions of certain proprietary companies that misuse the freedom given by open source to trash their competitor. For people, who understand the Longtail concept, it is easy to see that different forks cater to different niches of the Longtail. The proprietary hit based business world and media, might find this approach difficult to grapple but the mess, which Alexander Wolfe is talking about, is actually an unique advantage of the open source movement. They can cater to all segments of the society with all sorts of unique needs. Mr. Wolfe quotes Ubuntu as a success story. I hope he had realized that Ubuntu had this opportunity to become one of the top desktop players only because of the freedom offered by open source licenses, to fork and make into a new distribution. I really don’t understand how he missed this trivial point about Ubuntu.

I want to quote an interesting thing here, related to this topic. One year back, I wrote a post titled “Open Source: How capitalists and communists got it wrong“. Well, few days back, Timothy Lee of Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank, is repeating my point with his post why Libertarians should celebrate free software. Even the Cato Institute has understood the open source. I don’t know when the tech media is going to fully understand open source.

I just want to tell the tech media that

  • Open Source is not a business model. It is a platform on which different business models can play out. It is a great leveler of the business playing field.
  • Open Source is fully democratic. Please take time to understand how consensus is built in the open source communities, especially in the kernel group.
  • It is not the end of road for open source. Rather, it is going to stay stronger even in the network based world of future.
  • Open Source is not a mess. Rather, it offers unlimited opportunities catering to all sorts of niche users.

Instead of trying to write off open source, if the tech media understands it fully, they can do wonders with it in the world of software and internet, much like how science has done wonders with its open approach.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Filed Under: Open Source Tagged With: , ,

  • Pingback: Krishnan on Open Source at James Cooney

  • bob

    I’m not entirely sure that these misinterpretations of free and open source software that appear in the mainstream tech media are accidental. It simply happens much too often to be labelled sloppy journalism or incompetence.

    Many of these mainstream media outlets are dependent on advertising from proprietary software vendors for their revenue. These mainstream tech journalists often get freebee samples of proprietary software to play around with and review and/or get other types of “access” to proprietary software companies to make doing their jobs easier.

    Whatever the mainstream tech media say, free and open source software is not going to disappear. It’s an idea about how to do things in the digital world and ideas don’t die.

    Businesses that “get it” and do their homework will prosper in the coming years. Businesses that listen to these folks and cling to the outmoded proprietary software model will ultimately go the way of the dinosaur.

  • bob

    I’m not entirely sure that these misinterpretations of free and open source software that appear in the mainstream tech media are accidental. It simply happens much too often to be labelled sloppy journalism or incompetence. Many of these mainstream media outlets are dependent on advertising from proprietary software vendors for their revenue. These mainstream tech journalists often get freebee samples of proprietary software to play around with and review and/or get other types of “access” to proprietary software companies to make doing their jobs easier. Whatever the mainstream tech media say, free and open source software is not going to disappear. It’s an idea about how to do things in the digital world and ideas don’t die. Businesses that “get it” and do their homework will prosper in the coming years. Businesses that listen to these folks and cling to the outmoded proprietary software model will ultimately go the way of the dinosaur.

  • Sum Yung Gai

    The “tech media” members “get” open source *perfectly*. In fact, that is why so many of them malign open source like they do. Remember where these publications (e. g. PC Magazine, PC World) get a huge chunk of their advertising revenue–Microsoft. More than once, top bosses of these publishing houses have dismissed their journalists for actually telling the truth about problems with Microsoft Windows. Nicholas Petreley, now at Linux Journal, discussed this extensively in an article on that publication’s Web site a few months ago.

  • Sum Yung Gai

    The “tech media” members “get” open source perfectly. *THAT* is why so many of them malign it so. Remember where they get a huge chunk of their advertising revenue–Microsoft. More than once, top bosses of these publishing houses have dismissed their journalists for actually telling the truth about problems with Microsoft Windows. Nicholas Petreley, now at Linux Journal, discussed this extensively in an article on that publication’s Web site a few months ago.

  • Niels Larsen

    Krishnan writes “open source” and “free software” interchangeably, but open source
    is not free software, but as many readers know, they are very different,

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html.

    FSF’s definition of the term free software,

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

    Krishnan writes “ecosystem”, which also is not descriptive,

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Ecosystem

    The difference between open source and free software,

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html.

    So Krishnan creates as much confusion as the others.

  • Niels Larsen

    Krishnan writes “open source” and “free software” interchangeably, but open source is not free software, but as many readers know, they are very different, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f… FSF’s definition of the term free software, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Krishnan writes “ecosystem”, which also is not descriptive, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html… The difference between open source and free software, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f… So Krishnan creates as much confusion as the others.

  • Niels Larsen

    Krishnan writes “open source” and “free software” interchangeably, but open source is not free software, but as many readers know, they are very different, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f… FSF’s definition of the term free software, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Krishnan writes “ecosystem”, which also is not descriptive, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html… The difference between open source and free software, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f… So Krishnan creates as much confusion as the others.

  • Niels Larsen

    Krishnan writes “open source” and “free software” interchangeably, but open source is not free software, but as many readers know, they are very different, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f… FSF’s definition of the term free software, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Krishnan writes “ecosystem”, which also is not descriptive, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html… The difference between open source and free software, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f… So Krishnan creates as much confusion as the others.

  • Pete

    i totally agree with your view on this…. you have to remember that in business everything has a face, a name.. something you can point at… tech media is a business… if you look at MS.. they are having a problem with the concept of FOSS… i think that is why they need to put a face on it like Novell… Red Hat… Xandros… tech media is so ingrained in their business model that they have the same problem MS is having.. and not just MS… most business have problems understanding FOSS… they do not understand giving the power to the poeple… they only understand control… and it is this giving up of the control that most businesses have a problem with… hense… when tech media can’t see where the control is at.. they call it “a mess” because they do not understand the dynamics of FOSS…

    i have a saying…. “open source is well orchistrated chaos..”

  • Pete

    i totally agree with your view on this…. you have to remember that in business everything has a face, a name.. something you can point at… tech media is a business… if you look at MS.. they are having a problem with the concept of FOSS… i think that is why they need to put a face on it like Novell… Red Hat… Xandros… tech media is so ingrained in their business model that they have the same problem MS is having.. and not just MS… most business have problems understanding FOSS… they do not understand giving the power to the poeple… they only understand control… and it is this giving up of the control that most businesses have a problem with… hense… when tech media can’t see where the control is at.. they call it “a mess” because they do not understand the dynamics of FOSS… i have a saying…. “open source is well orchistrated chaos..”

  • http://www.krishworld.com krishnan

    Niels,

    Your argument doesn’t make sense. I have made a clear distinction between open source and free software. I suggest you read the article more carefully.

  • krishnan

    Niels, Your argument doesn’t make sense. I have made a clear distinction between open source and free software. I suggest you read the article more carefully.

  • http://bespoke.homelinux.net/ Tel

    I don’t know when the tech media is going to fully understand open source.

    You give the media too much benefit of the doubt. It is clear that all media take a bias and deliberately push a particular point of view, including the tech media. The reasons for this include:

    Attempting to match the opinion bias of their audience (selling magazines is more important than truthful reporting, people buy magazines to confirm their own prejudice rather than to learn something new).
    Good old bribery (call it kickbacks, ownership, share options… call it what you like, the principle never changes).
    Pressure to conform (even independent reporters think about the future when they might not be so independent and they want to pick up that plumb job, so they need to make it clear whose “team” they are on).

    The consequence is that media and propaganda are tightly entwined… the problem is not a lack of understanding but a lack of interest.

  • Tel

    I don’t know when the tech media is going to fully understand open source.

    You give the media too much benefit of the doubt. It is clear that all media take a bias and deliberately push a particular point of view, including the tech media. The reasons for this include: Attempting to match the opinion bias of their audience (selling magazines is more important than truthful reporting, people buy magazines to confirm their own prejudice rather than to learn something new). Good old bribery (call it kickbacks, ownership, share options… call it what you like, the principle never changes). Pressure to conform (even independent reporters think about the future when they might not be so independent and they want to pick up that plumb job, so they need to make it clear whose “team” they are on). The consequence is that media and propaganda are tightly entwined… the problem is not a lack of understanding but a lack of interest.

  • Matthew Flaschen

    I disagree that open source is democratic. It is in fact meritocratic within developer groups. It is democratic in the sense that any person is free to make a fork, regardless of its technical strengths, for any purpose whatsoever.

  • http://www.krishworld.com Krish

    Don’t you agree that this freedom is what defines the democracy in the open source? If people add all and sundry code in the name of democracy, we will end up with junk. Thatz why there is a community enforced meritocracy there. For those who want to include junki code and use, the freedom of open source licenses allows them to do so. So there is absolutely no argument to say that it is not democratic.

  • Krish

    Don’t you agree that this freedom is what defines the democracy in the open source? If people add all and sundry code in the name of democracy, we will end up with junk. Thatz why there is a community enforced meritocracy there. For those who want to include junki code and use, the freedom of open source licenses allows them to do so. So there is absolutely no argument to say that it is not democratic.

  • http://windowsrefund.info Adam Kosmin

    The reason “Open Source” can not be understood is due to the fact that it is entirely pragmatic. The open source camp only speaks about subjective issues like “better, more secure, and more featureful” and never talks about ethics or freedom. That’s why it is important to abandon that language and instead, talk about The Free Software Movement.

  • Adam Kosmin

    The reason “Open Source” can not be understood is due to the fact that it is entirely pragmatic. The open source camp only speaks about subjective issues like “better, more secure, and more featureful” and never talks about ethics or freedom. That’s why it is important to abandon that language and instead, talk about The Free Software Movement.

  • http://www.palamida.com Melisa Bleasdale

    Extremely interesting post and following commentary. I understand that I am in essence an “intruder” into this blog stream as I am both a tech journalist -security and computer forensics – and a vendor PR executive for an open source sw risk management company, but that said, I think all the points made are interesting and well-thought.

    I can see how it’d be easy to throw all the tech journalists into the box you’ve presented but by no means do they ALL deserve that designation. Sean Michael Kerner of internetnews.com has never gotten it wrong. Several bloggers could be considered tech journalists as well and they are always on point – Matt Asay being another. The theory that the journalists are pandering to their publication’s origins would be false though. I, among many other freelance but regularly contracted journalists, have free reign to write what we feel without worrying about being overly edited. The point about a good many journalists not being educated to the deep extent that you all are would be true, but this would make sense. They are not developers, they do not work in an OSS company, they are likely not contributors to any open source project and they are dependent upon what the people they interview tell them. We do a great deal of educating when it comes to all the interviews we do regarding gpl3 conversions and what it all means – as if there is a cosmic meaning to changing your license type. (http://gpl3.palamid.com)

    My charter within my company, Palamida, is to continue to try to educate the media, which we’re seeing in small fits and starts, and I must say, Dan Farber has never agreed to speak with us but he speaks with Black Duck all the time…Hmmm. But I digress, I’m also chartered with educating the analysts, and the enterprise OSS using community, most of which are C-level folks who don’t know where to find the developers within their company. Education is a huge task. You live and breathe this day in and day out and many, many do not. Positive and informative blogs and outreach that can further educate the media, analysts, and enterprise communities is greatly needed. If nothing else, I need your help!

    Thanks for the illuminating blog,
    Melisa LaBancz-Bleasdale, Palamida

  • Melisa Bleasdale

    Extremely interesting post and following commentary. I understand that I am in essence an “intruder” into this blog stream as I am both a tech journalist -security and computer forensics – and a vendor PR executive for an open source sw risk management company, but that said, I think all the points made are interesting and well-thought. I can see how it’d be easy to throw all the tech journalists into the box you’ve presented but by no means do they ALL deserve that designation. Sean Michael Kerner of internetnews.com has never gotten it wrong. Several bloggers could be considered tech journalists as well and they are always on point – Matt Asay being another. The theory that the journalists are pandering to their publication’s origins would be false though. I, among many other freelance but regularly contracted journalists, have free reign to write what we feel without worrying about being overly edited. The point about a good many journalists not being educated to the deep extent that you all are would be true, but this would make sense. They are not developers, they do not work in an OSS company, they are likely not contributors to any open source project and they are dependent upon what the people they interview tell them. We do a great deal of educating when it comes to all the interviews we do regarding gpl3 conversions and what it all means – as if there is a cosmic meaning to changing your license type. (http://gpl3.palamid.com) My charter within my company, Palamida, is to continue to try to educate the media, which we’re seeing in small fits and starts, and I must say, Dan Farber has never agreed to speak with us but he speaks with Black Duck all the time…Hmmm. But I digress, I’m also chartered with educating the analysts, and the enterprise OSS using community, most of which are C-level folks who don’t know where to find the developers within their company. Education is a huge task. You live and breathe this day in and day out and many, many do not. Positive and informative blogs and outreach that can further educate the media, analysts, and enterprise communities is greatly needed. If nothing else, I need your help! Thanks for the illuminating blog, Melisa LaBancz-Bleasdale, Palamida

  • Melisa Bleasdale

    Extremely interesting post and following commentary. I understand that I am in essence an “intruder” into this blog stream as I am both a tech journalist -security and computer forensics – and a vendor PR executive for an open source sw risk management company, but that said, I think all the points made are interesting and well-thought. I can see how it’d be easy to throw all the tech journalists into the box you’ve presented but by no means do they ALL deserve that designation. Sean Michael Kerner of internetnews.com has never gotten it wrong. Several bloggers could be considered tech journalists as well and they are always on point – Matt Asay being another. The theory that the journalists are pandering to their publication’s origins would be false though. I, among many other freelance but regularly contracted journalists, have free reign to write what we feel without worrying about being overly edited. The point about a good many journalists not being educated to the deep extent that you all are would be true, but this would make sense. They are not developers, they do not work in an OSS company, they are likely not contributors to any open source project and they are dependent upon what the people they interview tell them. We do a great deal of educating when it comes to all the interviews we do regarding gpl3 conversions and what it all means – as if there is a cosmic meaning to changing your license type. (http://gpl3.palamid.com) My charter within my company, Palamida, is to continue to try to educate the media, which we’re seeing in small fits and starts, and I must say, Dan Farber has never agreed to speak with us but he speaks with Black Duck all the time…Hmmm. But I digress, I’m also chartered with educating the analysts, and the enterprise OSS using community, most of which are C-level folks who don’t know where to find the developers within their company. Education is a huge task. You live and breathe this day in and day out and many, many do not. Positive and informative blogs and outreach that can further educate the media, analysts, and enterprise communities is greatly needed. If nothing else, I need your help! Thanks for the illuminating blog, Melisa LaBancz-Bleasdale, Palamida

  • Melisa Bleasdale

    Extremely interesting post and following commentary. I understand that I am in essence an “intruder” into this blog stream as I am both a tech journalist -security and computer forensics – and a vendor PR executive for an open source sw risk management company, but that said, I think all the points made are interesting and well-thought. I can see how it’d be easy to throw all the tech journalists into the box you’ve presented but by no means do they ALL deserve that designation. Sean Michael Kerner of internetnews.com has never gotten it wrong. Several bloggers could be considered tech journalists as well and they are always on point – Matt Asay being another. The theory that the journalists are pandering to their publication’s origins would be false though. I, among many other freelance but regularly contracted journalists, have free reign to write what we feel without worrying about being overly edited. The point about a good many journalists not being educated to the deep extent that you all are would be true, but this would make sense. They are not developers, they do not work in an OSS company, they are likely not contributors to any open source project and they are dependent upon what the people they interview tell them. We do a great deal of educating when it comes to all the interviews we do regarding gpl3 conversions and what it all means – as if there is a cosmic meaning to changing your license type. (http://gpl3.palamid.com) My charter within my company, Palamida, is to continue to try to educate the media, which we’re seeing in small fits and starts, and I must say, Dan Farber has never agreed to speak with us but he speaks with Black Duck all the time…Hmmm. But I digress, I’m also chartered with educating the analysts, and the enterprise OSS using community, most of which are C-level folks who don’t know where to find the developers within their company. Education is a huge task. You live and breathe this day in and day out and many, many do not. Positive and informative blogs and outreach that can further educate the media, analysts, and enterprise communities is greatly needed. If nothing else, I need your help! Thanks for the illuminating blog, Melisa LaBancz-Bleasdale, Palamida

  • http://www.palamida.com Melisa Bleasdale

    correct web link is http://gpl3.palamida.com. My apologies.

  • Melisa Bleasdale

    correct web link is http://gpl3.palamida.com. My apologies.

  • Melisa Bleasdale

    correct web link is http://gpl3.palamida.com. My apologies.

  • Melisa Bleasdale

    correct web link is http://gpl3.palamida.com. My apologies.

  • Pingback: Ecclesial Dreamer… » Open Source is hard to do…

  • Pingback: Open Source Unleashed

  • http://ianskerrett.wordpress.com Ian Skerrett

    All to often the tech media equates Open Source == Linux. This is certainly the case with the Alexander Wolfe article. If he said ‘Too many Linux distros makes Linux a mess’, I think he might have a point.

    I do agree that the tech media often doesn’t get it. Unfortunately the media tends to like to hype the topic of the day and then trash it. We are going through the ‘trashing’ phase right now.

    Finally, please don’t tell the media that open source is democratic; it is a meritocracy.

  • Ian Skerrett

    All to often the tech media equates Open Source == Linux. This is certainly the case with the Alexander Wolfe article. If he said ‘Too many Linux distros makes Linux a mess’, I think he might have a point. I do agree that the tech media often doesn’t get it. Unfortunately the media tends to like to hype the topic of the day and then trash it. We are going through the ‘trashing’ phase right now. Finally, please don’t tell the media that open source is democratic; it is a meritocracy.

  • http://www.krishworld.com Krish

    Ian,

    I will emphasize again that it is democratic. Here is my reasoning. I do agree about the meritocracy part. Meritocracy is being used as a filter to ensure high quality of the open source projects. However, if I want to add a junk code or junk feature, the open source licenses allow me to add them and then release it to public as a competing product against the original one where the meritocracy rejected my code. This freedom leads to the concept of democracy (where every citizen has a voice and right to do whatever they want). If the junk code is compelling enough for many people, they will adopt my product with junk code in it. So writing off open source as pure meritocracy is not right.

  • Krish

    Ian, I will emphasize again that it is democratic. Here is my reasoning. I do agree about the meritocracy part. Meritocracy is being used as a filter to ensure high quality of the open source projects. However, if I want to add a junk code or junk feature, the open source licenses allow me to add them and then release it to public as a competing product against the original one where the meritocracy rejected my code. This freedom leads to the concept of democracy (where every citizen has a voice and right to do whatever they want). If the junk code is compelling enough for many people, they will adopt my product with junk code in it. So writing off open source as pure meritocracy is not right.

  • Pingback: Open Source is no Web 2.0–Krishwords

  • Sean

    Niels totally missed the point. I think Krish is trying to bring the terms “open source” and “free software” back into proper alignment. They should mean the same thing.

  • http://www.krishworld.com Krish

    Exactly Sean. As I see it, open source movement has taken the free software philosophy in the entirety and created an environment for business to take advantage of the freedom to offer better user experience to their consumers.

  • Krish

    Exactly Sean. As I see it, open source movement has taken the free software philosophy in the entirety and created an environment for business to take advantage of the freedom to offer better user experience to their consumers.