Open Source Unleashed

Open source overview 8/27/2008

Here are some interesting tidbits of open source news/updates from the past week or so:

• Red Hat Digital Keys Violated by Intruder - Security. Vulnerabilities in operating systems are nothing new. But let's be real for a second, when it occurs at an open source vendor like Red Hat the underlying assumption is that open = vulnerable. Still, this incident does bring into question the issue of certification as it relates to distribution of open source. I mean, if I download Fedora from Mirror #5 located in Country X, how sure am I that Red Hat, the assumed originator of the binary/source code in question, vouches for the contents of that package at that particular time?

• Does the market really want open options for cloud computing? I tend towards the perspective that open standards/open source sounds like it has more overlap with cloud computing than it actually does, at the current moment. I'm not particularly sure at this stage in the life of cloud computing that there is enough differentiation between a proprietary and open source cloud to drive preference for either. In essence, I think the market is still sorting out exactly what the cloud is about.

• Can Dell capture emerging markets with simplified PCs? I've got to wonder what cultural barriers might play a bigger role in determining if Dell can capture emerging markets. After all, price is only one determinant of success in capturing emerging Asian, African and Latin American nations. The article mentions computing needs, which I think is an apt term on account of the inherent diversity across the different nations in those regions. If the millions of "consumers" who compose these places are simply lumped into the emerging nations category from a strategy perspective, I feel like the results will suffer.

• Where will JavaFX lead?  The question shouldn't be does Sun have a shot in the mobile arena but how will it fit into the picture. How a mobile app space, one that has yet to mature to the point where bona-fide structural characteristics are evident, does not have room for another player is beyond me. That being said, it's also not clear exactly what JavaFX will bring to the table as an Rich Internet Application (RIA) enabler. Granted, the alignment between Java and JavaFX is a great for Java developers who have been left out of the RIA picture while Adobe, Microsoft and AJAX have provided their developers with capable tool sets. However, the JavaFX development kit simply needs to get out there and assert itself as an option before it's place is clear.

• What is Spacewalk?  A summary of what the open source (GPLv2) Linux systems management solution allows you to do might go as follows:
  
  • Perform inventory on systems (hardware and software information)
  • Install and update software
  • Collect and distribute custom software packages into manageable groups
  • Provision (kickstart) systems
  • Manage and deploy configuration files
  • Monitor systems
  • Provision and start/stop/configure virtual guests
  • Distribute content across multiple geographical sites.

Technorati Tags: open source software

Tactical open source for now...strategic open source later?

A corollary to the explosion of open source within the enterprise is it's evolution as an objective. In that light, open source has evolved from remote unknown/curiosity into somewhat of a key IT objective. Still, as I see it, open source continues as a tactical concern instead of a strategic one. By that I mean, it remains a means to achieving strategic IT initiatives such as building service-oriented-architectures (SOA), bringing enterprise collaboration into play or introducing web 2.0. A reality which isn't necessarily bad/good...only indicative of an actual state of affairs.

Listed below are just some of the strategic IT initiatives that open source, as a tactical measure, fuels:

• Enterprise collaboration. Tools such as Open-Xchange and Zimbra, instant messaging platforms like Openfire and Jabber, WordPress for blogging, and TWiki and MediaWiki can help drive the mandate for increased collaboration.

• Web 2.0. Dynamic languages (PHP, Python, and Ruby) along with various open source Ajax frameworks and tools from players such as Adobe and Laszlo Systems all contribute to

• Service-oriented architecture. Open source ESBs: Mule, OpenESB, and JBoss ESB help beat a path to SOA but are also supplemented by other enabling technologies including Axis, ServiceMix and Synapse.

Moving forward, I can visualize open source emerging as a strategic interest similar to, while also remaining a tactical driver for, the aforementioned. This as firms realize the inevitability of embracing open models of interaction and the enterprise software model matures to better accommodate open styles of software development. When this occurs we'll witness more participation by organizations in open source communities, more innovative forms of internal self-support as well as bridges to and from platforms like Microsoft's .NET or SAP's ABAP. The latter as both giants also come to a better understanding of where open source fits into their respective futures.

However, before this takes place there must be more awareness of the open source that is being used on both sides of the equation. For all of the Java based shops out there, I'd be willing to guess that the majority employ at least some open source. And I'd also venture to guess that very few know just how much. Since being aware of its presence will assist in effectively leveraging a larger scope of open source software, it's critical for this to change. The same goes for those companies dealing with suppliers...how many retain disclosure from suppliers regarding the amount of open source that is being used in commercial products? Very few, most likely. This variety of information might not seem relevant but is actually useful within the context of determining the value received in exchange for commercial licenses.

Yet the question of exactly how this transition from tactical to strategic will take place, remains. From my perspective, the increased presence of open source as a tactical mandate of sorts will drive the need for stronger open source governance. Which will further implicate closer alignment of overarching IT strategies with the open source domain. Currently, this link is missing and open source fails to remain relevant from a planning or strategic perspective. All despite the fact that there is definite value to be realized through open source on both fronts. The key will be for organizations to grasp that open source can, in fact, serve as a business accelerator.

Technorati Tags: enterprise strategy |  open source software | governance

Do Microsoft's open source steps mark a tipping point?

Now that OSI has given Microsoft the thumbs up for two of its licenses, I've got to wonder at what point should Entiva start tracking them as a player in the open source arena. Although with the lines blurring between proprietary and open source such that the standing definition of 'hybrid' isn't as relevant as it used to be, it's more important to determine how a sharp separation between open source and non-open source will exist. Now that Microsoft has made the plunge, there is sufficient motivation to assert that open source is evolving into a competitive feature as well as a differentiator. At some point in the near future perhaps open source will be on the boards agenda out of necessity not merely as a result of suggestion from the forward-thinking crowd.

Does SAP give a closer peek at their open source strategy after fellow giants Sun, Oracle, IBM and Microsoft have tipped their cards in this area? Or does it have too much (see: billions) invested in marriage to proprietary platforms? Microsoft certainly hasn't jumped into the open source innovator crowd just yet, but I've got to think that the company has a definite plan for putting the Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) and the Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL) to work. From a strategic perspective it's definitely going to be business as usual for Microsoft. Therefore, the magnitude of this move can't be measured in terms of changes to product lines, sales channels, positioning on the Microsoft side etc. Rather it should be evaluated within the context of industry-wide absorption of the open source model.

It's a very real possibility that an inflection point has been reached where software vendors actively leverage open source as a business accelerator in parallel to selling proprietary software. A thought that might drive certain free/open source software purists batty, but is more about evolution than it is ideological stances. Either way, this coalescence will take time (see: years) and will inevitably prove fraught with contradictory stances where entrenched policy and strategy will result in oppositional stances to some of the fundamental principles of openness. For some this might invalidate the trend or even point to a form of cognitive dissonance, but in my perspective it is but a single state in a long-term process whose end state has yet to become entirely clear.

One thing is clear, the paradigm shift that until recently has been more told to than witnessed by the mainstream is beginning to demonstrate some very visible signs of existence. So it shouldn't be much surprise that most questions about substantial open source disruption have to do with how instead of if. Where only the additional passing of time will illustrate both the answers as well as the next set of questions.

Technorati Tags: Microsoft |  open source software | OSI |  open source licenses | business models | SAP | IBM | Oracle

My 4Q 2007 Livre.nl contribution

In addition to blogging, I've also begun to contribute quarterly pieces on everything open (from open source to open standards to open business models) at Livre.nl which is a Dutch content portal focused on the same topics. For those who can't read Dutch I've posted my contribution for the 4th quarter of this year in English, below. I wrote it last month, so it's probably considered a bit dated from the perspective of the blogosphere but might still prove worth a read. For the record, I'm not fluent in Dutch either, but the Livre.nl folks are kind enough to translate my writing in advance of posting it.

Analysis of the IBM – OpenOffice.org Annoucement

On September 10^th, the announcement that IBM is now officially an active supporter and contributor to OpenOffice.org was released to the public. There are several angles and perspectives to the impact that this will have as far as open source, open standards and office productivity tools goes. It remains illogical to peg IBM’s move as a precursor to the fall of Microsoft Office as undisputed king of the hill for office productivity. The fact that IBM has just as much to gain as it does to contribute is overlooked in the process of casting the company solely as a benefactor. Overall, there is considerable room for more innovation and progress from alternatives like OpenOffice.org, all of which will accelerate the current rate of change in the direction of those same emergent parties.

A Much Needed Push for OpenOffice.org?
Since its inception in 2000, through the graces of Sun Microsystems, OpenOffice.org has established itself as the leading open source productivity suite on the market with 40 million downloads since 2003. Yet, market share estimates have yet to demonstrate that OpenOffice.org is putting a dent in the mammoth 95% market share held by Microsoft Office with its 400 million copies in use. The crux of the matter is that Microsoft-controlled formats have become de-facto standards, as a result of extremely thorough market penetration by Office and, in relation, the lack of sustained competition. OpenOffice.org has made an honest effort to address interoperability with these formats only to find resistance from the fact that they are closed and proprietary as much as by Microsoft’s complete control over them.

Regardless of the Microsoft slant, OpenOffice.org has yet to reach functional equivalence in crucial areas such as spreadsheet, database and project management. In making the transition from Microsoft Office, users continue to voice issues regarding the shortage of viable replacements for functions on which they have developed critical dependencies. While OpenOffice.org remains a quality alternative for basic productivity uses, those users who have made significant legacy investments in Microsoft Office find that even a small fraction of missing interoperability and feature completeness is enough reason to remain “victims” of lock-in.

There was talk that delays in the release of both Vista and Microsoft Office 12 a.k.a. Office 2007, opened the door for some variety of desktop Linux and OpenOffice.org combo to step into the void. However, anyone familiar with either open source product understood that the completely integrated combo of Vista and Office 2007 was, from the perspective of the consumer market, light years ahead of what the open source world had to offer. Even if release delays offered what seemed to be a window of opportunity. Nevertheless, the bigger opportunity for OpenOffice.org is being driven by the shift of the epicenter of the productivity market from the solely Microsoft dominated desktop to the web as a platform.

Newer tools like wikis and productivity applications delivered over the web (Google Apps) are causing users, organizations and businesses to consider whether Microsoft should be at the nexus of their options. Web-based approaches may not be ready to replace the desktop but they do offer OpenOffice.org the opportunity to use the open source model to integrate more web-centric content and information as sources of competitive differentiator. OpenOffice.org would benefit greatly from creating tie-in’s and integration points with this new paradigm. IBM’s direct involvement in the form of the infusion of technology [source code] and engineering [35 full-time programmers] might help make this prospect move closer to reality within the near future. The IBM brand will also boost the credibility of a project that is already far from anonymous, which might work towards encouraging other members of IBM’s expansive partner ecosystem to consider how contributing to OpenOffice.org might benefit them.

The IBM & ODF Angle
The commitment of support to OpenOffice.org is neither the first, nor the last by IBM in regards to open source software, or other open initiatives. The company can be traced as having furnished some sort of contribution to the following, amongst other, communities:

• The Linux kernel – http://kernel.org/
• Eclipse - http://www.eclipse.org/
• Apache Geronimo – http://geronimo.apache.org/
• The OpenAjax Alliance – http://www.openajax.org/
• The OpenDocumentFormat Alliance – http://www.odfalliance.org/

 IBM’s acceptance and support of openness in the form of standards and software is part of their competitive strategy for furthering their growth and market share in a number of areas. In the past, IBM has aligned itself with the disruption characterized by successful open source software in the attempt to harmonize with the trends that drive it. A proactive approach to involvement within open source communities has enabled the company to successfully integrate the resulting software assets into the company’s product portfolio. IBM’s prior, as well as its current, participation in OpenOffice.org follows an analogous pattern.

In the case of OpenOffice.org, IBM has been using its code for several years as the basis of its own version of office applications that have been integrated into the Lotus Notes 8 collaboration suite. They essentially forked the source code for internal use. Forking open source code is no easy task, even for a large corporation with access to considerable resources. So by synchronizing it internal efforts with the official OpenOffice.org code base, IBM will be able to better leverage the collective potential of a community that is bound to grow even more. Instead of facing the complex task of maintaining a separate fork, communal resources will be leveraged towards facilitating what better amounts to a general distribution. Consequently, future releases of IBM Lotus Symphony will benefit from being able to draw OpenOffice.org features directly from a general community distribution that has been verified by various pockets of the entire OpenOffice.org umbrella.

Even so, IBM has the most to gain from supporting the OpenOffice.org rise to parity with respect to its effect on the acceptance of open standard-driven, document formats. As it stands, the OpenDocument Formats (ODF) has suffered from the dearth of a fully compatible office productivity suite that is available as open source. As somewhat of a counter measure, IBM will release the aforementioned Lotus Symphony free-of-charge. Symphony includes a word processor, a spreadsheet, and a presentation tool. It is freely available to all users-- business, professional, academic, and consumer. In addition to running on both Windows and Linux, Symphony supports ODF and Microsoft Office formats. By contributing to the diversity of office productivity offerings, IBM strengthens the case for the acceptance of ODF. Interestingly, without the continued availability of progressively better offerings like Lotus Symphony and OpenOffice.org, it is very unlikely that a sufficient level of demand for ODF from the public sphere will foment in the near future.

The potential effects of continued Microsoft product saturation were, in part, demonstrated when the State of Massachusetts decided that they would move to accept both the Microsoft Office Open XML formats (OOXML) and ODF as acceptable formats. The decision rendered in early August of this year was a reversal of the state’s previous stance that only truly open standards should be included in their Enterprise Technical Reference Model (ETRM). As Microsoft scrambled to attain OOXML approval by Ecma International, indicators pointed to a contingent of elements uncomfortable with excluding Microsoft formats based on the perceived lack of alternatives for applications contained within the Office productivity package.

Moving Forward
OpenOffice.org has the opportunity to surface at the forefront of a new wave of solutions that address some widely held concerns about the availability of Microsoft Office alternatives. If the involvement of IBM spurs further progress as a comprehensive offering and the according mainstream momentum, the ODF movement will receive a much needed boost from a widely available, open alternative that also affords compatibility with legacy Microsoft formats. Moreover, the recent setback for OOXML at the hands of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/ International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), where it failed to achieve the required number of votes for approval, provides further cause for all members of ODF camp (IBM included) to press forward with more support of OpenOffice.org during the aftermath of Microsoft’s failed standards fast track.

Technorati Tags: OpenOffice.org |  open source software | IBM |  Microsoft | OOXML | ODF | open standards | Sun Microsystems

What the XenSource acquisition means

News that Citrix has acquired XenSource for $500m hit the wire today as the tail end of a flurry of activity over the past week or so in the virtualization space. Rumor and speculation had the application and desktop delivery company in talks with the privately owned XenSource about the terms of an acquisition on the heel of yesterday's successful VMWare IPO. Personally, the only surprising aspect of the announcement was the short period of time after the whispering about the deal started and the trigger was pulled on it. As is to be expected, the deal entails important implications and features several interesting angles.

What the Citrix acquisition means, depends on who you are and the ways in which you're involved with and affected by [open source] virtualization, in general -

XenSource: Despite its involvement with the Linux community through the open source Xen project community, 90% of the company's customers are Windows-only, meaning they were a Windows-centric company before Citrix entered the picture. Obviously, being able to cash-in to the tune of $500m with company revenue figures estimated at a "few million dollars," by Citrix CFO David Henshall, is a positive. Yet the company has traded its position as an emerging, independent player in a hot market for virtualization solutions for a run through the M&A marketplace. Obviously, Citrix's vision becomes de-facto and inevitably includes a high degree of compatibility with long-time partner Microsoft and its virtualization technologies. One has to wonder where Linux fits in for the newly acquired XenSource?

The Linux community: Work by the Linux community in getting Xen included with distributions and ultimately the kernel itself is set to affect the future of Xen as an open source project. Xen has already been fostered into both Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise server, plus others. Additionally, the Linux kernel has tentatively stated that Xen will be included with kernel version 2.6.23 due in October. Yet with the server-focused Novell and Red Hat enterprise Linux distributions already featuring the Xen hypervisor and despite XenSource having made its commercially licensed technologies available for Linux, customer uptake remained mainly on the Windows end of the spectrum. Numbers which strongly hint at Xen being used as a cost-effective alternative to VMWare's ESX platform.

A reality that does little to eliminate incentive on behalf of the Linux community to remain involved with the future of the Xen open source project. Therefore, as Citrix explores the possibility of relinquishing some control over the Xen project, look for all three to demonstrate their vested interest in the decision. While XenSource may be expressing a desire to meet the realities of its customer base in such a way as to imply turning its back on Linux, Xen technology for Linux is still very much promising enough to warrant an open source future that includes the entire Linux community. Most likely, the acquisition will spur the creation of more infrastructure around the Xen hypervisor as XenSource's commitment to Linux is no longer crystal clear.

Microsoft: Currently, Microsoft is facing the prospect of playing follow-the-leader, with its flagship virtualization technology not due, at the earliest, until next year. Even the company's Windows Server Virtualization (WSV), an add-on to Windows Server 2008, isn't slated for release until mid-2008. In this case, Citrix will serve as a product development go-between for its newly acquired XenSource technology and Microsoft. At the point where the Redmond-based company has finished WSV, it won't have to compete head-on with Xen and VMWare. Instead Microsoft will have the option of leveraging Xen adoption through the interoperability built into WSV.

Citrix: As it stands right now, before proceeding with its long-term strategy as it relates to XenSource technology, Citrix should be looking to seamlessly transition some of their involvement with the open source Xen project into another set of capable hands. I say this because Citrix strategy is Windows-centered to the point that its impartiality in an open source setting will most certainly be compromised. Plus, the strength of the Xen engine lies in collaborative development driven by a diverse open source community, featuring contributions from including Intel, AMD, IBM, among others. 
None of those companies exercise an inordinate amount of control over Xen and for good reason. Perhaps, Citrix should take a hint from IBM and how it turned over governance of Eclipse to a not-for-profit foundation. As capable as IBM might have been and still is, from a resource perspective, Eclipse isn't the platform it is today without them having given up top-down control.

As more facts come to the light regarding the acquisition, more can be said about the future and direction of those involved/affected. However, at this current point in time, it suffices to say that this definitely shakes up an already interesting market segment, making virtualization an area to watch even all the more closely.

Technorati Tags: virtualization |  open source software | XenSource | Citrix | Microsoft | VMWare | Linux | Red Hat | Novell

Analyzing Microsoft's open source commitment

Pushed by a fair share of commentary, dialogue and opinion, news of Microsoft's decision to submit its shared source licenses to the Open Source Initiative for approval has taken a life of its own. There is no doubt that Microsoft's action towards a formal entry into the open source arena is indeed significant, not only as an indicator but also as a potential market marker. However, I'm of the opinion that the move is best understood through the same lens which shapes the strategic outlook for a company like Microsoft. A lens framed by a competitive view of the entire software industry as well as the open source marketplace.

Considering the inconclusive nature of this announcement (nothing has been finalized/approved, yet) it is best classified as an expressed commitment to better adhering to the principles of open source. Not to be confused with a promise or obligation, an expressed commitment is nonetheless a critical element in the development and execution of competitive strategy. Particularly, this one is vital not only because it hints at a 180 degree turn in Microsoft's acceptance of the open source model, but also because of its affect on the competitive landscape. The purpose here is to have the implied communication of a wider open source strategy simulate the effects that a verifiable set of actions would have had, as thus far Microsoft has yet to provide evidence (proportional to its size and available resources) of having truly begun to internalize the value of choice, collaboration and openness.

In order for any expressed commitment to be classed as credible there must be:

1. Mechanisms to carry out the commitment quickly
2. A clear intention to make good, including a history of carrying forward with previous commitments.
3. An inability or moral resolve to back down
4. The ability to gauge compliance to the terms of commitment.

I put a check next to both 1 and 4, as Microsoft always has had the brains and brawn to not only execute on a viable open source strategy but also figure out where, how and what changes need to be made. However, there just isn't enough body of work to support 2 or 3. Accordingly, I find it very difficult to classify this move by Microsoft as anything more than the submission of a set of licenses to the OSI, let alone assign credibility to any implicit commitment.

I also don't see it removing "...considerable roadblocks in better executing these strategies in coming years," as Gartner analyst Mark Driver stated. My question is how exactly does this remove any roadblocks? Especially since most of these exist as a result of the structural realities of being an entrenched market leader. More so, if the licenses are rejected do the roadblocks reappear out of thin air? In essence, armed with the existing knowledge of facts, it's basically possible to assert as much/as little about Microsoft's open source strategy as it is from a run-of-the-mill press release.

The counterpoint might be that the media/public/influencers would never be so easily lulled into mistaking announcement for actual deed. Nevertheless, when coupled with the attention afforded Microsoft's OOXML (DIS 29500) bid to become an ISO/IEC standard this year, in addition to the 2006 Novell patent deal it becomes clear how and why there are some who proclaim that Microsoft  is well on the way to truly supporting open choices. Granted, I agree that progress has been made to an extent far exceeding what a great number of anti-Microsoft folks were predicting. And efforts like CodePlex and the Shared Source Initiative indicate a step up from what was previously an anti-open source tone set by the company. Yet considering the gravity of the competitive threat posed to Microsoft interests by open source as well as activity by other industry leaders such as IBM, Sun and BEA, the aforementioned endure as little more than footnotes in the grand scheme of things.

The crux of the matter remains that embracing open - anything isn't a one foot in, one foot out proposition. There are, of course, steps which need to be taken towards an end goal but it really needs to be embraced completely from the onset. As a result, larger outfits with quite a bit invested in being closed will continue to find it a challenge to balance ever-present profit motivations and pressures with the act of facilitating the growth of open models. And often for good reason: strategies and perspectives for one side are often diametrically opposed to those on the other. Ultimately, success lies in grasping the implications of this certainty and allowing them to sustain as active guidelines (see: IBM). On these grounds Microsoft is getting warmer, but not warm enough, just yet, to herald dawn of a proven open source strategy.

Technorati Tags: Microsoft |  open source software | open standards |  Open Source Initiative (OSI) | competitive analysis