Google, Acer, Redhat and the future of Open
September 19th, 2012 by ravi

Much has been said about Google’s alleged attempt to strong-arm Acer into dropping its plan to release an [[Aliyun OS]] based smartphone because Aliyun is an “incompatible” fork of Android. The general criticism that this is a bit of hypocrisy on Google’s part given how much they have been pitching Android as “open”.  Hypocrisy or not, there is certainly a paradox in Google’s position.

Read the rest of this entry »

How Wired gets it wrong on the problem of code forking
February 21st, 2012 by ravi

GitHub is for very good reasons immensely popular these days. So it is understandable that Wired decides to shine a light on the service, but lamentable that they chose to do so under the link bait headline “How GitHub Tamed Free Software“, because it is arguable that Free Software is in need of taming and  even more tendentious that Git or GitHub is the solution for this imaginary problem (interestingly, Wired’s thesis is the converse of that of Adam Martin — to wit, GitHub is killing Open Source! — discussed earlier on this blog). Let us dig in.

First, the problem as laid out by Wired using as example of the large number of Linux patches received by Linus Torvalds that withered away in his Inbox:

This was the dirty little secret of open-source software. With the average free software project, large amounts of code — maybe even most code — never actually got used. It was often just too hard for casual users to show developers the changes they’d made and then easily merge those changes back into the open-source code base.

True. The core contributors, often a very small group, have little time to wade through all proposed patches. They have neither the time nor often the inclination. Poring through other people’s code is annoying, especially, I am guessing, when you are an ace coder yourself and could be solving more interesting problems. Visit Mozilla’s Bugzilla bug database for a sampling of the number of bugs with posted patches that those with approval powers have flat out ignored.

How to solve this?

Read the rest of this entry »

The future of software? (from a user perspective)
June 26th, 2010 by ravi

There are two unrelated success stories that I wish to tie together in this bit, and if I am successful and justified in doing so, then you too might worry as I do about the future of software.

First, I must clear the air: I am a staunch Free Software advocate. And specifically, I take the Richard Stallman position when it comes to Free vs Open Software. And towards the end of this post, I will try to reconcile that position with the worries raised below.

Now back to the story of the two successes. The first, MacHeist, is small, but only in comparison. MacHeist is an affair that occurs a few times a year where users solve puzzles on their way to a booty of fire sale priced Mac software. The operation is run by a few clever lads (and ladies?), sells software worth hundreds of dollars for as low as $50 in total, and nets a handsome profit (reputed to run into the hundreds of thousands) for the organisers.

When the MacHeist gets going (and I admit to having “participated” in one or two) one criticism that is often heard is that the developers of the software are not getting quite the fair shake, and that selling software at such unsustainably low rates devalues the effort that goes into their creation. I think both criticisms are legitimate.

The second success story is a big one: Google. A company that hires brilliant engineers to turn out complex software products, but then turns around and gives most of these away for free, preferring instead to make money by selling advertising. So much so that the reliable purveyors of quotable statements are wont to note that Google is not a search technology company, but an advertising one.

As a Free Software fanatic, you might think that all this would warm my heart, but it does not. To understand why, I will refer to the difference that Stallman draws between Free Software (“free as in free speech”), and Open Software which is “free as in beer”. Whereas Free Software, through the terms of the GNU Public License, fosters a culture of public ownership and ubiquitous contribution, Open Software in its paradoxical naive pragmatism (of gaining usage by adopting a more “liberal” license) undervalues the act of development making it no more than a form of cheap labour.

The claims in the previous paragraph are arguable, and argue about it we should. The point of this post however is to consider the impact of this cheap or free software on users.

Consider my recent experience with a remote file access application called Flow. Flow is a very useful application with an impressive set of features and a more than decent interface. Flow retails for $25, a fair price for the functionality it promises, but it was also recently given away as part of a MacHeist “nanobundle”, the popularity of which has led to a warning from the makers of Flow, ExtendMac, that they are swamped with feedback and that all users (including ones like me who did not acquire it through MacHeist) should exercise a bit of patience while we await a response.

Patience, we have been told, is the virtue of an ass, and my experience with contacting ExtendMac tends to justify the comparison (of me) with the maligned beast! More than two months ago I submitted a report of a problem with Flow that was making it close to unusable: the application would hang mid-way through a file transfer and provide me no means to recover from it. Not even an option to cancel the transfer. This is just one of many issues. Here’s another: the application hangs upon encountering a symbolic link on the remote host. I have since reported these problems two more times and promptly received a canned response. But ExtendMac has been reticent to communicate further on this matter.

If indeed the MacHeist fire sale and ensuing volume of users makes it impossible for ExtendMac to address the issues of its users, then there is a good bit of legitimacy to the criticism that such sales both shortchange the developer and ultimately harm the end user.

The other, larger point of the matter is learnt from the example of Google. Having separated the source of their income (advertising) and their source of value (software), they are now wedded to “web apps”, applications that often coerce (though to Google’s credit, not always) you to using Google supplied browser based interfaces (so that money-making advertising can be targeted at you) irrespective of how well suited they are to your needs (recently I wrote about Google Voice, where the lack of a desktop client severely hampers the usability of the product). Better, I think, a choice between: software as a public good as envisioned by Stallman; or software as a valuable product solving a user’s needs in the best possible way, and hence worthy of charging a fee, as seen by Apple.

Update: in the spirit of the philosopher Peter Singer, who follows up his meditations on ethical eating with practical recipes, a recommendation: for a powerful GPL licensed free alternative to Flow, take a look at CyberDuck.

A fundamentally flawed defence of the Apple app store
May 20th, 2010 by ravi

In a climate where the market reigns supreme and the mantra “nothing succeeds like success” has never been truer, it should be unsurprising to see someone write:

Thomas Fitzgerald responds to Ted Landau:

I think Ted’s problem, like that of many analysts/bloggers/journalists/geeks etc on the issue is that they’re confusing fundamental flaws with not liking something. People like Ted don’t like the closed nature of the App store, but that doesn’t mean it’s fundamentally flawed, or a lack of choice.

It occurs to me that the App Store’s restrictions and control are to this coming mobile era what Windows’s inferior user interface was to the PC era: something that offends some critics to a degree such that they will insist for years, despite the success and popularity of the platform, that it’s a fatal flaw that will ultimately doom it.

That’s John Gruber, and his distaste for certain types of FOSS is not new (see: 1, 2), though his growing stridence in defence of most things Apple is a bit disappointing. The real confusion here seems to be on the part of Gruber and Landau:

Landau writes that “not liking… closed nature of the App store … doesn’t mean it’s fundamentally flawed”. That is correct – not liking something does not imply that said thing is “fundamentally flawed, but that’s a strawman since nobody I can think of would claim such an implication. Landau has performed a causal sleight of hand, for in the real world, it is often a fundamental flaw that makes people not like something. And what is the possible fundamental flaw of the App Store? That it is closed. One could argue the merits of such a claim (“closed” = “fundamentally flawed”) but that would mean stifling the penchant for personalising arguments.

Gruber, for his part, equates the success of a platform with the absence of fundamental flaws in it. The choiceless and information starved consumer and mindless corporate IT tsars have rendered the verdict. And Microsoft Windows is the winner. The emperor cannot be naked, for he is the emperor. Gruber knows better than that: he spends a good part of his output (including the very post quoted above) defending Apple, a “loser” in this desktop game.

[Link: Daring Fireball Linked List: ‘I Want Choice, but Only if I Agree With Your Choice’]

»  Substance: WordPress  »  Style: Ahren Ahimsa