"Between Perl, Tickle, and Python, you probably have more programmers doing Web content than you have through Java. And yet, this stuff does not get written about."

Now there's a real problem here when what the industry writes about and talks about doesn't match what the industry does. The fact is, that in the developer community, everybody knows what the real important programs are, and yet at the same time, in public perception, these guys don’t get the kind of attention that they ought to, relative to the importance of their software.

I think one of the things that’s really interesting when you look at all these programs, which have immense market share and immense importance in the computer industry, what they all have in common is they're developed using this open source methodology, and in some sense open source represents what you could call the second, or arguably the third leg of the computer industry. It's this sort of invisible foundation of an awful lot of what goes on, and I think our real goal is simply to raise the profile of something that's already happening, and doesn't fit in the existing categories very well.

"There are a number of companies here that are looking to commercialize open source software, and there's nothing inconsistent with open source software and making money."

You know, people keep asking the question that all the reporters are struggling with -- how are you going to beat Microsoft? How are you going to make money? And, you know, that's just the wrong question. These guys have beaten Microsoft. They're not necessarily about making money. There are a number of companies here that are looking to commercialize open source software, and there's nothing inconsistent with open source software and making money. I think changing that idea is important, but far more important is just the idea that the open source development methodology is an enormous engine of innovation in the computer industry. And the fact is, that to the extent the open source model is used, you tend to see innovation -- and in areas where it's not used you tend to see a lot more stagnation. I tend to position open source software as much more closely allied to, say, the role the university market plays in other areas of human advancement. The idea that somehow only interesting things are happening in the purely commercial sector misses a huge, huge part of the vitality of the industry.

C O N T I N U E D . . . 2 of 2
DAVID SIMS: Part of the problem with your products is that people in the developer community are aware of them and they touch end users -- SendMail and Bind are examples -- but end users aren't aware of them. You said the end goal shouldn’t be shrinkware. Is that part of the problem, that the vast majority of users aren't even aware developers are using these products?

"And in some sense, [these developers] basically want to continue to develop software in the way that they find most productive, which is in the open source model."

O'REILLY: I think that's certainly part of the issue, and creating more public awareness is definitely part of the problem. I think it's also true that open source software developers typically don't have PR departments, so people don't necessarily hear about their work, and that's something we hope to address by making sure that announcements do go out with more regularity about open source developments. But I think the end-user issue is probably less important than simply the fashion of what people tend to focus on in their coverage.

SIMS: You know, there was an unspoken subtext, or spoken at some point, that only Eric Raymond really went way out and kept putting forward. There was the sense that if open source developers weren't out there making these innovations, and being less conservative, then software would stagnate in corporate proprietary environments. That wasn't said -- you tried to sort of smoke the peace pipe here -- but that seemed to be a large subtext. Would you agree with that?
O'REILLY: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I would have to say we really want to be clear, this is not about Microsoft, about beating Microsoft, that's how everybody keeps trying to make it into a story -- wow, with open source, can you beat Microsoft? And that’s really not the issue. But there is, at the same time, a fundamental bias, if you like, toward openness. These guys, as developers, have flourished in a particular kind of environment of sharing. That environment of sharing is something that they would like to see continue. And in some sense, they basically want to continue to develop software in the way that they find most productive, which is in the open source model.