Slashdot Mirror
What's Wrong with the Open Source Community?
An anonymous reader writes "We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us says a Pogo-quoting James Turner, in trying to pinpoint "What's Wrong with the Open Source Community?" for LinuxWorld this morning. But he doesn't *just* say that it's we developers ourselves, he also has five hard-to-deny reasons, including 'Open source developers often scratch the same itch' and 'Open Source developers love a good feud.' He also suggests we often approach the whole issue of encouraging migration to Linux from Windows entirely wrongly." There's also a decent rebuttal with this story as well - worth reading.
How do you know that the same feuds and itch scratching don't happen at Sun or Microsoft? They certainly do, but you don't know this because your only interface to the firm is a PR rep. I like the transparency of the open source community. I want to see the debates and bickering take place in public, where maybe just maybe I can provide some input.
I obviously cannot vouch for the maturity and security level of everyone in the Open Source community, but I disagree with this conclusion. The partisanship and the sometimes irrational emotional responses are a problem (maybe the problem) with Open Source, but are not the result of "immaturity" or "insecurity." They are a natural human reaction to perceived attacks on X, where X is something into which a great deal of time/work/hope has been invested.
I agree that the community could advance more rapidly without all of the competing distributions, standards, etc., but that very same diversity is what gives Open Source its strength. The redundancy may slow things in some ways, but it helps guarantee that -- when the standards are winnowed down -- the strongest and best survive. Calling the members of the community "immature" and "insecure" is mere name-calling that is more likely to induce the exact emotional responses the author laments rather than the needed calm, rational debate on this important issue.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
Well, one of the things that is definitely wrong, is that if you go into an IRC channel for any non main-stream OS (os/2, linux, mac, etc) and ask a question, you're going to get beaten up by assholes.
case in point, i just logged into the #debian channel on freenode, and asked why the package servers hadn't updated in several days.. at least 15 people got really nasty, ranging from "read the fucking channel topic" to some very nasty insults. Strangely enough, the channel topic had absolutely nothing to talk about the package servers, and the link in the topic was broken.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Zealots, excessive geek pride, NIH syndrome, and Slashdot.
Before clicking through, you should know about a little bit of background information.
Check this Linux Today article. James Turner wrote an article about how Linux is DOA on the desktop because it was missing two drivers he needed for his laptop. He was scathing and he basically baited the readers into giving him the takedown he deserved (and possibly was expecting, if as is suspected he was just trolling for clicks).
In response, he announced that he was going to use this as justification for another clickbait article about how immature the Linux community is. The article in question is the new one which this Slashdot story is about.
So don't expect any substance here. This is as much about taunting Linux users for clicks as any piece by Rob Enderle or Jesse Berst -- it's merely that this time, we have someone who writes for a supposedly pro-Linux publication stooping to this level.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
If we view Free Software only as a convenience, we won't progress. Sometimes it takes a lot of effort to develop a Free Software package, or to migrate a system to use Free Software. It makes no sense to put a lot of effort into seeking a convenience.
Idealism is a more long term motivator, and it's not unjustified when the focus of the idealism has already proved to be very practical.
This is party highlighted by the OpenSource Vs. Free Software terminology, but we are not enemies, it's just a choice of where you put the emphasis.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
As for the big complaint about the Microsoft shoulder-chip, I agree. Anti-Windows fanaticism is just unpleasant to hear. The point the author makes is valid - many users don't have any love for Windows either, but don't have the level of dedication to hating Microsoft that they are willing to spend hours, weeks or months futzing with their hardware and peripherals getting them to work in Linux, or learning new applications. Developers should redouble their efforts and their committment to making ease-of-use, hardware compatibility, short learning curves, and usable GUIs key elements of major Open Source projects.
His points on "Itch scratching" are well-taken. However, this is not ever likely to change when developers are unpaid volunteers. The simple fact of the matter is that people working for free will ALWAYS be inclined to work on stuff they're interested in. I'm not convinced this is an entirely bad thing as it tends to avoid monoculture, at least in these popular areas. For instance, I LIKE having a number of mail systems to choose from. This is a good thing.
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
I've been trying to like Linux (and hece the OS community) since 6.1 days and I keep running across the same old tired issues that prevent me from getting anywhere.
,patient, and understanding than the *nix folks I ran across. Hence I stick with BeOS, because when I run into issues, I know where I can turn and not get attitude and flame-fests.
There are, in no order:
(1) Documentation. I get far too many RTFM when the FM was written for software that is 3 versions old.
(2) 404s or links to other links which ultimately end up as 404s on web-based FM.
(3) Tired old sayings such as "Try another distro" (I have a stack of 20 odd distros burned onto CD, everything from the big players, down to things like ArkLinux and Icepak Linux) which obviously doesn't help in any way shape or form.
(4) The attitude of *nix users. When I was making the switch away from windows, I had two choices, *nix or BeOS. The Be community was (and continues to be this very day) more supportive, helpful
(5) The old re-inventing the wheel. You know gang, instead of slavishly coping MS, why not try being different?
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Take HP as an example. What do you think some of the Alpha / True64 guys have conjured up against the Itanium/ Microsoft camp and conversely. That should give you a picture of main stream corporate infighting.
Inside corportions peoples job's are at stake and they fight hard and nasty.
Open source is a polite debating society in comparison.
Help fight continental drift.
1) Too many developers "scratch the same itch."
So what? It's not my responsibility to write code for you. I write code for me, and release it under a license that happens to allow for other people to use it. Don't tell me what code I'm allowed to write and what I'm not.
2) Open Source developers love a good feud.
So what? You have no right to tell me how I should be spending my time. Sure it's not the most productive use of it, but again, it's MY time. If you don't like it, go away.
3) Open Source developers often scratch the wrong itch.
WTF? Scratch the wrong itch? Maybe I'm not scratching your itch, but see point 1. If you don't like what I'm doing, write your own. That's what I did when I wrote this software that scratches the 'wrong itch'. It scratched mine just fine.
4) In the Open Source Community, you're either "with us or against us"
Against us? If you want to point out flaws and the people in the group don't appreciate it, you can take the code and apply your own patches and start up a distribution of that code. If the community agrees with you, then you'll be successful. If you end up being the only one who uses your new version, then maybe you're actually wrong about what you were doing and that entire community against you was actually that you were wrong and too dumb to realize it.
5) The Open Source Community has a huge chip on its shoulder...called Microsoft
So? This really is the same point as Point 2. And the arguments are the same. So most of us don't like Microsoft? I don't think there are many that won't admit they do some stuff right, but that doesn't matter. It's my time, and I will do with it as I please. If you want to lead by example and convince people there's a better way, a high road, then please, by all means, do so. But telling people who write software that you can use at no cost and have full access to the source that they need to be doing things differently is about the most egocentric thing you could possibly say.
In closing, go away and write some code. If you can't do that, then just go away.
OSS, for all its strengths, lacks a commercial leadership.
That may sound like an oxymoron, given what OSS is. However, look at the successes in the personal computer world, and who they are led by. Bless ol' Linus, but is he really the leader of all of the Linux community? I'm afraid not. Linux is a distributed OS, with no leaders. Red Hat has come closest to this concept, but is not a popular brand name (yet).
OSS needs a common identity that ties all its parts together into something that can be recognized by the Joe and Jane Users they try to sway. I don't know if that should be a commercial company, or an not-for-profit, but if OSS wants to see itself as a true alternative to MS, it has to look like an alternative in the business and home computing worlds.
Oh, and the writer of the article was quite right in that Windows users aren't tolerant of trash talk, but can and will listen to why an alternative is better. Some Macintosh users work that way and get others to make the move, and so should the OSS community.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
And yet it was insightful at the same time. The fact that they are not paid does have a profound effect on how software is developed.
War is necrophilia.
Which is basically the same model - lots of different parallel approaches to the same problem, and the best one, or group, wins.
:-)
Closed source companies cannot do this, they operate in a constant state of limited resources. We can. We should consider it a strength and play to it.
Sure, it get's acrimonious, but this is a symptom of fiercely-fought ideas. If someone feels that passionately about something, they ought to be able to convince others, or they are being blinkered - if they're blinkered, they'll wither and die. If they persuade the rest, they'll move to the next stage. Where's the problem, apart from bruised ego's ? Nature is red in blood and claw. We're slightly more civilised than that already
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Feuding and scratching the same itch is merely one form of competition. In the OSS community, you often find a war of ideas, whether that's Gnome vs KDE or Linus insisting on a plaintext /proc.
I much prefer this war of ideas to the way commercial companies operate -- the war of marketing departments. Is it any wonder OSS turns out better?
We write software that we want. We write what we want and say what we want. This is the price you pay for software that's Free. Freedom breeds freedom, and that's the main point people seem to forget when they talk about what's "wrong" with the Free software community.
.. as 'open source enthousiasts' often do.
If you really want to change people's opinions, you better phrase your comments in terms of "you're doing great, but you could be doing even greater" than "what's wrong with you guys". I think someone commented this in the discussion about the way us enthousiasts were trying to influence the EU on the patent directive that was about to be passed.
I guess the same applies here...
I didn't get flamed when I went into #debian and asked a bunch of questions. Neither did anyone else that came in while I was there, and I sat on the channel for several days.
/msg'ing the "apt" bot for news before asking your question, as (IIRC) the welcome message to the server asks you to do. Did you do this? And did the channel topic say something about the break-in, but you were unable to connect it to the servers not being updated?
t ml
Perhaps the problem has more to do with your question. The Debian server compromise has been "all over the news", which I believe is why the package servers haven't been updated. It's reasonable to assume that people in #debian might have assumed you knew about the compromise, and they might have been a bit sensitive about it.
Also, you didn't mention
Now, I happen to think that Eric Raymond is a jerk, and wrong about a great many things, but he and Rick Moen wrote an essay on how to ask questions that should be required reading for pretty much anyone, and can easily be applied to fields other than computers. My father is a mechanic, and his job and mine have amazing parallels.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.h
Our LUG has a mailing list, and I've been on it for about 6 years now. I've rarely seen anyone flamed, even for asking really basic questions. One person in particular did ask several basic questions in a row, and was eventually pointed to the above document by several list members. Sadly, he decided to be an ass about it, and some flames were exchanged, but that's the only problem I can remember.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Too many developers "scratch the same itch" is a bad thing only for applications/libraries which other software depends on. We know this! This is what standards are for :-) However, for a standard to become standard we need to test lots of options and decide which is best. On the way to standardization we might merge different features, or the standard might require features from different packages which do not exist together at the moment. Different approaches make it easier to decide which feature to keep and which feature to drop.
I personally do not mind having three plotting and five music playing and twelve font editing packages, it does not hurt anybody, and as the author himself points out, people get selfworth from other people using their package. So if we try to come up with a single solution the result will be fewer developers->fewer packages, not same developers->better packages.
ato
they post flamebaiting articles like this one on major-traffic websites, making for pointless debates instead of getting down and coding.
He also suggests we often approach the whole issue of encouraging migration to Linux from Windows entirely wrongly
I've had a pretty good deal of luck with my family and friends getting them switched to Mozilla and OpenOffice on win32 first, and then later on suggesting Linux. Like most desktop users, thoes 2 apps give them everything they need (web, email and and office suite). If they get used to it on win32, using it all on Linux is a no-brainer and they're generally at least willing to try.
The heat from below can burn your eyes out
I didn't feel Steve Suehring's rebuttal addressed a couple of James Turner's comments well.
1. Too much competition Suehring doesn't touch on Turner's point that GNU/Linux distributions often can't use other distributions' binary packages of applications. This is a must if we want to attract users of proprietary yet mission-critical applications to GNU/Linux.
3. Scratch the wrong itch "I've worked with closed source software where I had to edit a registry setting or manually change a configuration file in order to make the software work (don't forget to reboot the entire server if you make a registry change.)" However, the average Windows program provides a GUI for a larger percentage of its configuration than does the average GNU/Linux program.
5. Chip on its shoulder Suehring doesn't touch on Turner's point that GNU/Linux support among hardware manufacturers just isn't to the point where I can stick in the driver disc bundled with a device and install the driver.
What if you switched "debian" to "Windows XP" and were talking about a stale Windows Update server? Are you going to go to freenode and get on IRC #WinXP and ask a bunch of wannabes to give you free technical support or reason why they are not as competent as they seem or opportunity to reinforce their position in the #WinXP channel pecking order?
It isn't plain how the example cited in the parent of this thread is related to the general problems of the free software development community. Are the jokers in #debian at freenode actually the developers at the root of this discussion? Uh... NO!
So, pardon me if I am concerned this thread might be a troll.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
I was having a problem with configuring my webserver with HTML::Mason. Problem was resolved in a few hours by one of the authors of HTML::Mason. Now a neat summary of my problems and its resolutions is available to the world in the archives.
I am trying to extend PostgreSQL so that it includes efficient Materialized Views. I posted a couple of messages, and the team basically says, "We've all got our personal projects we're working on, but we all want to see M.V. a reality. Here's some pointers and good luck." When I come back with my findings, they point out some more stuff, and the discussion starts to build. I can see having M.V. in PostgreSQL a reality if I keep advocating it.
These are just two examples of things that just are not possible with closed-source software. The HTML::Mason and PostgreSQL teams are really good examples of open source work at its finest (along with other projects too numerous to mention). But imagine getting this kind of support from Microsoft or SUN. (Well, maybe SUN is fanatical about support and encourages its users to contribute to the codebase, I wouldn't know.)
This is why Open Source Software (or Free Software, whatever you want to call it) is going to take over the world. Petty irritations exist, but they exist everywhere and are not insurmountable. Eventually, everyone will see what I see in the open source community. I can't imagine "paying" someone for software that I can't look into or modify. No matter how useful it is now, it won't be useful in a few years. Heck, it won't even be supported by anyone. But open source software is timeless and invaluable. When it becomes obselete, it is updated (case in point: sendmail)
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Journalism, thats the real truth, this is just another example of Journalism's continuous need for sensation, almost all journo's are just the worst sort of Trolls, BSD is dying, Unix is dying, Aunt Nelly cat is dying, linux ate my clock radio, I moderate the article -1 Troll.
in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that
Francis Smit
Sorry to disappoint you but you're in error.
After the "dot com bust" millions of programmers were out of work. The promises of gold and influence were revealed for the lies that they were. Today, those same programmers work on a system for the people not for their corporate masters. The workers are uniting under the Open Source flag. There is no way that capitalist software ventures can fight this trend. Just as Hong Kong has been returned to the people, so shall the code be returned.
d24edcbb257b163728ac36726446d746
Is that really a fair comparison? If I buy a Mac, I'm getting a closed system with a small hardware compatibility list. Since Apple knows what goes into all of them, it's no surprise they can make an OS that runs without lots of configuration twiddling. If Linux was sold on an equally small number of configurations, surely it could be made to run with equally little hand-configuring.
But because Linux is often run in the "anything goes" x86 world, hardware incompatibilities are more common. Where standards are well-defined (IDE, USB, etc.), Linux has no problems. In other cases (video cards, sound cards), Linux often lags behind the cutting edge and requires a bit of hand holding. But that's the nature of the platform rather than of the OS. Even Windows can't handle tons of different configurations without help; instead it requires seperate "drivers" for that purpose.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
It seems to me that a problem with a large number of movements is that they are based first and foremost on an oppositional logic and rhetoric. Rather than simply providing a model for open debate and getting things done, the oppositional rhetoric gives us infighting and great wars about the composition of naval lint and the direction of the great social revolution.
Of course, this is just a problem in OSS, it seems to be occuring just about everywhere. People are subdividing into camps based on whatever thesis/antithesis group the rant about, and are gradually losing the ability to community with the rest of the world.
And this is of course the main problem with the Open Source movment IMHO. People dont set "the software works" as the number one priority. Its "The software is Open" first with working being down around "has a cool splash screen" and "has a name starting in K or G".
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I've read the article (yes!) and there are two implicit assumptions that bother me, even without going into the author's points. The first is that there is an open source community. I'm not quite sure of that. There are many developers that work on open-source projects for so many different reasons and don't necessarily consider themselves part of a community. The other implicit assumption is that those you start flamewars are open-source developers. Most of the time, it isn't the case.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
>There's absolutely no reason for there to be more than two or three distributions
Let's try and find reasons for more than 3, shall we. Hmmm:
-Debian: solid, stable, completely free, at the cost of being outdated sometimes
-Mandrake:Simple distro, ideal for newbies. Not good for linux diehards who like to fiddle with everything
-Gentoo: bleeding edge, compilation optimisations, easy to reconfigure the way you want it if you know what you're doing. Not so many guarantees on the stability.
-Redhat:commercial, certified, expensive, well-supported, reasonably up to date.
-SuSE:somewhat similar approach to Redhat. Keeps Redhat honest through this crazy thing called competition.
-SELinux - security above all else
The difference is priorities. Trying to combine their properties (free+certified? Ultra-Secure and custom compilations?) would be hard.
I've said many of the same things for years.
OSS/Free Software people often argue that there's no need for proprietary software, free software can provide everything.
But when I go somewhere like freshmeat, what do I find? More MP3 enocoders/players/front-ends/rippers/catalogers than you can shake a stick at. What don't I find? drivers for some of my devices like scanners, cameras. Productivity applications, like Tax software for instance, and many other things that I can't think of right now, that keep me chained to Windows. Or if I do find them, they are half finished, and barely usable. Some would say, "So fill the void!". I do write my own stuff, but the re are too many things, and I only have so much time to devote to it.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, and need Windows less than ever. But I have a pragmatic approach about it. OSS can do great things, but not everything, there will always be room for proprietary software, and the two should be able to coexist.
The other problem with OSS is lack of innovation. How many things does the OSS community go about attempting to clone only after someone like MS or another company introduced it? Was there a FreeMware before VMware? Was there Linux PVR applications before Tivo? etc.
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
You, like many in the OSS community, are more concerned with competing with closed source than with innovating your own projects. It's the reason people say things like, "Slashdot isn't pro-Linux, it's anti-M$."
You use that same argument when trying to sell OSS solutions to major customers?
/. about Microsoft's marketshare, as OSS will make it to the consumer desktop in meaningful numbers "when it needs to". And, if people like you continue to have the same childish inability to understand criticism, that will happen about a week after never.
CIO: "I don't like this aspect of [whatever]."
You: "I'm passionate, and don't feel I need to defend myself from that attack."
CIO: "Okay... Uh... Well when will this aspect improve?"
You: "Uh, when it needs to, of course."
CIO: "Am I supposed to consider that acceptable?"
You: "That's the way it works."
And you're probably one of the people that's actually shocked that Windows runs 95% (or whatever) of the desktops in the world. From now on, I'll be damned sure to ignore the incessant bitching and moaning here on
Re-read point #4 (if you even read it in the first place) and tell me you're not exemplifying his complaint with your post.
The real problem is that Open Source is to focused on the source.
;-)
What? You may ask...
Open Source developers put out some great software, Linux, Mozilla, Gimp, GAIM, etc. I could go on for some time.
Why are they good? Stable, reliable, secure... most will agree to those. Why is it true? Because good coding, and demand to get it right. No corporate preasure.
So what's the problem? NO END USER FOCUS.
Mozilla now is working towards an enduser focus. That's a big change.
But the majority don't. The products are great, but lets face it. As wonderful as KDE is, it's not Aqua, or even Luna. It's good, but not good enough for an end user. There's still computer jargon in the user's face, and it's not pretty like the others.
Tech support for endusers - missing
Computer jargon in their face
Lack of marketing towards end users ("What's gimp?")
These are the problems.
IMHO, each project should create a group devoted to end-user focus. That group should work on marketing, and viewing the product through an enduser perspective... not a Geek perspective. And judge if it's end user friendly.
Linux won't hit the masses as long as the user gets shown the path's to 100000k different things. They don't care... they just want it to work.
It's great that open source developers are such perfectionists. I personally love it. But what they need to do, is be able to cover it up.
Perhaps the general release pattern should include:
Developer release - more powerful, crude like today
End user release - friendly, hide the ugly.
End users don't like feeling confused. That's the key. That's what Apple Knows when it invented the iPod's interface. That's what Microsoft is slowly learning. That's what Palm knew. That's why Google is so popular.... simplistic yet powerful.
Until open source comes to agree on that ideal, it's not going to get that far.
Again, the products are amazing, and I love them... but I also want them to succeed with the non-geeks who actually have a social life
Troll!
Think back to when Chiang Kai-Shek took over China: before that no one worked, everyone was poor, morale was nonexistent.
True, but -- then again -- no one worked, everyone was poor, and morale was nonexistent _while_ Chiang Kai-Shek ruled China and _after_ he got kicked out. If China has changed, it's only been in the past few decades -- thanks largely to peace and a moderate Communist regime.
Under the benevolent dictator, a term used to describe Linus Torvalds,
Some would describe Chiang Kai-Shek as "an incompetent dictator who permitted graft and corruption among his subordinates; a fool who handed the world's largest country to Communists at the start of the cold war." I haven't heard similar descriptions of Linus Torvalds. (In fairness, Torvalds has a much easier job than Chiang Kai-Shek.)
Within a few short years China was a world power.
China has been a world power for thousands of years. It reached a low point in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Chiang Kai-Shek died in 1975 but his methods and teachings continue to this day in China.
No, they don't.
Does it change the fact that DVD playback in Linux is a difficulty?
No. Then his point is valid. End users don't care about legal reasons, they care about results.
James Turner leads off on the "too many itches" syndrome and other problems - Steve Suehring offers his Counterpoint
December 1, 2003, http://www.linuxworld.com/story/38073.htm
By James Turner Steve Suehring
Advertisement
James Turner: 5 problems with the Open Source community
There's no question that the Open Source community has a lot going for it. Besides a staggering amount of developer power that can be turned against important problems, the Open Source movement also has a passion and commitment to its work that the commercial software world often envies. But sometimes, the Open Source community can be its own worst enemy. Here are a few reasons why.
1. Too many developers "scratch the same itch."
We hear that Open Source developers come up with new ideas because they "had an itch to scratch." In other words, there was some need they had for a new application, and they "scratched" it by coming up with a tool. The problem is, it's not uncommon to end up with two or three (or more!) different packages doing the same thing. For a specific example, look at what's happened with the Linux sound systems, where there are now several competing packages that have to be supported by each distribution. Or in the Java world, look at how many competing MVC frameworks there are now for JSP development.
A little competition can be a good thing. After all, Linux is all about offering a competing vision for the operating system domain. But when too many competing visions exist, and aren't winnowed down to a small number of options over a short period of time, you end up with a mish-mash of conflicting standards, and a user community that ends up having to download and install a plethora of different packages that all do the same thing.
A perfect example of the "too many itches" syndrome is the absurd number of Linux distributions that exist out there. There's absolutely no reason for there to be more than two or three distributions. And because each one does things slightly differently, we've ended up with the problem that applications and drivers are rarely made available in binary form, because there are too many versions of too many releases of Linux to support.
As an application developer, you would have to provide 5 - 10 different binary installs, one for each distribution. Now multiply that times the five or more active releases of a distribution that may be in active circulation, and you see why so few packages are available as anything but source (especially the most recent releases of packages that have not been compiled and included into Linux distributions yet.)
The next question to consider is, why don't we see more consolidation of technology? The answer: because...
2. Open Source developers love a good feud.
BSD vs Linux. Gnome vs KDE. Debian vs Red Hat. For every interesting Open Source technology, there are two bitterly feuding camps that spend as much time taking potshots at each other as in improving their own products.
It's hard to imagine how much better a lot of Open Source software would be if these groups cooperated and consolidated their efforts, rather than act like the Hatfields and McCoys. Unfortunately, the downside of personal
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
When I read your post, this is what I really see:
So what? It's not my responsibility to write code for you. I write code for me, and release it under a license that happens to allow for other people to use it. Don't tell me what code I'm allowed to write and what I'm not.
Translates to:
So what? I don't like to hear complaints, because it reveals how inadequate the state of OSS is. I'm so insecure that when someone mentions a direction I should take, my foaming-at-the-mouth, reptilian mindset views it as a personal insult, as though somebody is wanting me to take responsibility for something, and I don't like responsibility. I'm selfish, and everything I do revolves around me. I contribute code, but expect people to never criticize it. Logically, if I didn't want to hear criticism, I would keep my code on my private network and never release it, but hypocrisy is a fundamental attribute of much of the OSS community.
So what? You have no right to tell me how I should be spending my time. Sure it's not the most productive use of it, but again, it's MY time. If you don't like it, go away.
Translates to:
So what? I take criticism of software so personally that I view it as dictation of my schedule. My completely anti-social, condescending attitude scares away scores of users, but that doesn't matter to me because I maintain a selfish attitude. I tell people to go away if they don't like what I do. Basically, I'm a big baby who can't handle criticism. Users care about results--I care about myself. And then I complain about the non-acceptance of OSS.
WTF? Scratch the wrong itch? Maybe I'm not scratching your itch, but see point 1. If you don't like what I'm doing, write your own. That's what I did when I wrote this software that scratches the 'wrong itch'. It scratched mine just fine.
Translates to:
Hey, if you point out a flaw in an application that is holding it back, fuck you! I wrote what I want. You're just the user, the person using my software, a pawn in my little world of self-control. I expect people to use stuff without question or criticism unless they're uber kernel developers who can contribute code at the drop of a hat. Otherwise, your opinions are meaningless to me, because I scratched my ITCH!
Against us? If you want to point out flaws and the people in the group don't appreciate it, you can take the code and apply your own patches and start up a distribution of that code. If the community agrees with you, then you'll be successful. If you end up being the only one who uses your new version, then maybe you're actually wrong about what you were doing and that entire community against you was actually that you were wrong and too dumb to realize it.
Translates to:
Write code, or shut up. You also can't criticize movies unless you make movies, stories unless you write replacement stories, football players unless you play better football, or music unless you're an expert guitarist. The most important feedback I could ever receive about software--the people using it everyday, end users--I choose to ignore in order to pacify my ego and mindset of being superior to people. And then I complain about the non-acceptance of OSS!
So? This really is the same point as Point 2. And the arguments are the same. So most of us don't like Microsoft? I don't think there are many that won't admit they do some stuff right, but that doesn't matter. It's my time, and I will do with it as I please. If you want to lead by example and convince people there's a better way, a high road, then please, by all means, do so. But telling people who write software that you can use at no cost and have full access to the source that they need to be doing things differently is about the most egocentric thing you could possibly say.
Translates to:
I answer everything with a question. What? Huh? And the ever-classic, WTF? I take it as a personal insult when someone dare
The question is, why can't the OSS community, with it's legions of developers get a single app to work smoothly and like an Apple or even a Microsoft app? They need to start doing this, and they need to start doing it on a wide scale. Make it useable first, then add more features. Not the other way arround
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
There's nothing wrong with socialism and communism either, as long as you speak "in theory." While you can find something wrong with anything if you look with a critical eye, I don't think OSS is at all close to perfect or optimal:
RMS pounces on anyone who does not both kiss his ass (his demand is that his contribution be acknowledged, see the GNU/Linux vs Linux/GNU vs Linux arguments) *and* sponsor his own personal choice method for open source (ie, use the license he prefers).
For some of the other stuff look at the article we are discussing.
Under the benevolent dictator, a term used to describe Linus Torvalds, Kai-Shek...
There are several serious intellectial oversights here:
1. Benevolent dictator? Have you asked any of the people that have dared to disagree with China's leadership? Puhleeze!
2. Kai-Shek had control of the whole country. Linus has control over the kernel only. Don't think this matters? Look at all the superior kernels that no one uses because there are no apps for them. Although Linus might indeed be powerful and benevolent, his domain is by no means the whole computing spectrum, and his power to do us all good is severely, severely limited. Think of how successful Kai-Shek would have been if he had not had absolute control of a single facet of government, such as agriculture, economy, imports/exports, energy, health care, education, law enforcement, etc... Kai-Shek and Linus are *not* in the same situation at all.
Within a few short years China was a world power
Again, a nice romatic comment, but you must acknowledge that China has to get away from its communist foundations and embrace capitalism just to stay alive. You also must acknowledge that China's greatness was accomplished with considerable suppression of its populace and numerous and outrageous human rights violations. I do not think you meant to say it would be a good thing if open source did the same things, did you?
Millions of identical workers producing code
But part of the problem is that lots of talent is wasted on unfinished, underdocumented, and redundant projects.
Whatever.... suffice it to say that I don't see the parallel between communist China and the open source communities, nor do I see what open source can learn from a dictator who killed, tortured, and "disappeared" anyone whio disagreed with him, thereby only leaving alive people whyo would call him a "benevolent dictator." The term "dictator" alone implies dissent is silenced.
But when I write software, I write it for:
a) Myself
b) My employer
c) Other people that ask for a feature, or I know use the software
I'm not writing to replace windows, or even really for the benefit of the whole world (in the sense that I'm not trying to make a magic-button GUI app that satisfies everyone), I'm doing it for my own purposes. Nobody else should assume that those purposes necessarily match their own.
Commentators. There are far to many of them with far too little of real interest to say.
This is nothing new, it has all been said before and we are aware of these "problems".
Would it be accurate to say that most of the people being paid to develop the popular apps didn't start that way? I mean, didn't these folks start writing the apps in their spare time with no backing specifically for the apps, and then the apps got popular, so they got funding (doesn't matter how) to continue the development? If that's the case, the "amateur" programmers writing those apps on Sourceforge with few users could one day find themselves with a user base to match Apache, Samba, GCC, etc. And a regular paycheck too...
What's wrong with the open source community?
Er, nothing much. We're doing fine, on the whole. Our only potential weakness is laws that make open source a crime (DMCA, EUCD, etc).
A couple of the rebuttals Suehring provides to the points in the article boil down to "The more choice, the better, because in the end the market will decide which choices survive."
Problem is, the people making buying decisions can't wait until "in the end" to make their purchases. They need solutions NOW, and there's too much risk in choosing from upteen different Linux distributions if (umpteen-2) of them are likely to be defunct in a few years.
1. Too many developers "scratch the same itch."
This is excellent that there is all this itch scratching. It makes the community strong because we travel many roads and only decide to use them when they get somewhere interesting. And since its free for the most part, we don't lose much trying it out.
The writer also says there is a problem with the huge number of distros. That's honky. If you aim for the linux standards base target, you'll be fine. If you use an X Toolkit that works on gnome and KDE, you'll be fine. If you statically link in the libraries you use, or at least include dynamic versions of your library in your download/install CD that can be installed localally at configure time, you'll be fine. If you use automake, autoconf, and autotool, you'll be fine.
And there is PLENTY to gain from the huge number of distros. All of them do slightly different things. RedHat? Lots of doc, big company
supporting you, pretty easy configuration. Mandrake? Readhatlike, more community supported, more graphical installers, etc. Knoppix? In and working in 5 minutes, with less than an hour to
install. Debian? Quick to keep updated, powerful, and idealogically sound. Suse? Super internationalization support, great for that computer that's being used in Europe or India. Slackware? You want to get used to normal unix administration, as it was in the early nineties. Gentoo, up to date, and quick as the wind. So on and so forth.
2. Open Source developers love a good feud.
All developers love a good feud. Commercial software however is owned by someone, so they make a decision which side wins the argument, then its done that way, with the other way usually forced to be forsaken. This is what happens in almost any arena when there is no standard for entry (such as getting a PhD in academic communities) or authority (such as a boss in a commercial company)
3. Open Source developers often scratch the wrong itch.
He claims we don't code for the users. We actually code for power and customizability more than intutiveness and low-emmersion use. So? That's one of the things that makes many people LOVE this stuff. Then again, I think it would be an EXCELLENT contribution to almost any project to make quick and easy frontends to hairy processes, a la anaconda for installation of redhat. Then again, I don't really feel like it....
4. In the Open Source Community, you're either "with us or against us"
I think that often people forget that they can't abuse the programmers in free software world. They assume that if they request features and the like, they can get them, as a manager can "request" features in a company and will get them. Often, when you critisize a work in the OSS world, you're going to be badmouthing something that was partially constructed as an ego-fix. That's one of the prices you pay for software developed for free.
Then again, if you say how you love feature XY and Q, but it might be easier to do Z if steps 1,2, and 3 happened, you might inspire the original author or another author to make a tool/frontend/helpfile/change that will do 1,2 and 3 for you. OSS reverses the normal hirearchy of programmer to customer as far as power goes, take that into account, and you'll go far.
5. The Open Source Community has a huge chip on its shoulder...called Microsoft
Yup. Microsoft is a bitch. Some of their software does cool things, but they also do much "their own way" due to their highly insular culture, and as a result, they do things "the wrong way". This pisses off people who have an appreciation for software as art or just people who want to get work done. Then there are the counterculture posers. They don't like MS for the pleasure of hating the mainstream.
This is one of the writers least empty points. I'd point out to most people that there are MANY uses for PC's around the house, especially ones that cost less that $400 total.Most people think that will cost around $1000 to add a PC to do somethiing neat, countin
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods