LWN Weekly Edition
Front pageSecurity
Kernel development
Distributions
Development
Linux in the news
Announcements
Letters to the editor
->One big page
This page
Previous weekFollowing week
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Leading itemsRestarting free SourceForge developmentBack when VA Linux Systems (now VA Software) launched SourceForge, the company put the underlying source code out under the GPL. VA was, at that time, very much an open source company, so releasing the code was a natural thing to do. Since then, VA has transformed itself from an open source hardware company to a proprietary software company based on SourceForge. So it is not all that surprising that VA's enthusiasm for free SourceForge code releases has waned; the last such release (from the "alexandria-dev" project) is dated November 4, 2001. Since then, VA has limited itself to proprietary releases.The free SourceForge releases are just that, however: free. And since they are free software, there is no need to wait for VA to make new releases. So it should come as no surprise that a number of SourceForge fork projects have appeared. Most of these are the basis for other SourceForge-like development sites:
All of these projects have provided useful resources for the free software community. They all have, however, gone off in their own directions to attain their specific goals; in none of these cases has the general development of the SourceForge code been one of those goals. (This is not a criticism - realistic projects can only take on so much). Thanks to a note from Rick Moen (which is also the source for the version information above), we have been clued in to the GForge Project, which is trying to get development of the SourceForge code back on track. GForge is headed up by Tim Perdue, who certainly has the right credentials for the job: he was the original author of a good chunk of the original SourceForge system. GForge has started with the most recent code from the SourceForge.net CVS server, which has been deemed version 2.61. It has since been enhanced with Jabber support, an improved interface, a new forum system, and easier installation. Quite a bit of effort has also gone into cleaning up the code; optimizations for hundreds of thousands of users have been deemed unnecessary, and "foundries and related nonsense" have been excised from the code base. And, of course, the whole thing is licensed under the GPL. GForge should become the new focal point for development of the SourceForge code. The Debian-sf project is already working with GForge; Debian users can, with a suitable configuration file entry, install GForge with an apt-get command. One can only hope that GForge will lead to a new set of free software development sites popping up on the net, and further diversification away from the "official" SourceForge site. SourceForge remains a very expensive form of advertising for a company which has lost interest in free software; relying on its continued existence forever would be foolhardy. As LWN has said before, VA has done the free software a great service by running SourceForge for the last three years. In the long run, however, it may turn out that the greater service was releasing the SourceForge code under the GPL. That release has allowed the community to continue to use and develop the SourceForge code after VA's business needs drew its attention elsewhere. We will reap the benefits of that gift long after SourceForge.net has shut down.
Linux and the total cost of ownershipWe have seen, in recent days, a flurry of reports and analyst proclamations to the effect that, while costing more up front, Windows ends up being cheaper than Linux when the "total cost of ownership" (TCO) is figured. This cost includes things like staff time, training costs, etc. Certainly it makes sense to take a broad view of what a particular computing system really costs to operate. And, certainly, the analyst reports are objective; they would never, ever, after all, bias their reports in favor of the large corporation that has paid for the work.Even so, some questions come to mind. Your editor, who, in a previous life, managed a medium-size system administration group, observed that a single Linux or Unix system administrator could handle about twice as many systems as a single Windows administrator. As Windows systems replaced Unix systems on desktops, the administration staff had to grow. Many others have publicly noted a similar pattern. The observations of people actually running system management groups do not carry the weight of a scientific analyst report printed on Very Heavy Paper, but one might still ask: how is it that Windows is cheaper to run when more people are required to do the job? Windows systems have well-known virus problems. Large scale virus attacks have led to direct costs for companies estimated in billions of dollars. Most large networks require constantly-updated virus scanning systems, active mail filtering, and regular "don't open that attachment" user cluestick sessions. All this is expensive; have these costs been figured into the TCO calculations? Amazon.com claims to have saved $17 million by switching to Linux. E*Trade, too, saved a lot of money by going to Linux. The City of Largo, Florida, claims to save at least $1 million each year from its switch to Linux desktop systems. Why didn't they switch to Windows, if it is so much cheaper? (As an aside, this NewsForge followup on Largo is well worth a read). Linux-based systems can often run on the same hardware, without upgrades, for longer. There is far less pressure for constant system upgrades - and no EULAs requiring such upgrades. Have the costs of the additional hardware and software upgrades required by Windows been taken into account? Software license management is expensive. Companies must track the license for every application installed on every system on their networks, and they must cope with occasional annoyances like BSA audits and raids. Tracking thousands of licenses on thousands of systems is not a part-time job; have licensing compliance costs been figured into the TCO studies? And so on. The real point is this: we should not give up the TCO argument easily. Linux systems are, beyond doubt, overly difficult to administer - especially for certain kinds of environments. There is a lot that can be done to reduce ownership costs for Linux systems. But, even so, the "Windows is cheaper" argument has not been made in any sort of convincing way.
Three important trialsThis has been a busy week for courts worldwide; important issues have been heard on three different continents. For those who have not been following them all...In the U.S., the ElcomSoft trial was finally held this week after having been delayed when the defendants were not allowed to enter the country. The defense has stressed constitutional issues and fair use, but the judge has not been interested. For example, ElcomSoft was not allowed to discuss legitimate uses of ElcomSoft's eBook reading software. As predicted, this case is working with a very tight reading of the DMCA, and it seems unlikely to go in ElcomSoft's favor. The trial will determine only whether ElcomSoft was in violation of the DMCA as it is written; any constitutional challenges to the DMCA will have to wait for the appeal. As of this writing, the arguments were complete, but the case had not yet gone to the jury for a verdict. In Norway, Jon Johansen is standing trial for his role in the creation and distribution of the DeCSS software. The prosecution is trying to prove that DeCSS's purpose is to help DVD piracy; this despite the fact that real pirates have no need for such a tool. Attempts have been made to discredit Jon's defense by pointing out that he developed the code on Windows. This trial is still underway as of this writing. (See also: this account of the first day of testimony). Meanwhile, in Australia, the country's high court has ruled that Dow Jones can be sued for libel in Victoria over an article published on its web site (in the U.S.). An increasing number of countries seem to believe that their laws apply to Internet activity anywhere in the world. If people can be hauled across oceans to face libel claims, they certainly can be made to face other sorts of charges - patent infringement or circumvention of copy protection, for example. This article in The Economist suggests that, in the future, publishers will block access to their material from countries with hostile libel laws. It would be a shame if distribution of free software had to be restricted in similar ways.
Page editor: Jonathan Corbet |
|
||||||||||||