Slashdot Mirror
How to Misunderstand Open Source
Sam Hiser writes "This article intends to clear up some misconceptions about open source software development practices. It can help developers, IT and business managers transition from a closed development environment to an open one characterized by shorter time-to-market and lower costs. The author, Tom Adelstein -- an experienced CPA, code developer, project manager and consultant -- makes clear the notion that Open Source Software bears a mark of professionalism."
Non commercial software = less unneccessary and non-core expenditure for businesses = more money for research and development, capital investment, salaries and wages, and marketing = better economy = better for the people.
Still a lot of companies thinks: "If it's free it cannot be woth much".
This is basically free as a beer/free as a speech paradox: They have to understand that it's not about price but it's about values.
But even if they do - it hes to be 10 times better than MS Crap to beat their MS Marketing.
that we're all hobbyists and only do OSS in our spare time (the description often made in news articles).
..." and so on.....
Not necessarily the case, especially with the more major OSS products. Companies of various sizes have staff writing and contributing OSS code as their full-time job, and many university students also contribute as part of research projects. Even CmdrTaco could fall under the category of a small-company contributer for his work on Slashcode.
The hobbyist argument is often made in FUD from MS to try and say that "we have professionals working for us, who does OSS have?" We should answer with somehting like "Redhat, IBM, Sun, Novell,
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Copied my post on the same topic at OSNews...
I'm reasonably certain that this comment will be poorly received here (at Slashdot as well as OSNews), but I just can't keep it to myself, so oh well.
Truly, the author does a good job of dispelling one piece of FUD kicking around regarding open source software, specifically the belief that most open source software is written by wild-eyed loners without any concept of planning or design.
Other than that, the article is, umm, not so good. Nearly everything he says about closed source processes describes "big company" closed source processes. I work for a small closed source shop and his description of the open source development process is very *very* close to our process. It sounds as if his only closed source experience was with IBM, which is quite possibly the most extreme example of a process-bound company one could imagine.
Since analogies and similes are so popular on this thread, I would suggest that he what he is saying is like saying that vehicles made in Japan are more responsive than those made in America, using as examples a Japanese sports car and an American diesel locomotive.
Anybody who has worked in or with a smaller, more nimble closed source shop will see his description of the "closed source process" as bullshit. Many of these people will conclude that the author is a crank and proceed to ignore the good point he does make about the professionalism of many open source projects and companies.
The same applies to the stuff about standards. Closed source shops can and do adhere to open standards; I know we make every effort to do so in my shop. Many many open standards were originally developed by closed source shops cooperating to facilitate communication between closed source products and to offer the market choices in how to combine them. I know this is hard for some open source zealots to believe, but many closed source shops know that offering products based on open standards can help improve adoption of new technologies; when the tide comes in, all boats rise, ours and the competition's both.
Don't get me wrong, I think open source software is a Good Thing; I use it daily (Mozilla, OpenBSD, Knoppix, blah blah blah) and push it whenever I get the chance. I just don't think this article is about what the author says it's about and I don't think it will appear convincing to anybody that isn't already convinced.
PS - It also doesn't help that in an article about professionalism in the open source world he flubs "stock in trade" and "give way" in the opening sections.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Whether we like this or not, it's a fact. Without hope of profits there is no reason to invest.
money is bullshit
I agree with those who call the love of money the "root of all evil". However, for as long as not everyone obeys the command to "obey your neighbor as yourself", the use of money in some form is necessary.
The biggest misconception is that Apache is indicative of all Open Source projects and that Microsoft is indicative of all Propriatory software providers. The fact is that every project is different, you can't lump them all together in one neat package and say "this is how all these work".
The second biggest is that if you don't like a feature or bit of functionality within an open application you can just literally "jump in" and hack the code. This completely ignores the fact that even if you can code, most products are insanely complex and it'll take you several months to truely understand how it works, how it's put together, how the pieces interract and how you should go about working with it.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Oh. That must explain why so much of OSS is broken and has documentation that is incomplete and often actually erroneous, not to mention the almost endless nested dependencies that often break on install, making the install of the top-level item incomplete and hosed.
"Professionalism" my ass.
I detest closed software but professionalism is precisely what is lacking in OSS. The prevailing rule seems to be, "Close is good enough!"
Look at the bright side: there's always seppuku.
The reason most project managers don't do this is because they have the title "manager". They feel they're supposed to manage. Unfortunately, they try to manage the programmer, not the project. They also don't understand the development process. Frankly, the problems lies with upper management who've never written a line of code. Maybe the project managers should be given the titles of sales consultant or customer handler. Heck, the best project managers I've seen refer to themselves as "fecal matter" handlers. Okay it's been sanitized for the kiddies.
Business majors don't want to think of themselves as equal with the people who develop the product. Heck, they certainly don't want to be seen as doing some programmer's busy work. Why we all know that programming is "blue collar" work anyway. It probably doesn't help that the average programmer really can't relate to the issues of sales either.
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
... I've probably been trolled here, but it was the early and confused modding of others that prompted me to respond to this. Personally, I would have just modded this down if there was an option for 'misinformed' or 'just plain wrong'.
Consumers don't buy software; people aren't paid to write software for the sake of writing software.
Consumers buy services and products; people are employed to provide services and products.
Software is a means to these ends, but it is not the end.
Open source provides the ability for companies to focus on the products and services they wish to sell, and employ people who specialise in those areas, rather than having or paying a bottom heavy and expensive zoo full of code monkeys. Think of all those things you need to do take a product to market - product design, research and development, support infrastructure, documentation, advertising etc etc.
You might want to rephrase your comment and say 'worse for programmers'.
But even then, if you're a company that relies on open source and is profiting from it, you would do well to remember that it's only going to work if those open source projects are maintained and supported... solution? You fund the open source projects - you don't employ people specifically, they're free to be funded by many companies and they're free to walk away too, while still leaving the option for others to take over and compete.
Sounds like a good thing for the economy (and even for programmers) if you asked me...
Anyone who starts from the premise that closed-source precludes the use of open standards won't have much of value to say on the matter. I cite Sun as a key example - an almost entirely closed-source company that has one more than almost anyone else to drive open standards.
Slashdot needs to start evaluating articles on quality and not just on how well they conform to the approved "open source is good" party line.
I was at a conference yesterday where I heard several misconceptions about Linux...first off, the main presenter told everyone that Linux was "open for the world" and "anybody could get in and see your code." I thought that was just wonderful. He didn't want to hear it, but my contention would be that's like looking at a house, but the realtor/builder says "you can't inspect the foundation though...just trust us!" Wheras Linux is more like a house that you can inspect, take apart, rebuild whatever way you like. Of course, though, Microsoft products are "more mature" and "suited to a professional environment." Sheesh. All of the other attendees nodded their bobble heads in agreement.
I agree with this sentiment.
At my institution, I have had to maintain a Windows environment as well. I have 5 Windows machines and other than hardware crashes (HD failing, a fan burning out and the thing dying as it overheats because my people who claimed to have done maintenance haven't taken the time to blow the sucker out...that sort of thing).
I know how to get a decent Windows install and I know how to do it right. I can also hire students to work for me without having to pay a grad student $15 an hour who barely understands the Unix environment (sadly, 15 years ago when I was just entering the university environment, most of the geek kids DID know unix and were comfortable with it...if only so they could compile their own MUDS).
Past that, we are slowly migrating towards open solutions. One of my webservers uses Apache instead of IIS, they ALL use PHP / Perl. The GNU Tools are installed to that I can to things fast and efficient for myself. MySQL has taken the place on our database server from our SQL Server.
Its as much as I can do in the current environment I am in...I'd LOVE to be able to go with a pure Linux / BSD / OS X whatever unix based solution instead of Windows, but sometimes you do whats the best for your situation and realize the free puppy is a more of a problem than its worth sometimes. At home and my side business, I'll take the stray dog in...he guards my home and the bit of food and a warm blanket I give him is more than a fair trade.
Following that logic:
Electric light = less profit for candlemakers = worse economy = worse for people
Refrigerators = less profit for ice sellers = worse economy = worse for people
The real thing is that OSS is a DIFFERENT economy.
If it hurts your current job it's a "bad" shift. If it facillitates a business opportunity for some unemployed shmuck it's "good" in his book!
That sums up open source in a nutshell, unfortunately. In reality, there's very little to say about it. Some open source software is great and everyone recognizes this (Apache, Python, Perl) and much more is crap. Ditto for commercial software. Lots of the so-called benefits of open source aren't really as amazing they seem. Ditto for commercial software. What it really comes down to is software that is truly better will stand out. This is why Perl and Python have become so entrenched. Other times it isn't at all clear why a commercial or open source product is better than its competition. This is the bottom line about Linux on the desktop. As much as many zealots want to push the superiority of Linux, it's hard to elucidate--even to other techies--why it's so much superior to alternatives (one side talks about security and the UNIX philosophy; the other side talks about fewer driver headaches and applications that work with much less fussing). When such arguments turn into "open vs. closed" then it comes across as a dodge, an empty way to win an argument.
From what I understand before this article;
OpenSource is a philosphy of saying "Look at this neat-o code I/we created. You can use it, learn something from it or improve it but just follow this license (which generally keeps with the same philosphy.)"
From what the article says:
OpenSource is a process which is collaberative. And by its very professional and methodical nature, is better than ClosedSource.
I say that the later is a wrong definition of OpenSource. It doesn't address issues like "Free Speech" or "Free Beer" and talks about things like developement processes and takes a very narrow view of what "open" means.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
You can't expect to just tell Joe Random Developer "write this code for me" and then get a top-quailty piece of software for free. That's not how OSS works... if you have a special need you pay someone to fix it, or you fix it yourself.
The OSS community doesn't work for you like the people in your rather strange examples, but that doesn't mean you can't benefit from their work or that everything they do is crap.
I think a better analogy would be that your toilet is broken because of a known fault in your particular model. You consult an "Open Source" database of toilet fixing instructions where other people have already posted their solutions to this problem and then you fix your toilet yourself!
Well, the emails I've received for support on my open source code would surprise you then. I've gotten all sorts of idiots asking me to add this or that feature for free. The corporate users are the worst by far--they're arrogant on top of demanding.
Most people just don't understand why anyone would offer software for free, because indeed it is illogical.
Non commercial software = less COST for buyers = increased buying power = better for the people = better economy.
Maybe I just don't get this whole Open Source model thing, but one major thing was not addressed in the atricle.
Suppose I am a for-profit business that offers some non-unique service. I need some software to provide my core business services to my customers.
I need the software and I need it now (so I can't just wait for 'someone else' to develop it and realease it into the wild). My only alternative is to commission (aka pay IT consultants to develop the software).
Since I am paying for the development costs (even code monkeys need to be fed), why should I develop the software under the GPL and release it to my competitors as soon as it is complete?
Would I not essentially be subsidizing my competitors businesses?
Professional means:
Coding to a standard; does open source have a reviewer who can compell every project/fix to adhere to the coding standards
UI to a standard; ditto
Documentation to a standard; ditto
Providing tests which go into a test suite that is used to assure no regression; ditto
Release management that assures that standard functionality, load, longevity, security and stress tests are run before the product goes out; ditto
The wornderful anarchy that is the open source movement is one of its strengths, but is the source of some significant weeknesses IMHO.
Proprietary development has its down side but at least there is someone who can enforce the standards and make sure that those things that are necessary for total product quality are there.
We use OSS a lot and it is wonderful for CS types who work full time in software development. But can I deploy it to a entire company or give it to my wife?
Almost certainly parent is trolling or joking, but this is one of those arguments that comes up all the time and infuriates me everytime I hear it.
If companies don't spend their money on proprietary software, then they will spend their money on something else, or they will pay their employees more, or they will pay their shareholders more.
If they spend the money on something else, then that industry gets the money.
If they give their employees more, then they buy pretty shiny things, or new Dells or whatever.
If they pay their shareholders more, then Daddy gets a new Jag. RAWK!
The money doesn't just vanish off the face of the planet because people aren't buying software. It goes along different routes and into other interesting investments. Perhaps more valuable ones than upgrading your desktop to the newest standard crap.
Open source will win over Microsoft in the marketplace for the same reasons that capitalisim won out over communisim. Because economies are not about markets, or social orginisation, but about freedom. When you have freedom then the markets tend to take care of themselves as people tend to use those freedoms to look out for their own best interest.
If you look at copyrights more like a government regulation on how people use and distribute information, and less like a free market property right - then the reason why GNU/Linux is taking off becomes obvious as well as the reason why it will win over Microsoft and other closed software inspite of their half-trillion market cap.
1) Talks in grandious terms about his expertise in managing a large open source project (http://leopard.sourceforge.net/) which on closer inspection seems to be empty and unused vapourware
2) homepage (http://www.consultingtimes.com/) is a very recently started blog whos purpose seems to be to establish the author as some kind of authority on Open Source
3) Seems at several points to be making sales pitches towards US local government.
4) The letter from the CIO just doesnt ring true...
conclusion: this seems to be a ropey attempt to establish credability in potential US local government clients by somebody not quite as into Open Source as he would like us (and his potential clients) to believe
The other problem is that people resist change simply because they don't want to have to go through the effort of changing or learning something new. Those people suck and I consider them worthless. Constantly change for the better. If changing something in your life will improve it in a significant way then do it. If not, then what's the point? Living the same unchanging boring life every day? I mean, sure it's just software so maybe I'm going a little far here. But when I switched to Firebird I was able to get an extra 30 minutes of sleep because my daily web checking took less time. That's a significant life change there.
Elitist much? Change for the sake of change, espesialy in the business world and in terms of investments is not always a good idea.
Ok, you want Mozilla to become accepted that's great. But you need to explain why it's worth changing to? For example, I use both Mozilla and Safari on my computer, but I use safari primarily. Why? Because it was the one I started with, so I'm ost familiar with it, and because I see no discernable value (for me) if using Mozilla as a primary browser. Does Mozilla have it's parts that I like, yes, but it's not worht it to me to give up safari for mozilla. That's what matters, and what the OSS community tends to forget. It isn't about whether it's technicaly better, it's about whether it's better for ME, or for someone else.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. This is a perfect example of an often glossed over problem in open source software. Versioning.
It's all well and good to be able to see and modify code. It's all well and good to be able to have different options for the same piece of software. It's all well and good to have a patching regime for each piece of software you've got. BUT... in the absence of strong versioning scheme, dependency tracking is hell. Package managers are just a stop gap measure for a flaw in the development process unfortunately. A "simple" update can cause a cascade of updates. Worse yet when an updated package introduces a breaking change for other packages.
Don't get me wrong, this is not an open source specific problem but it is exacerbated by variation of open source software available. My point is that advocates and evangelists, like the one in this article, always ignore issues with versioning when waxing lyrical about open source. IMHO, versioning issues pretty much destroy the "anyone can modify source code" benefit that is so often expounded. Software engineers have known for years that breaking encapsulation is a "bad think" but all of a sudden it's being rewritten as a good thing.