Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> I think it's also hard to build very ambitious open source solutions that are entirely open from the moment of conception

Yes it's hard to build an open source standard using an open development model. On the other hand some people think its impossible to build an open source standard without an open development model.

Open source advocates argue that the very barrier to something becoming an open standard is your wish to own a strong consistent vision. They also argue that having a single host company that has a head start over others will discourage others from jumping on board.

I sincerely hope that such an approach could lead to a real open standard. I can't think of a case that has, though I do hope to be proven wrong.

Cool project, for sure. I bet you can succeed as a commercial platform, you're solving some hard problems and will make life easier for lots of developers. Would be cool if you can drive an open standard too.



Thanks! And I appreciate your insight. You must be rather battle-hardened from your experience over the years, and I know there are others who share your hesitance to use a system like this. In response to your question about examples, Linux and Android are examples of software that, as far as I can tell, only really opened up after conception and a good deal of development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#MINIX

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Foun...


I don't think Linux can be compared in any way, because it was never a commercial venture, and Linus released the first version in a barely working skeletal form, and proceeded from there.

If you actually meant MINIX, which the link goes to, it's also a poor example because it is pretty much a failure...it lost out to the always-open Linux, in such a catastrophic manner that most people, even most Linux users, don't even know it exists or that Linux was a reaction to it. If you plan to be the "MINIX of realtime data streams", I don't think I'll be developing for your platform.

Android is possibly a reasonable example, as I guess it did happen as a proprietary venture that went Open, but it's Open Source life happened under the oversight of Google, arguably the world's most important technology company. You don't have that kind of clout or that kind of market penetration. No one worried that Google would disappear next week, leaving a bunch of development spending un-recouped.

Finally, there is a pretty hard rule of the Internet, which is that infrastructure will be Open Source...and if it isn't today, it will be soon. HTTP, DNS, SMTP, SSL, video (HTML5, which replaced the proprietary Flash). There are still a few examples of non-Open services, and Web 2.0 (or whatever), was a valiant attempt to retake the web for proprietary interests; and the jury is out on whether Open Source and standards will eventually prevail. So, chat is back to being often proprietary, video and voice conferencing never had a viable Open Source option so it remains proprietary with competing standards, etc. But, I think for you to convince other companies to build on what you make, you'll have to either become big fast (like Twitter fast), or start Open. Or, you'll build just another also ran.

Of course, if you start Open Source, you'll never make a bajillion dollars on the software or service itself. So, you get to choose your priorities, and maybe shooting for the big money is more important than a better shot at building a standard that many people and companies use.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: