Dates : mars 2006

Notes (14)

Site en standby

Le site est actuellement en standby, ou plutôt en « vie ralentie », pour une période indéterminée. Retour espéré dans 2 semaines.


Dans la série « jouons à nous faire peur » ou « détruisons les idoles », voici un article qui résume comment Google est devenu pour certains l'ennemi à combattre.

Time for the Last Post

Is blogging really an information revolution? Is it about to drive the mainstream news media into oblivion? Or is it just another crock of virtual gold - a meretricious equivalent of all those noisy Internet start-ups that were going to build a brave "new economy" a few years ago ?

Trevor Butterworth, « Time for the Last Post », Financial Times, 17 février 2006.

There is no open source community

Open source conventional wisdom tells a tale of good versus evil, David versus Goliath, in a struggle to protect users from the malevolent intent of large software companies. (...)

What if you discovered that everything you ever learned about open source growth was wrong? What if the narrative that pitches open source in terms of battling evil software giants wasn't actually correct? What if you learned that the recognized leaders of the open source movement were simply figureheads of a process already well under way? What if you learned that open source was neither good nor bad, but simply the manifestation of decades-old economic trends? What if companies mining the open source vein aren't taking the high road but rather ruthlessly applying a competitive advantage ? (...)

  1. The continuing expansion of the internet is necessary for continued open source proliferation.

In order for more projects to grow in a vibrant open source ecosystem, there needs to be a fresh supply of new users and developers. The economies of scale that spawned open source development need to keep expanding, or else there is a risk of stagnation.

  1. Given current trends, open source will continue to expand in scope, prevailing in more markets.

All signs point to an expanding internet for the foreseeable future. This means that the trends that result in cheap software commodities should maintain their steady pace. As such, the open source footprint should continue to expand.

  1. There is no open source community.

Looking at open source from an economic perspective, it becomes clear that Linux or its equivalent was bound to happen eventually, regardless of whether Linus decided to release a kernel in 1991. The same applies for Apache and any other project. Both of these are the natural result of massive price drops in their respective markets. The view that there is a core group of altruistic companies and true believers driving open source forward is simply false. The view that open source participants are idealistic Davids fighting against software Goliaths is also false. In fact, surveys of open source participants tend to bear this out.

  1. Open source is neither good nor bad.

Open source is not a religion. It is not an ideology. It can be used for both good and bad. It does not inhabit the higher moral ground, nor is it a more ethical way to conduct business. It just is, and it will continue to grow and expand.

John Mark Walker, « There is non open source community »,, 12 janvier 2006

Digital Universe, Wikipédia et séant en position instable

More generally, what very many Web 2.0 thinkers fail to realize is that it is possible to distinguish openness, collaboration, and public participation on the one hand, from radical egalitarianism and near anarchy, on the other. The Digital Universe will demonstrate that it is possible to have the former without the latter.

Larry Sanger, « Correcting Some Misconceptions about the Digital Universe », Digital Universe, 19 janvier 2006.

Articles (2)

A propos de Wikipédia 2

Après m'être en partie planté dans ma critique du processus d'édition de Wikipédia, je reviens sur le sujet avec cette fois-ci, je l'espère, un peu plus de retenu, à la fois pour comprendre ce qui m'a échappé et ce qu'il me reste de réticences.