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."
I work for a medium-sized group of developers that is financed by one of the leading academic institutions in the East Coast.
We have 6 developers, employ 18 project managers, and approx 25 sales/accounting folks. We find that our developers are used more efficiently by proofing any submitted code from our open source projects. The role of the project managers is to ensure communication with the other contributors all across the globe, streamline client requirements, and create documentation.
A ratio of 1:3 between developers and project managers is ideal. It took us about three years to determine a formula that worked within our company. We find it extremely important that our developers are free to code and code only. The project managers will do all the tedious work surround programming, such as documentation, attend meetings, debugging, research, and even participating in social activities.
We generate a revenue stream of over $20 million (AUS) last year and were able to clear a handsome profit.
Which is nice.
It seems we get a fairly regular drip-feed of "No look, this is what it REALLY is" articles in the computer press, and yet people still don't "get it".
:-(
:-)
What's wrong with what's happening here ? Is the coverage in the wrong area ("preaching to the converted") ? Is the message simply being disbelieved ("TANSTAAFL") ? Is the lobbying by the closed-source community simply better (all those expense accounts...).
I think all of these articles make good points (all that I can remember reading, anyway), but unless they start to make a difference, they're just hot air
I suppose there's always the argument that you need lots of fresh meat at the sharp end before the grinder (mainstream press) starts to notice any difference. If it's simply that it's a slow process, then by all means chaps, carry on
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Didn't RTFA, did we?
Non commercial software == more profits for businesses == better economy == better for the people
Here's why:
Let's say you start your own company, and obviously, you need to profile your business on the web. You can either pay $$$ for commercial software on the server, or you can install free, open-source programs. This way you save money.
This way you get better economy, and this way it's better for the people.
The reasons?
1) Installing software correctly (apache, mysql, sybase) is a time thief. Installation is sooooo much more straightforward in Windows.
2) Propagating changes in configuration (and new versions) is a hell in Linux, especially Sybase and Oracle products.
3) Less documentation (usually) from commercial vendors.
4) Worse support (usually) from commercial vendors.
We're hoping to see long term effects in stability. The problem is that NONE our eight Windows 2000 servers has ever crashed...
That said, Linux is so much cooler.
open source is great for the little guy
open source = more small startups = more small businesses (which we all know really drives the economy)
closed source = large corporate greed = mega monopolies = we all work for some huge ass company = we all become just a number. (whether we are ruled by large government or ruled by large corporations, the result is the same, we shop at walmart, eat at taco bells, and have lost are freedom)
I thought the only way anything could be better for all people, is that it's better for each and every individual. Rather than arguing whether or not open source is better for economy and such, shall we look at ourselves instead and ask whether open source is good for us ?
I'm a software developer, I do commercial development for living. How is open source ideology better for ME ?
I like my outfit, it's inexpensive, but cool -- April Ryan
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That may be true for small projects with a limited set of users and a relatively low profile. Could you say the same thing for projects like Mozilla, KDE, GnuCash, OpenOffice, Scribus, KDevelop or even the kernel itself?
SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, there's also a steep learning curve and it's hard to find competent IT people to manage *nix solutions. I've been developing and administrating with OSS 3 solid years (plus 2 years of mixed Windows and OSS). Plus, add the fact that the HR people don't know how to fill positions properly. Oh, you've only had 10 years with Unix; sorry we're looking for someone with Red Hat experience.
However, try to find a competent Unix Sys Admin. You know, somebody who understands firewalls enough to code a rule set by hand or can automate their work with cron and Perl. Heck, I'm technically a programmer, yet I still do a better job at that than most MCSEs. Most good Unix Sys Admins look like wizards to the uninitiated.
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
>> "obey your neighbor as yourself"
Wow! That's a new one!
When I went to Sunday School it went...
"Love thy neighbor as thyself"
I'd never obey my neighbor - he's a jerk. Borrowed my hammer drill and broke the sonofabitch.
Who the fuck modded parent "Insightful" ???
That really depends who you work for. I do development for a living as well, but mine is based on specialized business knowledge developing custom applications and processes. Open source software is very useful in this context because it allows stable components to be aquired at no cost (for example a C++ XML parser, or a cross platform wrapper on things like sockets/pipes/threads). This allows more time and money to go into the business logic.
If, on the other hand, you develop shrink wrap software for the mass market then open source can be detrimental. You now have no-cost compitition. However if that's what you're doing I don't see any reason your job shouldn't be outsourced to India or China.
I agree with your comment. What the author calls the 'closed development model' is actually the waterfall model. He does not seem to understand that many close source companies (big and small - don't knock us big companies) use open standards and agile/eXtreme (non waterfall) development models.
I think the poster is looking at it from a larger view. More of uptopian communist view. Rather than working to acquire more of something than other people have (what is money essentially, but score keeping), everyone works to provide what is required and only takes what they need. The landlord in that enviroment is just someone who makes certain the building is taken care of. In return, they draw from society the items and services they require to live. Money can be simply a way of making certain everyone pulls their weight. (negative balance indicates need to contribute more, positive balance indicates contiribution in excess of usage) Instead we use it and 'wealth' to keep score and point out how much further up the ladder we are than everyone else. ---Not necessarily my philosophy, just a few thoughts.
I have to say that, although I don't agree with the parent of your thread, I also don't agree that corporations will redistribute their savings. Rather, they'll all pay their exec's a larger bonus for saving so much money, and they'll all buy a 3rd/4th house and a 5th Mercedes.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
What's wrong with what's happening here ?
I think the article had it just about right: people simply don't understand open-source. It used to be that unless they researched themselves, or were personally involved, that they probably knew nothing about it. But now, as companies such as Microsoft are beginning to see products such as Linux as increasing threats on their market share, the average consumer is hearing something--and it's coming from Microsoft. Needless to say, that's not going to be positive! And when even open-source's most respected people step up and say something, they get responses like, "Linus who?"
And the bottom line is, the average consumer just doesn't care. The common conceptions have become that OS crashes are to be expected and put up with. They don't see why they should they take on the admittedly somewhat steep learning curve of a transition from Windows to Linux even if they do understand the stability difference.
Another problem is support. It's nice and true that in open-source, you can often contact the developer directly. But any response you get is often at the developer's leisure and time-permitting. Many don't deal with support issues at all aside from, say, putting together a manual/FAQ. Community input is great, it's something I've always enjoyed, but it's not the end-all be-all, especially for the novice user.
So, what exactly is wrong with these sorts of articles? Yes, a lot of it is preaching to the choir. More of it is that people are not given a convincing reason to switch. The biggest problem is likely that it just doesn't reach enough people; not nearly as many as MS or other companies bent on keeping open-source down can. And open-source is fighting the uphill battle here. MS can just roll rocks down as we climb. The only real risks MS takes is letting us reach the summit.
It seems we get a fairly regular drip-feed of "No look, this is what it REALLY is" articles in the computer press, and yet people still don't "get it".
What's wrong with what's happening here ? Is the coverage in the wrong area ("preaching to the converted") ? Is the message simply being disbelieved ("TANSTAAFL") ? Is the lobbying by the closed-source community simply better (all those expense accounts...).
They don't "get it" because the message is simultaneously complicated and unusual. Think about it. It's really hard to explain to a random business person how open source makes sense. ("Why would I give stuff away?...") More importantly the argument for open source is powerful, but it's not simple. When you are trying to convinve people, simplicity of the message matters.
This is something I've noticed with companies. As a rule of thumb the ones that can explain in a few words what they do, tend to do pretty well. Microsoft sells software, IBM sells computers & services, Wal*mart is a retailer, etc. When they try to get fancy it's much harder to communicate to investors and customers why they should care about you. All those fancy "exchanges" we saw during the dot com boom? Really tough message to get across.
While they have other advantages, message simplicity is one reason the RIAA is so effective in lobbying against filesharing. Their message (correct or not is beside the point) is summed up in one word, "theft". I haven't heard anyone make an equally coherent one word counter argument. Not for lack of trying trying either.
Open source to some degree suffers from the same problem. It's hard to explain concisely and coherently why it's good. Not for lack of trying mind you. Think about "free as in speach/free as in beer". That's an explanation that we almost always have to explain. Not good.
We make fun of them a lot but this is what marketing folks are (supposedly) good at. They spend enormous amounts of time trying to figure out how to get exactly the right message across in the most concise manner possible. And it's really, really hard to do well. It's an art form in some ways like making really tight reliable code. The really good stuff takes a lot of time and smarts to come up with, but is amazing to watch when it works.
This is good too. The last paragraph reads:
"We're rapidly heading for a world where computers are as common as pens or soccer balls -- and computer skills are as common as basic literacy or ball-kicking ability. And in that world, with or without an organized free software movement, I doubt that even 1/10 of 1% of all the people who "know how to program" will be able to get full-time jobs creating computer software."
Your parent said better for the people, not all people. Better for the people means that using some kind of average, the total comes out higher.
Personally I prefer measures where the people with the lowest score count for more than the people with a higher score. That is a question of ethics, though.
Just because you get it worse (if you do, which I doubt), doesn't mean the people get it worse. If all the users get better software, and all developers would make a bit less money (which is unlikely), then I would definitely consider that an improvement for the people.
I was once told by a co-worker that at my employer, you had to say the same thing 7 different ways to 7 different groups before you would begin to be heard -- and this company was only 2000 people. Getting the message to the entire business community is orders of a magnitude more difficult. At the same time certain software companies are continually countering the facts about open source (and getting the attention of the mainstream press more easily), and inventing new distortions. Keep up the good work, Tom Adelstein, and all like-minded authors.
The reason people still don't get it is because this is just an article. People aren't heavily influenced by what they read in the newspaper. Heck, most people don't read the whole newspaper, they just read the parts that interest them.
What OSS needs is marketing. Take a project like Mozilla Firebird. I guarantee if you turn http://www.mozilla.org/products/firebird/why into a tv commercial and air it during the superbowl that IE will be sitting in the #2 seat the day after. But we can't get marketing because it costs money and by giving away most of the software for $0 the revenue is also $0.
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.
So yeah. we need marketing not journalism.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Good one. Knowing how to program isn't a skill anyone can just acquire by being exposed to computers. After all, implementation hiding is one of the principles of interface design. So people exposed to the interfaces of software are being shielded from how it works internally, and they aren't going to absorb that knowledge. And even if they were exposed to the guts all day long, programming has a conceptual foundation in mathematics and needs a great deal of patience and practice--practice developing your memory to hold long logic chains mentally until they come to fruition in the software, practice knowing what patterns work and what don't, practice building disciplined habits.
That said, I've always argued that anyone can become a computer programmer. But the skills are not the sort of thing you pick up just by using a computer all your life. You have to seek out training beyond that.
I do agree with his point about the service model of software development. It's just not going to be anywhere near as hard as he claims it will be to get a job that way.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
- Why is it called "open source?" To me, this means that the source code--the "source"--is available for review and use by anyone--hence, "open." The article seems to be comparing the waterfall model of software development with a colaborative model, calling the former "closed source" and the latter "open source."
- I gather that there are some (most?) open-source projects have a licensing agreement that says that if you use the project as part of your own that you have to publish the source to the public. Is this true? I assume this is true in some cases, and if so, isn't it a pain to align all the licensing agreements (i.e. you can't use a project that requires published source code and a project that only provides binaries in your own project because the licensing conflicts, right?)
- It seems that if the owner of a project publishes the source code for the project, they can't make money. Or, at least, they'll make less money
... especially if they create some clever way of doing things that people will immediately "borrow" as soon as they see how it's done. Does this have anything to do with "open source?"
- If you're a programmer, how do you make a living making open source programs? It seems they're all given away for free, so "no money in, no money out," right?
Thanks.--- Jason Olshefsky
Karma: Poser (mostly affected by adding this line long after everyone else did)
Well, maybe the author knows what is Open Source model, but he didn't make it clear at all from the arguments he used.
It seems that by Open Source he means Distributed Development. The model that he describes in a nutshell is distributed teams working arond CVS.
He confuses things further by saying that "Somehow and somewhere someone got the notion that Open Source development meant that everything had to use one of the many open source licenses".
C'mon! Open source means exactly that - source code that is open. The author keeps comparing his "open source" model with bureaucracy of some big stupid software house. You see, in the "proprietary" organisation somebody has to write specification from scratch and keep it on a desk for months, while smart "open source" developers find what was written on the net and go from there.
Why "proprietary" developers cannot use Google escapes me.
Basically, the article seems an attempt on self-promotion. Is it because "Open source" is a buzzword nowadays?
--