04-25-2003, 03:00 AM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Open-Source Software Development: Doomed From the Start?
"Here is the core argument: There are a thousand Open Source projects that get started out of need or fun, are maintained for awhile for fame, then get abandoned because there is no reason to go on. Eventually, the programmers come to understand that "users" are people who yell at you to fix stuff. So Open Source is inherently flawed. It only works because otherwise unknown programmers can get 15 minutes of fame using the Internet as low-barrier entry into introducing their skill to the world. Since they are introverted nobodies, getting a few emails from unknown users that say "good job!" feels great. But in time, most Open Source projects grind to a halt. The ones that survive are projects like Linux and Apache that have substantial involvement by PAID engineers. One could argue, in fact, that the idea of Open Source software being created by volunteers is a misnomer. Even Linus Torvalds is paid by Transmeta to be the God of Linux."
Robert X. Cringely's weekly columns are one of the few "must read" Web columns that I keep track of. This guy is just such a monster thinker - I love watching the gears in his head turn. This is a bit off-topic, but it has a lot of parallels in the Pocket PC software world as well. Give his column a read and tell me what you think (that SIDS info sure is sad...).
|
| |
|
|
|
04-25-2003, 03:05 AM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
I'll have to say that I don't entirely agree. Just like there are businesses that fail, there are projects that don't succeed. And a lot of people don't realize the breadth of successful open-source software out there.
For instance, my personal server runs Debian Linux, which uses the Exim mail server, Apache, the Linux kernel, SpamAssassin, the Mutt email client, and a bunch of other tools. Most of these aren't corporate-sponsored, have existed for a long time, and work very well for their purpose. And it's all free, which is awesome. (On the other hand, few, if any of them are user-friendly -- they're still geared towards the UNIX geek like me).
Oh, perhaps the best resource out there to see this breadth, btw, is Freshmeat. While the number of projects that don't succeed is significant, it's absolutely staggering to see the number of projects that do.
--janak
|
| |
|
|
|
04-25-2003, 03:12 AM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,639
|
|
It's heartbreaking that babies still die from SIDS in this age of medical advances. I'm a father of three and I can't imagine being able to handle that situation.
On the Open Source issue, Cringley could well be right to a large extent.
However, in an industry where a few large companies dominate, OS has given us some serious steps forward.
Look at the progress that Linux has made, especially in the server part of the business. Yes, that technology has indeed been hijacked, first by companies like Red Hat and later by IBM. It still provides an alternative to the status quo that might not have evolved otherwise, and has made MS and the other server companies work hard to improve their own products.
In our own PPC world, what is the best media encoding and playing system? Project Mayo and their products.
Commercial interests are always going to win, but Open Source provides great stuff, maybe not for the mainstream but certainly for the enthusiast.
__________________
Cheers!
David
|
| |
|
|
|
04-25-2003, 03:18 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 204
|
|
well i totally agree with Cringely. Am doing a project based on CMS and open source software and in my summary i will say extacly what Cringely said.
How can someone built the perfect product just by free help? lot of research is needed and a lot of resources which means a lot of money and alot of money do not exist in open source projects. Why do you think linux is far below Windows? just because if they could sell it they would have money to do more developement and reserch on it.
I am a programmer and i prefer to work and get paid, not work just for the joy of builting someting.
|
| |
|
|
|
04-25-2003, 03:21 AM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 28
|
|
While there is some truth to that, there is also a great example of it being wrong here in our very own little world of PPC software. PocketMVP. PocketMVP has been in development for well over a year now. Granted it hasn't been under the same developers that started it, but it is still going strong. That's the beauty of open source: if the original author loses interest ( or time ), and there is still anyone who wants the software developed further, chances are someone else will pick it back up. It doesn't just quietly rot away in some obscure folder on someones hard drive. The demand keeps the development going.
Of course, open source development may slow to a crawl, when compared to proprietary commercial development. But that is the nature of the beast. You can't eat if you're not getting paid, and no one wants to pay you for something that everyone else can have.
|
| |
|
|
|
04-25-2003, 03:50 AM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,639
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CR
While there is some truth to that, there is also a great example of it being wrong here in our very own little world of PPC software. PocketMVP.
|
Yep, PocketMVP is far better than all the other media players, including the one from Microsoft.
__________________
Cheers!
David
|
| |
|
|
|
04-25-2003, 04:34 AM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 48
|
|
I'm not entirely convinced of his argument, but I think he makes a number of valid points. His analysis of the situation with Apache does provide support for his argument.
Coming from the Palm world, where it seems there are over a dozen Bejewelled clones, a hundred calculators, and ten or twenty secure information repository applications, I see many of the same trends on freshmeat. I notice numerous applications that all seem to involve the same things. Now, this may be a function of my newbieness to Linux, but many applications seem to be building on established programs like sendmail or samba and adding their own little tweaks.
One thing that would lend support to Cringley's argument would be a study profiling those who are actively involved with open source (sourceforge could compile data about those who submit projects) and how long they stay involved with both the project they started and open source in general. I suspect that most are high school and college students who do not stay involved too long after graduation, but that's just my hypothesis.
|
| |
|
|
|
04-25-2003, 07:58 AM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 59
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by paris
well i totally agree with Cringely. Am doing a project based on CMS and open source software and in my summary i will say extacly what Cringely said.
How can someone built the perfect product just by free help? lot of research is needed and a lot of resources which means a lot of money and alot of money do not exist in open source projects. Why do you think linux is far below Windows? just because if they could sell it they would have money to do more developement and reserch on it.
I am a programmer and i prefer to work and get paid, not work just for the joy of builting someting.
|
Opensource software will always be around, one factor of that is the IS barrier of entry (large companies can afford to spend money on software, small ones like startups cannot) hence there will always be some sort of development (a process which can be contrasted to convection) going on, and will continue to do so as real systems are being built (and needs to be maintained) with OS as the infrastructure. The same business needs will ultimately funnel back $$$ or manpower (in terms of development time) to these projects for they rely on it. GPL is a good thing IMHO as it pretty much gaurantees that improvements made by 3rd parties are disclosed and given back to the source tree.
We can see some evidence of this - just look at the number of smaller players (even consultants) helping out with various OpenSource projects (Linux for one)..
Paris, your developer mindset is totally different to one of a business person (who ultimately hires developers and gives them jobs) - especially to one who wants to get up and running efficiently in a very competitive market place (it's competitive now, just imagine in the future).
OpenSource is the great IS barrier of entry equalizer - people will use it, and people will enhance it due to business need. Simple as that.
|
| |
|
|
|
04-25-2003, 09:26 AM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15
|
|
I'm a professional software developer, working in the network management field. There are mulitple open source competitors for all of our products, but the reason we can sell software is that we invest huge amounts of time (and by extension money) into making software that is easy to configure and use. The only open source project I've seen that comes even remotely close to being easy to configure and use is Lycoris, which is a Windows clone.
On the other hand, our software makes use of open source libraries, which have changed that aspect of software development drastically. Whereas once you had to pay a large per-developer licence and a royalty for a buggy, poorly documented library you now pay nothing for a buggy, poorly documented library that you can fix, and you can pacify your conscience somewhat by contributing back any changes. The difference here is that libraries don't really have to be easy to use; they just have to do what you need.
|
| |
|
|
|
04-25-2003, 09:32 AM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 14
|
|
Cringely makes a big mistake in his column. He talks about Microsoft and IBM and implicitly assumes that their businesses are comparable. This is not the case: IBM is and always has been, primarily a hardware company. They make software with the purpose of selling more hardware. (The same can be said of Sun or Apple)
Microsoft write software to sell software.
From this simple fact alone, it is clear that Open Source is a gift to the likes of IBM. They get some code for free - they get the benefit of some cheap developers helping them out from all the around the world (perhaps unwittingly, but they are helping). There are no licence costs involved and support costs are reduced. It all helps reduce the costs of producing hardware boxes and increasing their profits.
Microsoft is a software developer. They write/licence all their own code. They dare not go near any Open-Source code because of the licence conditions whereby it extends the Open aspect to any linked/derivative works.
This is the basis of the real battle between open and closed source. It also explains why OS projects that benefit only a few people or that do not feature in any shipped hardware die, while others are encouraged.
Will this situation change in the near future? Perhaps. There are a growing number of companies looking at lifting code from the Open Source community and putting that into embedded hardware. I personally know of several of these and few of them admit to the Open Source basis of their code. However, all of these companies are active on the newsgroups encouraging the development of the code in which they are interested. This creates a very powerful, but hidden force against Microsoft. MS is competing by offering technology (Windows Media 9 for example) and trying to cover all fronts. But Microsoft's biggest strength is their patience (PPCs and phones are perfect examples) - they will keep pushing and trying until they win.
Maybe there doesn't need to be a winner. If there does, I wouldn't like to say who it will be.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
