lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From petite_abeille <petite_abei...@mac.com>
Subject [OT] An "Open" Letter
Date Mon, 27 May 2002 14:18:43 GMT
FYI.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Alex Horovitz <alex@f2fgroup.com>
> Date: Mon May 27, 2002  01:58:27 PM Europe/Zurich
> To: webobjects-dev@omnigroup.com, webobjects-talk@omnigroup.com, 
> webobjects-admin@omnigroup.com, eof@omnigroup.com
> Cc: Steve Jobs <sj@pixar.com>, avie@apple.com, toni Trujillo-Vian 
> <toni@apple.com>, Bob Fraser <bfraser@apple.com>, WebObjects 
> <webobjects@apple.com>
> Subject: [OT]  An "Open" Letter
>
> An open letter to Apple on why many people want an open source 
> WebObjects and EOF.
>
> -------Reader's Digest Version-----------------
>
> Four reasons why Apple should open source WO/EOF:
>
> REASON #1: WO/EOF cannot be legitimate extensions of the Apple brand, 
> its value to the marketplace is only achieved through independence from 
> the Apple brand proper. Placing WO/EOF under an open source license 
> allows Apple to retain control. It also allows legitimacy to and 
> adoption by those who would not normally accept or adopt an Apple 
> product in this space.
>
> REASON #2: Because debugging is highly parallelizable, an open source 
> WO/EOF will increase the number of debuggers and therefor increase the 
> stability of the product over the long run by applying the skills of 
> many more engineers than Apple could ever hope to support as employees. 
> With a large enough user/co-developer community, all bugs can be 
> quickly quantified and understood allowing a fix to become obvious to 
> at least one member of the community.
>
> REASON #3: If Apple will treat the WO/EOF user community as if we were 
> their most valuable resource in terms of current and future development 
> of the product, we will become their most valuable resource. Trusting 
> us enough to share the source in an open source fashion, will benefit 
> Apple (and the application server market) in ways they cannot even 
> begin to imagine.
>
> REASON #4: Because there is no accounting for taste. That was the first 
> lesson of applied microeconomics my college professor taught me, and it 
> holds true today. Apple, as smart and cutting edge as it may be, cannot 
> anticipate the ways in which WO/EOF will be utilized or improved upon 
> by people in the field. Open source allows for faster innovation and 
> the ability to capture truly useful and novel ideas.
>
> ---------Unabridged Version----------
>
> The first question Apple must address is one of business sense. Does it 
> make good business sense to open source any technology, let alone 
> WO/EOF. We have some evidence that at least in one case, Darwin, it 
> made sense to open source a key Apple technology.
>
> Now granted, this is an attempt to position Mac OS X against Linux in 
> some key market segments. That being said, a case was effectively made 
> and bought off on by key Apple people. Can we do the same for 
> WebObjects? Sure we can.
>
> WebObjects is not a clear legitimate extension of the Apple brand. I 
> suspect that everyone knows this to be true. I also suspect that this 
> gives Apple some pause in terms of being able to evangelize/market the 
> product at the level which would allow it to attain a respectable 
> position in the application server market. And, before you say that a 
> large company like Apple can't really afford to open source a software 
> project like WO/EOF, consider that IBM has done it for WebSphere.
>
> An open sourced WO/EOF could avoid the traditional problems Apple faces 
> in the area of brand extension. This is because Apple Engineering 
> enjoys legitimacy as an "outstanding" software organization. As 
> technologies, WO/EOF both enjoy reputations for being excellent 
> products. However, in terms of adoption, they suffer due to the 
> disconnect between the enterprise application server market and Apple's 
> traditional self branding.
>
> REASON #1: WO/EOF cannot be legitimate extensions of the Apple brand, 
> its value to the marketplace is only achieved through independence from 
> the Apple brand proper. Placing WO/EOF under an open source license 
> allows Apple to retain control. It also allows legitimacy to and 
> adoption by those who would not normally accept or adopt an Apple 
> product in this space.
>
> From experience, we all know there has _never_ been a bug free release 
> of WO/EOF.  Apple's WO/EOF customers face the same challenge in this 
> respect: given the new release, what bugs will it have that will 
> prevent me from moving to that release; and, what bugs in my current 
> release does it fix that would encourage me to move to that release. 
> Also from experience we know there to be a significant time in between 
> releases.
>
> The non-open source development style is the culprit here.  Apple is 
> passionate about release good stable software. Before a product can go 
> out the door there is an extensive amount of QA and testing. This being 
> the case, and with a goal of minimizing shipping bugs and maximizing 
> stability of releases, it takes time to get to a point where 
> collectively Apple feels it can ship the product.
>
> The experience of the open source community is quite the opposite. 
> Ironically, if you possibly sacrifice stability in the short term (a 
> given release) with many iterative releases, you gain greater stability 
> in the long run. How does this happen? Well, you are leveraging a 
> community of people who will act as your eyeballs. Each person 
> motivated by differing interests, and thus self-selecting in terms of 
> areas of the project they will focus on,  will begin to look at the 
> code base. In short, you are no maximizing the number of person hours 
> devoted to debugging and developing the software.
>
> REASON #2: Because debugging is highly parallelizable, an open source 
> WO/EOF will increase the number of debuggers and therefor increase the 
> stability of the product over the long run by applying the skills of 
> many more engineers than Apple could ever hope to support as employees. 
> With a large enough user/co-developer community, all bugs can be 
> quickly quantified and understood allowing a fix to become obvious to 
> at least one member of the community.
>
> What every product needs is a loyal customer base. Nothing in this 
> world breeds loyalty faster than giving some indication that one trusts 
> another to deal with the details of great importance. In the case of 
> software this is the code base.
>
> A panel of people looking at the same problem, no matter their skill 
> set, will be able to give a significantly more reliable answer than one 
> of those people chosen at random. I am ashamed to introduce it here, 
> but think of "Who wants to be a millionaire." The most reliable 
> lifeline is the "ask the audience" lifeline. It leverages what 
> sociologists call the delphi effect; and, even though the questions are 
> random, the audience's ability to provide the correct answer when 
> polled approaches 100%. Imagine if Apple harnessed the power of their 
> WO/EOF community to solve bugs and select future features that way!
>
> REASON #3: If Apple will treat the WO/EOF user community as if we were 
> their most valuable resource in terms of current and future development 
> of the product, we will become their most valuable resource. Trusting 
> us enough to share the source in an open source fashion, will benefit 
> Apple (and the application server market) in ways they cannot even 
> begin to imagine.
>
> At the end of the day, it all boils down to simple economics.
>
> REASON #4: Because there is no accounting for taste. That was the first 
> lesson of applied microeconomics my college professor taught me, and it 
> holds true today. Apple, as smart and cutting edge as it may be, cannot 
> anticipate the ways in which WO/EOF will be utilized or improved upon 
> by people in the field. Open source allows for faster innovation and 
> the ability to capture truly useful and novel ideas while minimizing 
> risk.
>
> Apple, please move WebObjects and EOF to an open source model and allow 
> us to materially participate in the success of the product line. You 
> can expand your engineering base without significant cost to Apple. You 
> will gain market share for your product and avoid diluting the Apple 
> brand. This move is a win for Apple and a win for your loyal WebObjects 
> and EOF developers.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Alex
>
> --
> Alex Horovitz
> EVP & CTO
>
> F2F Group, Inc.
> 36 Nason Street, 2nd Floor
> Maynard, Massachusetts 01753
>
> Phone:	978 897 1112 x225
> Fax:		781 735 0534
> Cell:		617 593 0247
>
> http://www.f2fgroup.com
>
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one 
> persists in
>  trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends 
> on the
>  unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message