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.
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.
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...
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...
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 bet you thought that link would be to something else. ;-)
Money for nothing, pix for free
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.
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.
If this is a troll, I apologise for my naivete. Anyway, here are your answers:
1) The article suggests that open source methods are useful even in a closed environment. You're right; If the code isn't available then it isn't open source.
2) 'License alignment' can be a problem. The premise is that you only get to play the open source game if you play by the rules; If you want to use the products of others' hard work, you have to make your own code available. Projects which rely on closed binaries can't use code licensed under the (restrictive) GPL at all, but may be able to use code with less restrictive licenses (like the Lesser GPL.)
3) Plenty of companies make money from open source code, they just don't make it from keeping code secret. Usually the money is to be made by adding convenience (shrink-wrapped software with a nice installation routine, say) or services (such as support.) Of course, they don't have the same development costs as companies which are closed, as they can build on the work of others rather than starting from scratch.
4) Most programmers (AFAIK) work for companies where the end product isn't software. They are in-house programmers developing internal systems, or the company uses software to sell hardware, or the company uses software to sell support. Companies which go open-source will surely have a business plan which will take into account the loss of revenue in software sales. The money is to be made elsewhere.