August 27th, 2007
How valuable are rumors in open source?
I spent part of this morning seeking out open source rumors. (The film “Rumor Has It” actually did good business in 2005, although rumors said it bombed.)
None of the top 200 open source stories at Google News dealt with rumors, but the blogosphere had a few:
- The Citrix-Xen deal was just a rumor shortly before it happened.
- IBM may open source its Jazz collaboration suite.
- Neuros is rumored to be working on an open source version of Slingbox.
- The Dell-Novell desktop Linux deal was rumored before it happened.
Contrast this to the way it was “back in the day.” In the 1980s it seemed half of each “PC Week” was taken up with rumors about what Microsoft was about to do. Or some other major vendor, like IBM.
There was even a well-known term for the value of rumors in strategy — Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, or FUD. It should be noted here that IBM was FUD Central before Microsoft was a gleam in Bill Gates’ eye.
In an open source world rumor is devalued. Having sources who will tell you what a major vendor “might” do is no longer a journalist’s ticket to wealth.
What passes for rumor is speculation over the importance of things which have, in fact, happened. Even among proprietary vendors.
I happen to think that’s a good thing. Although I do like sleeping with software engineers, at least the one I married 30 years ago.
But prove me wrong. Heard any good open source rumors? Any good rumors at all? Or are good rumors just a rumor these days?
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983. You can follow Dana on Twitter. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.
Subscribe to Linux and Open Source via Email alerts or RSS.
| 08/27/07
