" /> Open at Adobe: May 2007 Archives

« April 2007 | Main | July 2007 »

May 29, 2007

Adobe Developer Live!

Next week, I get to talk about open stuff at the Developer Live event in the UK. It looks like a fun event.

My topic (on an evening panel hopefully fueled by a good crowd and maybe a pint of something dark) is about development in the future and the impact of open source. Well, honestly, they word it a bit better:

The Future Is Wide Open
Open source development tools/platforms/environments will increasingly shape future generations of rich applications on the desktop and on the web. Will any single enviroment dominate the next generation of applications? How can proprietary tools survive in an increasingly open world? Will there be a clear winner? Which technologies will win is still to be decided, but one thing is clear, the future is wide open.

Now as you might expect, I've got a few opinions on that there topic. But I'm going to withhold my thoughts until after the event. Let's just hint that the words hybrid, commodity and community will probably cross my lips.

I'm expecting a lively panel though.  So far, they haven't let me know who is on the panel with me, but somehow, I suspect I'll get challenged and pushed.

Anyway, if you're around, stop by and give me a shout. Or shout at me earlier.

 


May 24, 2007

Making it Meta with XMP

On Adobe's developer center, you'll find a little offering called XMP, The Adobe eXtensible Metadata Platform. This technology allows you to embed data about a file into the file itself.

However, the more interesting thing herein is that the SDK is open, downloadable and available for your use. In fact, XMP is used by a large number of industry standards for their own framework. One worth pointing out to the open source community is the Creative Commons organization. While not required, CC offers an XMP template for marking documents with license information.

But is it open?

Well, let's take a look at the download. Clicking on the download link leads us to the licensing agreement. It's BSD, about as open and friendly as possible.

While the earlier versions were quite open (under an Adobe open source license), the world really doesn't need YAOSL (yet another open source license). Moving to a BSD license allows you to use XMP as you desire, maybe in ways we haven't even thought of.

Anyway, if you haven't taken a look at XMP, nows a great time to start.

as always...

Open Source Vision Correction

Back in the days when evangelizing Linux and open source was still exciting, I almost got lynched for a simple statement at a Linux conference. The statement: “Linux will only be important when no one cares“.  

Hindsight being what it is, I’d like to think I was right, at least on servers, in embedded devices. Let’s hold judgement on desktops for a moment.

Linux is now just expected. Kind of like VMS in the 80’s, Windows in the 90’s, if you aren’t doing Linux, you are ignoring a significant and increasing part of the market.

"So what", you say? (And you’d be right… see, no one cares).

Well the issue facing Linux is a new and increasing confusion on what Linux is. In the last year as a consultant, I’ve met with 5 companies who wanted to know: 1. which Linux to develop for? and 2. how to get out of the loop on maintaining multiple, development-incompatible Linux flavors.

Well, there’s no good answer. We still have the Linux community (the last remaining “Cares” group ready to extol the glories of their favorite distribution, be it Red Hat, Novell, Ubuntu, or my choice for a new distribution “Britney Spears Linux” the distro with nothing hidden. It’s not trivial for companies, especially small companies, to pick and create support for all of the possible choices, nor does the current “standards” cover all the possible contingencies. (But at least the Linux Foundation is trying). BTW, big companies face the exact same challenge; they may have more resources to throw at the problem.

Already, the picket signs are up. “Just make it open source and we’ll do the rest”. Yeah right…

Believe it or not, it costs real money to release a product to open source. It can cost real money to contain potential damage from bad implementations. For instance, say I release a device driver for a new Schrödinger's cat powered storage device. I open source the Red Hat version of the driver, and it gets ported off to my BSpears Linux. Some unnamed company decides to use this driver and my hardware device to store their customer database, in spite of the “not supported” comments. When the device hits 80% full, the ported driver has a seizure and crashes, taking all the data with it. Guess who gets blamed… it ain’t Britney.

So, what’s the right play here? Should I go with the Red Hat dominant market share, the Novell (a newly-indentured servant of Microsoft) distro, some version that no one in my market uses? Should I focus on Germany (one answer), Japan (different answer) or the US?

So, what’s the hindsight going to be in 2010?

as always…


May 16, 2007

How to destroy goodwill. A Microsoft lesson

By now, everyone, including the yellow eyed penguins in New Zealand, have seen the Microsoft patent news around Linux. If not, check out this feed at Reuters.

In short, Microsoft claims that Linux violates 235 of their patents, and for the good of the world, will insist that these be licensed. Or else (nudge, nudge). Well the claim is that they'd prefer to license than litegate, but what would you expect in an interview.

Anyway the issue here is really not around Microsoft's claims, but rather around watching a multi-year initiative in open source outreach go up in smoke.

A few years ago, Microsoft started an open source initiative to reach out to the community, led by Bill Hilf, and Sam Ramji, Microsoft's OSSL and Port25 had a long hard path to acceptance, and even some trust. Over the past year, it's been interesting watching as the community (at least smart types) moved from the pre-conceived notion of Evil Empire to a stsed "These guys aren't that bad". In fact, at a recent Open Source Think Tank, Sam managed to clearly explain the concepts and forces behind the Novell-Microsoft licensing deal.

Years of outreach, resulting in positive good will... gone.

The Forbes article demonstrates the ever present danger in Microsoft, that the spokespeople may not be clearly aligned in content. While unspoken, the message came across, at least to me, as "Mama spank!", if the bad boys of open source don't stop all this nonsense and come back into the fold. In one fell swoop, the threat of patents, of legal attacks are all highlighted, outlined and identified. And all for our own good.

So what is it?  Is Microsoft embracing the open source community, led by Port25, or is Microsoft out to destroy the underpinings of open source through the application of litigation.

It's not easy for large software companies to understand, much less embrace open source. Trust me, I can attest to this (with background in leading these initiatives at SGI and now Adobe). However, it gets much harder when the efforts are countered by voices on high.

In many ways, this is symptomatic of a company that fails to grasp the business concepts that open source can power. Note, I didn't say "open source business model". Open source is many things, but not a business model, instead it enables or acclerates business models. Sure, patent licensing or litigation is certainly a business model, but then, open source is an elusive target.

In short, I'm sorry to see that Microsoft, with the steps taken by Port25, have failed to be supported by its executives. Cause while Microsoft may think we are playing Monopoly (" Go directly to Jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200"), the open source world is building a whole new world.

As always, opinions are my own.