Is this guy completely clueless? Who actually listens to this fool? Planned software is the backbone of the software industry. That is how they get customers to prepare for an upgrade or new installation. Where as the linux model is check the installed version, then check the vendor's website to see if a new release is out, download source, extract it, compile, then install. Planned software is much easier to deal with.
Whitehurst claimed that there are "half the number of bugs in Linux per thousand lines" compared to the Microsoft operating system, because of the open-source, collaborative model.
Lies! Keep dreaming buddy. Linux is proven to have a higher rate of failures and bugs than any other operating system.
Comparing Britney Spears to proprietary softare just put his big foot in his big mouth. Britney made millions in sales, linux didn't. Britney is rich, popular, has talent, and looks great (albeit a little crazy). Linux is works for free, is not recognized, doesn't work well with others, and is ugly to work with. So ask anybody if they want to be Britney or linux, you will see Britney win out every time.
With a CEO like this its no wonder Red Hat and linux are tanking so quickly. The guy is in full denial about the many drawbacks of running linux.
Red Hat CEO: Vista marks end of 'planned software'
Summary
Jim Whitehurst has claimed the proprietary software-development model is coming to an end, as open source better meets customer needs
Topics
Big software releases like Windows Vista mark the end of "planned software" for the industry, according to Red Hat chief executive Jim Whitehurst.
Speaking at a forum in Singapore on Friday, Whitehurst said the proprietary, "top-down, planned" software-development model, characteristic of closed-source companies, is coming to an end. Such a model is demonstrated by Vista and the number of bugs within it, he said.
Whitehurst claimed that there are "half the number of bugs in Linux per thousand lines" compared to the Microsoft operating system, because of the open-source, collaborative model.
Vulnerability-research company Secunia released a report earlier this year stating there were more flaws reported last year for Red Hat operating systems than for Microsoft operating systems. This was denied by a Red Hat security team member.
Whitehurst explained his position in an interview with ZDNet Asia, saying closed-source models are hampered by limits on the amount of planning that can be done during the development process to foresee all the roadblocks that might arise. "If software gets too big, it cannot be organized. This is an indicator of what can be planned," he said.
The Linux stack, on the other hand, "had to be modular" because of how fast development efforts on it spread. Development from the global open-source community happens in tandem and at a rate not pre-planned by a "monolithic vendor", Whitehurst said.
However, because of the modular development model and the number of parties checking for errors, open-source software comes out with fewer errors and is more organized, he explained. Whitehurst attempted to explain the appeal of open-source software's participatory "community" model by likening open source to US reality TV competition American Idol and closed products to US pop star Britney Spears.
Of American Idol, he said the record studios were able to spend less to market the eventual winner because audience participation accurately showed which singer was preferred before the competition was over.
Britney Spears, on the other hand, as a "product of millions of dollars in investment" is not a sure bet when each record is released to the public, because the marketing surrounding her was pre-planned and excluded the public, he said.
Whitehurst said during his presentation that development through the open-source community is also faster and often more precise in terms of what customers need, because enterprises are able to contribute code that they have written for their pain points back to the community. He contrasted this with the traditional proprietary method of "listening to customers" and writing code based on that interpretation.
"Linux functionality leapt forward because customers could develop what they wanted, and Red Hat could help share it," he said.
Talkback Most Recent of 47 Talkback(s)
-
Loverock Davidson20th Oct 2008 -
....
Hmmm, he's a CEO and you're what? Just a clueless angry little boy. Who listens to him? People with money and the power to make change. Who listens to you? Maybe your mom...
Linux User 14756020th Oct 2008 -
So does that mean
it is the 'Year of Linux' again? Can I truly put it on my calendar this time?
Or once again is the CEO of a company looking to dethrone MS once again wishfully thinking aloud?
mdemuth20th Oct 2008 -
And what is in the CEO's best interest?
Hmm. My product is Open Source, my product competes with closed source, our goal is to make money by taking customers away from closed source.
What should I say? Who's model should I endorse?
GuidingLight20th Oct 2008 -
What a crappy argument!!!
That was a very crappy and useless argument. You, as his mom, read his post... or didnt you?
jorgebraga21st Oct 2008 -
Closed-source will live on...
..as long as there's a Microsoft Corporation, an Apple Inc,
and any of the dozens of other big-name software vendors,
there will always be a place for closed-source.
While some software will have open-source code within, no
one will willing give up their closed-sourced code when it
still makes them a large profit.
nix_hed20th Oct 2008 -
Sure it will
I didn't interpret these comments as necessarily meaning the end of closed source (although I'm sure he'd like that), but rather the end of the corporation dictating to the needs of the consumer. Proprietary software makers can adapt to that paradigm, but they are at a disadvantage when it comes to reacting quickly to market factors. The periodic releases of proprietary software in hopes of hitting a home run with each release will certainly be a thing of the past, but perhaps a subscription based model may work for proprietary companies who are on the ball and can provide value.
Michael Kelly20th Oct 2008 -
First, Red Hat is probably not the best speaker for Open Source, or is it?
Granted. There are benefits and amazing software products emanating from the Open Source realm, but I challenge the notion thatbecause of the modular development model and the number of parties checking for errors, open-source software comes out with fewer errors and is more organized [end quote]. These simplistic tenets (more like dogma) continue to propagate on the blogosphere totally ignoring the actual tools that the corporate world and the consumer world use on a daily basis. The line between "propietary" software and "Open Source" software is getting blurrier and blurrier. Mac OS was built under the BSD Unix variant, for example, and would you call it that "close source"?. How about "shared source" vs "open source"? My point here is: articles and stands like this of Red Hat and kin are very simplistic and for those in the know it simply reads as a poorly thought out sales pitch. "American Idol" vs "Britney Spears". Please.
No "software development model is coming to an end". The article fails to sustain/prove/demonstrate what it claims in the header.
Gruffydd20th Oct 2008 -
As much as
i like the efforts of the Linux community. I have to agree with you here.
In my opinion the Idols vs Spears analogy is bad too.
TedKraan21st Oct 2008 -
RE: Red Hat CEO: Vista marks end of 'planned software'
IBM's OS's may be considered "closed source" because they are written/supported/updated by IBM.
OS/360 Release 1 in 1965
Various versions over the years.
z/OS V1.R10 - latest release Feb 2008
Doesn't sound to me like it's going away. Big Iron will always need an OS and IBM will always oblige.
Ant those who consider Big Iron to be a 'dinosaur' should remember dinosaurs were around about 1000 times longer than homo sapiens has been around.
And looking at the way things are going today, I'm not sure we humans will be around anywhere near as long.
steeleweed@...20th Oct 2008 -
Red Hat Gives Flawed Argument
"Linux functionality leapt forward because customers could develop what they wanted, and Red Hat could help share it,"
This is the main argument pushed by Open Source, and for many things it is the correct argument. However many of the big dollar software packages are not represented well through open source. Things like exchange, SAP, CRMs are core business applications that techies have little interest in developing free competing products.
Open Source is good for techies developing for other techies, but that is where OSSs usefulness ends.
mikefarinha20th Oct 2008 -
Slight difference
I think you've almost got the crux of the problem with Open Source, but with a small twist - it's not that techies aren't *interested* in developing these products. ERP systems are the classic example - Open Source has yet to create an ERP that comes even CLOSE to something at the level of even ACCPAC or Dynamics GP (nevermind something as huge as SAP), and are only very marginally comparable to Quickbooks or Simply Accounting.
The real problem is that techies don't possess the business knowledge to make the systems workable. Open Source projects lack the business needs identification and focus for exactly the same reason that they tout as their big advantage - flexibility from central planning.
daftkey20th Oct 2008 -
We Agree
We mainly agree, but I disagree with you on a semantic level.
You said:
The real problem is that techies don't possess the business knowledge to make the systems workable. Open Source projects lack the business needs identification and focus for exactly the same reason that they tout as their big advantage - flexibility from central planning.
Most business requirements aren't beyond the abilities of techies. IMO it simply isn't in their interest. To their credit I think it is completely within the realm of OSS to create these enterprise level applications. However they lack the leadership for these endeavors.mikefarinha20th Oct 2008 -
Level of detail..
Most business requirements aren't beyond the abilities of techies
For software such as Content management, collaboration, document storage, and the like, I would agree with you - as I've stated earlier, there are pretty static business requirements for this type of software, and they can mainly be managed through a database alone.
In the case of ERP, CRM, and SCM software (accounting, distribution, job costing, etc) I would HIGHLY disagree that techies would have the knowledge to develop this type of software any more than the accountants or operations staff who will be using it could. There is too much required knowledge for either camp to be successful.
For this type of software, you need collaboration from many specialists (HIGHLY skilled programmers, Accounting Specialists, Operations Management Specialists, etc) and project management from people that understand the fundamentals of each camp who can manage the communication of requirements from the Accounting/Operations people to the software architects.
Ask any given programmer, for example, what IFRS is, and how it differs from GAAP, and you'll probably get a blank stare, however understanding and applying the difference is crucial for any ERP system that hopes to be used by a publicly traded enterprise where there are legal ramifications to the capabilities of the software.
To their credit I think it is completely within the realm of OSS to create these enterprise level applications. However they lack the leadership for these endeavors.
Fundamentally, yes, we agree that Open Source software lacks this kind of leadership, but it isn't just because of lack of interest. Open Source projects are still generally organized, defined, and run by programmers - little knowledge of complex business requirements. This hurdle needs to be cleared before Open Source can even begin to churn out this type of enterprise software.daftkey20th Oct 2008 -
woah...
Uh.... okay, that's friggin ugly - sorry for the mess of text, the website obviously ignores carriage returns..daftkey20th Oct 2008
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
