Open Source Everything Engineering

“If governments and other organizations do not do evidence-based decision-making rooted in holistic analytics of true cost economics with the objective of creating affordable, interoperable, scalable engineering solutions – which is to say, open source solutions now known to cost one tenth what proprietary closed engineering costs, we will soon go well past the tipping points for catastrophic failure across multiple domains including bio-chemical and nuclear accidents, vanishing aquifers, and pandemics. Elective wars destroying entire societies, and the millions of illegal immigrants spawned by those wars are modest challenges, in this larger context. Acts of Man – not Acts of God – are changing the Earth for the worse at an accelerating rate – changes that once took 10,000 years now take three years or less.”
 
See Open Source Everything Engineering (OSEE) — a Nordic Manifesto
It’s a sweeping socialist concept but it makes good sense, sharing the wealth and keeping us all safe. FLOSS is a much narrower concept but it does the same thing, allow the whole world to create and to use software. Why not engineering and governance?

Such bold ideas will go right over the heads of guys like Trump but for the rest of us sharing is a good thing.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in politics, technology and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Open Source Everything Engineering

  1. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser the 2000 about what Intel was using linux for silicon design come out from the DOJ investigation about Microsoft working with Intel.
    https://linux.conf.au/schedule/30139/view_talk?day=friday
    Intel people have talked at different Linux conferences about it for years.

    Physical design automation applications that run in a Linux* environment.
    If you watch the different intel videos on silicon production you will find that include silicon chip design software using X11 on a Linux desktop this is covered if you watch all the intel presentations on chip design at the different Linux conferences. So none of the intel processors since the year 2000 would exist without a Linux desktop being used. Before the year 2000 Intel used a Unix. In the year 2000 Microsoft was offering intel free copies of Windows not to change their design software over to Linux. AMD changed theirs over in 2002. Main issue is with silicon design you change one little bit you want to run a software simulation before you tap any out to remove basic stupidities this equals clusters and Linux is cheap as clusters.

    This is basically where things get strange. People making silicon chips are using the Linux desktop yet for some reason we have an investment problem.

    There is no such thing as “Wintel”
    DOJ in fact proved existence of Wintel agreements. But what was highly interesting was Intel themselves avoided making business core operations depend on Microsoft products intentionally yet Microsoft themselves was not so careful about keeping Independence to Intel. Basically this is Dr Loser wild guessing again.

    What the DOJ found puts Microsoft is a very unstable location. After more digging they found that in a lot of cases Microsoft was just along for the ride with some of intel underhanded deals like cheaper products if a OEM only acquired Intel.

  2. Dr Loser says:

    Might be worth a shot as a job in your twilight years, though, Robert. The requirements seem fairly basic to me:

    6+ months of industry experience with:
    * Scripting languages such as Ruby, Python, Perl.
    * Programming languages such as C++, C#, VB, Java.
    * Web Services, Javascript, and Json.
    * Database architecture and languages including Oracle and SQL.
    * Linux and Windows Operating systems and system functions.
    * Physical design automation applications that run in a Linux* environment.
    * Distributed computing and datacenter system architecture.
    * Project management, project planning, information systems management, and computer information systems.
    * Demonstrated capability to work with diverse technical groups to solve problem root causes and implement solutions.
    * Mask tapeout, tapeout data manipulation, or design rule, and/or tapeout related flow programming.

    Dearie me. You are completely deficient in every single requirement, Robert.

    Never mind, it’s all good. Chuckle.

  3. Dr Loser says:

    Thanks for this. It is an example of Intel almost being a good corporate citizen.

    No it isn’t, Robert. (Not, at least, in your terms.)

    And why are you “thanking” oiaohm for polluting your site with rubbish links? Could it be that you don’t bother to read them either?

    Surely not. I hold you in far too high esteem for that sort of gutter-groveling yellow press journalism.

  4. Dr Loser says:

    And your links are getting increasingly and even more blatantly pointless, Fifi.
    Go on, have a look at that one you just dumpster-dived. Does it mention, say, X11, of the various criteria you mentioned?
    Yes it does! No, wait … the other thing.
    You really are a world-class mendacious idiot, aren’t you, Fifi?

  5. Dr Loser says:

    For those who don’t know. Intel silicon design done under Linux since the year 2000(yes a program using X11). Intel production line and automated testing all Linux this is why when you have system giving you trouble and you suspect something on motherboard pray it can run Linux.

    So what?

    The only thing this job advertisement proves, Fifi — and that depends upon it being verified and generalized, but we can stipulate both of those things — is that, since 2000:

    There is no such thing as “Wintel”

    There never has been. It’s a complete paranoid fabrications by nutters like you and the rest of the Pognut Gallery here.

  6. oiaohm wrote, ” How do you avoid paying for FOSS development you basically cannot because other wise you will not have hardware.”

    Thanks for this. It is an example of Intel almost being a good corporate citizen. Too bad they had to pay customers to ban AMD… The cost of developing FLOSS is naturally distributed far and wide. I think Intel also provides support to Linux because they know customers will want GNU/Linux for servers. It’s self-defence to supply Linux drivers for hardware Intel makes like NICs and video graphics as well as CPUs. This has the added benefit they get to use GNU/Linux on the latest hardware instead of waiting for reverse engineering out there. It’s also smart to contribute the software to the world so that the world will buy a bit more of their stuff. It’s all good.

  7. oiaohm says:

    http://jobs.intel.com/ShowJob/Id/802320/Tapeout-Technology-Development-Software-Engineer/
    For those who don’t know. Intel silicon design done under Linux since the year 2000(yes a program using X11). Intel production line and automated testing all Linux this is why when you have system giving you trouble and you suspect something on motherboard pray it can run Linux.

    This is the thing that is so interesting about Intel is that depends so much on Linux yet their video card drivers for Linux have been poor performing. The shocking part is you can choose most silicon designers and fab operating groups and their production systems domination of Linux is so common it not funny.

    Really it does not matter if its Intel, Amd, Nvidia, Samsung….. in most cases the chips would not exist if a Linux Desktop had not been used at some point so every time you are buying that stuff you are paying into FOSS development and maintenance of these desktop systems. For something so dominating in silicon production process being unable to grow in the general market and being poor quality in places has been a head scratcher for a long time. Silicon chips production systems are dependent on Linux servers and desktops.

    So yes all this causes a very strange location. The money to maintain Linux for the Linux Desktop should be spent anyhow to make people designing chips life as nice as possible. Yet it comes fairly clear this has not happened particularly when you look at GPU performance benchmarks. So there is a lot of oddness. Now maybe this is starting to correct because Intel for Linux has almost made it to Opengl 4.4 and looks like they will have opengl 4.5 before the end of year so before Opengl 4.6 releases intel should be caught up and able to focus on improving performance. Yes understanding the usage in chip production explains why Nvidia has maintained Linux drivers for so long.

    This brings a interesting problem. If silicon producers decide to give there chip designs good quality desktop(this will be a Linux desktop) what will improve there performance what effects will this have on general market. Remember this is something you will be paying for even if you buy a Windows machine so it not something that is not funded.

    Welcome to the interesting problem of Linux OS might be free but its driver and section of software development was paid for by the company making the hardware so included in the cost of the hardware. How do you avoid paying for FOSS development you basically cannot because other wise you will not have hardware.

  8. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser
    I’m seeing the parallel here as Red Hat. Red Hat has consistently ripped off FLOSS to make billions of dollars out of other peoples’ intellectual property. 3M did the same thing with post-it notes.
    Suggestive deformation much. 3M funded the development of the glue that is used on post-it notes so nothing about a post-it note is not 3M intellectual property. Something remember about 3M is every 3M Post-it note sold the guy who came up with the glue and the guy who came up with a Post-it note get a percentage of that as a yearly bonus. This applies to all 3M products. So 3M is one of the rare companies that do this. 3M does not force person working for them to sign over all their intellectual property for a 1 time payment. So those producing successful products at 3M do better. Yes even failure at producing something at 3M still sees their people looking at if it can have any other uses as this equal money for them. 3M has no clue how many products they current produce either. 3M is very much produce enough variation in product and enough has to sell to cover bottom line.

    Dr Loser Redhat uses other people intellectual properly but they also give back. Claiming Redhat just takes is also being totally deceptive. egcs and eglibc comes to mind both of these come into existence supported by Redhat when gnu maintainers making gcc and glibc were not applying critical patches.

    Also Dr loser stop guess crap without looking at the statistics.
    http://lwn.net/Articles/686697/ Yes Redhat adverages about 5-10 percent of the work on FOSS code bases. That in fact aligns to Redhat market share of the 20 billion support business for Linux solutions being only 5 percent of the market that is the case. If you want to look a a company who has issues giving back look no farther than Canonical. There are a lot of issues with Canonical doing NIH and copyright assignment requirements. Something to remember everything open source by redhat does not require copyright assignment to submit patches. Remember copyright assignment gives that part the right to change the license in future how ever they see fit the means truly stealing the work from those who wrote it.

    After all he seems to think that the technology that allowed him to cobble together his so called Beast using white box asian components came from absolutely nowhere, or was developed by computer manufacturers out of the goodness of their hearts.

    Wizard Emeritus like it or not a lot of the modern hardware would not exist without Linux or BSD. The history hardware mostly came into existence because hardware makers had their own internal OSs. Why is this so critical. It simple.

    New Hardware Needs Alter OS core lots of the time
    NX bit usage first in Linux latter in Windows…. this go on and on. You design a new bit of hardware you need a OS to test on it. If hardware designs cannot test their designs and work out what to go forwards with the hardware improvement will not exist.

    So hardware companies working on FOSS operating systems is servicing their own need to be able to produce hardware to sell to customers. Remember Hardware companies recover the FOSS OS development cost in the hardware sales price so you have already paid for FOSS OS development in most cases when you bought the hardware. So the reality when you buy a Windows computer you are paying for OS development at least twice.

    If you believe FOSS development is being done for free you are mostly wrong. Most FOSS development is done by a group profiting one way or another. Selling support, Selling hardware or some other profitable means. Once you wake up to this basically every computer you buy is funding FOSS development one way or another if you dig deep enough. Yet you can buy hardware where no money goes to Microsoft.

  9. Dr Loser says:

    It seems to me that Robert Pogson has some issues in that area.

    Not at all, Wiz. After intensive questioning, the subject has confessed to having intimate knowledge of Windows Server 2000, Windows Server 2003, and of all things, WSUS.

    The subject has yet to explain quite how intimate this knowledge was, or how successful the outcome was.

    Thrilling details will no doubt eventually surface through the noise and bluster. We can but wait in trepidation.

  10. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “Such as, say, understanding how scaleable modern IT works.”

    Now, Now, my dear Doctor, it seems to me that Robert Pogson has some issues in that area. After all he seems to think that the technology that allowed him to cobble together his so called Beast using white box asian components came from absolutely nowhere, or was developed by computer manufacturers out of the goodness of their hearts.

    But I guess its all good.

  11. Dr Loser says:

    This “governance” thing, Robert.

    How precisely do you envisage that working?

    Sharing recipes across thin clients? Fixing each others’ broken Chinese tractors? That sort of thing?

    Let me introduce you to the concept of the “marketplace,” Robert. It’s how these things work in the modern age. You pay somebody else to do these things, using some sort of fiat currency (might even be bitcoin, although good luck to Dog-Brain on that one), and they, in turn, pay you to do other stuff that you cannot do for yourself.

    Such as, say, understanding how scaleable modern IT works.

  12. Dr Loser says:

    The “Post-it” note was invented by accident. It was a poor adhesive for most things. It didn’t take a lot of money to invent either of those things and individuals were mostly involved.

    And yet, as I remember it, Robert, it and many other similar inventions were marketed by the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing company in a way that made them billions of dollars.

    I’m seeing the parallel here as Red Hat. Red Hat has consistently ripped off FLOSS to make billions of dollars out of other peoples’ intellectual property. 3M did the same thing with post-it notes.

    I’m sure you can explain the difference and whilst doing so exculpate Red Hat from the charge of being predatory capitalists.

  13. Dr Loser says:

    DOS and UNIX were mostly the work of a tiny number of people not well-funded.

    And with DOS, it showed. DOS might have been the power-house that propelled the IBM PC and Microsoft into hundreds of billions in sales, but, let’s face it, the lack of R&D or even basic forethought was blatantly obvious.

    DOS is a simple tool, the sort of tool that you love, Robert, but in all honesty it was always crap. It barely did the job, and that was enough.

    Now, about UNIX. And this “tiny number of people.” And the sad lack of funding from either AT&T — a notably impoverished commercial enterprise at the time — or the various university departments that bought into it.

    (I’ll forebear from mentioning either Hewlett Packard or IBM right now. Or indeed Silicon Graphics. Or, well, lots of others.)

    I genuinely think you’re losing the plot, Robert. Nothing in this quote of yours makes any sense whatsoever.

  14. Wizard Emeritus wrote, “a lot of innovation does not happen without either money up front or the promise to make the creators of innovation “rich”.”

    That’s not true at all. Of course, rich folks can and do big things but an awful lot of little innovations are made by a single person in their spare time. Velcro, for instance, was invented by a guy walking around and getting burrs caught on his clothing. He didn’t do that to get rich. He was just curious and inventive. The “Post-it” note was invented by accident. It was a poor adhesive for most things. It didn’t take a lot of money to invent either of those things and individuals were mostly involved.

    DOS and UNIX were mostly the work of a tiny number of people not well-funded.

  15. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “They are the same sort of people who think innovation is dangerous and that women and minorities have to be kept in their places.”

    There was an old saying among aerospace engineers that went like this:

    “No bucks, no Buck Rogers”

    The simple fact Robert Pogson is that a lot of innovation does not happen without either money up front or the promise to make the creators of innovation “rich”.

    If you do not believe this, I can introduce you to some ex-iron curtain citizens who would be more than happy to disabuse you of your socialist fantasy.

    .

  16. Mats Hagglund wrote, “I just wonder how many times do “experts” have to bang their heads on the stonewall before start to rethink.”

    I think USAian “conservatives” are people who think the Stone Age was a great time to be alive. They are the same sort of people who think innovation is dangerous and that women and minorities have to be kept in their places.

  17. Mats Hagglund says:

    If we thought about those “socialist” ideas they are surprisingly similar how Dwight D. Eisenhower think about welfare state, New Deal and caring all people. But 35 years of neoliberal Reaganomics have done the job and most of people have forgotten the history of post WW2 western ideas of economy and society. I just wonder how many times do “experts” have to bang their heads on the stonewall before start to rethink.

  18. Dr Loser says:

    This sweeping sharing socialist concept and sharing the wealth and all.

    Hey, I’m in!

    I’m ready to ignore a century of dismal failure (not to mention roughly 100 million deaths caused simply by Edicts from On High such as Stalin’s attack on the Kulaks, which was basically genocide, or perhaps more palatably Mao’s Great Leap Forward, which was merely a matter of Mind Over Matter. A horrendous slaughter of the innocents, but hey, we all make the occasional mistake).

    Just one teeny tiny little problem here, Robert. You’ve never actually contributed anything worth spit to Open Source, have you?

    Why should we listen to you, then, as opposed to somebody like (say) Miguel de Icaza or even Greg K-H?

    You’re not even a Menshevik. You’re more like one of those pathetic little Trotskyist parties back in the 1990s that couldn’t even manage to internalise the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    (That, btw, is not hyperbole. It’s a pretty darned accurate analogy.)

Leave a Reply