Josh Kopelman on the Red Eye VC blog recently had a thought-provoking post that was widely discussed within the blogosphere. He stated that 53,651 people subscribe to the TechCrunch blog feed. I am one of these subscribers along with 53,650 other people who follow the web 2.0 trends closely, and most of us probably know quite a bit about Digg, MySpace, Flickr, Frappr, del.icio.us, and many other web 2.0 sites. Herein lies the problem; most of the rest of the billions of people on this earth have never heard of these sites, and we throw these terms around as if everyone else in the world is as immersed in this phenomenon as we are. Om Malik of the GigaOM blog recently realized that even many of his tech-savvy friends who read blogs and listen to podcasts are not fully aware of the web 2.0 phenomenon.

At this point, you are probably wondering if I am ever going to tie this back to open source software. This idea, that a few tech savvy early adopters do not represent the entire population of people, is also applicable to open source software. In March, I blogged about how difficult it is to get users to try a new browser (Firefox) when most people do not understand what a browser is and why they would want a different one. We get so caught up in our techie world where people understand terms like browsers, operating systems, Firefox, del.icio.us, and Flickr that we do not always think about how to reach the masses. This requires education and lots of it. A number of times recently, I have informed reasonably tech-savvy people that OpenOffice.org can actually open and save documents in Microsoft formats to clear up the common misconception that the two are completely incompatible.

If we want to drive broad adoption of open source software, we need to take the time to step back and patiently educate people in terms that they can understand without assuming that people have the same knowledge and passion about the topic as we do.

Sun is unlikely to release Java under an open source license if James Gosling, the father of Java, has anything to say about it.

“There’s a bunch of people out there getting all hyper, and I don’t believe there’s anything there for them to get hyper about,” Gosling said when asked about the possibility of a full open source route for Java.

Source code for Java already is available and has been for 10 years, he said. The current model for Java is close to an open source model, Gosling said. (InfoWorld)

Interesting. “Close to an open model”, but not open source. Peter Yared (previously Sun’s CTO of Liberty Network Identity initiative and CTO of Sun’s App Server Division) and others have been publicly calling for Sun to open source Java. I tend to think that Sun should open source Java. Releasing the JVM under an open source license would have quite a few benefits (greater community innovation, better adoption within the LAMP stack, etc.)

This type of infrastructure software has become so commoditized that I do not see how Sun could possibly be getting any measurable benefit by keeping it proprietary.

Gosling also had this to say:

Despite some assertions to the contrary, Sun is doing fine with making money from Java, he said. The company earns money with its Java Enterprise System network services software and also in selling services and support, Gosling said. (InfoWorld)

Assuming this is true; Sun could continue to make money from an open source Java by offering value-added software and by selling services and support as described above.

I cannot seem to find a compelling reason for Sun to keep Java proprietary. This is especially perplexing with Sun, a company who typically “gets” open source and has done quite a bit in support of the open source community.

In a recent OpenForce blog entry, Zack Urlocker makes a couple of interesting observations about open source software complexity, ease of use, and features:

“It used to be that to go open source meant making trade-offs. For example, Open Office still never quite does as good a job as Microsoft Office. But when you get to the On Demand systems, I would argue that the open source systems are in many ways better than the traditional closed source on-site systems: Less complexity, better user interface, easier to use. That may not necessarily be due to the free availability of the source code, but more in the spirit of open source that focuses on the basics, not all the bells and whistles. And why is that? Because open source developers shouldn’t be caught up in adding every feature under the sun in order to justify an annual upgrades.” (Zach Urlocker)

Zack makes a great point about how “open source developers shouldn’t be caught up in adding every feature under the sun”. Open source software seems to be better at figuring out which features are really needed by most people and not getting into the trap of trying to satisfy every need that a potential customer might someday have. Too many proprietary companies end up with bloatware because they try to provide too many features.

By providing the source code, open source software often avoids feature bloat. The source code gives a customer with a specific need the flexibility to add a feature. In some cases, projects nurture open source sub-communities who serve this purpose. Firefox, for example, has a robust community of developers who write extensions and themes that people can use to enhance Firefox with a flexible set of additional features. By providing these separately, Firefox avoids becoming too bloated with infrequently used features.

It boils down to this. When considering feature bloat, open source software has an advantage over proprietary software because the source code provides more flexibility to the user community. Users can choose to add features and functionality as needed without relying on a vendor to satisfy their every need.

More on the document format wars that I mentioned on Monday. Now a group working closely with Microsoft is accusing the Massachusetts government of having an open source bias.

read more | digg story

I read a really interesting blog post this morning called Microsoft…Attacked By Killer Bees. Here’s the idea:

“A hive of bees weighs just a couple of pounds. If a man were attacked by a single animal weighing just a few pounds…say a Killer Chihuahua, it wouldn’t be much of a contest. But 5 pounds of killer bees make a formidable assailant. They succeed by being many, being quicker, more agile and extremely determined.” (Below the Bottom Line)

The point of this blog entry is that as Microsoft tries to shift from a software company to a media company, they are facing many small, but nimble competitors. “In other words, they’ll be surrounded by Killer Bees.”

This got me thinking about how you could extend this line of thinking and apply it to the software market with open source software as the killer bee. As of 12:33 PM today, there were 118,717 registered open source projects hosted on SourceForge alone. Like the killer bee, there are many open source software projects that can move and respond quickly to changes in the environment. The larger software companies like Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, SAP and others will continue to face tough competition from open source software. The software companies that are able to successfully embrace open source software, like IBM, will probably be in a better position to prosper in the long-term.

With killer bees and open source software, you might be able to swat a few down (or acquire them); however, more will come to take their place.

Multiple document format “standards” are competing for dominance, similar to the Blu-ray vs. HD DVD format wars. The OpenDocument standard, which was ratified by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) last week, was designed to provide a non-proprietary document standard for use by governments and other organizations. Originally, the EU said that they would recommend the OpenDocument file format if it was approved as an ISO standard; however, competing formats are resulting in a wait and see approach.

The issue is that Microsoft has submitted their own standard, the Office Open XML file format. We now have two proposed standards competing in the market, and the EU is reluctant to support either one in case the Microsoft standard is also approved. I understand that large organizations have competing agendas (I work for a large technology company); however, our customers would be better served if technology vendors could cooperate and reach some type of agreement rather than fighting it out in the standards bodies.

This week Microsoft launched adCenter, an advertising product similar to Google’s AdSense. The problem is that Microsoft launched the site without any support for non-IE browsers. As they strive to “evolve Microsoft from a software company into the world’s largest, most attractive provider of online media through MSN, Windows Live™ and adCenter” (Microsoft), they need to think outside of the Microsoft box to recognize the need to provide broad support for other platforms and browsers to be successful with the new direction.

The problem for Microsoft is that the people currently using alternate browsers, like Firefox, tend to be very vocal early technology adopters and technology influencers. By shunning this crowd, Microsoft is asking for failure. One example of this phenomenon came from Darren Barefoot’s blog entry titled “I Guess Microsoft Doesn’t Want My Money“.

I do not want people to have the impression that no one at Microsoft gets it. Robert Scoble, Technical Evangelist at Microsoft, understands that support of Firefox is a necessity for Microsoft. Scoble says the idea that people at Microsoft should only care about Microsoft products “must be washed from our corporate culture. … if you want the most passionate people in society to use your stuff, you must support Firefox.” (Scoble)

Microsoft needs to wake up to the reality that if they want to be more than a software company, they will need to embrace competing software.

On a personal note, this is my 100th Open Source Culture blog entry!

Open source is frequently compared to a religion complete with zealots and evangelists, and some religions are even using open source methodologies to create belief systems (known as open source religions).

However, Rev. Don Parris has extended this idea to a new level:

“This ordained Baptist minister with the Charlotte, N.C.-based Matheteuo Christian Fellowship has made it his mission to spread the good word about free and open source software (FOSS). The Greek word “Matheteuo” translates to “to make disciples,” and Parris has extended the moniker to include making other software users into Linux and open source disciples themselves.

Parris is a longtime user of the Ubuntu Linux distribution and a contributor to the Freely Project, which is a community of users that promotes open source software (OSS) in churches across the United States as a less expensive alternative to the high licensing costs associated with owning Microsoft Windows. Through the Freely Project, a cadre of technically savvy Linux users helps churches migrate from Microsoft Windows to free or less expensive alternatives.” (SearchOpenSource.com)

read more | digg story

I ran across this Free Firefox Facts eBook on Asa’s Blog. You can download a copy from firefoxfacts.com

As Schwartz takes over from McNealy, insiders are saying that Sun is considering open sourcing Java in time for the JavaOne conference in May. Schwartz led the open sourcing of Solaris, and he could be considering the same for Java. “According to sources inside Sun, an ongoing debate over whether to open-source Java is coming to a head with the JavaOne conference looming May 16.” (eWeek)

Peter Yared (previously Sun’s CTO of Liberty Network Identity initiative and CTO of Sun’s App Server Division) has been publicly calling for Sun to open source Java and take other actions related to open source. At this point, we can only speculate on what Sun will do. I personally think that Sun should open source Java; however, we will just have to wait and see what happens.