NFV Specs/Open Source

How Might Open Source Fail?

Open source, SDN, and NFV are looking inevitable – but performance, standards proliferation and regulatory capture could derail the movement.

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
vances 12/29/2015 | 3:51:39 AM
Re: Open is good Here again we see something which was once onerous and expensive become free and trivially simple. That being escrow. We used to have to pay lawyers and negotiate complex terms. Now we just update GitHub.
Joe Stanganelli 12/28/2015 | 12:33:32 PM
Re: Open is good And that community support can quickly wither away too -- as we see so often with abandonware (open source and otherwise).
Mitch Wagner 12/28/2015 | 10:29:24 AM
Re: Open is good I believe open source licenses are immune from changing. However, open source can become abandonware, like anything else. In that case, the user has the source code, which is a huge advantage, but they might not have the internal resources to keep it updated without community support. 
Joe Stanganelli 12/24/2015 | 8:35:09 PM
Re: Open is good @Mitch: Additionally, license terms can always change.  What may be open or open-ish source may become restricted tomorrow (at least in terms of updates, new versions, further support, etc.).  Perhaps unlikely in the present open-source climate, but always possible.
Mitch Wagner 12/7/2015 | 6:47:04 PM
Re: Standards Ha!

Mitch Wagner 12/7/2015 | 6:44:24 PM
Re: Open is good It's actually a good point and not at all pedantic. Open source code carries restrictions. 
Mitch Wagner 12/7/2015 | 6:10:31 PM
Re: Don't bet against the Internet! The Internet is built on openness and open source, but Facebook et al have figure out how to build applications on top of the Internet to neutralize that openness. 
vances 11/28/2015 | 5:34:26 AM
Don't bet against the Internet! It's decades old wisdom now that you just don't bet against the Internet.  The Internet is based on the principals of openess and built primarily on open source software.  It's safe to say that you shouldn't bet against open source either.

The reason you wil lose these bets is that you are betting against the march of progress.  Since the invention of computers each decade has seen the level of abstraction at which we work with computers raised significantly.  From assembly language, to compilers, through operating systems, scripting languages, GUIs, voice recognition, etc..  This progress requires that each generation stand on the shoulders of the previous ones.  This is why today compilers, language implementations, common libraries and utilities, all tend to be open source.  Gone are the days when each vendor developed these themselves (Nortel had Protel, Ericsson had Plex).

Protocol implementations in particular should be community sourced.  Only protocol vendors profit from protocols.  Service providers and their vendors need to be working as close to the top of the stack as they can get away with, not reinventing the nuts and bolts.
Joe Stanganelli 11/25/2015 | 11:29:42 PM
Re: Open is good Well, unless code has been donated to public domain (which isn't very often the case), people technically own the code, but there's a very permissive license...

That's just the pedantic lawyer in me talking; pay no mind, pay no mind.
Joe Stanganelli 11/25/2015 | 11:27:45 PM
Standards xkcd is particularly on point here: http://xkcd.com/927/
Page 1 / 2   >   >>