N.B.: Quizás sea el producto de la evolución natural de una early adopter, mezclada con el hastío de la centralización de datos de la web 2.0 y del abuso de registros (sign-up) de cara al usuario.
N.B.: My talk at the OSWC 08 might be the outcome of the natural evolution of an early adopter, along with the weariness caused by this centralizing tendency of current web 2.0 to lock up their services in different, scattered clouds and the abuse of signing-up services. I used to love web 2.0 but chemistry is fading. I’m definitely for the standardization of an open ID that unites all your services and sign-ups, everything in just one and intuitive place. I am not for overwhelming myself and my students with 15 different sites (definitely good and useful for their language practice) which require 15 different sign-ups and offer compatible services that could be combined and mashed up and therefore reduced to a lot less…(but they aren’t), that wouldn’t be fair if I’m to fight back infoxication 2.0.
Powerpoint de la charla/ponencia que di en la OSWC 08. Cliqueando sobre Comment podréis añadir a esta misma presentación vuestros propios comentarios, desacuerdos, ejemplos, etc. en audio, vídeo o como queráis (o siempre queda dejar un comentario más abajo, como comentario del blog). También os dejo el enlace a Slideshare]
ACTUALIZADO 30/10/08: Un excelente post de Dolors Reig del Caparazón para saber más sobre lo que es el Cloud Computing.
¿Qué tendencia de las dos se puede cargar la web 2.0 tal y como la entendemos ahora? ¿La webOS y la sobreabundancia de servicios que requieren registros, que se repiten, que van limitándose cada vez más a lo freemium? ¿O la evolución hacia una WEBOSS 2.0?
What can kill web 2.0?
Playing prognostication, I think web 2.0 (as it has evolved right now…to that barrage of cloud computing echoing services) will kill web 2.0.
FLOSS has a community of code develusers (developers+users) behind, whereas web 2.0|webOS has a community of content prosumers, but it doesn’t work as an open organic community and this will become its main failure.
For an Open Web 2.0 Foundation NOW (if I could).
I’m no devil’s advocate. Just went maverick.
www.qwabi.ru
15 Comments
[...] FLOSS has a community of code develusers (developers+users) behind, whereas web 2.0|webOS has a community of content prosumers, but it doesn’t work as an open organic community and this will become its main failure. ..For an Open Web 2.0: Web 2.0 y FLOSS [...]
Great! It’s a good presentation and the slides with voice make it even better. But, as a developer, I think you are missing some points about software licenses, rights and duties. Maybe is a bit long to talk about it in a comment, if you want to start a discussion write me and email
I’m going to send you some slides that a friend of mine did for a course about licenses, software development, free sofware… hope they give you some other reference points.
Genial herramienta. Y el tema, con tu presentación, me está ya dando ganas de publicar algo. Ya mismo bajo de the cloud.
Un saludo
Me encanto tu presentación, genial. Lo que más me gusto fue la explicación de la AGPL, licencia que me agrada mucho sobre todo para desarollos web.
Un saludo
Me ha gustado mucho la presentación y por fin voy entendiendo algunos términos que circulan por ahí. Una presentación muy visual. Genial el fotomontaje de dar y recibir con Microsoft, Google, Apple. Estoy terminando de leer Infoxication, me está gustando mucho también
Ya….he podido ver la presentación hasta el final. Está bien planteada. También suelo aconsejar la adopción de FLOSS a mis clientes pero de entrada no termino de ver el peligro que identifica Stallman sobre el Cloud Computing como fin de nada. Sí si hablamos de software propietario pero, como bien comentas, existen ambas posibilidades.
El tema de la privacidad, de la seguridad, es algo controvertido, desde el punto de vista de que muchas de las plataformas cerradas que ofrecen los nuevos servicios de cloud computing, como Azure (microsoft) venden la seguridad precisamente como valor añadido a sus servicios.
Facebook, quizás sea un ejemplo paradigmático en la disyuntiva entre recibir y dar. Recibe, mucho, muchísimo de usuarios y desarrolladores (mediante sus apis abiertas) pero no da ni siquiera permisos para los intentos de una única ID de otros. Tiene su propio sistema, Facebook connect, que defiende a capa y espada mediante la estrategia de lock up del todo.
Muchas gracias por la presentación. Las citaré en el artículo que preparo acerca de Cloud computing en El caparazón.
Ah…y también por Kaltura. No la conocía y me ha parecido excepcional (PHP motion, un supuesto cms para vídeo con el que intenté trabajar hace unos días es terroríficamente malo)
Un saludo
Gracias a tod@s por los comments! -y por tanto, x leerme-
Dolors, ya bajaste de la nube? más q nube, nubarrones. Lo del Instituto de la Empresa, no lo sabía, bueno es compartirlo entonces via Twine.
Bueno sobre Stallman: creo que la figura de Stallman es necesaria, aunque suene a radical extremista o fundamentalista muchas veces es necesario para que haya términos medios. Yo sí entiendo el peligro que dice, es cierto que estamos dejando todo por comodidad (pq sí, es cierto q la webOS es cómoda) en manos de unos proveedores (que eso es lo que son) y que los datos ya no nos pertenecen y sí, Stallman es un control freak, pero quién no lo es? Los de la webOS dicen que no hay que ser tan control freak pero supongo que ellos mismos con sus datos de empresa lo son…o sea emplean doble rasero. Creo que la web 2.0 como se está desarrollando tiene cabida en el mercado pq está claro que siempre puede cubrir las necesidades de ciertos colectivos o individuos (por lo general sin tiempo y sin ganas de instalar nada) pero a la vez creo que esto va a reincidir en la brecha de siempre y que no se comenta: la de los que saben y la de los que no, y como no saben…al final no saben donde se estan metiendo.
No se puede decir q esté diciendo una chorrada cuando dice:
“It’s stupidity. It’s worse than stupidity: it’s a marketing hype campaign. It’s just as bad as using a proprietary program. Do your own computing on your own computer with your copy of a freedom-respecting program. If you use a proprietary program or somebody else’s web server, you’re defenseless. You’re putty in the hands of whoever developed that software.”
Aunque yo no pienso que sea malo, como tampoco pienso que lo es el código propietario. No es que practique el relativismo absoluto, pero sólo pienso en necesidades, análisis y cómo cubrirlas. Si al analizarlas veo que sólo hay una opción y es propietaria, que más se puede hacer? Pero lo que está claro es que cuando tienes dos opciones, pues hay que saber qué pasa cuando optas por una o por otra. Yo utilizo la web 2.0 casi como backup, flickr como backup de mis fotos…etc. Y claro, flickr puede desaparecer, el servidor morir, etc…pero vamos qué vida útil tiene un dvd? y cuántos discos duros se estropean tb?
Hay muchísimas empresas que no dan nada a cambio, y por eso no son FLOSS, aunque sean 2.0. Y claro, sí, son libres de dar o no, pero mira se me olvidó decirle a O’Reilly que ok, uno no da a cambio de nada..pero seamos honestos: qué pensamos de alguien que siempre toma y nunca da nada a cambio? Ok, toma de mi wifi o lo que sea…y yo lo sé y dejo…pero así hace siempre con todo..y eso sí, a cambio NADA. Bueno, es un sponger, un gorrón de los de siempre. Cuánto gorroneo hay en la web 2.0?
Es la antítesis del P2P -la verdadera red social-, o de iniciativas como FON por no hablar de Linux y punto.
Pero sí que hay un fleco por donde atacar a Stallman de lleno, es para decirle: mira “chaval” si ha pasado lo que ha pasado, es porque tú permitiste con la GPL un pedazo de ASP loophole por completo, en su momento se te avisó y no le diste importancia…y efectivamente cuando das una mano te cogen el brazo (you give an inch and they take a yard)…y después has tenido que ir corrigiendo y sacar la AfferoGPL.
Kaltura promete mucho…como ando pesimista, ya veremos en qué punto se estropea. A ver si al final no lanzan el código abierto para descarga…
ok, corto el rollo….
@bea: bueno, puedes decir lo contrario tb eh??
@jdeveloper: gracias! pero no crees q ha venido muy tarde ya la agpl?
@pplux: Thanks a lot! I’m waiting for the weekend to read them and I might change my mind in a blink of an eye.
And yes please; I’d love to know more about those missing points, sure I do miss them, I’m no expert…so I’d appreciate if you share your opinions here with us, rather than emailing me. Pleaseee
Hi All.. this is a big comment, sorry for my English, and don’t take it too seriously I’m playing the role of the devil here
*Giving and Receiving*
Talk about how beautiful is to have open source applications is one thing, but having the source doesn’t ables you to change it, even read it. For most people, the sources is completely useless they can not fix a bug even if they want to, or they can not fill a good bug report either because they are not developers. Even for me, that I’m used to coding, is hard and as me many many developers doesn’t care about the source code.
So, imagine how many people is already using open source programs but can’t do anything in return, they are just receiving but never giving. I really think that’s positive, that means that the programs are meant for many people, even for those that do not have programming skills, that’s great! but the point here is: is the source what matter most? how useful is to have something you can’t use?
*Google and Apple*
Oh, these are wolves in sheep’s clothing, aren’t they? Sure! they profit from open source giving nothing in return… well that’s not completely true. There are two issues here, first they do what they are allowed to do (I will explain this later), and second they actually help open source in some ways.
Google for example, helps developers community by giving resources as subverison webpages, mailing lists, etc. Helping others producing free software is great. Also Andrew Morton, which is the guy that tests patches of the linux kernel that will end in the final kernel’s main stream, is hired by Google since 2006. They pay him to keep on working on the kernel, and we all benefit from it.
Actually, do we really care about google not giving source of gmail? maybe is impossible given the structure of they computing network, is difficult to explain but google applications are meant to run in google servers (and it is not as easy as having an apache web server with some modules). Anyway they are giving really good webos applications, and they are free… and they are helping linux (in some ways) also they are doing some free software, the latest is “Google Chrome”.
But talking about google chrome is also talking about Apple, because they both use the same rendering engine which is “webkit”… which is a software apple made derived from KHTML which was a HTML rendering engine for KDE. So, in this case apple took free software, made free software and many others are using it. Now nokia, google, some gnome projects…
Apple even has a webpage with the open source projects they use and make: http://developer.apple.com/opensource/ The Mac os X kernel is derived from a FreeBSD, and it is public, they made webkit, improved the compilation tool chain,… so even these “wolves” are doing something positive, but remember they are still wolves. XD
* The Developer point of view *
So this is the point, after this long story about good and bad, let’s talk about the developers, those that make everything possible. When you write a code you are free to choose the license you want for it. There are many, you can do new ones, but you will probably chose one of the existing: MIT, BSD, GPL, LGPL, …
From the point of view of the FSF you should try to use “copyleft” licenses, that guarantees the well known freedoms of study, modify, copy, redistribute… but also ensures that derivatives of the software use a compatible license (probably forces the same license).
Is this what we want? imagine I’m making a beautiful piece of software, and I want it to be used. If it’s a regular program, OK, make it GPL, if anybody wants to improve it the GPL will ensure that the new software will be as free and open as mine… But if I wan’t to make a library (code that will be used by other developers) and I choose GPL, then everybody that use my code is forced to use the GPL also… this is the “viral” property of GPL, anything it touches should adopt the GPL.
Many developers think that GPL imposes too much, if I write code, and I want it to be used and I don’t really care if someone else is going to do open/closed software, then GPL will keep people away from it. In that case if you choose MIT or BSD for example, it will let you do whatever you want. Even let Apple pick a FreeBSD and make Darwin… or let Blizzard put Lua as scripting language for “world of warcraft”… So yes, is up to the developer to choose the license, if someone let apple, blizzard, google do whatever they want, we are nobody to complain (sorry guys!).
But what I find really annoying about copyleft licenses is people talking about them as if they were the truly “Libre” licenses, like the good choice. But actually a copyleft license impose the condition that any derivative should be copyleft, correct me if I’m wrong but… are you truly free in that case? Also a license like MIT, which I find completely free, is not “Libre” under the eyes of FSF, it is just compatible(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences)
So.. what about Firefox! it is free software but not “libre”-software (sorry again!) Let’s see what FSF says: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
And don’t make me start talking about the use of flash… so people, don’t get to serious on GPL-like licenses, or AGPL which is even worse, because most of the software wouldn’t have survive under that kind of licenses. I like free software, I do free software, and I think is the only way… just be careful when talking about what others should do or not, have a look at the licenses and what developers grant when they write software
And of course, for books, art, pictures, copyleft licenses are probably fine, but with software it is not so simple.
@pplux:
Ok, About your questions on Giving and Receiving:
True, the fact that it’s open doesn’t mean that anyone can tinker it. But still, if you learn, you can. Or if you can’t, you can ask someone from the community. And it’s like manufacturing a car you know you can tweak or one you can’t. Now many (if not all) car manufacturers protect the engine and everything with something like a case, so if you want to check this or that or change a spark, you can’t, or if you know a friend who can do it for you, he won’t have a chance. You have to go the car dealer’s garage to get it fixed.
It’s just about giving the option, the possibility. Or not.
I agree with you that FSF might impose too much. But just take it or leave it, they’d say.
And I guess then that “free” means “free to do and choose whatever is best for you”. As in free will. Is this what you mean? I agree with you, but then again people should be informed about existing choices. And what’s more, I’m not so sure if for books, art, pictures and other multimedia productions, it’s *that* simple.
Now, tell me, imagine the following situation: you’ve devised this great stuff that allows you to charge all your gadgets’ batteries wirelessly, with a common wireless dock for all of them. You’re proud of your stuff and want to share it with everyone else at work. You take it, you let them use it, and some guys tinker it and improve your stuff by removing the dock for once and for all, so it’s real wireless…and they let you use it but they won’t give you your stuff back, they won’t explain to you how they did it either. How would you feel?
I guess it depends on the side you are. As everything in life. That’s why I think it’s impossible to reach consensus.
I’ve enjoyed your comment pretty much, thanks for fueling the debate. Some good food-for-thought from the experts side (i.e. dev).
Hi Elena,
It’s simply great that normal people (in that case that means non-techie-developers) like you care about licenses, and open source software, and morality of open source… it’s good. And my in previous comment I was playing the role of not-get-too-high-on-open-source-bro! now, maybe I should share with you why I do love open source.
From a developer point of view open source is great! you can tell your friends that you are actually doing good for mankind, but the truth is that you do it because is the best way to take responsibility away.
Users ( we call them lusers ) are always asking for features, or they want their bugs fixed,… by giving them the source you are free to say “do it yourself”, you are giving them all they need to work things out by themselves, so nobody can touch you as developer
But there is a much poetic view of open source and its that if you did something great, but you no longer have time to work on it, the software can live by itself if someone starts working on it. It’s like software lives beyond the developer, that’s simply impossible with closed software.
And you were right, it’s not about understanding the code, it’s all about having the chance to understand the code. Everybody can turn into an expert with enough time. Just by using open source and spreading the word you are supporting open source.
About the guys that took something from you and did something better (the wireless charger) I still think that it depends on the license, if the original guy wanted to give it to public domain, with no restrictions, he/she/I should already know that there is a possibility that someone could do it better but without sharing it with others. You can think is not the right thing to do, but what matters here is that he/she was granted to do it. I could choose GPL to avoid that situation… This is like people that doesn’t patent things to give it to public domain, public domain also includes companies that could make profit of it.
Anyway, congratulations I’m proud of your open source sensibility.
And sorry for my delayed response, I was losing the time with the stupid master-thesis.
Que bueno el material, recien comprendi eso de la web2.0 y sus dos puntos de vista. Y aprendi tambien un nuevo termino (FLOSS).
[...] Que nuestros datos y relaciones no estén en nuestros equipos [...] sino en la red (the cloud, en las nubes). Elena Benito [...]
Leave a Reply