This is exactly what I didn't want. A flameware of Linux vs windows (or to some of you - Linux vs M$). Since my point wasn't comprehended, I will stop putting anymore comments to fuel the debate.
I put my valuable time in user groups mainly to to share *knowledge* so that I can learn from others (and I continue to) and also if I have have something that others can learn from (sometimes that happen too :P). But discussions turning to flameware is always ugly, never fruitful and hence wastage of time. So not wasting any time of anybody, I stop in this thread to put any counter argument there. Instead I take this opportunity to learn or at least know what I am missing in my knowledge. One interesting concept here I find is "Google being Open Source". I don't know how I missed such a basic fact even being in the field of open source. Since my living comes from doing open source development in one of the key Linux based company, I was under the impression that I have got at least this "Open Source" keyword demystified. Seems like I didn't. So I would like to take this opportunity to bounce my ideas here and see what i got wrong. The fundamental definition of open source (from THE site of OSI - http://www.opensource.org/) "Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in." Also in the topic of OSS, another term "Free Software" (promoted by Free Software Foundation - www.fsf.org) must be mentioned. One may think that this two terms are interchangeable but in reality its not. They are two different but overlapping concept. In my opinion (or at least its how I did) is made myself clear on the difference. Its a vast topic. The following is from Wikipedia - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software) "The difference in the terms is where they place the emphasis. »Free software« is defined in terms of giving the user freedom. This reflects the goal of the free software movement. »Open Source« highlights that the source code is viewable to all and proponents of the term usually emphasize the quality of the software and how this is caused by the development models which are possible and popular among free and Open Source software projects." Since these are philosophy, I would think it is important for one to find out "which" one is your belief? For my case, "Free Software" is the utopia which could be great to achieve but I don't see it being achievable in near future. And thats how the compromise happened and "Open Source" was born. Now lest see why my knowledge of OSS and the fact "Google is Open Souce" contradicts. In fact to my knowledge "Google is one of the key proprietary software company". Now, how did I got this so twisted? Going back to the definition of open source given by the people who defines OSS - "Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process" And unfortunately I don't see 1. Their search engine algorithm open for the industry to review? 2. GFS (Google File System) is this amazing architecture that do wonders. Where do I get to download / review the source code? 3. BigTable (Google database) is the "wonder of our time". Raise your hand if you have seen the code or even the compiled binary? 4. Whole world is losing billion in "spam annoyance"? Hey why not get the "Gmail spam filtering" downloaded and use in out mail servers. Actually the list is endless for the actual Google products are not only closed but also not Free (not as in price, go read FSF definition of Free Software). In fact to my understanding, Google providing closed solutions like Picas, Google Desktop in Linux platform for free as in price is is just about anti OSS as M$ can be. Moreover with all the respect, they promoting OSS projects all over the world (Summe Of Code, donations, sponsorships) while making their own products closed source should be termed "double standard". They make you believe in one thing that they themselves don't believe. Aren't you being "Fooled" by them here. Oh just to make it complete - yes every now and then they release some internal codes. Mostly they give out example codes showing how to use the API to interface with their systems. Which is quite good. Anyway there goes what I know, so please correct me. Oh, something I need clarification. Zico, I couldn't find the sources of Googles products in the link you provided - http://code.google.com/projects.html Maybe I am too dumb to do it. Can you please downlaod the backend codes/scripts/files that makes the "Google.com" search engine and send it to me. I will appreciate. Or to make it simple, the code for Google Desktop (please not the SDK/API) so that I can compile, make binary and install it. Even picasa will do. Now to the conclusion, as I am being very open to my ignorance, if in any case I am right in my understanding, then my message to all of you those claiming OSS/Linux folks - So before start fighting for *it* (what evert that *it* may be), at least do homework and know what is "it" you are fighting for. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense. Does it? Ok had to add this interesting bit - During the luch I was discussing with one of my coworker about the idea of Google being seen as OSS provider. His name is Russell Coker (http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html). He is famous for his work on SELinux (Security Enhanced Linux).Also maintainer of "portslave" and other stuffs. Giving the bio so u can see that his comment can be valued based on his background. Hers what he said - "Google is one of the most profitable propriety software/service company of current time" Btw, he rund a nice blog that is very very interest to read http://etbe.coker.com.au/ This page explains him - http://www.coker.com.au/russell/rules-sucks.html Regards, Soyuz
