Last week, Google exhibited its Chrome Operating System, which is entirely open source. Open source - which allows users to download and modify code - debuted, under varying names, in the 1980s. Linux released the source code for its well-known operating system kernel in 1991. Despite being entirely free, only a small fraction of computer users have opted for open source operating systems and software. But with the business superpower Google following the trend, could open source be the wave of the future?
Open source seeks a market
Open source has come a long way since Linux, with the advent of software programs in many universities. There are open source and freeware programs available for everything from antivirus software to media players. Open source differs from freeware in that the code is freely available and can be modified under certain conditions, while freeware code is not.
In theory, users could replace most of their purchased software with open source software. For example, you can use Songbird as a music player, OpenOffice.org in place of Microsoft Office, Gimp to replace Photoshop, and AVG as antivirus. But these substitutions are not yet commonplace.
"I would guess a very tiny, tiny percentage of overall software users out there are using open source, at least open source operating systems like Linux," says Michael Rabbat, a professor in software engineering at McGill. The market base is small enough that many manufacturers don't offer versions of programs to operate on open source operating systems.
Leaders in open source
Some open source developers are looking to replace software that usually costs hundreds of dollars. OpenOffice.org, commonly known as OOo, was designed to be similar to Microsoft Office, and features a word processor, spreadsheet, presentation program similar to Microsoft PowerPoint, and more. The latest versions of Microsoft Office can cost up to $500 (US), while OOo is entirely free.
"At any time, there are around 1,000 people actively contributing to the project through writing code, working on translations, running support forums, writing documentation, etc. The vast majority of these are volunteers," says John McCreesh, an OOo Marketing Project Lead. McCreesh estimates that over 5,000 people have contributed to OOo in the past 10 years.
One of the impressive things about open source software is its overall time commitment and quality from volunteers. "This is the amazing thing about free software - people contribute because they want to, and they are quite happy to work for the common good," says McCreesh. Corporations like Microsoft and Apple make billions of dollars each year on this common good.
The coordination of such a large project - a typical software program requires the work of hundreds of developers - can be complex, especially when the developers are spread across the globe. But most open source developers are used to doing so.
"Open source software developers are ahead of the curve here," says McCreesh. "They are used to communicating over the Internet and developing software co-operatively."
McCreesh is optimistic about the future of OOo. "The launch of a new version of Microsoft Office in 2010 is good news for us as it encourages people to look again at their desktop software," he says. "If people do an objective assessment, then they start to realize there is a better alternative."
Users are unlikely to shift to open source operating systems until they've had some experience with open source software, like OOo. Luckily for open source developers, such a shift may be occurring. In the past five years, Mozilla Firefox, one of the most popular open source projects, has obtained a 25 per cent market share in Internet browser usage.
Copyleft, the relaxed copyright
Releasing code to the public for use and modification can have many legal consequences. Many open source codes are released under copyleft, which unlike copyright, is not a legal term, although the two are intertwined.
"The idea of copyright and copyleft confuses people," says Sunny Handa, a partner at Blakes, a law firm in Montreal, who also runs the firm's Information Technology Group. "Copyright was meant to be a right. It's a right to copy. Left is just a play on the words right and left, which has nothing to do with what copyleft was originally meant to mean."
Open source software may be free, and even modifiable, but it comes with some restrictions typical of copyright. While there are a variety of open source licenses, most require that any changes of the code be submitted back to the original developer because he or she has a copyright in the original code.
Similarly, the original authors of copyleft software renounce rights. "It means only that the author still remains the author of a work but he renounces most of his economic rights," says Pierre-Emmanuel Moyse, a McGill law professor and member of the law faculty's Centre for Intellectual Property Policy. "You still have an author and rights, but he expressly releases his rights to use, manipulate, and reproduce the work." By releasing code under copyleft, developers hope that others will contribute modifications to the code.
Many software developers learn how to write code on open source. While working in the field, they must be careful when using open source, because doing so could be detrimental to their company. "The minute he does that he incorporates it into the code of the company," says Handa. "This could have the effect of forcing the company to release all their code for free."
Some companies can't take the leap into open source because of consequences of the licenses. "Can you imagine a company that makes money by the code it licenses out?" says Handa. "Take Microsoft. And all of sudden, because somebody's incorporated some open source into it, they can't charge for it anymore."
While there are risks associated with using open source, often large corporations are more capable than individuals of effectively using it. "Open source software is often used by middle size or large corporations as an alternative - you need to have a staff to be able to have enough technicians to maintain and look after the open source," says Moyse.
But for smaller firms or individuals, maintaining open source software is timely. "Unless you are a software engineer, you don't the ability to follow up on every improvement of an open source software and download the code and make all the necessary manipulations," says Moyse. While the resources may be available, small companies or individual users often have problems using them, so Microsoft makes money by providing that service.
Google breaks into the software market
In 2008, Google released its browser Google Chrome for Windows, and soon after for Apple. Since then, it has reported 40 million downloads, and is one of the fastest browsers, consistently outscoring the latest versions of Safari and Firefox in speed tests. Its sleek interface - with minimal buttons, thumbnails of the most visited sites, and high security - appeals to many users. Google is taking Chrome's success to new heights by releasing an operating system based on the same concept, the Google Chrome OS.
Like its browser, Google wanted its operating system to perform at record speed. In a demonstration to the public last week, a netbook powered by the Chrome OS started in less than seven seconds. Google's software engineers attributed this to many operating system components required being removed - largely because they are repetitive or unnecessary. Chrome OS stores most of the user files and data on the Internet, a concept called cloud computing. Additionally, Chrome OS does not run applications on the computer, but rather from the Internet. The absence of these programs and files allows the computer to run much faster.
"They're trying to make it very simple and they're intentionally removing features that aren't necessary from their perspective, so they're trying to redesign it to be this type of platform that does open up very quickly," says Rabbat.
Google's assumption that users will spend all of their computer time on the Internet narrows its market.
"The way Google is positioning their open source operating system is kind of as a competitor, but not really. They're targeting this netbook area," says Rabbat. "Their vision is for people to have small, simple computers they use essentially to access information and use applications that are running off of the web."
Google assumes that many users want to check their email, go to a series of websites, and possibly create some documents. While many people may like to keep track of their expenses, write papers, and touch up photos on their computer, many of these applications are available online. Likewise, these files can be saved online, or in the cloud, as it's known.
Google's operating system is also fast because it uses reference hardware, meaning that the operating system only works with certain hardware configurations.
"Part of the reason they're [using reference hardware] is they can optimize their code to really be as fast as it can for those specific pieces of hardware and they don't have to worry about how to optimize for all vendors and for all chips that are out there," says Rabbat. Apple is a classic example - most Apple software only works with Apple hardware, and is therefore very reliable and efficient.
It's unclear if Google's operating system can compete with its profitable predecessors, or even other open source software, but its credibility will certainly help. Google's chances of success in such a small market are actually significant
"They have a lot of credibility," says Rabbat. "If people … see that they have the option to buy [a computer] with Windows or Google's operating system or with Linux, I would say, at least between Google and Linux, there's a good chance they would choose Google just because most people have heard of Google and know what they're going to be getting themselves into."
Google won't actually release the software to the public for another year. While many individuals might make the transition to open source, be it software or operating systems, most large enterprises will probably continue to use commercial software.
"It's just an issue of trust. At some point, there's the question of how many people out there are going to trust other companies to store all of their personal information." Losing personal information to a web-based operating system may not be of much concern to some individuals, but large corporations, which account for most of Microsoft's sales, are unlikely to take that risk.
However, Google has taken its own, albeit untraditional, safety precautions. In a video, Will Drewry, a Google security engineer, says that most web applications - the crux of the operating system - are already very secure. Additionally, Google will protect all sensitive user data by using hard drive partitions.
The more likely challenge will be expanding their market. It's also unclear how this will be profitable for Google - but if any company knows how to make money from an idea, it's Google.
The open source world is still unfamiliar to many, but the market share is growing. It may be a long time, however, until it proliferates the larger user market.
"There are some products coming out online that are trying to replace traditional desk-top platforms," says Rabbat. "But I think there's still a long way to go."
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Alex
posted 12/01/09 @ 9:57 AM EST
"Open source software may be free, and even modifiable, but it comes with some restrictions typical of copyright. While there are a variety of open source licenses, most require that any changes of the code be submitted back to the original developer because he or she has a copyright in the original code. (Continued…)
Mark
posted 12/03/09 @ 4:16 PM EST
``Some companies can't take the leap into open source because of consequences of the licenses. "Can you imagine a company that makes money by the code it licenses out?" says Handa. (Continued…)
Post a Comment