Category: Four pillars

I’m going to expose you to a few quotes first, with some artistic licence applied:

• Rather than subsidising the rewriting of existing [proprietary] code, [enterprise] resources and funding should be focused on areas where external investment is not being made, areas where [industry segment] requirements are not being addressed, and [radically differentiating] technologies. Within these areas smaller communities of interest should be encouraged to use the same tools and processes that have proven successful in external open source development. The [enterprise] has legal and valid [business] reasons to encourage or require [open source approaches] within those communities of interest, allowing specific systems and technologies to evolve more quickly in response to emerging [market threats and opportunities].
• [The enterprise] needs to evaluate the impact that locking into one set of proprietary standards or products may have to its ability to react and respond to [competitors] and more importantly, to technological change that is accelerating regardless of [market conditions]. In order to remain competitive in a rapidly shifting technological landscape (including the disruptive technologies leveraged by our [competitors] ) [the enterprise’s] software development and business processes must break out of the industrial-era acquisitions mold.
• Software code has become central  to the [executive’s] ability to conduct business. If this shift is to be an advantage, rather than an Achilles’ heel, [the enterprise] must pursue an active strategy to manage its software knowledge base and foster an internal culture of open interfaces, modularity and reuse. This entails a parallel shift in acquisitions methodologies and business process to facilitate discovery and reuse of software code across [the enterprise].
• To summarise:
• OSS and open source development methodologies are important to the [security] and [business interests] of the [enterprise] for the following reasons:
• Enhances agility of IT industries to more rapidly adapt and change to use needed capabilities
• Strengthens the industrial base by not protecting industry from competition. Makes industry more likely to compete on ideas and execution versus product lock-in
• Adoption recognises a change in our position with regard to balance of trade on IT
• Enables [the enterprise] to secure the infrasctructure and increase security by understanding what is actually in the source code of software installed in [enterprise] networks
• Rapidly responds to [competitive] actions as well as rapid changes in the technology industrial base

I particularly like the penultimate point, so much so I’ll quote it again: enables the enterprise to secure the infrastructure and increase security by understanding what is actually in the source code of software installed.

Now the kicker. These quotes are taken from the Open Technology Development Roadmap Plan, April 2006, Version 3.1 (Final), prepared for the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Advanced Systems and Concepts, Department of Defense.

When the DoD understands the value of open source in increasing security, and demonstrates that it really grasps Free as in Freedom not Free as in Gratis, how can it be that enterprises don’t? Now you know why I am Confused. Of Calcutta.

 

 

[A health warning: This is a very provisional post. I haven’t thought through it too deeply, but there’s something about it that compels me to write it now.]

I’ve always been fascinated by collaborative filtering ever since I read the research papers on Firefly sometime in 1998. I got hooked on it by the time I saw what Amazon was able to do with it. Then, when I saw StumbleUpon, as behaviour and ratings merged more seamlessly with preferences and personalisation, I was transfixed. Now I learn from last.fm and even iusethis. [An aside: I was incredibly pleased to find that, with the exception of iusethis, an understandable exception, everything else I referred to had a Wikipedia entry….]

For Generation M, collaborative filtering is the norm. Which makes me think about how they will consume software.

The software they use is different from mine. How different? Why different? This is not an exact and scientific analysis, as I said this is a very provisional post.

• They acquire the software primarily by registration, not disc or download.
• There is almost never any client install.
• They don’t care where it resides or runs.
• They don’t care about its architecture or language or database or modules.
• They don’t care if it’s called Alpha or Beta or Gamma.
• But they do care about maintainability, about choice, when it comes to upgrades. They upgrade when they want to, not when they’re told to.
• They do care about the devices they can use to consume it. Any and all devices. Wired and wireless. Desktop, handheld, palmtop, wearable, not even necessarily something I would recognise as a device.
• They do care about what it works with. The ecosystem. The liquidity pool of plugins and addons and extensions.
• They do care about the subscription price. Any colour you like as long as it’s low or zero.
• They do care about its lose-ability. How easy is it to unplug, decommission? How easy is it to replace, to recreate?
• They do care about its usability and convenience and look and feel. And signon and portability.
• They do care about its personalisation-ability. Your skin or mine? Ours?

And they care about something else.

Taste. A hard-to-describe je-ne-sais-quoi set of attributes.

And that makes me think. How do we prepare for them?

Are we going to need to prepare for something else now? Going beyond the Spikesource-like approaches to opensource stacks and hybrid stacks and certification, are we entering a new zone?

One where we really see collaborative filtering applied to Web 2.0 (I know, I know, exceptions prove the rule) software, where the acquisition of stack interoperability information, of “ecosystem” information, comes from a collaboratively-filtered community? People who used this also use. Here are your recommendations based on your preferences and your behaviour. Here are some serendipitous offerings based on what we know about you, what you’ve been prepared to share with us.

One where we even see collaborative filtering lead us to dogs that didn’t bark. We don’t understand how you’re not using any of these bits, how come? What are you doing with the things you have, that lets you avoid these bits? What particular unplanned and unpredictable purpose are you managing to extract from the bits you do have?

Generation M is going to take simplicity and convenience, interoperability and portability, platform and device independence, mobility and ubiquity for granted.

They will move on.

To taste. And from taste to values. Recommendations and intention-signals are nascent arbiters of taste. The gaming and cyberspace communities have already figured this out.

Malcolm remarked in a recent conversation that Steve Jobs jealously guards the Mac OSX boot sequence, he knows it needs to be quick and dialtone. Taste.

If the registration information required is too cumbersome, they will move on. Taste.

If the licence is not short and simple and supportive of opensource, they will move on. Taste.

They will learn about software the way we see them learn about music they like; the way they learn about books and films and devices and blogs-to-read and people to meet and places to go and and and.

They will learn about software from their friends and network and peers and trusted advisors, through collaborative filtering  and preferences and profiling and recommendations and ratings.

They will apply their taste to all that, in terms of look and feel and values and simplicity and convenience and opensourceness.

Exciting times.

There was something different and compelling about Syd Barrett. An exceptional talent who inspired many of the people I still listen to,  a tormented genius. Requiescat In Pace. Shine on You crazy Diamond.

Signs that another proprietary bastion is about to crumble. DejaVu is making inroads as an opensource font family, and adoption is on the uptake. Thanks to Stephen Shankland for the story.

I think this is an important development. It does not matter whether DejaVu “wins” or not, after all it is the community that decides.

What is important is that a cornerstone of the writable web, the “live” web, has begun, finally, to pass out of proprietary hands. And such genies are very hard to push back into the bottle.

I can’t wait to see how Steve Jobs and Apple respond to this, given Steve’s professed passion for calligraphy and fonts.

Here’s the latest figures from OneStat:

Global:

1.	Microsoft IE	83.05%
2.	Mozilla Firefox	12.93%
3.	Apple Safari	1.84%
4.	Opera	1.00%
5.	Netscape	0.16%

 

Interestingly, Germany:

1.	Microsoft IE	55.99%
2.	Mozilla Firefox	39.02%
3.	Opera	2.78%
4.	Apple Safari	1.73%
5.	Netscape	0.30%

 And, UK

 

1.	Microsoft IE	86.23%
2.	Mozilla Firefox	11.65%
3.	Apple Safari	1.30%
4.	Opera	0.53%
5.	Netscape	0.15%

 

Sadly, the stats do not show us what’s really happening in India and China. Or even Russia and Brazil.

I think these stats are a leading indicator of a culture’s willingness and capacity to adopt opensource. Anyone got any stats to back me up?

BTW you can find the rest of the report here.