What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
My wife likes to take pictures of everything. Got any ideas? view!
bestbuy.com - With a Kodak(r) EasyShareTM 3X Zoom, she'll have impressive 10.2-megapixel performance, right at her fingertips
47 Comments
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13What about Apache or Firefox?
- g3r4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Am I the only one that hit 3 different links in that site by mistake? Its like a damn hidden link orgy.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I don't see much actual innovation in the open-source apps I use. More often, I find open source offers a better (less cluttered) app that mimics the core function of a well-established commercial app (i.e. the VLC player instead of WMP). But then again, it's not like I make hunting up the hottest in open-source a goal every day.
- schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Aha! So here we find that TCO is only one part of the equation. Matthew suggests that, based on his interview, by avoid the reinvention of the wheel -- through Open Source development models -- one can concentrate on innovation and widen overall competitive advantage. So, let's see... Open Source encourages innovation and it's cheaper as well. Why again do people stick with proprietary S/W? Should studies also be conducted to show innovative advantages, rather than just cost? One step at a time, I guess.
EU report on FLOSS: "FLOSS saves money"
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070112025016466 - jgruber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I just wanted to widen some vision of innovation. Someone mentioned workflows in regards to the GUI. Please don't forget workflows in other places. For instance, I can right now get Jive software to integrate to my Asterisk PBX and I have full presence and call control from my desktop multi-protocol IM software. They had that LONG before I could even consider doing that with Microsoft MOC and Cisco Call Manager. It still doesn't work right after 1000s of dollars invested in both Microsoft and Cisco products. There have been other solutions that looked similar, but I would argue that open source software facilitates a level of integration the closed source does not. That integration itself is the innovation. It promotes and allows for workflows to happen that you might as well just be looking at a brick wall with closed source solutions. There are HUNDREDS of security appliances on the market right now that all demonstrate some form of innovation that would be non-existent if they were not based on open source core products. INTEGRATION IS INNOVATION.
- kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Changing the start button from grey to green does not constitute an innovation in GUI.
But since you asked, here are some places where UI enhancements and changes are being discussed:
http://planet.gnome.org/
http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/
http://www.betterdesktop.org
Many of these projects have produced innovations being implemented in the latest releases, such as openSUSE 10.2, and Ubuntu 7.04
And if you have your own ideas, feel free to get a team together to code it into reality, literally any homebrew packages can get accepted into the Ubuntu repository, see ubuntu-system-panel and uslab for examples. - Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I gotta agree to some extent. A media player that uses an alternative format is critical, innovation aside...
But yeah..look at The Gimp. They spend every ounce of energy to catch up to Photoshop, without a single feature that makes the average gimp user say "Wow...Photoshop can't do this...."
But then, maybe it's a self-defeating point. Adobe has every right to grab the source and make a plugin, so long as they release it opensource. - sprucegum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No Innovation in open source? What about the concept of Open source itself? How about debian's aptitude or gentoo's emerge? Where else but the open source community can one find massive repositories of free software that can be installed at the drop of a hat?
FOSS isn't for everybody but its good enough for my momma. - daftman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Novagenesis:
I think you are confused between invention and innovation.
Innovation does not have to be something revolutionary. Innovation can simply mean a better approach, a better way to do things, a better design, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/innovation
Firefox and Apache are indeed great innovations. They took an old concept and did a better job and the rest of the competitors. That is why they are on top. - daftman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Have you heard of JBOSS or Joomla? They make money by selling services.
When you have large corporation using your oss and you are the only one who understand it well, it pays really well. - daftman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@JQP123
Again, please differentiate between innovation and invention.
Innovation is when you build upon existing foundation.
Invention is usually when you start from scratch.
For example:
The wheel:
Innovation: would be to put rubber around it to absorb the shock
Invention: anti-gravity movement device.
Get my point? - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I love the way people talk so much crap about OSS. Not innovating my backside.
What the hell is the 3D accelerated X-server? Only the most revolutionary display technology around at the moment.
Do Apple or Microsoft have anything that can match its feature set? No.
Do Apple or Microsoft have anything that can, in benchmarks, on paper or in reality, come close to rivalling the advantages of its design? No.
which is to say - can anything Microsoft or OS X have presented to us match AIGLX and/or XGL for feature set, CPU availability increase, raw performance and low resource requirements? Not even close.
Why have been Microsoft busy implementing loads of old features from KDE in Vista and IE7 like the sidebar, tab management, etc.? How many features does KDE itself have which no other GUI has?
Why have Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo and so on all been busy perfecting their own versions of karamba/superkaramba and gdesklets?
Why are features from amaroK slowly finding their way into proprietary media players?
Where do you think the ideas behind half of Vista's "new", "innovative" features for handling the filesystem have come from?
My God, you windows fanboys talk some ***** about OSS amongst yourselves when you get going. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"""Sorry, but I really don't see a lot of innovation going on in open source."""
Maybe you don't see much innovation in open source from wherever you are, but can I ask is that a windows desktop?
From the server room to the 3d-accelerated GUI to the programming language to the kernel I see constant development, creation, inventive programming and pushing the bounds of what we've done so far.
Open source has truly "invented" so many technologies and ways of doing things in the last 20 years or so it's almost impossible to count them.
Even now, programming concepts are being created for the first time among python and perl developers, the GUI system is getting features that commercial developers are envious of not having thought of (and has had innovative and useful features for a long time that other GUIs can't emulate well), and the some of the best technical features for everything from your datacentre to your Mars mission are being created and worked on as Open Source software. - daftman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@JQP123
"And they're under no obligation to share with the hundreds of Open Source developers who've contributed and helped build the product over the years. The message from VCs to developers --- you build it, we'll monetize it."
What the hell are you on about?
The developers ARE the VCs. They develop the software and they sell their services to big corporations who adopt their software. Other developers who contributed can also set up their own services to provide for other companies, like Red Hat, Ubuntu, Novell, who all contribute to Linux.
Have you ever heard of Bugzilla? Go to their webpage and you will see many different business selling their services to companies. Guess who run those services? The developers. If you don't understand the business model of OSS then you should stick to your proprietary model. - fremeer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Some of the best programs are open source. Just cause they dont invent new things doesnt mean they are not innovative. Look at KDE. Konqueror and amaroK are two of the most innovative products out there but essentially they just a file explorer and music player. Then there is firefox. It does the same thing as internet explorer but it does it better. There are alot of opensource projects out there that are making inroads into huge things but most do it slowly and develop for certain OS.
- eantoranz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Forgot to say that it's a problem RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW (the most important part of my comment).
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You say this, quite a few of the popular "inventions" regarding the technical infrastructure of the GUI and the actual eye candy appeared first in Open Source Software - and that's just the GUI.
I suggest, if you're a desktop Linux user, that you go through the list of new features in, say Vista and see how many of them you have.
It makes enlightening reading. Most of their "inventions" I've had since about 2001, and there's nothing there that isn't already available on Linux except dx10, which is another story in itself, since we all survived without dying through dx9, to be honest. - Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@HMTKSteve
Apache is nothing new. It's neither the first webserver, nor the last. It -may- be the best... But really, what does it do totally innovative?
Firefox is also nothing new... It mimics the core functionality of a million other web browsers. It didn't invent plugins, it definitely didn't invent tabbed browsing. I have it on every computer I work on, but find myself using it less and less due to more and more severe memory leaks (I had it taking 150 meg a few days ago). Otherwise, sure, it's better than "Microsoft, the Browser" but I don't think that says much. - eantoranz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In the future? What planet are you living in?
Say you want to develop a piece of SW.... in this era where "vendor independance" is the key, would you stick with a single vendor's solution that they are trying to push down your throats or should you try to build something that can run in as many platforms as possible with the least effort (so you can run away from some mean-intended vendor, like say Microsoft)? OK... the costs "can" be lower if you stick with a single vendor from top to bottom at first.... but I have read so many times about the migration costs that it makes me wonder people still DO stick to a single vendor (to regret it later when they want to move on... a cost prople don't consider in the TCO, right?).
These are my two penies. - kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=157
http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=156
Now when was the last time Microsoft took your fantastic ideas you sent to them and made them a reality?
You really suck at planting flamebait, Meep. - dmsean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1RE: Novagenesis
Come on, you don't have 150 mb of ram to spare for a better browser that keeps you more secure? :P
I only have 1.6gigs free right now with 12 firefox tabs open, vmware running while I also listen to mp3s and time to start compiling some source... - daftman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Yeah, right. And black is the new white. Believe what you like but in my opinion, the people making most of the money from Open Source are not the developers."
In your opinion, the world is flat. It doesn't make it right.
The majority of open source developers earn money from Open sources selling services.
Go read about Joomla, JBOSS, FireFox, Apache, Bugzilla, Linux, etc. - drowe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Getting into semantics here, but 'Linux' doesn't have a GUI. Linux is the actual operating system, not the GUI. You're referring to KDE or GNOME or any other desktop environment. Secondly, I've yet to see a full desktop environment replacement for Windows, which is open source and publicly available. I'm not talking a Windows overlay, I mean a full fledged desktop replacement. To say Ubuntu matches Windows 95, is purely idiotic, as the desktop environment used is fully customizable.
Lastly, if you're upset with the GUI you use on your particular Linux distribution, there are multitudes of mailing-lists available to voice your concern. Can you hold a discussion with the MSFT designers on modifying the Windows environment? I think not. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Innovation is when you build upon existing foundation.
Invention is usually when you start from scratch."
Noone starts from scratch. If someone were to "invent" an anti-gravity device, he would almost certainly build upon the existing foundation work of countless engineers and physicists. Likewise, it's not innovation unless you introduce something new. This "something new" could also be described as an invention. - kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why do you expect a GUI overhaul every 3 years? Windows hasn't changed it's UI since 1995. Mac OS since 7 years ago.
- daftman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@JQP123
"Noone starts from scratch. If someone were to "invent" an anti-gravity device, he would almost certainly build upon the existing foundation work of countless engineers and physicists. Likewise, it's not innovation unless you introduce something new. This "something new" could also be described as an invention."
May be you understand the word "from scratch" too literally. You should take it more in context.
Yes an invention is built upon knowledge foundation of scientist and physicist. However, it is ONLY an invention when it becomes a unique product.
Take Newton's law for example: F = ma. That is knowledge. However, Newton's didn't invent that law. He discovered it. The inventor is the one who utilize that knowledge and create a new unique usability.
An innovation does not need to be "new". An innovation improve on the existing product, e.g cars with seatbelt, wheels with rubber, shirt with buttons, etc, desktop with 3d acceleration. The base product still have the same usability. - Meep3D, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Usability in Linux sucks. Nobody discusses the problem as that would be showing weakness and the Linux community is in serious denial about the problems it faces. Instead of just linking to random *****, show me what I asked for (is this the 3rd or 4th time?), which is PEOPLE BEING CRITICAL OF LINUX which isn't a complete flamewar. I mean how on earth can usability problems be solved if there is no discussions on how to improve things, seriously.
You have to look objectively. If people don't like something in Windows, they say it - generally en masse. SP2 and Vista are largely a response to the massive public outcry about security and reliability. You can even install drivers without rebooting now. My point is nobody speaks out against Linux - nobody says anything bad about it and if they do they get set upon by the zealots and quickly either shut up or leave.
No Linux Distro forums have a 'tell us what you think' or 'suggestions' forum. They'll have a 'Lesbians using Linux' forum, (no offence) but no actual forum for discussing the distro itself. I want to talk about what I like and don't like in Linux - but thats not allowed. If they don't listen to the 'little people' how can they possibly make something that they will want to use? - Meep3D, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0gone
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"Just cause they dont invent new things doesnt mean they are not innovative."
Lol! Well, actually, yes it does. - Meep3D, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0--------------------------
http://planet.gnome.org/
http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/
http://www.betterdesktop.org
--------------------------
Where?
Link my to some actual conversations taking place. None of these places have a forum and they are still trying to do usability by bugzilla! You have failed in your task. Try again. Link me to _actual conversations_ that discuss pitfalls in Linux's GUI. The disturbing fact is that no form of criticism, constructive or not, ever happens and Linux cannot possibly improve while this is the case.
As they say, "Design an OS for Programmers and only Programmers will want to use it" - Meep3D, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I, and everyone else, uses the term 'Linux' as a wrapper for and OS based on the Linux kernel. Stop being a pedant, or at least correct _everyone_ who uses the term incorrectly, rather than the one person who you take issue with (as you cannot find any substantial counter-argument).
At the end of the day I spend a massive amount of time building interfaces and improving them based on user feedback and logical thinking. The problem with Linux (and I am going to keep using that term) is that suggesting that the OS needs to change to meet users demands just isn't accepted. Users are demanded to bend to the 'Linux Way' and calling for change, mainly in the GUI department, gets you branded a troll.
The pace of development, technologically, in Linux far outstrips both OSX & Windows in what it is capable of. The GUI advancements, which are responsible for wrapping this technology up and making it easy for the end users is massively behind. As I said Ubuntu, the Open Source poster child has had NO SIGNIFICANT GUI UPDATES SINCE IT WAS FIRST RELEASED. It's exactly the same now as it is then.
Failure to admit to a problem is called denial. Personally I just want the Linux community to admit 'yes, usability is sketchy in a lot of places' and then something can be done. Declaring it perfect is the quickest way to gain permanent obscurity.
OSX isn't perfect, Windows isn't perfect - but at least they are bothering to put the effort in. - xv1ncentx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Another thing: People need to know about the whole concept... You can't say "Linux is absolutely amazing" (and it is) and then give something that people don't quite understand (referring me to the design)...
Is just that: "the whole concept".
Linux needs to be ABSOLUTELY AMAZING, not just "amazing".
(With this i don't mean to be like Mac OS X, of course not). - xv1ncentx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Meep3D
People will not be agree with you because there are more important things that the UI design, but you have a very interesting point, Linux really need a new -and attractive- UI design (like it or not).
And it will be absolutely good if that happen, because we see it on Mac OS X: with a good UI, things turn better and easier (could not be something basic, but in this time i believe it is).
Sorry for my "google translated" english and greetings from Argentina. - Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What the heck's up with that?
Got a product to sell? Sure, just sell 100 of someone else's product for the honor of selling your product through us! - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"F/OSS is not about Software-value, its about Hardware-value."
You've just defined the paradox of Open Source.
Why do Open Source developers want to de-value their own work? What's the best way for an Open Source developer to make money from Open Source? Get into hardware or support .... anything *but* develop software.
Why do these developers work so hard just to create opportunities for the hardware guy or the support guy? To the casual observer, it makes no sense and would appear to be self limiting over time. VCs probably don't get the motivation either but they're perfectly willing to take advantage of it while it lasts. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"They make money by selling services."
Exactly!
And they're under no obligation to share with the hundreds of Open Source developers who've contributed and helped build the product over the years. The message from VCs to developers --- you build it, we'll monetize it. - Meep3D, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2FOSS is only innovative with regards to technology & concepts. It fails horribly at anything that involves GUI design or improving workflows. Every time Ubuntu brings out a super new animal-based version I download it, and the first thing I usually spot is that they havn't actually changed the GUI _at all_. It's just new packages.
Open Source Developer Success Stories...
Apache, PHP, MySQL, PostgreSQL, SSH, Perl, Bash - the list goes on.
Open Source User Tools Success Stories...
Firefox ... erm, thats it. And Firefox isn't exactly a community project.
When it comes to making tools for developers, Open Source is king. When it comes to making tools that normal users are expected to use, it falls massively short. Of course this failing isn't addressed, it's simply denied. Any problem with the GUI is the users fault for being 'stupid' - not the developers fault. It's not that the GUI is terribly designed (well sometimes it is) it's just that there is practically nobody who actually thinks 'hey, we should spend some time seeing if we can make this easier to use' - it's a case of 'it's good enough that'll do'.
The Ubuntu GUI is *Exactly The Same* as the Windows GUI, it's just on two bars instead of one, and It hasn't changed in 3 years. If I download a new OS I expect them to have worked on the area that I consider counts (the GUI), when all they have been doing is fixing things - never improving them.
Linux is to Usability what VB is to programming. Go on, tell me it's perfect, that Linux perfected the GUI 3 years ago and there is no room for change, and no reason to innovate. It's just the stupid users who need to 'learn'. (and discoverability is a myth) - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"The developers ARE the VCs."
Yeah, right. And black is the new white. Believe what you like but in my opinion, the people making most of the money from Open Source are not the developers. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5exactly, OSS hasn't done ***** outside of try to compete, it has yet to open a niche of its own
- eje211, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I think Open Source innovates where it has to, and improves where it has to. What about GNU screen? Isn't that innovative? (It may not be, but I don't know of an equivalent.) How about emacs, an all-purpose extendible text editor that does so much more than text editing? How about lynx and links? They're not the first web browsers, but they are, if anything, innovative. Wasn't ssh an open source initiative, at first? Now that's a fantastic tool. And rsync was open-source too. And if you want to go that way, MS Word is not innovative: it was based on WordPerfect. Windows is not innovative: it was based on Mac, VMS and DOS. DOS was certainly not innovative: it was a cut-down version of CP/M. Windows NT was based on OS/2. Mac OS X was based on NeXT, BSD and Mac OS 9.
How do we define innovation? Depending on how we define it, we can make all the stuff we like "innovative" and all the stuff we don't, not. - rmerrick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The lack of direct support for Linux from hardware manufactures has always been the deal breaker for major vendors such as Dell, Gateway, Toshiba, Sony,etc...
The Linux community has traditionally taken a do-it-yourself approach towards drivers (a.k.a. "hack" like NdisWrapper for wireless). When a manufacturer cooperates we end up with binary-only drivers like ATI and Nvidia.
Aside from servers, Linux can't win for *****. This is why Linux finds such a strong following by hobbyists, they don't mind tinkering with something that is only "half-baked". Like most Linux home users, I screw around with it just for fun.
OS software that is innovative? Maybe, nothing comes to mind at the moment, and the article doesn't name any either. - Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Sorry, but I really don't see a lot of innovation going on in open source. For the most part, open source is about building a better mouse trap. Open source developers see a weakness in an existing, generally retail and proprietary, product and decide they can do better by creating a duplicate application based on open source code that improves upon some areas of an existing example. Then, other people see weaknesses in this open source code and then use that as a foundation in their open source projects. In most open source projects you can always trace back to a retail or proprietary system as its source of innovation and inspiration.
- Meep3D, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0What have you been smoking?
Every Windows release has been accompanied by a major overhaul of the GUI and the way things worked. Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows XP, Windows Vista - all look and behave differently. And its Windows 95 that Ubuntu is imitating.
As for OSX Apple are _constantly_ tweaking the GUI, adding things, removing things. Look at the changelog between each significant version. Half of the changes there are entirely GUI based - I don't own a Mac but check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X if you want more info.
My point is GUI's on Linux generally suck as they are done almost as an afterthought, and they are definatley not the main focus. The fact that you get sneered at for even implying that changing the GUI can make things easier is part of the problem - interface design isn't taken seriously. It could be done so much better if they bothered to sit down, take a deep breath and think 'without any preconceptions, is their a better way to do this?' At the moment even suggesting such improvements gets you flamed.
99% of developers get their feedback from BugZilla, which effectively means they are fixing programming bugs almost exclusively, and rarely ever touching upon UI problems, mainly because they are shielded from the end users by the distro's. You can have perfect bug free code, but your product can still suck due to UI problems that no amount of bug fixing will solve.
Answer this: I have a few ideas for some UI design/improvements in Linux that I feel are innovative. Where do I go to discuss these? Do you realise _none_ of the big distro's have any form of 'tell us what you think/feedback' forum? That you get moderated out of existance for saying something could be improved?
Go find me a discussion where they are talking about the GUI in Linux and how it could be improved (which means pointing out problems) that isn't a flamefest then we'll talk. Until then I maintain that you cannot talk about improving the GUI in Linux because everyone involved is in denial, refusing to admit that there is even a problem and pouncing on anyone who thinks there is room for improvement. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"So here we find that TCO is only one part of the equation."
VCs (venture capitalists) are totally driven by the quest for short term profit. Why do they invest in Open Source? In a word --- greed. The same reason they invested in almost *any* on-line startup prior to the dot com bust --- greed. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the actions of VCs --- they're greedy. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Firefox = IE + Opera. Nothing new here.
- roprot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0How to make tons of money with Open Source Software, and promote innovation at the same time?
Easy: Its The Hardware, Stupid.
F/OSS doesn't run on thin air. Anyone who wants to truly profit from an F/OSS-derived development model has got to not-ignore this basic, obvious fact.
Thus, get into the hardware business. F/OSS will go on and on forever, as a developer force the ideology of F/OSS can be directed all over the place: But It Goes Nowhere Without Hardware.
Ramp up ones ability to produce and deliver sexy hardware, deliver it widely with a specific function that makes sense, leave the software realm for this hardware wide open, and stand back.. F/OSS will drive the wide-spread adoption (within the realm of your application) of that hardware well and truly, firmly and easily.
Proven, again and again and again, in all sorts of realms where people 'get the picture': F/OSS is not about Software-value, its about Hardware-value. Make good hardware, put F/OSS on it, promote the continuing refinement of that F/OSS, and then .. stand back! - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Firefox + Thunderbird + a dozen add-ons provide a close approximation of Opera. When you compare functionality to memory footprint, Opera has no equal.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is