Microsoft alternative - open source project?
-
Open Source =!= Visible to the Public.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
Open Source =!= Visible to the Public.
That was my take away.
-
@IRJ said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
@Dashrender said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
@IRJ said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
@Dashrender said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
@IRJ said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
@Dashrender said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
@IRJ said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
I agree with @coliver this is truly not open source and then in itself is most concerning.
Why do you feel it so important that they do this in full view of the public? (not sure what you meant by 'truly not open source' - I assume you meant - in full view of the public.
Open Source means source code is open and available. This is not the case here. Now it could be their plan to make it open and available after a certain point, but why not have an open project to attract as many as possible.
I doubt many people who have no clue how anything is coded are going to approach CERN and ask them for access. On the flip side, I am sure CERN isnt just going to give anybody access. Who would want to go through that BS to help a project we know nothing about.
I'm not following how this isn't the case. Just because the project is closed off doesn't mean they aren't using open source solutions inside their project.
The project itself is closed source. It doesn't matter which internal tools they use.
So you're playing a word game with the title - Open Source Project. I could read this two ways.
- it's an open source project - and like you're assuming, everything is done in the public eye
- it's an open source project - the project is about using open source solutions/software, but it's a closed project.
It's not clear what the intention is but as of now it's closed source
Agreed - so again, I'm not sure why this bothers you and @coliver that the project is closed?
-
It's a choice by CERN. They are using open source packages to build a new environment. I'm saying it would be nice if that process was open to the public. It's a wishlist not a mandate of the license.
-
@Dashrender said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
@IRJ said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
@Dashrender said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
@IRJ said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
@Dashrender said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
@IRJ said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
@Dashrender said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
@IRJ said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
I agree with @coliver this is truly not open source and then in itself is most concerning.
Why do you feel it so important that they do this in full view of the public? (not sure what you meant by 'truly not open source' - I assume you meant - in full view of the public.
Open Source means source code is open and available. This is not the case here. Now it could be their plan to make it open and available after a certain point, but why not have an open project to attract as many as possible.
I doubt many people who have no clue how anything is coded are going to approach CERN and ask them for access. On the flip side, I am sure CERN isnt just going to give anybody access. Who would want to go through that BS to help a project we know nothing about.
I'm not following how this isn't the case. Just because the project is closed off doesn't mean they aren't using open source solutions inside their project.
The project itself is closed source. It doesn't matter which internal tools they use.
So you're playing a word game with the title - Open Source Project. I could read this two ways.
- it's an open source project - and like you're assuming, everything is done in the public eye
- it's an open source project - the project is about using open source solutions/software, but it's a closed project.
It's not clear what the intention is but as of now it's closed source
Agreed - so again, I'm not sure why this bothers you and @coliver that the project is closed?
I'm not saying the project is closed. Just that it would be nice if there was a blog or something available to the public to show us the process.
-
A better way to think of this would be imagine if you used any open source software in business, but to use it you had to make your business data publicly available.
Seems insane, right?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
A better way to think of this would be imagine if you used any open source software in business, but to use it you had to make your business data publicly available.
Seems insane, right?
OK - that's not the same thing at all, and I'm certain that IRJ isn't thinking that way.
@coliver has basically said that he's disappointed that he can't follow along in their progress of this project... @irj seemed something more.. but likely I've reading to much into - since IRJ seemed to agree with my two ways to read open source project.
-
You would think at this early stage, they would want the to have maximum visibility to attract the best developers to the project and have the code openly tested for vulnerabilities.
-
The funny thing about all of this is that I have a hard time believing that CERN cannot pay for MS licensing. When it is sponsored by 22 countries. Not to mention it's importance.
Possible bluff, nefarious project, or actual legit project?
-
@IRJ said in Microsoft alternative - open source project?:
The funny thing about all of this is that I have a hard time believing that CERN cannot pay for MS licensing. When it is sponsored by 22 countries. Not to mention it's importance.
Possible bluff?
I don't think the concern is just about licensing, but maintenance and audit concerns and restrictions placed on it by those countries.
Not to mention all of the management overhead of licensing for a project of this scale.
-
@Dashrender said in Microsoft alternative - open source project?:
OK - that's not the same thing at all, and I'm certain that IRJ isn't thinking that way.
But it is a way that this was mentioned/eluded to.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Microsoft alternative - open source project?:
@IRJ said in Microsoft alternative - open source project?:
The funny thing about all of this is that I have a hard time believing that CERN cannot pay for MS licensing. When it is sponsored by 22 countries. Not to mention it's importance.
Possible bluff?
I don't think the concern is just about licensing, but maintenance and audit concerns and restrictions placed on it by those countries.
Not to mention all of the management overhead of licensing for a project of this scale.
Maybe, but other things need to be licensed so they still will require a team. I am sure they dont use 100% FOSS at CERN.
The break even is really hard for me to see. Unless you could convince alot of free help on the project. Going closed source probably isnt the best way for that.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Microsoft alternative - open source project?:
@Dashrender said in Microsoft alternative - open source project?:
OK - that's not the same thing at all, and I'm certain that IRJ isn't thinking that way.
But it is a way that this was mentioned/eluded to.
Again I would think the bullet point Jared brought up is meant to be the opposite of what you are saying @DustinB3403 . I think it means whoever uses the Microsoft OpenSource OS keeps their data. It is not sent back to a governing body like MS. I also think they are referring to the type of data MS collects about how customers use their products not CIOs top secret spreadsheet.
-
@IRJ said in Microsoft alternative - open source project?:
The break even is really hard for me to see. Unless you could convince alot of free help on the project. Going closed source probably isnt the best way for that.
I don't believe their goal is to break even, just to reduce the overhead on (trivial things, like Desktop environments) and put that money towards science.
They aren't going closed source, they are already there and are looking to use open source software to do their work. They simply aren't discussing what open source software and packages they are going to use publicly (from the looks of it).
-
@IRJ I assume you mean Microsoft CoreOS? If so, again it's an MS product that is being offered for free and if it is truly OS can be edited to remove such features.
-
@IRJ said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
@DustinB3403 said in Microsoft alternative - open source project?:
@IRJ said in Microsoft alternative - open source project?:
The funny thing about all of this is that I have a hard time believing that CERN cannot pay for MS licensing. When it is sponsored by 22 countries. Not to mention it's importance.
Possible bluff?
I don't think the concern is just about licensing, but maintenance and audit concerns and restrictions placed on it by those countries.
Not to mention all of the management overhead of licensing for a project of this scale.
Maybe, but other things need to be licensed so they still will require a team. I am sure they dont use 100% FOSS at CERN.
The break even is really hard for me to see. Unless you could convince alot of free help on the project. Going closed source probably isnt the best way for that.
Now I'm really lost - who's going closed source?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Microsoft alternative - open source project?:
@IRJ said in Microsoft alternative - open source project?:
The break even is really hard for me to see. Unless you could convince alot of free help on the project. Going closed source probably isnt the best way for that.
I don't believe their goal is to break even, just to reduce the overhead on (trivial things, like Desktop environments) and put that money towards science.
That only makes sense if you have a net gain. Otherwise they are losing more money towards science. Budgeting for Software licensing when being funded is totally legitimate. It is a cost of doing business and expected. Is it a cost anyone wants to pay HELL NO. Does it mean it's worth coming at as a net negative? Probably not from a financial or funding standpoint.
-
@IRJ said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
@DustinB3403 said in Microsoft alternative - open source project?:
@Dashrender said in Microsoft alternative - open source project?:
OK - that's not the same thing at all, and I'm certain that IRJ isn't thinking that way.
But it is a way that this was mentioned/eluded to.
Again I would think the bullet point Jared brought up is meant to be the opposite of what you are saying @DustinB3403 . I think it means whoever uses the Microsoft OpenSource OS keeps their data. It is not sent back to a governing body like MS. I also think they are referring to the type of data MS collects about how customers use their products not CIOs top secret spreadsheet.
OK - I think you are thinking this whole thing is about CERN going to a Microsoft based Open Source solution? that's now how I read this at all. I read it as, Today, CERN pays MS tons of money.. and MS now wants even more because of their new contracts... so CERN wants to DUMP Microsoft and their licensing, as well as all other non FOSS software they currently deploy.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Microsoft alternative - open source project?:
@IRJ said in Microsoft alternative - open source project?:
The break even is really hard for me to see. Unless you could convince alot of free help on the project. Going closed source probably isnt the best way for that.
I don't believe their goal is to break even, just to reduce the overhead on (trivial things, like Desktop environments) and put that money towards science.
They aren't going closed source, they are already there and are looking to use open source software to do their work. They simply aren't discussing what open source software and packages they are going to use publicly (from the looks of it).
Wouldn't it make more sense to do this on the application side? If all their apps become SaaS side as much as they can? Make as many apps only dependent on a web browser. I understand they wouldnt be able to replace everything. Especially high powered scientific apps that could not be hosted anyway. In that case, it seems like the Windows license would a fraction of the cost to a software license.
-
@Dashrender said in Microsoft alternative - open source project?:
@IRJ said in Microsoft alternative open source project:
@DustinB3403 said in Microsoft alternative - open source project?:
@Dashrender said in Microsoft alternative - open source project?:
OK - that's not the same thing at all, and I'm certain that IRJ isn't thinking that way.
But it is a way that this was mentioned/eluded to.
Again I would think the bullet point Jared brought up is meant to be the opposite of what you are saying @DustinB3403 . I think it means whoever uses the Microsoft OpenSource OS keeps their data. It is not sent back to a governing body like MS. I also think they are referring to the type of data MS collects about how customers use their products not CIOs top secret spreadsheet.
OK - I think you are thinking this whole thing is about CERN going to a Microsoft based Open Source solution? that's now how I read this at all. I read it as, Today, CERN pays MS tons of money.. and MS now wants even more because of their new contracts... so CERN wants to DUMP Microsoft and their licensing, as well as all other non FOSS software they currently deploy.
You know I read that article a few times, too. Now that I am reading it for the 3rd or 4th time I am understanding it. Now it makes total sense we they wouldnt share this project.
