Slashdot Mirror
Why Do People Write Open Source Software?
M.Broil writes "Two interesting articles try to answer this question. One's at NewsForge, the other's at Cybernaut.com. The two writers reach conclusions that are almost exactly opposite. Which one is right? Or is it possible that different open source coders have different motivations? (That's what I think, anyway.)" I suspect as well that each developer has their own reason, ranging from ego to malcontent to benevolence.
Why do they only half write it?
Go calculate something
This one of those "well DUH!" kinda articles.
Does it really take people that long to understand that someone may want to create something just for the sheer joy of creating something useful or helpful? How the hell do you explain drawing, music, painting, etc.? Jesus, corporate-boneheads must think everybody is a greedy, sonuvabitch driven only by monetary compensation.
blue
Hmmm also a good thing to do while waiting for the next job.
Because opennes implies freedom. Humans like freedom.
Second, because we have bad experiences with Microsoft. Microsoft is closed. Proprietary. Restrictive. Opressive. User hostil. Unreliable.
Etc.
Because it's not there.
it seems to me that people get into OSS for the same reason they might get into local government (i.e. small town politics). if someone is interested in government and politics, they try to do something locally first, because a) people will let them and b) there is less bureaucracy. there is usually little or no pay when involved in local government, but just like working on OSS, it gives a good resume boost and gives valuable experience. i guess the only difference is that local government is not aiming to be a competitor to higher authorities :)
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
...to make the world a better place, and just because you can.
Informatus Technologicus
One last final point: Open source was doomed from the beginning. Yes, it's a blanket statement that sounds ridiculous. Keep reading. Open source is based on the very principles of communism: everyone works on it, everyone owns it. The very thing that led to the collapse of Communism leads to the inability of open source to become popular: workers then tend to migrate quickly, and not work hard, since they can't gain anything from working on one thing hard.
Actually, I disagree that communism failed because people got tired of contributing. In my opinion, there really hasn't been a "ideological" communist state to exist yet. Russia and Cuba are both just glorified dictatorships, not communist states - no matter how much they claim otherwise. Their governments ended up hoarding all the resources and not really giving back to the people they governed.
Getting back to open source software, however, a key difference is that you can LEAVE an open source project whenever you feel like. Do some people have the attention span of mayflies? Sure. But sometimes they just need a break to be able to get back into the project. Since this is their personal interest, it's less likely to be subjected to permanent disinterest. Somewhere, somebody loves everykind of project.
blue
I wrote mine and released it OSS for one reason - laziness.
One was a simple addressbook, 2 were games, and one a graphics prog - the latter for Commodore 64s.
I released them all as free software, source included, and didn't know what the GPL was at the time. All the same it was open source, simply because I couldn't be bothered with the marketing/distribution/etc. I may have sold them as shareware or donationware had I a strong enough urge to, but for me the majority of the fun was in writing the programs themselves. Getting money for them seemed more work than I could be bothered putting into it
I'm sure nobody can say why exactly people write open source software because different people are quite likely to have different motives. That said, I think we can look to Slashdot posters for equivalence on at least a few levels.
I say this because I've often wondered to myself, "Self, why do you spend at least a few minutes each week drafting comments to slashdot postings?" And the answer, just for me, varies depending on the day, the post, and my mood.
Some days I post to avoid work and flex, perhaps, a different part of my brain. The same might be said for some authors or contributors to open source software.
Other days, I post because an article catches my interest and I have something compelling to say. Again, the same might be said about open source programmers. They contribute to projects about which they are passionate.
Other days, I post to get a rise out of others or to simply be an attention-seeking karma whore. Surely, some open source programmers contribute for recognition, status, or props from their peers.
My bet is that most people write open source software for many reasons and that, even for an individual, those reasons change from one day to the next.
my boss tells me: We need a program that does foo
So i write the program that does foo, and if i decide that it could potentially be useful to someone else except me, i release it as open-source. I get enough money from my job, and have to write the program anyway. It's not like i'm obsessed with the thought of one day writing the killer program that everyone simply has to have and that i'm gonna become a millionaire from selling it.
Why open-source? Because my software will be customized for our machines, our OS and it may not work anywhere else. So instead of someone else reinventing the wheel, he could just as well check freshmeat, get my program and it would hopefully work with some minor modifications.
Hostes alienigieni me abduxerunt. Qui annus est?
For example, this project was part of code we build at a startup (now defunct). Since then I used it in two other jobs. The team that build this software to start with, is still using it at several different companies.
So, rather than building the same thing again and again, I got to build it once and then since it's open source, I get to use it as long as I need.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
In my own case I do it for two reasons...
1. To show my customer that I can bring them a wealth of functionality with no additional cost (which goes a LONG way towards explaining why we keep getting awarded our military contract year after year even though our expense is a little higher than our competition)
2. To level the playing field and to empower the little guy. Here's a great example, travel agents are being put out of business slowly but surely by airlines and GDSs (SABRE, WorldSpan, etc) by the way of no commissions, etc.
Orbitz, a collusion between carriers to control the distribution channel for tickets, does things like sends ticket holders a notification if their flight is late and so on. Travel Agents have not had that ability until now. They CAN use such CRS solutions like Virtually There and so on but SABRE strips the customer data and will market to their customers behind their backs bypassing the payment of any commisions. This lack of commission is pretty huge. Imagine if your travel agency was turning 10 million dollars worth of revenue for the airlines to get nothing in return?
I created a Perl app called TripTiger that parses CRS terminal data and stores it on the travel agent's web server and stores it in a MySQL database.
The CRS cannot harvest their customers emails, I can have a Perl script running via a cron job to check flight information and send notifications but MOST importantly travel agencies can now control their customer data.
TripTiger is FREE to all trave agencies and they don't have to host with my service at all. It's more important to keep them in business by demonstrating their value to the customer and this helps.
Open Source hasn't crashed the travel technology party and I am trying to help make that happen. Otherwise travel agencies aren't going to be in business much longer.
By the way, I have placed TripTiger on Sourceforge but am having some difficulty with file uploads if anyone can offer advice. I have the spirit just not a master at the mechanics yet.
What is the "open source" you speak of?
/me steps off soapbox and returns to coding
What open source needs to do:... blah blah blah
Sorry, but this concept really drives me up a wall. What centralized 'open source' organization are you talking about? Open source isn't a single group. It isn't a solid movement. It isn't a company or even a consistent culture. Heck, I'm on open source developer, but I have no connections with most major projects individuals think of when they say 'open source.' Sure you have the FSF and the Apache Software Foundatation. There are larger projects like Gnome and KDE and the Linux Kernal. We also have some companies like Red Hat and SuSE. But they all distinct entities! They often disagree with one another. They often disagree internally! So let's repeat it again: There is NO open source master plan!
Despite what anyone tells you, the 'open source' you speak of is a loose connection of individuals each with their own interests and reasons for contributing. And no open source developer has any obligation to make a peice of software any better for you as a user anymore than you do! I'm doing this as a hobby. Because I like it. Because I want to. Because it's fun. And if I don't want to build "in-between" programs like games or media servers, then that's fine. Who are you to tell me I should. Heck, I don't even have to make my software, which I write and give away FOR FREE, any more user friendly than I want it to be. If you want something more user friendly, then WRITE IT YOURSELF!
I can't stand it when open source users cry about why "open source" is going to fail or why the software sucks. Well, the beauty of it is, if you really think that, go over to sourceforge and start your own! Or maybe you could spend some time writing some documentation, or funding the project (in which case the developer would have an obligation to listen) or maybe even submit some code yourself.
But one last time: OPEN SOURCE IS NOT A SINGULAR MOVEMENT. Each developer does it for his or her own reasons and in most cases that means that they'll write and develop what they want to. No one beyond ESR or RMS has ever promised anything more. Linus sure hasn't. So before you claim the movement will never work, you might want to check if there's really a movement to begin with.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
http://www.bcg.com/media_center/media_press_relea
OVERALL HACKER MOTIVATIONS
Note: Question asked for top three motivators of F/OSS participation
I live in Soviet Canuckistan you insensitive clod!
They do not realize that they are taking food out of their future mouths.
What a load of crap.
Among my projects is a class I released to phpbuilder.com's "shared code library". It is a method for web servers to send emails through a remote MTA. (PHP's "mail()" function only works on *nix if you have sendmail installed)
By releasing this library into the public (under the LGPL) I've seen it grow and get better as others have used it, and occasionally, tweaked it to fit their needs.
Why people release software to the public is different for each person. It's really like asking: "Why do people drive on freeways?" or, "Why do people dig with shovels?".
Open source licensing is a tool. Different folks use that tool for different reasons. The point, however, is that we *have* this tool, and isn't it kinda neat?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Reduce the cost of your tools and increase the productivity of your labor.
I've worked as a contractor on a number of database and batch environments in and around a small city. The amount of duplicated effort is astounding. Everyone has their own half-baked, written-from-scratch solution that is expensive to maintain and lacking in some respects. As a contractor, I have the advantage since I can apply some of what I learn at company X to company Y.
However, for legal reasons I need to very careful not to re-use code from one place to another. I'm also very careful not to reveal trade secrets that might seem obvious to everyone but a lawyer. Really, I think most companies see sharing of code as a legal thicket instead of a common-sense approach to saving effort.
(Now, I'm not saying a company should give away all its code, just the dull-but-imporant stuff unrelated to the core business.)
I think most of the primary contributors to significant open source projects do so with the backing of a company with an enlightened view of self-interest. I really hope this view catches on, since it would make the workdays of slobs like me that much more rewarding.
No... its been my experience that every human being thinks and acts exactly the same.
Why do people wash their own cars? Cook their own food? Play their own music? Why do people pick up litter on the beach? There are plenty of reasons to do things besides wrapping them up in plastic and putting them on a store shelf. Saving money. Making money indirectly or otherwise fulfilling job or academic requirements. Enjoyment.
Why does this question even get asked? Why are people always questioning the motivation of this particular hobby or activity? It seems like someone out there would prefer that people *didn't* write open source software...
I agree with the scientific discovery part, but your statement about food breaks down.
The difference here is simple. The scientist that makes a discovery is paid somehow to do that. They are just going to make another one later. If they make enough, they continue to be valuable.
Their living is new ideas.
OSS people work differently.
They have problems to solve. They make their money solving problems. These solutions typically require tools to build.
By building better tools they are more able to solve problems. Since they can solve more problems, they will make more money.
When you buy a license to run someones software, you are basically paying them to solve your problem. When you hire OSS capable people, you are paying them to solve your problem.
The difference between the two is profound.
When you purchase software, you do not own the solution. You only pay for the right to make use of their solution that you can use according to their terms. It is not your solution.
Spending your money on someone who can build with OSS means that you own that solution. How it is used and what it does is on your terms.
Given the licensing terms today and the potential per user costs they incurr, OSS provides a much better long term value proposition than closed software does.
Anyone who really understands what that means will become a lot more willing to pay for OSS solutions.
Here is another way to look at things. All the money for all the solutions can either go to Redmond, or it can go to the people you have to hire anyway to make that mess work in the first place.
Which will be cheaper in the long run?
Personally, I would much rather support and educate the folks around me and actually get something rather than pay them what I have to and also pay that big and very hungry gorilla in Redmond.
Stealing food indeed.
Blogging because I can...
Another common one is that they have a tool that gets the job done a hoarding it does them no good, so they release it for the common good. Of course most of them do it because they found value in another open source application they used and figure "hey I got something for nothing why not release this if there is a chance it will help someone." A good example of this from my personal experience is CEPS or Cisco Enterprise Print System, while there is arguably not a lot of new code there (it is based around a number of open source tools), the completed package is definitly worth more than the sum of its parts. The author was very happy at finding open and free solutions he could use to get his job done, and in return released the best print system in existance back to the world for all to use. The author gained something from the open source movement (all the free tools that allowed him to make a super low cost print system that beats every commercial system out there) and the community gained something (this great tool). Everyone wins and it costs him almost no additional time or expense to release his work as open source. To check out the project go to the CEPS page at sourceforge.net
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Don't forget the fame. The late night stints on Letterman and Leno. The crazy autograph signings. The lucrative pizza and soft drink sponsorships. Sure, the groupy hax0r-chicks chasing you to your hotel room every night are great, but you gotta keep those other perks in mind too.
-Joe G.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
...because they love what computers could be.
I've always thought that the great thing about computers is their mallability - the way you can change the way they act.
Then comes issues like licensing, and the way that proprietary software can only be extended using special macro languages.. These things drop artificial flexibility barriers onto a completely open system - a very sad waste of the potential of such devices..
Because malleability is the best trait of computer programs over specific, fixed systems, it is only at its best if no such artificial barriers are imposed on the system.
The open source model really just seems like a natural method of software development that avoids such wastage...
No... its been my experience that every human being thinks and acts exactly the same.
Me too!
I've had this sig for three days.