Red Hat CEO: Remote Working is 'Just Another Day' to the Open Source World (redhat.com) 35
Red Hat's CEO/president Paul Cormier assessed the last two years in a speech at this week's Red Hat Summit. "Globally we saw nearly every industry go to 100% remote working overnight."
Regardless of industry and size, organizations learned to operate virtually and on-demand. Companies needed to deliver goods and services to customers without a set brick-and-mortar footprint. We saw new tech hubs emerge in unlikely places because workers we no longer bound by needing to be based in specific cities. Newly-remote workers realized that they didn't have to be tied to a physical office, and organizations focused on hiring new talent based on skill and not location.
These are not insignificant achievements, and while this way of working was unfamiliar to those who were forced to adapt during the pandemic, to the open source world, it was just another day.
Every open source project is worked on remotely and has been since their inception. Just look at the Linux Foundation, which supports more than 2,300 projects. There were more than 28,000 active contributors to these projects in 2021, adding more than 29 million lines of code each week and with community participants coming from nearly every country around the globe. Most of these contributors will never meet face to face, but they are still able to drive the next generation of open technologies.
Whether we realized it or not, our accomplishments during the pandemic brought us closer to the open source model, and this is why open source innovation is now driving much of the software world. Through this new way of working, we saw new revenue streams, found new ways to become more efficient, and discovered new ways to engage with our customers. As we approach what, hopefully, is the tail end of an incredibly difficult few years, it's time to accelerate. It's time to take the lessons that we learned and applied as we transformed to digital-first and use them to improve our businesses, cultures and global communities.
The term "new normal" is now used like it's pre-determined and static. It isn't. You get to define your new normal. What do you want your business to look like? How do you want to embrace the next generation of IT?
These are not insignificant achievements, and while this way of working was unfamiliar to those who were forced to adapt during the pandemic, to the open source world, it was just another day.
Every open source project is worked on remotely and has been since their inception. Just look at the Linux Foundation, which supports more than 2,300 projects. There were more than 28,000 active contributors to these projects in 2021, adding more than 29 million lines of code each week and with community participants coming from nearly every country around the globe. Most of these contributors will never meet face to face, but they are still able to drive the next generation of open technologies.
Whether we realized it or not, our accomplishments during the pandemic brought us closer to the open source model, and this is why open source innovation is now driving much of the software world. Through this new way of working, we saw new revenue streams, found new ways to become more efficient, and discovered new ways to engage with our customers. As we approach what, hopefully, is the tail end of an incredibly difficult few years, it's time to accelerate. It's time to take the lessons that we learned and applied as we transformed to digital-first and use them to improve our businesses, cultures and global communities.
The term "new normal" is now used like it's pre-determined and static. It isn't. You get to define your new normal. What do you want your business to look like? How do you want to embrace the next generation of IT?
Vindicated! (Score:1)
25 years too late and by Red Hat no less, but I'll take it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a normal timeline in a corporation, buddy. :-)
Free Software vs Open Source (Score:4, Interesting)
We see another good example between "Free (as in speech) Software" and "Open Source".
Free Software typically doesn't have a strong organisation behind it, it doesn't have employees. Someone with a good idea writes a piece of software and releases it when its done. Everyone who wants to improve on it just writes patches for it, releasing them without the consent of the original author. Since good software typically is small and simple software, this works fine.
Open Source goes a different route. It has organisations behind it managing and maintaining that code. Users are not supposed to modify their code. Often users are not even supposed to compile the code. Having an organisation with paid employees also changes the goals of such a project. Software packages are no longer supposed to be small and easy to maintain/modify, as that might lead to them being "done" which eliminates the need for such an organisation. Products are never "done" as that would mean that there is no longer a need for that organisation. This is why constantly more and more features are crammed into such products.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well Free Software implies that the source code and its documentation is available. The term "Open Source" was coined by companies trying to commercialize this movement. "Open Source" software typically has its source code available, but you are not supposed to distribute modified versions. A good example is Firefox. Yes it's source code is available, but even compiling it yourself is a nightmare. Since it's such a huge codebase forks are nigh impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If if you publish software binary only you're outside of the whole "Open Source" "Free (as in speech) Software" debate.
BTW we are usually not talking about licenses here, but about mindsets and actual code. While you may publish patched versions of Firefox, the act of doing so is incredibly complex. This is of course not completely intentional, but Mozilla recently axed its project for a smaller rewrite of Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Open Source" software typically has its source code available, but you are not supposed to distribute modified versions.
The Open Source Definition says this:
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.
It says more, but the rest of that paragraph just supports the quoted main line. Only trivial differences exist between Open Source Software and Free Software. When you look at the Free Software Definition and the Open Source Definition, you see that they are nearly identical.
I agree that Open Source was created largely to make Free Software palatable to businesses, and it has worked wonderfully. Free Software was shunned by businesses, whereas Open Source was shunned le
Re: (Score:2)
> How can they write a patch for it if it isn't open source?
If only there was a way [ghidra-sre.org] to write mods for closed source ... nah, that will never work. /s
Re: (Score:1)
I think this is beside the point entirely. The point is that even closed-source projects can operate using these types of tools and workflows regardless of a communal office presence.
Re: (Score:3)
The operative word in your post is 'can'. There is a world of difference between 'can' and 'will' and 'do'.
With so many managers delighting in the fine art of Micro Management (sic) they need to see you working when they want not when you want to work.
With the inherently distributed nature of FOSS development, the pandemic was for most teams, BAU.
Yes, close source projects can run in a distributed mode but many can't as was shown by the upheavals of the pandemic. I personally know of five projects that tota
Re: (Score:2)
Free Software typically doesn't have a strong organisation behind it, it doesn't have employees [...]
Open Source goes a different route. It has organisations behind it managing and maintaining that code.
This is of course ever so much bullshit.
The Linux kernel is Free Software. It has a strong organization behind it, there are employees, etc.
You have presumably been drinking the OSI's Kool-Aid. They tried to retroactively change the definition of Open Source and in the process did harm to Free Sofware by conflating the two, purely in a bid to make themselves relevant. They even once announced that they would "crack down [slashdot.org]" on "open source abusers" who used "open source" licenses not approved by the OSI, which
Re: (Score:2)
FREE SOFTWARE: is software that you can legally run without paying someone. It might have been written by some guy just proving he could do it, it might be the Linux kernel, it might be a utility from a commercial software firm that they've licensed for free use. It's free. The author(s) might or might not show you the source code and tell you how it works. The authors may or may not have copyrighted the code. The fact that they're not charging to use the software makes it free. If they don't want to
Re: (Score:2)
FREE SOFTWARE: is software that you can legally run without paying someone. It might have been written by some guy just proving he could do it, it might be the Linux kernel, it might be a utility from a commercial software firm that they've licensed for free use. It's free. The author(s) might or might not show you the source code and tell you how it works. The authors may or may not have copyrighted the code. The fact that they're not charging to use the software makes it free. If they don't want to share their code, they don't have to.
This is a common misconception. Free software refers to freedom, not price. If it is Free software (not free software), and you distribute it, you can charge all you want, but you MUST be willing to distribute the source code. Free software is a subset of Open Source Software. F
Re: (Score:2)
FREE SOFTWARE: is software that you can legally run without paying someone.
Literally not. Free Software is software that you can practically change without paying someone. That's literally why it was invented. One specific event that led to its genesis was RMS being upset that he couldn't alter printer firmware to suit his needs [fsf.org].
OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE: is software that you can see the source code for.
Yes, absolutely correct.
You can change it if you like; if you improve it, it'd be nice of you to share your improvements - just make sure to leave the original author's name on the original source code, please.
Not necessarily. You're right when you say you shouldn't remove attribution of copyright. But Open Source licenses vary wildly. For example, the oldest available example of Open Source licensing being advertised is Caldera OpenDOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I know the argument and I agree with you.
However the freedom of Free (as in speech) Software is not only threatened by licenses, but also everything around it. If a piece of software is overly complicated you may be able to legally change it, but the complexity keeps you from doing so. This way software can become unfree, not because of licenses, but because of complexity.
Now to compare Linux and Firefox. Linux is free because it expects "power users" to change it. Those "power users" may be corporatio
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox on the other side is only controlled by Mozilla. Virtually nobody outside of them works on it. Since browsers are an oligopoly now, all browser vendors (including Mozilla) share an interest in putting new features into browsers. New features mean more complexity and increase the hurdles a potential new competitor has to overcome.
Yeah, I'm a bit confused by why this is actually. I mean we have a fork of Chromium which literally exists only to be a more privacy-enabled version of Chrome. Why don't we have a more privacy-enabled version of Firefox with the additional bullshit liked Pocket pulled out of it? Is it just because Firefox is harder to get to build? I know that used to very much be the case but I haven't tried recently, maybe it's not even true any more for all I know.
Embrace the next generation of IT (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you want your business to look like? How do you want to embrace the next generation of IT?
Most top level and mid-level managers wanted their business to look like how it was before covid, and they wanted nothing more than to kill the next generation of IT before it becomes the norm.
Just look at how many kept saying it is "more efficient" for everybody to work in the office, despite 2+ years of their business running at normal capacity, to see how much in denial they are.
This may evolve similar to how major science paradigm evolves, old scientists stuck to old paradigms and new paradigms eventually take over because new generation of scientists embraced them and eventually the old scientists retired, then the new paradigm became the norm.
Those old "work in office" dinosaurs will not change their ways until either they are replaced, or until their company are replaced. If you have such dinosaur in your management, it is more effective to look for another job than to hope for dinosaurs to evolve.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I the only one profoundly sad that there is such a thing as paradigm shift in science linked to retirement of scientists?
I encountered this in medicine... granted, a soft science... The belief that cholesterol leads to heart attacks is still strong in the population and a doctor at a relatively large hospital even told me in his opinion, everyone above the age of 20 should be taking statins regularly...
It's not just the old scientists retiring, sadly... it's the teaching professors retiring that kills ou
Re: (Score:1)
It's ok, you are just naive, like the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I the only one profoundly sad that there is such a thing as paradigm shift in science linked to retirement of scientists?
I encountered this in medicine... granted, a soft science... The belief that cholesterol leads to heart attacks is still strong in the population and a doctor at a relatively large hospital even told me in his opinion, everyone above the age of 20 should be taking statins regularly...
It's not just the old scientists retiring, sadly... it's the teaching professors retiring that kills outdated "science".
I get this concept for non-scientific fields... but this is science... the point of science is precisely to be fact based and not bound by ego...
You are also rather ageist, putting forth the idea that scientists are right or wrong by virtue of age, being the older they are, they are more wrong.
The converse is that young scientists are right because they are young.
The concept is put forth by the young as a cheap and easy way of claiming they are correct. Unfortunately, that's really getting off on the wrong foot, because that is provably wrong.
Well, I'm involved with scientists (more of a researcher myself, but it's complicated) I retired 1
Re: (Score:2)
I get this concept for non-scientific fields... but this is science... the point of science is precisely to be fact based and not bound by ego...
Human is human. Any system that rely on humans behaving inhumanly will only fail.
Think of it this way, it is a profound success of science that it can surpass the limitation of human nature to bring about paradigm change within the scientific system, even though it takes a long time to do so.
How many system can evolve without being forced by external factors?
Re:Embrace the next generation of IT (Score:4, Insightful)
Those old "work in office" dinosaurs will not change their ways
I dunno....I'm an old dinosaur and I'm never going back into an office. That goes for a lot of my dinosaur friends and coworkers too- they like not having to go through the "shower/shave/dress/drive" routine.
We like sleeping in an extra hour, especially at our age. We may be grumpy old farts but we're lazy grumpy old farts.
I think you'll find less resistance to remote work among older workers than you expect. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Those old "work in office" dinosaurs will not change their ways
I dunno....I'm an old dinosaur and I'm never going back into an office.
Although being in top/middle management usually excludes those fresh from college, but by dinosaur I did not intend it to mean old age, I intended it to mean "unable to change".
Plenty of IT workers across all ages welcomed remote working, unfortunately, it only takes a few dinosaurs (old or young) in management to make trouble for everyone.
Re: Embrace the next generation of IT (Score:2)
It's not IT managers making the decision to come back into the office. It's the CEO and executives who need to justify their superiority for working at home for themselves and to justify accountants whining about the cost of their headquarter or expensive lease.
Politics too as city mayors are tired of whining restaurant and parking garage companies loosing revenue forcing governments to take their tax cuts away if they don't force their users back
Re: (Score:2)
When the company announced everyone has to get back to the office before the end of this month, the people leaving has more than doubled.
I think one department may have gone from about 12 people to 3 in a month.
Working from home is not the whole story, but it is at least part of it. I do know one guy who quit when he told his boss he was going
One issue with remote work (Score:3)
Google has been having issues. A lot of their employees are demanding permanent remote work.
All well and good, but perhaps they aren't taking into account that they are being paid Silicon Valley salaries. But if your only connection to work is via internet, you could live in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, https://www.goodhire.com/resou... [goodhire.com] could be paid in wages that allow the same standard of living, and Google et al could spend a lot less in payroll.
So if you can command silicon Valley level salary, and cannot be replaced with someone who can have the same standard of living for a lot less, you are a singular talent.
I do half my current work at home, the other half onsite. If the onsite work wasn't critically needed it would be a completely different situation as well.
Re: One issue with remote work (Score:2)
Google paid $1 billion for their headquarters upgrade not too long ago. I have a feeling it's that not Schmidt's comment that leaders need face to face skills to really move up
Re: (Score:2)
Google paid $1 billion for their headquarters upgrade not too long ago. I have a feeling it's that not Schmidt's comment that leaders need face to face skills to really move up
Just imagine how much they could save by getting rid of it!
Anyhow, Here's my take.
Let's look at places like Slashdot, or any similar place where people interact via computer. My thesis has always been that people online look at their activity interacting with others as a sort of online text game. The person on the other end isn't really considered human, just something in their computer they argue with.
That's the real problem with never going to an office. and being an employee who only shows up as
Re: (Score:2)
All well and good, but perhaps they aren't taking into account that they are being paid Silicon Valley salaries. But if your only connection to work is via internet, you could live in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, https://www.goodhire.com/resou... [goodhire.com] could be paid in wages that allow the same standard of living, and Google et al could spend a lot less in payroll.
Economics 101, price is determined by supply and demand, NOT by how much the product costs.
Companies pay workers based on how low they can go and still have people willing to work there. Many companies open their offices in SV because the people they wanted to hire are in SV, it is the network effect that keep IT companies and workers to both stay in SV. Even if the companies and workers now spread all over the country, it is the same group of companies competing for the same group of workers, the supply
Re: (Score:2)
All well and good, but perhaps they aren't taking into account that they are being paid Silicon Valley salaries. But if your only connection to work is via internet, you could live in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, https://www.goodhire.com/resou... [goodhire.com] could be paid in wages that allow the same standard of living, and Google et al could spend a lot less in payroll.
Economics 101, price is determined by supply and demand, NOT by how much the product costs.
Companies pay workers based on how low they can go and still have people willing to work there.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? It isn't clear.
Many companies open their offices in SV because the people they wanted to hire are in SV, it is the network effect that keep IT companies and workers to both stay in SV. Even if the companies and workers now spread all over the country, it is the same group of companies competing for the same group of workers, the supply and demand being the same, the price will not change. *UNLESS* there is a large hidden pool of talents IT workers outside SV that previously refused to work for these companies because they refused to move to SV.
There may be a few, but any drop in salaries will be massively offset by the huge increase in standard of living when you move out of SV. It is the typical win-win economics when more options were added.
If I might dare to note, I had the opportunity to work inside the beltway of the DC area. There would have been a substantial increase in salary. However, the amount of increase would only sort of cover the difference in cost of living, and beltway bedroom community living really isn't that great, plus I'd be spending hours in traffic every day.
So it would be a rough break even in cost of living, and a precipitous drop in quality of life, whereas in
But RedHat is a shit show (Score:2)