Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google And Open Source

Posted by Zonk on Tue Feb 14, 2006 02:26 PM
from the so-happy-together dept.
Businesses Google The Internet Software Linux
Nate writes "Former Slashdot editor, games programmer and consultant Chris DiBona talks about his new work at Google in a brief interview over at Linux Format. Most notably, DiBona points out that Google wants to follow IBM's lead in not attempting to control open source, and he also highlights the reasons why Google will never be a 100% open source company." From the article: "So I don't see the word 'sponsorship' as being appropriate. Because sponsorship also implies stewardship. We don't want to run open source, that's not who we are. I have to tell you, I've admired how IBM has gone about this. They've for the most part not screwed up: they haven't taken things over, they haven't managed to break anything, they've done a lot of good work. We're not going to use that as a model for what we want to do, because we're different companies, but I really want to get code out there, I don't want just... money. Money's not enough."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Google And Open Source 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Money's not enough ... but it sure helps (Score:5, Interesting)

    by b0r1s (170449) on Tuesday February 14 2006, @02:29PM (#14718304) Homepage

    A lot of projects benefit from IBM's money, but as importantly, a lot of the Linux codebase benefits more from their hardware compatibility. We run a large farm of IBM e-Series servers (x306, x335, x336, x345, x346), and it really, really helps when we can grab the source for drivers straight from the IBM website.

    Hardware compatibility: thank you IBM.
    • really, really helps when we can grab the source for drivers straight from the IBM website.

      As long you run SuSe X.X or RedHat Y.Y, with kernel Z.Z for which the RAID controller driver's (closed source) and NIC ones were written to...

      Sun, HP or Dell are better than IBM on compatibility, in my humble opinion...

  • Money (Score:4, Funny)

    by saboola (655522) on Tuesday February 14 2006, @02:29PM (#14718305)
    I don't want just... money. Money's not enough.


    He can PayPal me any of it he does not want. I could sure as hell use it.

  • No one can own open source. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BigZaphod (12942) on Tuesday February 14 2006, @02:31PM (#14718334) Homepage
    Any person or company who contributes *anything* to the OSS community is helping it thrive. Google contributes in a variety of ways from actually releasing source code, funding summer of code, and even just existing as an excellent search engine making it easier for OSS developers to search for previous solutions to the problems they are facing.
    • I agree that no one can own open source software, as it's released from the moment of its creation. However, what Google is trying to say is that they don't want to control or influence open source development. Instead, I think that Google wants to find a way to encourage the current evolutionary process by which many projects are tried, and only the most viable get the critical mass of developers needed for continued growth.

      As far as Google's vested interest, I'd say that Google has an interest
    • What applications has Google released that are Open Source that you like? In fact, what applications has Google released that are Open Source at all? I'm not trolling, I'm honestly curious. I know a ton of Open Source code that has come from Redhat, IBM, Sun, Novell etc., but I don't know of a single project that Google has contributed a significant amount of code to. As far as I can tell all of their current offerings are closed source and Windows only.
      • While they didn't contribute code directly, they did finance a large number of internships working on F/OSS projects over the summer.
        • My mistake, I should have said other than the Summer of Code because I was aware of that project. That project cost them roughly a million dollars and for a company as profitable as Google that's nothing more than a little PR stunt. If they want to be comparable to other companies, such as IBM, they're going to need to contribute a lot more than that. All of the applications they've produced internally are closed source and Windows only. From what I've seen they haven't really supported the Open Source
      • There's a lot of stuff here [google.com].
    • I think you don't get the point: IBM and google just want to be "yet another open source geek". You won't see IBM/google people showing up as maintainers of a given project and controlling that project just to benefit their companies (unlike Sun does with, for example, openoffice)

  • Release pagerank (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2006, @02:34PM (#14718376)
    First: We're not going to use that as a model for what we want to do, because we're different companies, but I really want to get code out there, I don't want just... money. Money's not enough.

    Then: We're never going to release PageRank [Google's trademark system for ranking web pages in its search index], we're not going to release things like that, because to release them would ruin them. If you release how you do the ranking function, suddenly every web scrambler in the world screws up the rank and Google search becomes useless. We don't want to do that.

    Or, you could release it so others can learn how it works and perhaps come up with improvements or more sophisicated algorithms/systems that are rank scrambler proof.

    But that endanger profits right? think of investors, lifesavings etc. Fair enough.
    • But we all know how well security through obscurity works. Why ruin a perfect system.

    • Re:Release pagerank (Score:5, Insightful)

      by realmolo (574068) on Tuesday February 14 2006, @02:50PM (#14718533)
      Don't be stupid.

      EVERYTHING gets cracked. If Google released PageRank, then they'd be starting a "war" with the search-engine abusers. A never ending war. Yeah, having it be "open-source" means that the community could constantly update it to prevent the latest abuses, but the people doing the abuse would just find new holes, since the source would be available.

      Sometimes "security through obscurity" is the right thing to do.
      • They would be starting a war? I don't know where you were the past ten years, but that was has started quite some time ago (like just about when search engines showed up)

      • Re:Release pagerank (Score:4, Interesting)

        by m50d (797211) on Tuesday February 14 2006, @04:08PM (#14719235) Homepage Journal
        EVERYTHING gets cracked. If Google released PageRank, then they'd be starting a "war" with the search-engine abusers. A never ending war.

        Like that doesn't happen now.

        Yeah, having it be "open-source" means that the community could constantly update it to prevent the latest abuses, but the people doing the abuse would just find new holes, since the source would be available.

        They would find holes anyway. The choice is between bad guys finding holes and good guys patching them, or just bad guys finding holes.

        Sometimes "security through obscurity" is the right thing to do.

        Not if you're relying on it. Because it isn't real security at all.

        • The choice is between bad guys finding holes and good guys patching them, or just bad guys finding holes.

          The choice is between 1) bad guys easily finding holes and many good guys patching them, or 2) bad guys finding holes with more difficulty and a few good guys patching them (or not, if the product is unmaintained).

          As I recall, John Carmack had a similar situation when he wanted to release the source for Quake* Exposing the source code for the (obscured) multiplayer network protocol made it much easi

          • As I recall, John Carmack had a similar situation when he wanted to release the source for Quake* Exposing the source code for the (obscured) multiplayer network protocol made it much easier to write cheats. It eventually happens anyway, but hiding the source code gives some measure of control over the problem.

            That is a good, but bad example. As far as I know, only a fraction of the people who use the internet play Quake 3 today. And this is a very small fraction even in gaming considering everyone else who
      • A never ending war. Yeah, having it be "open-source" means that the community could constantly update it to prevent the latest abuses, but the people doing the abuse would just find new holes, since the source would be available.

        You mean like Wikipedia? As far as I can tell, Wiki works. Well sort of... Vandalism happens all the time, but its swiftly dealt with (most of the time).

        I think we are just faced with more eyes looking at source doing good and with a few eyes doing evil.

        A few eyes (and I mean few) d
      • What they should do is subtly leak that there's actually a backdoor in the pagerank system, say that including the number "42424242" in your web page somewhere instantly doubles your pagerank. Make it real and genuine as well, and better yet, release a press release saying "You should not use this backdoor!". Wait a little while until all the insidious users are exploiting this then ban everyone using it.
    • If you release how you do the ranking function, suddenly every web scrambler in the world screws up the rank

      PageRank ranking function:

      http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/page98pagerank.html [psu.edu]

      Details on the implementation of PageRank:

      http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/brin98anatomy.html [psu.edu]

      Both of these papers are extremely outdated, but the PageRank ranking function is by no means a secret.

  • complete the quote! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    > I don't want just... money. Money's not enough.

    What he means is that he wants power, prestige, and chicks!

    Seriously, what happens when money's not enough? You go for power (politics), and then you get caught in a scandal with some chicks, and it all comes crashing down. It's happened too many times.

    • I'm willing to give it a go, though. I suppose out of a sense of noble self-sacrifice that I have. Please start posting your cheques so I can start my campaign for world do^W^Wthe coming elections.

      I trust I can rely on your vote.

    • Seriously, what happens when money's not enough?

          T#i5 i5 w0T I'vE b3eN +RyIn6 o+ T31L y0U - u n33d h3RbViA6ra n0W!!1

  • Sponsorship doesn't imply stewardship (Score:4, Informative)

    by ortcutt (711694) on Tuesday February 14 2006, @02:39PM (#14718425)
    sponsor (verb, trans): provide funds for (a project or activity or the person carrying it out)
    Nope. Nothing about stewardship there.
    • That's a mighty limited dictionary you have there.

      From dictionary.com:

      sponsor

      n.
      1. One who assumes responsibility for another person or a group during a period of instruction, apprenticeship, or probation.
      2. One who vouches for the suitability of a candidate for admission.
      3. A legislator who proposes and urges adoption of a bill.
      4. One who presents a candidate for baptism or confirmation; a godparent.
      5. One that finances a project or an event carried out by another person or group, especially a business ente
      • I don't see that it even implies it. It's a small matter, but DiBona had me worried that I didn't speak English as a native language. Well, I'm now convinced that the term used to imply some sort of assumption of responsibility since the old definitions seem to relate to Godparents and the like but it doesn't anymore. Sponsorship means money. It doesn't even imply that there is control over the receiver.

  • Open Source, Schmopen Schmource... (Score:4, Funny)

    by RobotRunAmok (595286) on Tuesday February 14 2006, @02:53PM (#14718556)
    Tell him to post a new slashdot poll for old times sake.

    Hell, just tell ANYONE to post a new slashdot poll; that most-used-key-combo thing has been up there since LAST Valentine's Day...
  • FTA, he states that some of the software would be useless to release unless you have "more than a hundred" servers in a datacenter. That's really not that many boxes nowadays. Besides, I don't need more than a hundred physical machines when all I need is ten decent machines and VMWare or Xen to run ten virtual servers each.

  • new name (Score:5, Funny)

    by syrinx (106469) on Tuesday February 14 2006, @02:57PM (#14718597) Homepage
    Oh, I thought "Google and Open Source" was going to be the new name for Slashdot.

    I should have known that was wrong.. if that were happening, it'd have to be "Google, Apple, and Open Source".
  • Okay, I'm confused. I thought Page Rank was an OSS project.

    And then there are other things. We're never going to release PageRank [Google's trademark system for ranking web pages in its search index], we're not going to release things like that, because to release them would ruin them. If you release how you do the ranking function, suddenly every web scrambler in the world screws up the rank and Google search becomes useless. We don't want to do that.
    Now, if you recall, Google publishes EXACTLY how the Page Ranking works: http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html/ [google.com]

    It is all right there:

    As a Google user, you're familiar with the speed and accuracy of a Google search. How exactly does Google manage to find the right results for every query as quickly as it does? The heart of Google's search technology is PigeonRank(TM), a system for ranking web pages developed by Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin at Stanford University.
    Am I wrong?

  • Hypocritical? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Swamii (594522) on Tuesday February 14 2006, @03:18PM (#14718802) Homepage
    From the article,

    And then there are other things. We're never going to release PageRank [Google's trademark system for ranking web pages in its search index], we're not going to release things like that, because to release them would ruin them. If you release how you do the ranking function, suddenly every web scrambler in the world screws up the rank and Google search becomes useless. We don't want to do that.


    The very same argument could be used from Microsoft's point of view. We're never going to release Windows [Microsoft's trademark operating system], we're not going to release things like that, because to release them would ruin them. If you release how you do the operating system internals, suddenly every hacker in the world screws up the code and Windows becomes useless. We don't want to do that.
    • The difference is that Microsoft releasing Windows would open the system to exploits based on bugs, how the system IS NOT supposed to work. Google releasing PageRank would open the system to exploits based on how the system IS supposed to work.

      Windows would be fixable, PageRank would be ruined.

      • Windows would be fixable

        Theoretically. On the same theoretical note, more eyes looking at PageRank would allow its evolution to perform better and even resistant in the face of Google ranking whores.
    • The very same argument could be used from Microsoft's point of view. We're never going to release Windows [Microsoft's trademark operating system], we're not going to release things like that, because to release them would ruin them. If you release how you do the operating system internals, suddenly every hacker in the world screws up the code and Windows becomes useless. We don't want to do that.

      So your comparing a search algorithm to that of a software layer that allows access to the devices on a generi
    • Ranking pages in search is all about trust. You hop from one trustworthy area to another hoping that good information breeds good information. The best scheme for trustworthy information right now is the collaborative pointing of a large group of trustworthy sources. There aren't schemes independent of pointing to decide, for example, if a certain page is semantically well-related to the execution of your query and provides accurate information in the domain you are interested in. Too much common-sense cont

  • What? (Score:3, Funny)

    by SnarfQuest (469614) on Tuesday February 14 2006, @03:42PM (#14719009)
    they haven't managed to break anything, they've done a lot of good work. We're not going to use that as a model for what we want to do,

    That doesn't sound promising.

  • Not money, power. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cyno (85911) on Tuesday February 14 2006, @04:26PM (#14719383) Journal
    I don't want just... money. Money's not enough.

    Yeah, you want power. The power to control people's lives. Hundreds or thousands or millions of people's lives. Through propoganda and censorship. That's what you want.

    And how do you go about getting it? Keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.

    Its all about trust, for me. Never about money or power. And I don't trust Google. They're too powerful to trust at this point, like IBM, a monopoly or a government. They would have to fully embrace the GPL or some other form of selfless act to be taken seriously. Free wireless is nice, but so are free cell phones.

    With regard to GNU software, I trust the code. The license makes that easy for me. I don't have to trust the project leads or copyright holders. They've already given up their power by using the license. But Google isn't like that. They like the money AND the power.
  • If you release how you do the ranking function, suddenly every web scrambler in the world screws up the rank and Google search becomes useless. We don't want to do that.

    So, if some competing company pays someone to get a job at Google, get the source for the PageRank algorithm, and leaks it onto the internet, then Google is basically toast?

    I'm not sure that's something I'd admit to in public...

  • Dibona spoke on this topic at SCALE last week. Slides and audio will be up shortly. Keep an eye out on the SCALE website [socallinuxexpo.org]
    • He never said it wasn't about the money. He only said that money wasn't enough. Money will buy almost everything, so by implication those can't be enough either. It follows that he wants everything money won't buy, as well, not instead of. That, to me, is scary.
      • He did not say that he wants everything that money can buy, as well as everything that money cannot buy. He just wants at least one think from each group.

        How unreasonable is that? I too want (at least) one thing from each group. I want food: that's from the money group. I want to earn respect from my peers. That's from the not-money group (at least, if you have the right peers). Why is that scary?

      • It follows that he wants everything money won't buy, as well, not instead of. That, to me, is scary.

        Why is that scary? There are many wonderful things that money won't buy. Some of the things that mony won't buy, such as love, may be scary; I don't understand finding it scary for people to want things that money can't buy. Money can buy sex, it can even buy somebody who says that they love you, but money cannot buy real love. Money cannot buy personal satisfaction, money can't buy you time, money can'
    • It's true that Google is a for-profit company, but it's clear that they have other goals that push them along.

      There's a vibe that I get from that company that they care about making the internet useful. Also, Google employees get less than industry standard pay and they dont' complain - they enjoy doing what they do.

      Yeah, they like money, but the care about more than that.
      • MSFT give almost nothing back

        I beg to differ. Microsoft has given you all this exploitability... could you ever have imagined being able to take over a computer through a JPEG? What about all the worms we have? They would have died had Microsoft not given us all these security holes! Honestly, shame on you...

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.