Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney

What I told the Apache Foundation

By | November 3, 2010, 6:58am PDT

Summary: All I am doing is offering a little reporting perspective on recent Apache successes, which have been many.

Sorry I am not at the office right now, please leave a message at the beep.

Instead I’m downtown, keynoting The Apache Foundation conference in downtown Atlanta.

I’m reminded that when the radio show Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me played Oklahoma City recently, their celebrity spot was filled by Delmar Smith, whose main claim to fame has been working at rodeos since the days of Gene Autry.

Hi, I’m Dana, and I’ll be your rodeo clown this morning.

I’ve been reporting online from Atlanta since 1985, which in Internet time probably makes me Methuselah’s great-grandfather.

So all I’m really offering is a little reporting perspective on Apache’s recent successes. These have been many.

  • Business communities are in these days, and Apache was among the first.
  • Google loves the Apache license. This is a mixed blessing for Google.
  • Open source is not communism. It’s shared infrastructure. I even have a picture of Henry Clay to show the people.
  • Europe loves open source, and open source should love Europe back.
  • Open source profits go to users and developers, not Wall Street. Wall Street does not like this. Too bad.

Hopefully I will get some push back on these points and get a dialog started. This will teach me some things I don’t know, and there remain many, many things I don’t know.

As the talkbacks here remind me every day.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years.

At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog.

DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air.

My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

6
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: What I told the Apache Foundation
DanaBlankenhorn 5th Nov 2010
@adam.cassel@... I am sorry threads are so limited in the new system so I didn't get in to thank mheartwood, as I should have.

Personally, though, I like Wikipedia. I think it has improved greatly, and often has great depth. Not always -- its strength is in areas like entertainment. But there are also other community-based wikis doing encyclopedia-like things out there, some which deal with just the issues you're talking about here.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: What I told the Apache Foundation
Loverock Davidson 3rd Nov 2010
Make sure you stop by the Varsity, I hear they have some awesome food.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: What I told the Apache Foundation
tonymcs@... Updated - 3rd Nov 2010
Sorry, shared infrastructure is socialism. However, unlike you, I don't have a problem with that
0 Votes
+ -
RE: What I told the Apache Foundation
DanaBlankenhorn 4th Nov 2010
@tonymcs@... So America is based on socialism? Because our economy rides on shared infrastructure. That freeway you used this morning, or the Internet we are using now.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: What I told the Apache Foundation
mheartwood Updated - 4th Nov 2010
@tonymcs
@DanaBlankenhorn
The modern United States was build on the ideas of Classical Liberalism, and then later, Social Liberalism.

"Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe, and the Americas. It was committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith, a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress." Wikipedia ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Classical_liberalism )

"Government, as explained by Adam Smith, had only three functions: protection against foreign invaders, protection of citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, and building and maintaining public institutions and public works that the private sector could not profitably provide ." Wikipedia ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Classical_liberalism )

The private sector could not profitably provide the Interstate Highway system. Putting up toll roads, the only way for the private sector to get a return on such an investment, would make most people not use the roads, thus making it unprofitable.

But more importantly, there comes a time when a technology reaches the point where some governing body must set standards. Returning to roads for a moment, you can't have half the drivers driving on the right hand side and the other half driving on the left hand side. You need to standardize this or risk collisions.

As for the Internet, I bet you pay some private sector firm money each month in order to have access to the Internet. That's because it is profitable for private sector Internet Service Providers to exist.

However, if you remember the bad old days of Compuserve, you'll remember that there were competing networks which were not interoperable. They were private toll roads which only took you to where the provider wanted you to go. This meant that the providers limited your liberty . Liberty is the central core principle of liberalism. The word, liberal comes from the word liberty . A Liberal is one who favours personal liberty .

When someone had the bright idea of giving the public direct access to arpanet, a large network which was based on interoperability and which prized personal liberty above all (as anyone who's ever browsed the alt.whatever news groups would know), the Internet as we know it was born. " Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual. " Wikipedia ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Social_liberalism ) An interoperable standards-based universally-accessible computer network is good for the community because it enhances the liberty of the individual.

But as any ignoramus will tell you, anything that's designed for the community's benefit would automatically be communism wink.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: What I told the Apache Foundation
adam cassel 5th Nov 2010
@mheartwood

First, kudos to you for taking time and effort to contribute a thoughtful and sincere in tone and tenor post.

So much, quite sadly in truth, of what we see on ZD Net, and particularly in response to Dana's pieces, being nothing more than less than thoughtful or sincere and of a completely un-amusing character.

That said, my only suggestion for your consideration is that Wikipedia really does your argument no good credit. Whether Wikipedia's definitions as you quoted and referenced them are correct or not, the reality, hardly arguable, is that Wikipedia is simply not a primary or even secondary academic or reference source for rigorous exposition. This is "ironically the case" becuse it is a community resource, good for the community precisely because it allows for maximum personal liberty by way of allowing ANYONE to edit it.

Therefore, it is simply unreliable as a rigorous and referenceable source a-priori. No easily identifiable authorship can be attributed to anything you reference in Wikipedia. I could change the sections from which you quote directly after posting this, thereby changing the context around which and from which your quotes originate.

Hence, I am simply suggesting that be any given Wikipedia source or quote "correct" or "no", is not material in the sense that it is not truly referencable, correct or no, as there is no authorship attribute and the content can change at will.

Wikipedia may in fact be one great shining example of Liberalism reified through its "virtual" manifestation, existence, and accessibility, and also vis-a-vis its "goodness" for the community and personal liberty - powerful and valuable in this way - but in that very beautiful Liberal attribute is the very seed of it's complete innapropriateness for use as a primary or secondary source for any kind of referenceable critical or academic expression of thoughtful reasoning, as your very thoughtful and sincere post, whether I agree with it or not, certainly is.

Adam
0 Votes
+ -
RE: What I told the Apache Foundation
DanaBlankenhorn 5th Nov 2010
@adam.cassel@... I am sorry threads are so limited in the new system so I didn't get in to thank mheartwood, as I should have.

Personally, though, I like Wikipedia. I think it has improved greatly, and often has great depth. Not always -- its strength is in areas like entertainment. But there are also other community-based wikis doing encyclopedia-like things out there, some which deal with just the issues you're talking about here.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix