I understand that hardware and software are different, but I think the making the analogy of open hardware to Linux is fair.  This author can’t get past that.  He comes up with lots of “buts” and his many buts have inspired some “buts” in response.

BUT: the expense of change is highly variable depending on where you are in the release cycle.  If you want to change software just before a release it is much more expensive and traumatic than making a change during the development part of the cycle.  This is also true in hardware development.  Changing a connector during the design would be just as cheap and painless as in the software world.  Changing it close to release or while the part is ramping up production would and should be expensive, just like with code.   Code will require retesting and repackaging which could push the release date and future development cycles back.  Nothing is free, the analogy is working.

BUT: Linux is a fine example of democratizing technology and it will probably be the main OS on the resulting servers.  Imagining that you are extending that to adjacent domains is perfectly reasonable.

BUT: Charles, what better analogy is there?  Would you have preferred that the open hardware folks left the technology domain to look for their analogies?  Would you have felt better about comparing open hardware to the French Revolution?  Or the Renaissance?  I think Open Compute is like the Bronze Age.  You have this process of designing servers that was reserved for the Gods, but now it has been brought down into the hands of mere men.  Dell and IBM are already retreating in the face of the bronze dagger wielding insurgent ops guys.

Shared with: Public