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."
See also ESR's Prudential Interview.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
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!
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.
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.
That is nonsense.
First of all, open source software doesn't have to be non-commercial. For details, see the Free Software Business Strategy Guide.
However it is true that many open source projects are non-commercial in nature. The resulting software is still quite often suitable for business use.
From an economics perspective, each proprietary software program is a monopoly - only one company is able to fix problems and release new versions. Monopolies are good only for the company holding the monopoly, not for everyone else.
Therefore, if proprietary software goes out of fashion, this will be bad for precisely those businesses whose main stream of revenue is from software licensing. This will however be good news for all other companies.
Whether this will mean less or more jobs for programmers is hard to say in advance. There will be fewer jobs at specialized software companies and there will be more jobs at companies which use software, since it'll make sense for companies which use software to have relevant expertise in-house.
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.
How to misunderstand open source?!?
That's an easy one.
Just listen to what Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates or Darl McBride have to say on the matter.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
... 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...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Don't you think your programmers might want to do something social once in a while? You know, just like real people?
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.
has started giving weigh
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 bet you thought that link would be to something else. ;-)
Money for nothing, pix for free
I'd take this guy a bit more seriously if he had bothered to spellcheck his bloody article.
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.
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.
Fascinating, and potentially very, very cool.
You don't have a New Jersey office, do you?
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sure it can. I've seen more than one company running Coldfusion MX on a Linux box w/Apache. I've also seen a company running JounryX (Timesheet management SW) on top of Postgres/Apache on Linux. To say that it can't be done is nonsense. Whether your company should combine the two is another matter.
Non commercial software = less COST for buyers = increased buying power = better for the people = better economy.
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!
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.
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)
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.
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?
--
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
Sh*t. What a jerk I am. Sam submitted the same story to both sites. Pardon me while I bash my own head with a clipboard.....
Pie Iesu Domine
Donna eis requiem
[whack]
Pie Iesu Domine
Donna eis requiem
[whack]
There, that's better.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
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