Difference between revisions of "Open Source as Infrastructure"

From Technoscience
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Changed protection level for "Open Source as Infrastructure" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)) [cascading])
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
__TOC__
+
A discussion on how we can develop and address various
 +
cultural and societal aspects using open source developments
 +
over the last decade as analogy. We look at the development of
 +
open source and discuss why large companies are committing
 +
resources to open source as it makes business economic sense.
 +
What it is to give respect not only to inventors but to the uncredited
 +
many, and how we can use this as an analogy to look at
 +
various aspects of a culture as information infrastructure.
  
 +
== CONTENTS ==
  
 +
Contents is a lead into to other pages that consolidate one theme.
 +
Each of these pages should go through a collaborative refinement over time.
 +
Some of the pages are more complete, where as some are very rudimentary and will need work and further discussion on the significance of the alluded themes in them.
  
== '''How Open source is making business economic sense''' ==
+
[[ How Open source is making business economic sense ]]
  
Kiran's argument that business economic sense would consider open source as infrastructure started this discussion.
+
[[ Infrastructure Discussion ]]
:http://jace.zaiki.in/2010/01/21/open-source-as-infrastructure
 
Some thoughts are documented by Ramkumar
 
=== What drives open source by Ramkumar ===
 
:http://artagnon.com/what-drives-open-source
 
:http://artagnon.com/modern-thoughts-on-open-source
 
=== Searl's  writing that support this ===
 
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doc_Searls
 
:http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/understanding-infrastructure
 
"It is the generativity of Linux and the Net that makes both function as an essential yet poorly understood form of infrastructure: a kind that serves ecological as well as geological and architectural functions. As generative technologies, they support origination, production and reproduction to an extreme of fecundity that shames the most reproductive species." "I coined the expression 'markets are conversations' [for] I saw the LAN market change utterly, almost overnight, when the whole market shifted its core topic from pipes & protocols to services"
 
:http://www.linuxjournal.com/files/linuxjournal.com/ufiles/ubiquitize_infrastructure.JPG
 
Ubiquity creates infrastructure. Commoditization moves from Scarcity to Ubiquity.
 
  
== '''Infrastructure Discussion''' ==
+
[[ ICT for Development and cost implications ]]
  
This discussion, we hope will not only substantiate the business economic sense of open source but also a general understanding of community infrastructure. In turn, we hope that understanding the why and how of open source may provide us insights into a culture of infrastructure development. Again in Serle's language: "It is wrong to assume, as we have been doing throughout history, that those primarily responsible for the foundations of civilization are its leading figures and institutions. While those leaders are certainly involved, full respect must be given to the invention, as well as the hard work, done by the uncredited many." Open source analogies could make this aspect tractable. "That hackability-support is what gives us infinite varieties of infrastructure. What we need now is to start understanding new forms of infrastructure on their own terms, and to understand more deeply what infrastructure has been all along." "Can we align infrastructure and generativity? Answering these kinds of questions requires examining topics at a depth one cannot plumb just with news coverage, or by framing queries with the parochial interests of categories and factions. We are in new territory here."
+
[[ Open Source in International Market Economy ]]
  
'''Infrastructure:'''
+
[[ The innovation excitement versus maintenance work ]]
* Like utilities, roads, etc; basic necessaties for everyday performance.
+
 
 +
[[ Culture of Infrastructure ]]
  
* Like decentralized activity that develops and sustains necessary depenencies.
+
[[ Questions, Doubts and a To-do List ]]
  
* Like assumed as available and developed by a culture.
+
[[ The Google discussion and Consolidation of Services ]]
  
'''Cost:'''
+
[[ Open source and usability discussion ]]
  
Amortized cost for community in the large; (like tax)
+
[[ Miscellaneous ]]
  
== '''ICT for Development and cost implications''' ==
+
[[ Historical Incidences, etc ]]
  
=== ''' Case of computers for rural India''' ===
+
[[ Reference Links and related references ]]
  
Kentaro who was head of Microsoft research India [http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/events/indiasummerschool2010/toyama-tenmyths-june23.pdf]
+
[[ Questioning these relationships ]]  
  
10 myths presentation of Kentaro elicits the role of infrastructure of various kinds that are essential for considering ICTD as solutions. The cost analysis compares the amortized cost of utilities versus the necessary cost of maintenance of the deployed computers in the villages. 40% for maintenance, 20% for training, 20% for distribution and installation, 15% for actual computers, connectivity and power. This indicates that almost 80% a typical ICTD project would maintenance, training and installation of computers/devices. Community capacity for these activities can not only reduce the cost by 50% but also nurture a healthy economy for the communities by channeling these expenses to local entrepreneurs.
+
[[ Discussants, Contributors ]]
 
 
Bjorn and Frantisek on choosing open source ERP systems, in the book Open Source Eco-systems
 
refer to the role of open source choice as good for promoting indigenous technological development, and that a UK document on international development asks for a review of policies regarding procurement to carefully evaluate products with respect to such benefits. "Other reasons for the adoption of open source software for developing countries include avoiding being hostage to proprietary software, advancing knowledge more quickly and helping to set up an information economy.
 
 
 
 
 
== '''Open Source in International Market Economy''' ==
 
 
 
=== ''' Hold-up problem and open source as infrastructure solution ''' ===
 
 
 
Micheal and Yuri's article on Gigaom talks about the fate of Flash. Flash is an exception
 
in the history of Public Software Institutions over the last 50 years of Web development which was dominated open source [http://gigaom.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/schwarz-takhteyev-2008.pdf]. They discuss the hold-up problem that is fundamental to the dependencies created in the proprietary world. The cost of dependent software is a common experience, where if you want to use Microsoft Office or Pagemaker software, you also need Microsoft Windows and one has to also pay for a Windows license. Pagemaker's dependency on Windows requires that Windows works with Pagemaker and also grants Pagemaker the right to develop software on Windows. If Windows does not want Pagemaker to be run on Windows it becomes a hold-up for Pagemaker and for Pagemaker users who are Windows users. Note that this hold-up is generally not an issue with Open Source Licences as Pagemaker can both work out a patch as it can see the internals or it can release a Pagemaker version which installs the dependent software. They elaborate on the severity of the hold-up problem in the IT sector. "Building an Internet company on a foundation consisting of proprietary software owned by others is akin to building a house without owning the land under it." Most businesses are vary of this hold-up problem, while they are also interested in creating these dependencies that can increase the potential of hold-up of other businesses and especially software used in Governments. [Microsoft's 25% worldwide income is US govt]. Further they say "open Source is an economically powerful solution to the hold up problem". When software used by governments and those that the public depend on are held-up.
 
 
 
 
 
== '''The innovation excitement versus maintenance work''' ==
 
 
 
A recent survey shows more and more large companies committing to open source in the USA. [http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/08/16/how-corporate-america-went-open-source/]
 
"This is one of the huge changes in open source over the last decade -- the move from mostly volunteer developers to corporate participation"
 
 
 
"Open source development provides an increasingly efficient and cost effective way to deal with growing technology needs, while enabling customers to avoid being locked into one vendor or being forced to use its approved partners when they need service or support. Over the next decade, Herbsleb predicts such forces will drive the market for open-source software to 'increase dramatically.'"
 
 
 
''' Contributions in Open Source Infrastructure is not as exciting '''
 
 
 
While contributing to Innovations in Open source maybe quite exciting, contributions to infrastructure aren't as exciting. Large part of contributions to infrastructure are sponsored. E.g. Canonical sponsoring Ubuntu research. Companies sponsor contributions to maitenance because it helps maintain the infrastructure. Also its easier than funding innovation.
 
 
 
 
 
''' Consolidation of Internet services is more significant than Open Sourcing the service '''
 
 
 
While open sourcing a service such as a mail service will allow users to host their own mail service easily, replicating the infrastructure needed for a service is a still a challenge. Also consolidation of a service over the Internet ensures that there is one compliant centralized system than several deviating distributed services. Also a consolidated service is likely to have a large user base. A large number of users justifies that the service tend to be free, even if not open source. An open source service, servicing a very small user group is as good as closed for its sustenance costs, as of now, can render the service unpredictable.
 
 
 
''' Opening up - Upside and Downside ("Irrelavent discussions") '''
 
 
 
While the philosophy of open source communities drives quality, because of contributors reviewing, modifying and patching up code. Some big corporations while they support "freeware" are still largely averse to open sourcing. It is likely that they believe - opening up their code, may lead to several irrelevant discussions that may become a hindrance in a typical corporate discipline of execution.
 
 
 
 
 
=== ''' Case of critical contributions to Wikipedia ''' ===
 
 
 
''' Innovation and Contribution Excitement - wikipedia Aron's article '''
 
 
 
The tech.fortune.cnn article also says that "The key benefit for the companies that coalesce around a particular open-source platform is that open-source encourages innovation and the rapid expansion of the market can lift all of their boats." This is clearly infrastructure development. Aaron's article about the contributions to Wikipedia elucidates how critical contributions seep into open source software, by analyzing at contributions to Wikipedia. Innovations in software evolution can be compared to these critical contributions.
 
 
 
[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia] Aaron explains the thesis that innovations may come from individuals but for standards and interoperability the ardent get motivated to police and maintain the presentation and usability. While the corporate world are motivated to do this for open source software; guess they can therefore also get to say what is a contribution and who are the vandals over time.
 
Aaron analysis his finding as "everyone has a bunch of obscure things that, for one reason or another, they’ve come to know well. So they share them, clicking the edit link and adding a paragraph or two to Wikipedia. At the same time, a small number of people have become particularly involved in Wikipedia itself, learning its policies and special syntax, and spending their time tweaking the contributions of everybody else.. This second group is clearly very important — it’s thanks to them encyclopedias have a consistent look and tone — but it’s a severe exaggeration to say that they wrote the encyclopedia."
 
 
 
 
 
=== ''' Generative nature of open source ''' ===
 
 
 
There are other people trying to look into the nature of contributions to major open source software.
 
[Gnome analysis one] [Ubuntu contribution analysis in-house] Kiran says it contributions to Gnome is likely to be more generative than contribution to Wikipedia, since a contributor to Gnome or Linux kernel needs to acquire specific skill and knowledge of this specific narrower domain as compared to Wikipedia contributions. It is not clear why this is not similar to Wikipedia analysis if one were to consider only the sub-group of people who are comfortable with Gnome or Linux kernel.
 
 
 
Contributing to infrastructure is not exciting. Another potential example: BOSS operating system maybe is an example.
 
 
 
 
 
=== ''' Explorations: Open Content, Access, Workflows ''' ===
 
 
 
Open Source and Collaborative Communities (like Wikipedia)
 
hint: school software could be a collaborative community
 
 
 
Develop: "Open source" as concept relative to what one is utilizing as tools. (and products)
 
 
 
 
 
== ''' Culture of Infrastructure ''' ==
 
 
 
*  Art of Infrastructure
 
*  Product versus Method and sharing
 
*  Product as a reference
 
*  Knowing of a method
 
*  Culture of Infrastructure
 
*  Product versus Method and sharing
 
*  Infrastructure and Culture (?)
 
*  Where does Internet fit? (in comparison to open source as infrastructure)
 
 
 
== ''' Questions, Doubts and a To-do List ''' ==
 
 
 
 
 
Consolidation of Internet services is more significant than Open Sourcing the service:
 
While open sourcing a service such as a mail service will allow users to host their own mail service easily, replicating the infrastructure needed for a service is a big challenge. Also consolidation of a service over the Internet ensures that there is one compliant centralized system than several deviating distributed services. Also a consolidated service is likely to have a large user base. A large number of users justifies that the service tend to be free, even if not open source. An open source service, servicing a very small user group is as good as closed.
 
 
 
Opening up - Upside and Downside:
 
While the philosophy of open source communities drives quality, because of contributors reviewing, modifying and patching up code. Some big corporations while they support "freeware" are still largely averse to open sourcing. It is likely that they believe - opening up their code, may lead to several irrelevant discussions that may become a hindrance in the rigorous corporate discipline of execution.
 
 
 
*  Why is the Ubuntu dependencies research of importance?
 
  Contributions to a package that scores really high is important. Or contribution that have been made can be
 
  considered really important. (For e.g. Ritchie on C)
 
 
 
*  What about packages like Apache where a large number of contributions have been made, but there may not be much dependency on it?
 
  The Ubuntu dependencies research gives scores as a measure for infrastructure.
 
  The Apache contribution (Xerces, POI) must be scored on a measure for innovation.
 
 
 
Maintaining software involves adding small features, ensuring backward compatibility, gentle degradation.
 
 
 
MS has 50000+ people. While this number seems huge and unjustifiable, we cannot underestimate the maintenance effort needed.
 
 
 
Open source is claim that it supports gentle degradation. Open source communities - don't care that much about backward compatibility and degradation as much as about new features. While gentle degradation is absolutely required for non technical users of software.
 
 
 
== ''' The Google discussion and Consolidation of Services ''' ==
 
 
 
*  The-Google discussion
 
 
 
Google's strategy for revenues may be this : short term - ad revenue, longterm - apps...longer term like api / extension. Google currently makes money from even its e-mail services by extending through Google apps.
 
 
 
Google API are not open source but Mashups on them can be open source / closed source. Wikimapia - derivative based on Google Maps
 
 
 
*  What is the importance of consolidation of services?
 
 
 
On the discussion of replicating a google mail service, if it were open source in smaller pockets two points came up:
 
1)  replication of infrastructure will still be a challenge.
 
2)  Consolidation of mail services is to avoid spam problem...
 
 
 
This extended to a discussion on consolidation of services. Distributed services and keep them tied together ideally - doesn't seem to have worked. All points of distributed service have to get as good as a centralized service.
 
 
 
The internet is a federated system that is the only one that seem to have functioned despite no consolidation. It's easier to build a centralized system than to build a distributed system that complies.
 
 
 
Google depended on map-reduce ... protocol - they put out the source. Face book depends on open sources thrift for IPC. Thus an existing service , infrastructure will be reused consolidating it into one of the essential services.
 
 
 
 
 
== ''' Open source and usability discussion ''' ==
 
 
 
Open Source innovations are compare-able at a technical level to closed source innovations, not usability level.
 
 
 
Live Journal - started out as closed source is now open source and is being used by facebook.
 
* mem cache (everything on RAM read with perl) and
 
* open id : both came from Live Journal,
 
* RSS aggregation was invented in Live journal,
 
* user profile pic was first in Live Journal,
 
* pics like flickr before
 
Live Journal was a paid blogging service and was profitable (Brad Fitzpatrick...made it open source, personal philosophy) and then was sold to Six apart...sold to SUP (Russian company) - http://news.livejournal.com/104520.html?thread=66509896. Live journal became a dead service because of Six apart.
 
 
 
Dead Journal, Greatest Journal and Blurting were born out of Live Journal source.
 
 
 
People don't use open source because the service is a lot of work. Open source is not about control it's about infrastructure. People don't want to be in control...they do not know what to do with open source.
 
 
 
What makes a service cheaper and tending towards free is not "open source" but the number of users (stake holders of the service). An open source tool with one user = Closed source.
 
 
 
== ''' Miscellaneous ''' ==
 
 
 
* ''' Why open source app code? '''
 
 
 
If you put out source, you can get people to come and examine it / to give people some feedback or extend to
 
something good to use. 
 
 
 
Apple's Quick silver had bad code. The person who wrote/ managed Quick silver joined google and put out source
 
code and said it's bad code. Users determined that performance is bad anyway vs developers announcing this.
 
Quick silver failed even before its code was open sourced.
 
 
 
But an individual demonstrating bad open source is different from a Corporation / Government saying it's bad
 
and inviting criticism. Usually happens because they may have too many unnecessary conversations going on when
 
it's open source, which may hinder development.
 
 
 
* ''' The government's understanding of software '''
 
 
 
EVM argument - Government does not understand software infrastructure because they want to think of it through
 
their own structure.
 
Competition will make services cheaper. Open source can't help the make the service cheaper in cases like
 
Airlines, Railways. E-rail hasn't replaced the official system. Where there is a barrier to entry, open source
 
projects can't enter (IRCTC)
 
 
 
* ''' Ubuntu success '''
 
 
 
Successful open source works if people can build something over it.
 
 
 
Linux Kernel contribution is not fragmented. - Software is moving towards consolidations.
 
 
 
Canonical has the trademark of "Ubuntu" - Ubuntu 1 was a proprietary file sharing app like drop box. Ubuntu is sponsored by Canonical - pays for Ubuntu releases. Ubuntu has a "very well managed" community also because money gets pumped into Ubuntu. The commercial angle exists and is driving it forward.
 
 
 
* ''' Extending the Ubuntu Dependencies experiment '''
 
 
 
It helps to understand the influence of packages, who is contributors, which organization are they affiliated with.
 
 
 
We can then determine: What is the amount of money pushed in? What is the size of the community that he has gathered?
 
 
 
 
 
* ''' School Project would be interesting '''
 
 
 
School project should be open source + sustainable. We can understand bootstrapping on different layers of infrastructure and what set of users Different layers have. Clone is not infrastructure - not done well. Zope3 is infrastructure - customizable, reliable, reusable. Pantoto?
 
 
 
Infrastructure line is very thin...is very expensive. There is lesser money lower down on the infrastructure line and so you can't afford costs of customizing anything on top of it.
 
 
 
== ''' Historical Incidences, etc ''' ==
 
 
 
Did Germany experience rapid industrial expansion in the 19th century due to an absence of copyright law? A German historian argues that the massive proliferation of books, and thus knowledge, laid the foundation for the country's industrial might.
 
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html
 
 
 
 
 
Public Information Infrastructure
 
http://www.slideshare.net/pmpiii/public-information-infrastructure-4560021
 
 
 
Open source's ardent admirers take but don't give • The Register Forums
 
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2010/08/13/open_source_numbers/
 
 
 
 
 
* ''' State of food '''
 
 
 
Taravani [http://www.ammas.com/topics/Cooking/a82506.html] Methods loosing to Products
 
 
 
"A society that controls will be controlled"?
 
 
 
The invention of bread and beer has been argued to be responsible for humanity's ability to develop technology and build civilization [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer]
 
 
 
* ''' Escapism '''
 
 
 
soma..; vacuous escapism which makes people comfortable with their lack of freedom [http://www.huxley.net/]
 
 
 
soma and the art of devotion [http://www.scribd.com/doc/15981921/-Thunder-Among-the-Pines-Defining-a-PanAsian-Soma]
 
 
 
Information Technology and Food, Health and Livelihood Security in an Era of Climate Change [http://nabc.cals.cornell.edu/pubs/nabc_16/talks/Swaminathan.pdf]
 
 
 
It unites as much as it divides. It could be controversial enough to create national outrage, or it could be the everyday routine that is not important enough to be discussed. [http://thealternative.in/articles/anna-purana---all-things-food]
 

Latest revision as of 02:38, 2 January 2011

A discussion on how we can develop and address various cultural and societal aspects using open source developments over the last decade as analogy. We look at the development of open source and discuss why large companies are committing resources to open source as it makes business economic sense. What it is to give respect not only to inventors but to the uncredited many, and how we can use this as an analogy to look at various aspects of a culture as information infrastructure.

CONTENTS

Contents is a lead into to other pages that consolidate one theme. Each of these pages should go through a collaborative refinement over time. Some of the pages are more complete, where as some are very rudimentary and will need work and further discussion on the significance of the alluded themes in them.

How Open source is making business economic sense

Infrastructure Discussion

ICT for Development and cost implications

Open Source in International Market Economy

The innovation excitement versus maintenance work

Culture of Infrastructure

Questions, Doubts and a To-do List

The Google discussion and Consolidation of Services

Open source and usability discussion

Miscellaneous

Historical Incidences, etc

Reference Links and related references

Questioning these relationships

Discussants, Contributors