Open source seems to have waned in importance over the past few years as cloud computing and mobile have taken centre stage. Of course open source remains a key ingredient for cloud infrastructure and mobile tooling, but is it still important for end users? About as much as it ever was, which is to say, not very much. So while …
what a depressingly dumb article
OSS and cloud are orthogonal, how could you possibly conflate the two?
"have a look at the frequency of searches for "open source", "cloud" and "mobile" on Google. Open source is a rounding error." - well, that's because people look for things like LibreOffice or Subversion or Linux or SugarCRM or Postgres or... *without* looking for your search terms. FFS!
"This is why many of us view cloud as the natural heir to open source..." - ach, idiotic conclusion.
"Open source has largely been a boon to developers, to vendors" - linux, firefox, LibreOffice.
one of the most important "features" of open source is the inability to support closed standards.
Open standards are really the first and biggest advantages with open source.
Also there is not less open source but more and better each year.
Linux it is not advertised on each box running Linux. It does not interest people if the television or router or this or that runs Linux, and the same goes for open source.
Using Google search for finding the name of the next president of the USA would probably be more useful than trying to predict anything about open source using Google.
"While an imperfect measure, have a look at the frequency of searches for "open source", "cloud" and "mobile" on Google"
It might be rather obvious that "mobile" is a term that would be used in many more contexts and frequency, not in the least that it's part of major company names unlike 'open source' is.
If I type linux instead: wow linux is still trashing 'cloud' and it's just one open source product!
"Firefox" almost keeps up with "mobile" for many years which is remarkable in itself. I fyou compare Firefox and salesforge, it's even more obvious.
Now compare 'android' and 'mobile'. But is android part of opensource or mobile?
Yes, I made my point clear by now, this is not an "imperfect" measure, it just says what you want it to say. Makes the whole article suspicious because "open source" might just as easily use the cloud as playing field like happens with the app mobile market. The whole article defines the terms wrong and mixes categories from the get go and never really recovers.
The cloud is open source (pretty much)
I guess what you are trying to suggest is that cloud applications are beating open source native applications. And this based on search results. Sadly this seems pretty much an irrelevant metric. People tend to search for things they don't know how to find...people who use open source know where to find it; people hunting for commercial solutions will more likely use a vendor or VAR not a search engine...
Very narrow minded article IMO
The author has several good points. But whats with this cloud fascination? Customers who are currently using the cloud couldn't care less. Whether their stuff sits in the cloud or on a single server; as long as it works they're happy. That has absolutely /nothing/ to do with cloud nor open source. The cloud became popular because it was cheaper to use than regular hosting solutions.
You can't use "cloud" as a general entity anymore. I have a dozen virtual servers thus I'm using "the cloud" they say. A friend of mine got website hosting, thus he has webspace with a database to use. Guess what; he's also using "the cloud", or so they say.
How come that I have to perform maintenance and he doesn't? Didn't we both use "the cloud', or so you (dear author) tried to make us believe ?
"Open source has largely been a boon to developers, to vendors."
Nonsense. With this sentence you totally ignore the effects which open source and OSS in general have had on the market.
Back in the day, as an end user, I had to pay (from mind) approx. E 500,- to E 600,- to get my hands on a legit version of Microsoft Office. Keep in mind: that was it; full Office, no more, no less!
Nowadays? I can pick up a full Office for approx. E 120,- now, if I want a little more (say Outlook) I pay no more than approx. E 300,-. And that's not all; if I agree with MS' policy and get myself a Windows Live ID then I'll even get 25Gb online storage, Office webapps and means for (small) collaborating services in the same deal!
Do you /really/ think this would have been possible when solutions such as Star Office, Open Office and Libre Office ("open source software") weren't around? And that's just one example!
What have you been smoking lately? ;-)
A service provided by somebody else.
We need new words for old things, i suppose, but not so long ago punched cards where sent to data centers to be stored and processed by somebody else.
Now that same data is sent by the internet to similar data centers to be stored and processed by somebody at home or perhaps in India.
I can understand the interest in providing this service to day by large companies like they provided the same service thirty years ago. So why this hype about something new when there is absolutely nothing really new, except the word. Still we need new words. Just look at how many new words are invented related to toothpaste and toothbrushes.
Dumbest extrapolation, evarrr!
So, a newer technology-related buzzword gets more Google searches than an older one?
Wow! —Did it ever occur to you that current, generic buzzwords are searched for more often, exactly because they are buzzwords? People hear or read the term and want to find out what all the fuss is about.
When today's buzzword becomes tomorrow's mainstream technology, everyone already knows *what* it is, so related searches are likely to be less generic and more concentrated on one particular aspect of the technology.
Am I the only one who finds that glaringly obvious?
A dumb article indeed - as others pointed out the 'search term comparison' is over simplistic at best or, less generously, moronic. And what exactly do you find if you lift the rock and look at what's 'under the hood' of cloud platforms? Largely, open source platforms and GNU-licensed software.
Users might not care, but what do they know?
If all OSS products were withdrawn or crippled in one fell swoop, how much of the internet would be left standing? Users do not care about the fact that Apache is OSS, or that their home wifi router runs Linux, but unplug all OSS products from the net, and the wails of anguish would be deafening. Much of open OSS (or software in general) is not sexy. It just sits in the background doing some vital job. That means people only begin to care when something fails.
about as useful as this graph
"not a chance to play buzzword bingo"
Pfft. Not like any other managers I've heard about on here then.
- Vid Hubble 'scope snaps 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 spewed online a MONTH early – by Microsoft