Why I don’t know what Microsoft’s doing since we’re open close or open source and closed source developed side by side was one first that kind of branched off each other
So, well the definition of a Sony came about in 1998 closest closest open source in some variants when people to be sharing code has been around since the 1960s. But really, it wasn’t until late 1990s to think about when a system of license notebooks were published. Well, that would be another way more of questions.
So you talked about the Red hat business model, and how it sort of fits into open source communities and the work that they’re doing and it has to be interesting and various things like that. What proportion of people who contribute to open source, do you think are reimbursed for their work.
Very few. I think unless you work for Redhat or Google or IBM you probably don’t get direct reimbursement. But, to be perfectly frank. A lot of people work in open source, not because they want to get some direct revenue share, but because they believe in the model. And, you know, they really do like contributing on something that will be very successful, like I said, Linux has been around since 91.
Although Red Hat is a huge contributor to the next. Probably if you went back far enough, you find very, very few of the people who have worked in contributed on Linux over the years since 91 to now, have got money directly or indirectly from a consultancy directly related to the previous question do you think for corporates and companies using open source software for profitable reasons to think the shoot Should be business model for that. As part of the profit sharing, because I know a lot of quotes about was not paid time to do that work. So, using this kind of potential for contribution from the free market for open source projects.
So you’re asking the wrong person because I work for a company that pays people to work on open source. So my obvious answer is yes, I think you should be paid to work on open source every company that works that uses open source should, in some way, give back to open source and give back to the people who helped contribute them whether they work for them directly or work through the people. I think that’s how open source succeeds.
I just want to tap the touring at places for people get paid to work on open source.
Yes, I mean mostly on software developed some community projects to do more community contributions.
I’m not sure I can actually phrase this correctly but you mentioned that.
So, open source is less is more likely to have less errors because there are more eyes on it. And so more people are likely to spot something. And I was wondering. So, normally if like if there’s a company behind them they ensure that there’s some sort of a plant tested into, they kind of, they are responsible and own that part to say okay we have to do this. And I have a feeling that a lot of time with open source unless they’re really big projects with large communities that doesn’t really happen so do you think what do you think about who’s responsible or who owns that bit of saying okay now let’s do this. And let’s find, you know let’s find all the old errors. So, I think.
Assume positive intent, so I always say that most developers, if not all developers when they’re writing code then are running into bugs or security holes. So if a developer will probably once he knows there’s a problem that want to fix it anyway.
If it’s a big enough community then the community share that load, that’s that’s kind of one of the things that makes a community successful, like I said, the reaction to being told there’s a problem, fix it. Don’t just ignore it because it will it could potentially kill your community. Now, from a company’s point of view. The company is basing something on code that by the bed, they’ve either developed upstream themselves or with others, or they’ve taken from upstream and how this company really wants to be successful as an open source company, it’s incumbent on it. If it hasn’t found this book today’s prioritization test and somebody brings it to its attention let’s say that it is read. And we will fix that bug, we will contribute it straight away. We will, we will wait.
Well if we ignore it for a bit somebody else will fix it. So, you know there have been a number of significant bugs over the last few years, and some caused by Intel.
And we have gone and fix those issues in the Linux kernel.
Very, very quickly, because it’s bad for our reputation is bad for our customers as well. So it’s important that we do that. I’m just curious if you can describe a bit more how a company.
Looks or first look at open source and saw the profitability.
That’s one of the questions my students asked me about, like if you’re doing open source and yeah I have students go on to college and they’re so excited about open source to come back and talk to me. So I’m curious about how that how it’s first seen as a profitable enterprise.
Should you mean, historically,
I’m old I’m not that old
So I can give you, give you an example I kind of lived through a bit, which was JBOSE. So, I worked for a company called JBOSE 2005 before we got acquired by Red Hat in 2006. Jay boss his business model dated back, 2000 2001, they were in the enterprise Java application service.
And at that point, the Java Application Server, was the dominant way which you developed enterprise applications in Java. That running back end systems and banks and stuff that market at that point was dominated by IBM ba Sun Microsystems and a few others HP, but they were all proprietary, there was the single open source vendor at the time, and a gentleman called Mark Flurry. He actually looked at this to people are paying through the nose for these application servers.
Maybe they’ll pay a little bit less for something that is open source. So, commoditization is really where he came at it from he reckoned that not only probably would they probably pay less, but as you start to look at how the app server market was developing the added value that that IBM and HP and others were giving to the customers who wasn’t on the lower levels anymore It was the stuff that was sitting on top. So, in general, I think the open source open source succeeded at that point, by, by recognizing which levels in the software stack are about to become a commodity, and probably be too much overhead for big vendors like IBM to want to continue to monetize it yet they were going to have to because they were going to, let’s say, IBM had 1500 developers working on their app so when Jay boss was eventually acquired by Red Hat 2006, we probably had 70.
So he identified that not only was it cost saving but also the monetization aspect so he went in and he and a few others and that makes eventually 70 or so, that developers, built an open source equivalent of the web spheres, the web logics that were out there, and the rest is history. I think similar for other open source projects, maybe not exactly the same, but I think it would probably be a good study. Thank You very much well it’s been a great session.”