Comments on: What's the deal with Apache? http://blog.generationjava.com/roller/bayard/entry/20070514 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:24:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.2.1 By: Jonathan Revusky http://blog.generationjava.com/roller/bayard/entry/20070514#comment-9 Jonathan Revusky Sun, 20 May 2007 03:48:34 +0000 http://blog.generationjava.com/roller/bayard/entry/20070514#comment-9 Henri, there is a connection that I was thinking about between this and another topic I have often thought about: financial bubbles. In a financial bubble, there is some class of things that gets extremely overvalued. One (minor) aspect of this is that it invariably spawns a certain kind of writing, where commentators try to explain, via quite forced, tenuous arguments, why the valuations (that seems so crazy) actually make sense. You know, at the peak of the internet stock bubble, there were people trying to explain why the prices of internet stocks actually made sense (except they didn't). Or more recently, people trying to explain why certain real estate prices that seem crazy actually aren't crazy... (except they are....) In that vein, it's like you're making a somewhat half-hearted effort to explain why the overvaluing of the Apache brand (which you yourself recognize, I think) makes some kind of sense. (Except that, again, it doesn't.... :-)) Niall (and Henri), the reasons that corporations might prefer ASF branded OSS software over higher quality alternatives, are, on serious analysis, pretty thin. Even the business-friendly ASL license is not a major consideration in most scenarios. Most corporate users are interested in free software in the sense that it is free as in beer. The various software licenses are largely concerned with modifications, derived products, and whether those in turn must be open sourced. When you use a software product as-is and never make any changes, all of that is moot, and pretty much any of the commonly used licenses are okay. That Hibernate, for example, is under the LGPL rather than ASL, is of no concern to somebody who just wants to use the library as-is. The legal CYA aspects, that ASF has somehow done due dilligence to check out the IP issues, does not stand up to that much serious scrutiny. I have been (at least de facto, it's not official...) project lead of FreeMarker for 5 years or so. FreeMarker is a core component in at least 2 Apache Projects, Struts 2 and Open for Business. When you use either of those things, you are necessarily using FreeMarker. I can tell you that nobody from ASF ever contacted me or our community to verify anything about the IP. AFAIK, their verification amounted to looking at the web site and taking our word for it; this is exactly what a corporate user, using FreeMarker directly, not as part of Struts or OFBiz, would do. So what is ASF providing on that legal front? I, frankly, cannot take the whole thing that seriously. Of course, the corporate types may believe that there is greater dilligence on that legal front, but that just gets us back to the bubble issue, people valuing something much more than it is inherently worth. Most of the bubble phenomenon (and it's not so dissimilar to the actual financial bubble) IMO resides on a herding phenomenon, that people perceive safety in numbers. Everybody else is doing something.... To use something like Struts or something that is considered sort of the standard thing to use is perceived as the safe choice. The decision making in these companies is inherently conservative and the decision maker can reason that if he opts for Struts or something from Apache (everybody has heard of Apache Web Server) then it is the path of least resistance. Even if things go horribly wrong afterwards, people will likely not criticize the technical decision to use the ASF stuff, since it's stuff that everybody else uses, etcetera. As for the issue of ASF culture, I have two basic comments to make about that. My own experience backs up that of Hani; the culture in ASF communities is frequently just terrible and that people tolerate it there shows that many of the people have no broader experience of other OSS communities, so they don't realize how bad it is. I would venture to say that most corporate users of the software do not have much of a sense of the Apache culture; I doubt that this is a factor causing them to use the products. In fact, I would add that anybody who was really familiar with ASF culture and had experienced other OSS communities, would, on the contrary, be rather put off by it. However, all of this is IMO a rather inevitable consequence of the "bubble". Consider what the world is like for somebody who starts a project on sourceforge.net or some place, and announces it on freshmeat and a few other places. When (and it doesn't necessarily even happen) somebody shows some interest in your work, asks some questions, and so on, it's like gold. You're dying to get some feedback on this stuff that you put so much work into. Of course, the project may eventually get a lot bigger, but those are the origins and, for people not working under an umbrella like ASF, your baseline assumption is that users (and even collaborators) are not that easy to come by. To treat somebody contemptuously who actually shows interest in doing some work is, for me, unthinkable. Yet this is very common in Apache land. Now, consider the world for somebody in on ASF. What you do is Apache Foo, or Apache Bar or Baz, and it gets a huge amount of attention and usage, almost completely independently of its quality. Well, this can go to your head. But compared to the scenario outlined before, where is it more likely that users will be treated contemptuously? Though it's annoying, I think if you're going to analyze the phenomenon, you see that it's just a natural consequence of the overvaluing of the brand. As a final point, directed at Niall, I am very skeptical of your idea that ASF has to work the way it does to be appealing to corporations. For whatever reasons, it does work the way it does, and for whatever reasons, it does have huge corporate acceptance. But that does not mean that there is much actual causality between those 2 things. I don't think that most corporations that use ASF software have much of a sense of the culture there or how things work. For example, most of them probably are not even aware of all this silly "Apache Way" rhetoric. I don't think all that stuff is necessary to attract corporate users, because anybody with half a brain who looks at that, would realize that it truly is nonsense. I honestly don't know where most of it comes from. For example, all this arbitrary stuff about voting makes fairly little sense. And, as Niall points out, if you need 3 votes, what do you do if there are only 1 or 2 people around? It's like saying that any medical procedure requires a second opinion, so if there's one doctor in the room and some guy is dying, you just let them die rather than let the doctor do something..... (there's only one doctor and you can't get a second opinion...) And, I read on some page about the Apache Way that in the Apache Way, there is no concept of a leader. Where does this come from? From your comments about a benevolent dictator model, Niall, I see that you don't really take that too seriously, right? As a final, final point about this, I note that Wiley and Sons published a book entitled <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Apache-Java-Open-Source-Library/dp/076454439X">The Apache Way</a> in late 2004 and it is now out of print. Amazon sales rank 4 million and something. I do not think that corporate adoption of Apache Software has that much to do with all the various bureaucratic procedures of ASF and the so-called "Apache Way". The corporations in question do not have much of a sense of how ASF is run -- nor, judging from sales of that book, are they really that interested. So the basic argument that ASF needs to saddle itself with all this bureaucratic stuff and this mostly ludicrous "Apache Way" nonsense in order to attract corporate usage does not really ring true to me. Frankly, the Apache Way stuff seems to correspond to some other deep psychological need, maybe somewhat similar to the need of pigs to wallow in their own excrement. (Except you replace the pigs in the above by bullshit artists...) Henri, there is a connection that I was thinking about between this and another topic I have often thought about: financial bubbles. In a financial bubble, there is some class of things that gets extremely overvalued. One (minor) aspect of this is that it invariably spawns a certain kind of writing, where commentators try to explain, via quite forced, tenuous arguments, why the valuations (that seems so crazy) actually make sense. You know, at the peak of the internet stock bubble, there were people trying to explain why the prices of internet stocks actually
made sense (except they didn’t). Or more recently, people trying to explain why certain real estate prices that seem crazy actually aren’t crazy… (except they are….) In that vein, it’s like you’re making a somewhat half-hearted effort to explain why the overvaluing of the Apache brand (which you yourself recognize, I think) makes some kind of sense. (Except that, again, it doesn’t…. :-))

Niall (and Henri), the reasons that corporations might prefer ASF branded OSS software over higher quality alternatives, are, on serious analysis, pretty thin. Even the business-friendly ASL license is not a major consideration in most scenarios. Most corporate users are interested in free software in the sense that it is free as in beer. The various software licenses are largely concerned with modifications, derived products, and whether those in turn must be open sourced. When you use a software product as-is and never make any changes, all of that is moot, and pretty much any of the commonly used licenses are okay. That Hibernate, for example, is under the LGPL rather than ASL, is of no concern to somebody who just wants to use the library as-is.

The legal CYA aspects, that ASF has somehow done due dilligence to check out the IP issues, does not stand up to that much serious scrutiny. I have been (at least de facto, it’s not official…) project lead of FreeMarker for 5 years or so. FreeMarker is a core component in at least 2 Apache Projects, Struts 2 and Open for Business. When you use either of those things, you are necessarily using FreeMarker. I can tell you that nobody from ASF ever contacted me or our community to verify anything about the IP. AFAIK, their verification amounted to looking at the web site and taking our word for it; this is exactly what a corporate user, using FreeMarker directly, not as part of Struts or OFBiz, would do. So what is ASF providing on that legal front? I, frankly, cannot take the whole thing that seriously.

Of course, the corporate types may believe that there is greater dilligence on that legal front, but that just gets us back to the bubble issue, people valuing something much more than it is inherently worth.

Most of the bubble phenomenon (and it’s not so dissimilar to the actual financial bubble) IMO resides on a herding phenomenon, that people perceive safety in numbers. Everybody else is doing something…. To use something like Struts or something that is considered sort of the standard thing to use is perceived as the safe choice. The decision making in these companies is inherently conservative and the decision maker can reason that if he opts for Struts or something from Apache (everybody has heard of Apache Web Server) then it is the path of least resistance. Even if things go horribly wrong afterwards, people will likely not criticize the technical decision to use the ASF stuff, since it’s stuff that everybody else uses, etcetera.

As for the issue of ASF culture, I have two basic comments to make about that. My own experience backs up that of Hani; the culture in ASF communities is frequently just terrible and that people tolerate it there shows that many of the people have no broader experience of other OSS communities, so they don’t realize how bad it is. I would venture to say that most corporate users of the software do not have much of a sense of the Apache culture; I doubt that this is a factor causing them to use the products. In fact, I would add that anybody who was really familiar with ASF culture and had experienced other OSS communities, would, on the contrary, be rather put off by it.

However, all of this is IMO a rather inevitable consequence of the “bubble”. Consider what the world is like for somebody who starts a project on sourceforge.net or some place, and announces it on freshmeat and a few other places. When (and it doesn’t necessarily even happen) somebody shows some interest in your work, asks some questions, and so on, it’s like gold. You’re dying to get some feedback on this stuff that you put so much work into. Of course, the project may eventually get a lot bigger, but those are the origins and, for people not working under an umbrella like ASF, your baseline assumption is that users (and even collaborators) are not that easy to come by. To treat somebody contemptuously who actually shows interest in doing some work is, for me, unthinkable. Yet this is very common in Apache land.

Now, consider the world for somebody in on ASF. What you do is Apache Foo, or Apache Bar or Baz, and it gets a huge amount of attention and usage, almost completely independently of its quality. Well, this can go to your head. But compared to the scenario outlined before, where is it more likely that users will be treated contemptuously?

Though it’s annoying, I think if you’re going to analyze the phenomenon, you see that it’s just a natural consequence of the overvaluing of the brand.

As a final point, directed at Niall, I am very skeptical of your idea that ASF has to work the way it does to be appealing to corporations. For whatever reasons, it does work the way it does, and for whatever reasons, it does have huge corporate acceptance. But that does not mean that there is much actual causality between those 2 things. I don’t think that most corporations that use ASF software have much of a sense of the culture there or how things work. For example, most of them probably are not even aware of all this silly “Apache Way” rhetoric. I don’t think all that stuff is necessary to attract corporate users, because anybody with half a brain who looks at that, would realize that it truly is nonsense.

I honestly don’t know where most of it comes from. For example, all this arbitrary stuff about voting makes fairly little sense. And, as Niall points out, if you need 3 votes, what do you do if there are only 1 or 2 people around? It’s like saying that any medical procedure requires a second opinion, so if there’s one doctor in the room and some guy is dying, you just let them die rather than let the doctor do something….. (there’s only one doctor and you can’t get a second opinion…)

And, I read on some page about the Apache Way that in the Apache Way, there is no concept of a leader. Where does this come from? From your comments about a benevolent dictator model, Niall, I see that you don’t really take that too seriously, right?

As a final, final point about this, I note that Wiley and Sons published a book entitled The Apache Way in late 2004 and it is now out of print. Amazon sales rank 4 million and something.

I do not think that corporate adoption of Apache Software has that much to do with all the various bureaucratic procedures of ASF and the so-called “Apache Way”. The corporations in question do not have much of a sense of how ASF is run — nor, judging from sales of that book, are they really that interested.

So the basic argument that ASF needs to saddle itself with all this bureaucratic stuff and this mostly ludicrous “Apache Way” nonsense in order to attract corporate usage does not really ring true to me. Frankly, the Apache Way stuff seems to correspond to some other deep psychological need, maybe somewhat similar to the need of pigs to wallow in their own excrement. (Except you replace the pigs in the above by bullshit artists…)

]]> By: Hani Suleiman http://blog.generationjava.com/roller/bayard/entry/20070514#comment-8 Hani Suleiman Thu, 17 May 2007 16:52:25 +0000 http://blog.generationjava.com/roller/bayard/entry/20070514#comment-8 Leo: No company is arrogant 'as a whole', JBoss as an entity is not arrogant, but many of its leading figures are. The same applies to Apache, the official statements are all well and good, but it's the individuals who come across badly (and yes, the loud obnoxious minority makes the probably large silent well behaved majority look bad). This is something that no other open source repository suffers from, so it's a useful data point. As for examples, you don't have to go far. There are many many threads on the incubator and other lists that show that many apache people are, uhm, I honestly can't think of a better way to put this...stuck up their own asses. Niall: You're right, to work in Apache, you have to play the Apache game (as distasteful as it is to everyone) for the visibility. This to me is NOT a healthy model for an open source community. Apache is a lifetime membership, all you have to do to get in is do one good thing, and you get to feel smug and obnoxious about it for all eternity without ever having to give back and earn your keep. How is that a meritocracy? Leo: No company is arrogant ‘as a whole’, JBoss as an entity is not arrogant, but many of its leading figures are. The same applies to Apache, the official statements are all well and good, but it’s the individuals who come across badly (and yes, the loud obnoxious minority makes the probably large silent well behaved majority look bad).

This is something that no other open source repository suffers from, so it’s a useful data point. As for examples, you don’t have to go far. There are many many threads on the incubator and other lists that show that many apache people are, uhm, I honestly can’t think of a better way to put this…stuck up their own asses.

Niall: You’re right, to work in Apache, you have to play the Apache game (as distasteful as it is to everyone) for the visibility. This to me is NOT a healthy model for an open source community. Apache is a lifetime membership, all you have to do to get in is do one good thing, and you get to feel smug and obnoxious about it for all eternity without ever having to give back and earn your keep. How is that a meritocracy?

]]> By: Niall http://blog.generationjava.com/roller/bayard/entry/20070514#comment-7 Niall Thu, 17 May 2007 09:44:10 +0000 http://blog.generationjava.com/roller/bayard/entry/20070514#comment-7 @Hani: In such a large group of people there are good, bad and all variations in between. So doubtless you're right about some, but IMO generalizations about groups suck. I also think that the primary communication tool (i.e. mail) is v.poor since it doesn't reveal well the attitude of the sender leaving people to make their own (incorrect?) assumptions - people I've met that across badly on lists are often great face-to-face. Another aspect is that since mail lacks a personal interaction its often the case that people say things that they wouldn't or would put differently if it was in person. I was shocked to find that when meeting you in person Hani you seemed like a nice guy - which isn't reflected in your <a href="http://www.bileblog.org/">blog</a> ;-) </p> On the <i>'little boys club'ish org</i> point - although the ASF says its on merit, I would say its more about <i>playing the game</i>. It takes patience and a certain attitude to become part of the ASF. You need to maintain a calm, polite attitude whatever frustration you feel. For example, having a contribution ignored (or despite the certainty that you're right) being told you're wrong or talked to in a condescending way can make people what to scream <i>F**K YOU!</i>. But doing so is pretty much a guarantee that from then on you'll be shunned. I don't doubt that the feeling of having to <i>suck up</i> to those who have the power isn't, in part, a cause for the sentiments Hani expresses. Especially if someone doesn't consider the software/project/person in power <a href="http://freemarker.blogspot.com/2006/02/musings-on-wikipedia-and-open-source.html">that</a> <a href="http://freemarker.blogspot.com/2006/03/musings-about-competition-ego-open.html">good</a>. I'm in two minds about this - people should be able to express frustration without consequence but at the same it would be bad news if mailing lists became hostile environments. For those that do manage to get into the ASF the danger then is that it feeds the ego and inflates the sense of superiority. If that does account for some of what Hani thinks its still a disservice to apply it to a whole group since there are those (more, perhaps less vocal?) that keep a sense of proportion. </p> @Henri: Fortunately I work for a small company and get to chose what software to use without considering the brand. In previous life I was in the corporate world and the bureaucratic nightmare of changing anything was horrendous - esp in evaluating/approving new software. Apache's brand success is in having gained corporate acceptance which since Apache as an organization has gained approval - bringing in a new piece of Apache software is far easier than from an entity/person that hasn't yet achieved that. </p> I put that approval down to two things: The Apache Web Server and "policy and processes". The success of the web server caused corporations to consider the ASF and when they look/looked at the ASF the "policy and processes" fits well with their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_your_ass">CYA</a> corporate bureaucracy and gives them something to point to to justify their approval (e.g. <a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/">the license</a>, <a href="http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc">project operation</a>, <a href="http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html">releases</a>, IP (e.g. <a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas">CLAs</a>), <a href="http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html">Source Files</a>, <a href="http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html">3rd Party Licenses</a>, <a href="http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html">Crypto</a>, etc. etc). I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the license - since anyone can use the Apache License without being part of Apache. The difference is that Joe Bloggs on sourceforge may use the license, but how do big corporations know, for example, that what's being released hasn't been copied from an un-authorised source. With Apache they see that there is policy and process in place which tries to prevent that from happening. Which means if something goes wrong they have somewhere to point to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_your_ass">justify their original decision</a>. </p> These policies are IMO valid reasons for corporations accepting ASF software. However I suspect that some assume more that are not valid. For example, that ASF software is higher quality or better than an alternative non-ASF work or that the project is more likely to continue/succeed. They are probably not aware of how close some ASF projects are to being un-releasable. The three +1 votes for a release rule is good until the number of people interested in voting drops to below 3 - then the projects in trouble. Also the ASF doesn't do "maintenance" mode well and there isn't any realistic path for re-vitalising a project, even if there is community interest - since it needs three +1s to bring in new people. Although the policy and process works well in attracting corporations to the ASF, it does hamper bringing in new blood and innovation and the idea that everyone has equal power means that idiots like me have as much say as the talented developers and I suspect that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDFL">benevolent dictator</a> is a better model for successful projects. </p> To be honest I don't think there is a solution for the type of criticisms the ASF receives - since the policy and process which satisfies corporations and drives its brand success limits the freeness and openness (from a people joining and taking part PoV) of the ASF as an organisation. I guess the question for each person is do I <i>play the Apache Game</i> for the visibility it provides - or go elsewhere? @Hani: In such a large group of people there are good, bad and all variations in between. So doubtless you’re right about some, but IMO generalizations about groups suck. I also think that the primary communication tool (i.e. mail) is v.poor since it doesn’t reveal well the attitude of the sender leaving people to make their own (incorrect?) assumptions - people I’ve met that across badly on lists are often great face-to-face. Another aspect is that since mail lacks a personal interaction its often the case that people say things that they wouldn’t or would put differently if it was in person. I was shocked to find that when meeting you in person Hani you seemed like a nice guy - which isn’t reflected in your blog ;-)
On the ‘little boys club’ish org point - although the ASF says its on merit, I would say its more about playing the game. It takes patience and a certain attitude to become part of the ASF. You need to maintain a calm, polite attitude whatever frustration you feel. For example, having a contribution ignored (or despite the certainty that you’re right) being told you’re wrong or talked to in a condescending way can make people what to scream F**K YOU!. But doing so is pretty much a guarantee that from then on you’ll be shunned. I don’t doubt that the feeling of having to suck up to those who have the power isn’t, in part, a cause for the sentiments Hani expresses. Especially if someone doesn’t consider the software/project/person in power that good. I’m in two minds about this - people should be able to express frustration without consequence but at the same it would be bad news if mailing lists became hostile environments. For those that do manage to get into the ASF the danger then is that it feeds the ego and inflates the sense of superiority. If that does account for some of what Hani thinks its still a disservice to apply it to a whole group since there are those (more, perhaps less vocal?) that keep a sense of proportion.

@Henri: Fortunately I work for a small company and get to chose what software to use without considering the brand. In previous life I was in the corporate world and the bureaucratic nightmare of changing anything was horrendous - esp in evaluating/approving new software. Apache’s brand success is in having gained corporate acceptance which since Apache as an organization has gained approval - bringing in a new piece of Apache software is far easier than from an entity/person that hasn’t yet achieved that.

I put that approval down to two things: The Apache Web Server and “policy and processes”. The success of the web server caused corporations to consider the ASF and when they look/looked at the ASF the “policy and processes” fits well with their CYA corporate bureaucracy and gives them something to point to to justify their approval (e.g. the license, project operation, releases, IP (e.g. CLAs), Source Files, 3rd Party Licenses, Crypto, etc. etc). I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on the license - since anyone can use the Apache License without being part of Apache. The difference is that Joe Bloggs on sourceforge may use the license, but how do big corporations know, for example, that what’s being released hasn’t been copied from an un-authorised source. With Apache they see that there is policy and process in place which tries to prevent that from happening. Which means if something goes wrong they have somewhere to point to justify their original decision.

These policies are IMO valid reasons for corporations accepting ASF software. However I suspect that some assume more that are not valid. For example, that ASF software is higher quality or better than an alternative non-ASF work or that the project is more likely to continue/succeed. They are probably not aware of how close some ASF projects are to being un-releasable. The three +1 votes for a release rule is good until the number of people interested in voting drops to below 3 - then the projects in trouble. Also the ASF doesn’t do “maintenance” mode well and there isn’t any realistic path for re-vitalising a project, even if there is community interest - since it needs three +1s to bring in new people. Although the policy and process works well in attracting corporations to the ASF, it does hamper bringing in new blood and innovation and the idea that everyone has equal power means that idiots like me have as much say as the talented developers and I suspect that the benevolent dictator is a better model for successful projects.

To be honest I don’t think there is a solution for the type of criticisms the ASF receives - since the policy and process which satisfies corporations and drives its brand success limits the freeness and openness (from a people joining and taking part PoV) of the ASF as an organisation. I guess the question for each person is do I play the Apache Game for the visibility it provides - or go elsewhere?

]]> By: Tim O'Brien http://blog.generationjava.com/roller/bayard/entry/20070514#comment-6 Tim O'Brien Tue, 15 May 2007 17:27:32 +0000 http://blog.generationjava.com/roller/bayard/entry/20070514#comment-6 I'm more of the mind these days that it doesn't matter much where the project is hosted, what matters is that the people involved are actually participating and collaborating. I’m more of the mind these days that it doesn’t matter much where the project is hosted, what matters is that the people involved are actually participating and collaborating.

]]> By: Leo Simons http://blog.generationjava.com/roller/bayard/entry/20070514#comment-5 Leo Simons Tue, 15 May 2007 16:30:21 +0000 http://blog.generationjava.com/roller/bayard/entry/20070514#comment-5 Can we have an example or two of "arrogance"? I've often heard that quoted but I've never seen the organisation been very arrogant as a whole (same might not be said of individuals). Can we have an example or two of “arrogance”? I’ve often heard that quoted but I’ve never seen the organisation been very arrogant as a whole (same might not be said of individuals).

]]> By: Hani Suleiman http://blog.generationjava.com/roller/bayard/entry/20070514#comment-4 Hani Suleiman Tue, 15 May 2007 09:44:16 +0000 http://blog.generationjava.com/roller/bayard/entry/20070514#comment-4 Apache is by far, in terms of its community, the worst example of this sort of endeavour. It has fewer participants than most, and has the most arrogant self-absorbed approach. It's kind of interesting actually, the ignorance shown by many Apache members. They honestly do feel that they have a 'special' community that is more open/transparent/merit based than others, when it's the exact opposite, and is by far the most 'little boys club'ish org of them all. Honestly, it really does illicit the sort of snickers common when MS proclaims how they 'get' linux or open source. They're not lying, their ignorance and shallow world view really does buy into that. Apache likewise is a small insular community, and Ted is a great example of someone who honesty believes that it's special and different to any other open source forum through sheer ignorance and ensuring that he only ever remains exposed to his small band of stuck up gits. Apache provides value, that's plain for all to see. Apache is also a superb brand, but that honestly does seem to be a matter of sheer luck and 'right place right time' than any ongoing achievements or activity. Apache is by far, in terms of its community, the worst example of this sort of endeavour. It has fewer participants than most, and has the most arrogant self-absorbed approach.

It’s kind of interesting actually, the ignorance shown by many Apache members. They honestly do feel that they have a ’special’ community that is more open/transparent/merit based than others, when it’s the exact opposite, and is by far the most ‘little boys club’ish org of them all.

Honestly, it really does illicit the sort of snickers common when MS proclaims how they ‘get’ linux or open source. They’re not lying, their ignorance and shallow world view really does buy into that. Apache likewise is a small insular community, and Ted is a great example of someone who honesty believes that it’s special and different to any other open source forum through sheer ignorance and ensuring that he only ever remains exposed to his small band of stuck up gits.

Apache provides value, that’s plain for all to see. Apache is also a superb brand, but that honestly does seem to be a matter of sheer luck and ‘right place right time’ than any ongoing achievements or activity.

]]>