RE: Open source WO (was: Apple, Microsoft, Java and the Web?)

 
Because without open sourcing it, it's effectively dead.  I work for a
company that does custom application development for very large companies.
We recently evaluated Java frameworks for a project.  If WebObjects were
open-sourced, I would have suggested that we use it for the project, because
it would make it a safe choice.  But do you think I'm going to suggest that
we use a product that's owned by Apple and has no marketing behind it
whatsoever?  Uh uh.

Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marc Oesch
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:02 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Open source WO (was: Apple, Microsoft, Java and the Web?)

Hello,

>... let's say Apple did release the source of WebObjects, what would
>     we do with it, and could we do whatever it is without the source?

I will let others more qualified speak below and just summarize:

# 1: Better WO Marketability (without Apple consumer brand image attached)

# 2: Community bug fixes, which in return helps Apple.

# 3: Thriving WO Community instead of Shrinking Community. Provides better
Resources and Human Capital for Apple in the future.

# 4: Faster adaptability and release turnout in response to trends (eg.
recent ones such as AJAX)

The mail quoted below is an excerpt from 2002, but still - even more IMO
because WO is not longer a product - very valid today.  [1]

>     I think this is a more productive approach than constantly asking
>     for something that simply isn't going to happen.

Why not in the future ?  The environment is changing fast and Apple should
take a look and re-evaluate...

- Major application server vendors are showing Open source is successful :
IBM with Apache Geronimo/Gluecode, JBoss, Sun with GlassFish,
ObjectWeb/RedHat with Jonas....the list goes on and on.

- WO is not a product for Apple any longer, ie no direct money streams.
(More on this point when the WWDC 2006 news are public)

- Sun is open-sourcing Java in the coming months and 2007 (
http://news.com.com/2100-7252_3-6105601.html ). Many people also thought
this will never happen...

Or to sum it up in a counter question: What are the reasons *not* to open
source WO in the near future ?

[1]  Mail: Why Open Source WO makes sense for Apple and the Community:

> -------Reader's Digest Version-----------------
>
> Four reasons why Apple should open source WO/EOF:
>
> REASON #1: WO/EOF cannot be legitimate extensions of the Apple brand, 
> its value to the marketplace is only achieved through independence 
> from the Apple brand proper. Placing WO/EOF under an open source 
> license allows Apple to retain control. It also allows legitimacy to 
> and adoption by those who would not normally accept or adopt an Apple 
> product in this space.
>
> REASON #2: Because debugging is highly parallelizable, an open source 
> WO/EOF will increase the number of debuggers and therefor increase the 
> stability of the product over the long run by applying the skills of 
> many more engineers than Apple could ever hope to support as employees.
> With a large enough user/co-developer community, all bugs can be 
> quickly quantified and understood allowing a fix to become obvious to 
> at least one member of the community.
>
> REASON #3: If Apple will treat the WO/EOF user community as if we were 
> their most valuable resource in terms of current and future 
> development of the product, we will become their most valuable 
> resource. Trusting us enough to share the source in an open source 
> fashion, will benefit Apple (and the application server market) in 
> ways they cannot even begin to imagine.
>
> REASON #4: Because there is no accounting for taste. That was the 
> first lesson of applied microeconomics my college professor taught me, 
> and it holds true today. Apple, as smart and cutting edge as it may 
> be, cannot anticipate the ways in which WO/EOF will be utilized or 
> improved upon by people in the field. Open source allows for faster 
> innovation and the ability to capture truly useful and novel ideas.
>

Source:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-java-user/200205.mbox/%3CA66
[email protected]%3E

PS: I think Reason #3 (quoted in that mail) is even more valid today since
Apple has since added / expanded high-profile inhouse
applications: iTMS, .Mac and Apple Store...
How to find and train applicants in the future if the community base is
shrinking ?

Marc
_______________________________________________
WebObjects-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-talk