LWN.net Logo

A 2006 retrospective

This is the last LWN.net Weekly Edition for 2006; following our longstanding tradition we will take the last week of the year off and dedicate it to cleaning all of this year's unanswered mail out of our inboxes. We wish you all a pleasant holiday season; LWN will be back on its regular schedule on January 4.
Advertisement

Another LWN tradition is to review our predictions made at the beginning of the year to see just how badly wrong your editor was this time around. Those predictions were published in the January 4, 2006 edition, for those who wish to follow along from the source. Some of the comments posted to the article can also be interesting to read with a year's perspective. We'll not review every prediction made in that article. Some of them are sufficiently obvious ("Perl 6 will not be released," "the SCO case will drag on") or general ("the pace of kernel development will not slow") that little review is called for. Some of the others, however, offer some insights into how perspectives have changed over the last year (or, perhaps, how blind your editor was back then).

The very first prediction made was that the GPLv3 process would dominate the news. Your editor was not able to foresee, however, that the FSF would take the license revision as an opportunity to attack DRM head-on. What has happened over the last year, as evidenced by GPLv3 and in other places, is that many in the community now think that we have enough weight to throw around in support of goals beyond the simple creation of free software. Whether the exercise of this weight will lead to a more free society, or whether it will just make us more like the entertainment industry (which also thinks it has plenty of weight to use in pursuing power under copyright law) remains to be seen.

Some commenters doubted your editor's prediction that the non-free kernel module issue would come to a head this year. But, over the course of this year, a number of distributors swore off shipping such modules, those which continue to embrace proprietary modules have taken a fair amount of criticism, and the kernel developers seriously considered banning them outright. Whether all that constitutes "coming to a head" can be debated, but the fact remains: there is a great deal of resentment over proprietary kernel modules and this issue will not go away anytime soon.

Your editor predicted the return of European software patents. There were some stirrings over the year, but software patents have, for the most part, laid low. It would be foolish to believe that they will do so forever, though.

With regard to desktop Linux, your editor's advice was to not expect amazing advances, but that there would be steady progress. The movement of 3D technologies onto the Linux desktop may not qualify as an "amazing advance," but they are a big step regardless; Linux need defer to no other system in the eye candy department. A prediction that alternatives to OpenOffice.org would gain prominence did not really come through - but it is worth noting that the OLPC project has gone with a lightweight version of AbiWord.

One of the more controversial predictions said that the Fedora Project would have to make changes to maintain its position. Over the course of the year, Fedora abandoned the "Fedora Foundation" idea, gave up (belatedly) on Fedora Legacy, decided to lengthen its support period, and merged the Core and Extras distributions. The project has picked up a new energy, renewed its longstanding dedication to free software, and looks well poised to move forward with a stronger community focus.

Predicting that a Debian release would happen on schedule is always a daring thing to do. Things clearly did not work out that way, but substantial progress has been made. Debian Etch might not be that late, in the end. Predicting Emacs releases is equally risky, and Emacs 22 did not come out this year - but a couple of pretest releases did.

Your editor thought that Novell would "get its act together and become a truly successful Linux-based company." Oh well. That could yet happen, but, after the events of 2006, few people would see it as a foregone conclusion.

So what did your editor miss entirely? Big company moves were at the top of the list. The idea that Novell would make a deal with Microsoft - paying patent royalties in the process - was beyond your editor's imagination at the time. Similarly, the notion that Oracle would try to muscle into Linux support by repackaging Red Hat Enterprise Linux was a surprise. Free software has reached such a level of importance that the largest companies out there are paying attention.

Also missed was the open-sourcing of Java, though one could certainly quibble that we have not actually seen the code yet. Perhaps your editor should simply predict this event for 2007 and be dead-on. Seriously, however, this event has been delayed for so long that many of us had despaired of it ever happening. It does appear, however, that Jonathan Schwartz has brought a new emphasis on free software to Sun's top position; the planned release of Java under the GNU General Public License suggests that he is serious.

In the end, the easiest prediction to make was that our community would remain healthy, and that our software would continue to get better. Despite our disagreements and our mistakes we are going from one strength to the next. That helps make 2006 another pleasant year to look back on.


(Log in to post comments)

2006: the year of the SCM?

Posted Dec 21, 2006 2:23 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Something that I didn't forsee is the sheer explosion of source code management packages. It's been building for the past two or three years but this year many of them became quite mature and usable.

- git has become really good. Really good. I use it for most of my personal stuff now. Developers have generally quit adding features and are now trying to clean up what's there to make it more friendly for new users.
- bzr is now what gnu-arch should have been all along and still in strong development.
- hg is now fairly strong and development continues apace.
- svn has peaked and appears to be losing mindshare. (it's not losing seats, of course -- popularity is surging. it's definitely starting to look rusty around the edges though).
- svk continues to be a very useful addition to svn. Like svn, development pace has slowed a bit.

Alas, I haven't tracked darcs, monotone or codeville.

Think back to 2 years ago, then look at the tools we have today. It's a good time to be a programmer!

2006: the year of the SCM?

Posted Dec 21, 2006 3:53 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (subscriber, #421) [Link]

I've been using Darcs for some time now, and it seems quite healthy, featureful, and stable. While it is not as blazingly fast as git by any means, I find the interface of darcs much cleaner, more unified, and more friendly. I tried git for a while this summer and eventually went back to darcs; I'll try it again in a year, perhaps, and hopefully it will have improved.

SVN is losing?

Posted Dec 21, 2006 12:24 UTC (Thu) by dion (subscriber, #2764) [Link]

How do you figure that SVN is losing mindshare?

As far as I can tell it's on it's way up.

SVN is losing?

Posted Dec 21, 2006 16:55 UTC (Thu) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link]

To my mind SVN is gaining users. Afterall nowadays if you want a CVS like source control system thats not CVS you install SVN. It's supported and people understand it.

However I think the mindshare the parent is refering to is what people want out of their version control software. Not supprisingly with this flurry of development around the likes of git and co people are starting to think about what VC software can achieve. From my perspective SVN doesn't bring anything to the table other than being less broken than CVS for changesets.

SVN is losing?

Posted Dec 22, 2006 18:45 UTC (Fri) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]

I think what he might be referring to is the slowdown in feature/concept development that svn is seeing. i.e. svn is now reaching the point where it is solid and most of the bold new features are complete. SVN does what it was designed to do. Many of the other projects are probably in heavy development with exciting new features being added all the time. While exciting indeed, it is not necessary what one wants when choosing a VCS system for production.

SVN on the other hand has become a very trusted replacement for CVS, to the point where I believe that it is much more solid than CVS ever was. I just spent my snowday yesterday successfully repairing my svn repository which had one corrupted file in it (corrupted I presume by my hard drive, not SVN.) The amazing part was that I was able to detect it in the first place and fix it with the incredibly nifty svnadmin tool (and some medium weight khexedit work)!

This ability of svn to have detected the corruption in the first place by noticing a checksum error on the data of a versioned file along with the svnadmin dump and load features which allowed me to recreate every transaction in a new repository, gave me more confidence than before this incident happened, that SVN is the right place to store my data as a backup. After all, normal backup methods (non VCS methods) would probably never have caught this error or allowed me to fix it unless I had very old backup data lying around. Since I don't know when this file got mangled, I could have just gone on backing up slightly corrupted data without ever knowing it.

I, for one, am very happy that this is the kind of development happening on svn, the development of very useful admin tools, along with the addition of other minor boring features that help polish svn and signal the entrance of svn into the mature product phase.

2006: the year of the SCM?

Posted Dec 21, 2006 17:09 UTC (Thu) by wsgibson (subscriber, #7336) [Link]

I agree. I had been using Subversion exclusively but have recently
introduced Bazaar into the mix. I have dabbled with git and do enjoy its
robustness and speed but Bazaar has been extremely intuitive and easy to
use for me. Its features match my needs plus it works on multiple
platforms which comes in handy for me.

2006: the year of the SCM?

Posted Dec 21, 2006 18:27 UTC (Thu) by shredwheat (subscriber, #4188) [Link]

Anyone remember BitKeeper?

Memory jolt!

Posted Dec 21, 2006 22:12 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]

How time flies! I suppose I could go to the bitkeeper site and get a biased view, but I'd rather not pollute my brain. I wonder how they are doing, and how Larry is doing?

And for that matter, if anyone out there can compare the current bitkeeper with git, that would be fascinating. Larry has been so arrogant about how hard it would be to duplicate bitkeeper's functionality, I'd like to see the reality of that.

Oracle's moves vs Red Hat

Posted Dec 21, 2006 4:28 UTC (Thu) by bos (subscriber, #6154) [Link]

Quoth Jon: "Similarly, the notion that Oracle would try to muscle into Linux support by repackaging Red Hat Enterprise Linux was a surprise."

This really isn't what they did at all, I believe. Their announcement was a broadside across Red Hat's bow, to force them to deal on terms more favourable to Oracle.

The financial side of the announcement doesn't make any sense to Oracle, since they don't have a sales or support organisation capable of dealing in monetary terms of less than about $200k per customer; and the support side doesn't make any sense to customers, since Oracle's support is not renowned for its quality. So looking at it in terms of software business realpolitik is much more entertaining.

A 2006 retrospective

Posted Dec 21, 2006 8:14 UTC (Thu) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link]

Your editor predicted the return of European software patents. There were some stirrings over the year, but software patents have, for the most part, laid low. It would be foolish to believe that they will do so forever, though.

It is actually notable, that a retry of introducing software patents through the back door was "dead on arrival" in the EU. I'm talking about the Patent Litigation Agreement = EPLA of course: http://www.europeanvoice.com/archive/article.asp?id=26903

Of course the patent lobby is pushing its backhanded tactics as ever before, but it seems that now also the ministerial council is reluctant to touch anything that has to do with patents, and finally even the commissioner himself is ready to give up. Also notable was the Nokia position in the EPLA hearing: of course they did not denounce software patents in any way, but they were not appreciative of this particular directive, citing their understanding that Nokia is not only a holder of many patents, but often also on the receiving end of lawsuits.

So as Jon says, there is no reason for much rejoicing yet, but if 4 years from now we still haven't seen a major software patent conflict arise within the EU, then in hindsight 2006 was the year when that started. We'll see.

A 2006 retrospective

Posted Dec 21, 2006 9:01 UTC (Thu) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link]

Oh, I had actually missed this, that I found in the Timeline: FFII: European Commission says software is not patentable

A 2006 retrospective

Posted Dec 21, 2006 8:55 UTC (Thu) by jgarzik (subscriber, #8364) [Link]

There is plenty of Java code to download. Big, key pieces -- the JVM and Java compiler source code -- can be downloaded today.

Its the class libraries that must wait until March 2007 or so.

GPL3 is not anti-DRM as such

Posted Dec 21, 2006 13:02 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

It's a mistake to characterize the proposed GPL3 as moving away from 'simple free software' and starting to attack DRM or anything else. The purpose of the GPL has always been what it says, 'to ensure the software is free for all its users'. If you have a Tivo or other device and it's locked down so you cannot change the software running on it, then the software is not free software for you. The GPL3 aims to make sure of what the GPL2 and earlier wanted all along: that every user who runs the software has the freedom to use, share and change it.

We may dislike DRM but it's just a special case of the more general problem of computers doing what the manufacturer or other special interest wants, rather than what their owners want. There is nothing in the GPL3 text specific to DRM. GPL'd software to restrict copying of CDs (for example) is quite possible, all you must do is allow the user the same freedom to change the software that the manufacturer has.

GPL3 is not anti-DRM as such

Posted Dec 21, 2006 14:07 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

The GPL3 aims to make sure of what the GPL2 and earlier wanted all along: that every user who runs the software has the freedom to use, share and change it.

Actually GPLv2 quite explicitly says that "activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope". So if you have the software but can not use it... well - to bad, it's "outside its scope". For RMS it may be "obvious" that situation when you have the software but can not use changed version of it is nonsense, but for a lot of people it's not obvious at all - thus all GPLv3 hoopla...

GPL3 is not anti-DRM as such

Posted Dec 21, 2006 14:27 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

You are quite right. The GPLv2 is fairly simple and only tries to control the copying and redistribution of the work. But my point is that the aim of the licence has not changed, only the means of achieving that aim. The spirit and intent of the GPLv2 is clear:

"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have."

This would seem to mean that if Tivo has the right to go and change the software running on your PVR, then you the recipient should also have that right. Of course it's not legally binding, just a statement of what the licence is meant to achieve. So my interpretation of that clause (which goes on to talk about source code) is not that important.

True, it's not explicitly stated that users must be able to not only 'change' the software, but change it and actually run the new version. This is an omission that v3 aims to fix.

GPL3 is not anti-DRM as such

Posted Dec 21, 2006 17:46 UTC (Thu) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link]

But it is arguable that what the GPLv2 allows you to modify is the
program, not the source code - indeed, it does specify that source should
be supplied in the most convenient form, does it not? In which case, it's
not a very big stretch to argue that modification to the source code is
only the means by which modifications to the running software may be
effected, not an end in its own right.

If the effect of the GPLv3 is to make explicit that implicit argument,
then I struggle to see why it's even controversial. Not to mention that a
DRM system doesn't have to lock out user-compiled binaries; all that's
needed is a per-machine key, and a way of accessing that at compile time.
If the GPLv3 does not explicitly prohibit such a scheme, then it cannot
possibly be said to be anti-DRM. To make that claim would be to confuse
concept with implementation.

Copyright © 2006, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
Powered by Rackspace Managed Hosting.