Revolution OS

My fourteen-year-old boy is very much into computers (that's hardly surprising). This summer he'll be back with the Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth program studying - I don't really know exactly what. It's some kind of computer program, I just sign the check.

He's very much both anti-Microsoft and anti-Bill Gates. He's also quite pro-Linux, the emblem of the "Open Source" movement whose adherents regard its underlying virtues with a devotion normally reserved by the religious for the icons of their faiths.

So he wanted me to see "Revolution OS," a documentary about the Linux operating system and the open source movement that spawned the increasingly important competitor to both Microsoft and Apple.

This is a very interesting documentary which I, clueless as to the secrets of operating systems, readily understood. I watched it with the barest comprehension of Linux or the philosophy underlying the open source concept.

Much credit to the filmmaker for not only explaining the seminal value of open source - the commitment to free interchange of ideas with minimal incorporation of legal protection for intellectual property - but for also succinctly allowing contrasting values and competing personalities screen time. This documentary is a very concise but excellent guide for the uninitiated into a world usually the arcane preserve of specialists most adept at talking to each other.

The Open Source movement is a work in progress threatened by the real risk of those benefiting from openness legally protecting their own "added value" and thus, in a sense, betraying their benefactors. Several of those interviewed pursue their open source values almost as a creed, the commitment to computers taking the place of more traditional dogma.

Anyone interested in a major intellectual counterpoint to the dominance of both Microsoft and the role of law in insuring proprietary benefits for innovators should see "Revolution OS": no manual required.

8/10.

This film follows the mainstream development and development methods of the varied software that is making it possible for you to read this review. Some people tend to think that is the alternative to Microsoft; the reality, it is Microsoft that is the deviate along with a few other companies (However I must admit I admire AIX.)

So, you will derive from this film software has started "open source" and when companies started to button it up the people just moved on to other forms of creating and maintaining open systems.

The film is fun in its self as it lets those there were in the movement see themselves in retrospect and those that missed the boat to catch up. Too bad it cut short being 2002 to miss the inroads of Linux and Fedora both as a replacement and coexistent in the information technology world of today.

*Note, there may be spoilers but it's documented history. It's like spoiling The Civil War by Ken Burns.

Fast forward thirteen years to 2014, it's easy to reflect back on this film and see it was a product of its time. This documentary is an interesting look into the world of the Open Source movement and the people behind it but nothing more.

Revolution OS spends most of its time speaking on the open source community and chiding proprietary software giant, Microsoft. A popular narrative in 2004. It's very much an idealist view on the computing world built on Richard Stallman's rhetoric. A brilliant man who was unable to adapt to changing times, a relic of the hippie generation.

Apple had yet to make a comeback with its Switch campaign, the iMac and iPod - during this time it was primarily Linux vs. Microsoft for people such as myself. I couldn't build software from scratch but I was able to fix problems. For me? There was no doubt Microsoft was the winner in this area and as much as I enjoy this movie, it fails in addressing the open source community problems.

Have they produced some great software? Apache is mentioned and it's great for running a server, even on Windows. But what they fail to speak of is the hardware manufacturer's lack of support for Linux in the early 2000's. I can't build software, I certainly can't build hardware. So you'd find 20 page hacks just to get your sound to work. Now if you're in the business of wanting to provide software support for people, which is a big part of this community, that's great. Someone will pay you to fix the problem and you're the geek to do it but why not just make it work to begin with? Paid support is an unfeasible business model for the average user - it's flipping expensive.

They make a big point of paid support in the open source community which it has but so does Windows. There's thousands of companies in direct contact with Microsoft to help alleviate any problems your company may encounter.

Tinkering with the various operating systems was and is fun but at some point you either continue that progress of "hacking" the software or you get tired and want it to work. With the exception of Windows ME, Microsoft had a fairly good track record of a stable operating system filled with support from hardware manufacturers. With proprietary software, you DO have choices. If Voodoo begins to fail at its job in providing a decent video card, you switch to Nvidia and then ATI... there's also a plethora of software choices from free, open source to paid. Support can be free, sometimes it's not. We are really in a different era by now.

The film also delves a bit into the Mozilla project and the problem it had with Internet Explorer. Today? After years of development and hundreds and thousands of changes the browser of choice for geeks, FireFox, began to lose out to Google Chrome. Why? It was faster. FireFox had become set in a quagmire of relying on plug-ins and they forgot to shore up the primary software itself. It had a huge ram issue when Chrome was released. A sleek and faster browser.

In today's world, you have APIs and SDKs that allow you certain licensing rights that allow you to tap into the system you're building software for. The Linux vs. Microsoft is almost a dead narrative by now. The majority of people have moved on from the desktop to the tablets and mobile phones. They really don't care about proprietary vs. open source - the average user does not care. Period. They want it to be easy and work. It's hard to imagine the desktop dying off for web developers like myself - what could possibly take its place in the heavy computing and production world?

It's not a tablet or cell phone but it's something and it'll probably spawn its own documentary when it arrives.

Given that I have no knowledge about computers nor how they operate, I found

this film very informative with some basic descriptions of the free software and open source movement (which have some ideological differences... not that I

had ever heard of either). The film recounts the historical evolution (and

subsequent "revolution") through a series of interviews of key players in the development of the Linux operating systems for computers. If you know nothing about computers, do not assume that you will find this film uninteresting. In fact, although dense with information, the narrative is straight forward and almost all the information is explained for the ignorant like myself.

There are some relatively small problems with the film, mainly near its

conclusion. The finale of the film does not address the disparity between the commercial aspects of open source in the 90's and the long-term growth of the philosophy and practical applications. I assume that the Linux OS and the idea of open source did not lose steam after the dot-com stock bubble burst. Given I don't work around computers, besides for internet research and writing, I must make that assumption. Yet the film implies, for those of us who are ignorant, that perhaps it was derailed by the economic problems. But given the stable

foundation of the idea that the film describes, I cannot imagine that commercial problems would have a long-term affect.

The film ultimately is a nicely constructed lesson for those of us out of the loop. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in watching documentaries or

learning interesting kernels about our world. In terms of emotional involvement, the way the director juxtaposes the interviewees creates interesting moments of humor (there seems to be a jockeying for credit happening within the community of programmers). Where the credit belongs and how people have used this

ideology (which it is according to one of the founders of GNU-- see the movie, it will all be explained) to launch practical business operations creates a nice tension. Of course, there are some mentions of Microsoft's relationship, which is adversarial, to the Linux OS that can help the laymen get emotionally involved in the story by means of creating a hero (the Open Source community) and a

villain (Microsoft). Of course the Microsoft way of business (proprietary rights) is never really given voice with the exception involving an over-dramatized

reading of argumentative letter written in the 70's by Bill Gates (given I am originally from Seattle and some of my friends work for the giant, it seems a little one-sided).

Again, if you have no knowledge of computers, do not avoid this film for that reason alone. If you are on this site, you have an interest in films. You can at least appreciate it as a nicely constructed documentary (although not excellent) that will illuminate a part of recent history.

A small note: although there are some mannerisms of the interviewees that can be regarded as stereotypical regarding computer enthusiasts, they are some of the more well-spoken interviewees I have seen in film in awhile.

I guess I expected Revolution OS to show not only the history of LINUX and OpenSource but also why these softwares are better than their commercial counterparts. I was pleased with the presentation of the history, as I had not been previously aware of it, but I was less than satisfied with the documentary's complete lack of any demonstration, however brief, of the software and an explanation of why it's better than Microsoft Windows. There's a scene where Bill Gate's is responding to the issue of free software. Some of his remarks make sense- but it was difficult to focus on the ideas because at that point there was absolutely atrocious and intrusive music 'pasted' into the background and I couldn't help feeling that I was being manipulated. I also did not get how some of these developers make their money. Someone has to create the software. This takes time. People have to eat and they need to pay for their food to eat. If they are giving their time away developing free software, where are they getting the money for food? I would have liked the documentary to address that issue. I would also like to say that I do use OpenSource software and find it to be quite good, and since it's free, remarkable. I think the OpenSource movement is revolutionary, but I'm not sure this film brings this across.