Revolution OS

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.

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.

When I first saw this on the shelf at the store I thought that it had a strong potential to just be a "feel-good" movie geared only towards those in the open source movement.

But after watching it, I feel like this is a documentary that I could show my parents so that they can better understand the Open Source Community that I call myself a member of.

This movie provides a very good introduction to what drove software programmers of the 70s into the idea of freely available source code. I thought I new most of the history, but a lot of what Richard Stallman and Bruce Perens talk about enlightened me. I feel like I know understand the open source community better and get the big picture. Even though I thought I knew the big picture before.

A nice documentary about the open source software revolution. None of the material presented here will come as a surprise to the computer techies out there, but the interview format of the film does give a feel for the personalities involved, including Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, Bruce Perens, and Eric Raymond. What is most intriguing is how each person is portrayed as feeling that their contribution to the open source community stands out as the most important part of the revolution: Torvalds' Linux, Stallman's GNU Project, Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", Perens' "Open Source Definition", and Behlendorf's Apache. Whether these people truly feel this way or whether it is attributable to creative editing is an exercise left to the viewer.