Does Open Source Need Quality Standards?

underpar writes "This Techworld.com article reports that a UK group called the Open Source Consortium is being officially launched today. The article further states that the goal of the group is to respond to claims that switching to open source is more expensive than using Microsoft products and to help smaller companies compete with Sun and IBM for open source contracts. They say they will not compete with other open source groups and they intend to eventually come to the US. The hype-filled about us section of their site says their Quality Standard Certification provides a "simple framework for self-assessment and performance improvement." The question of whether this is useful or even wanted in the US still remains to be answered."

Comments

Dumb overgeneralization

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Open Source Need Quality Standards?

Some open source projects do (carrier grade linux; linux in medical devices).

Others don't (screen savers, C# clones(to match MSFT's Quality Standards), etc)

Re:Dumb overgeneralization

[Anonymous Coward]

Another dumb overgenralization is that this organization think that their " Quality Standard Certification" is appropriate for a wide range of products.

Linux in medical devices should have follow FDA standards

Linux in automotive systems shouldd follow DOT standards.

Linux in voting machines should follow Diebold/MS-Access quality standards..

(sorry for the US-centric examples - for your own country pick your favorite certification organizations)

open source != linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because Linux is under the GPL which is an OSI aproved license does not mean that anything that has to do with open source has to be about linux.

About Us page

[miltimj]

I like the dedication to quality evidenced in their About Us page:

We are a not-for-profit organisation which guarantees the the quality of open source deployments in the public sector (emphasis mine)

McHammer: Too Open To Standardize

[fembots]

Short answer is YES, almost everything needs a certain level of quality standards for widespread use. Even MS has its own quality standards :)

However, who is to set these standards and who is to govern them is another question.

I have a subtle feeling that Open Source = Freedom, that's probably why we see so many forks and distros because "I would have done this that way, and I could".

So what is to stop a "US Open Source Consortium" being officially launched tomorrow because another group of developers have different idea on Open Source's quality standards?

Can Linus the most influential man gives a single, authoritative guideline?

Needs vs. Shoulds vs. Could Haves, etc.

[timothy]

"Who is this 'We,' paleface?"

Lots of people are quick to say that someone else's work "needs" something. My car needs its cupholder in a sane spot, instead of so it just about blocks the radio buttons. It's true, but that's not exactly a demand on the car maker. Just a hint ... MR. SUBARU!

Sometimes it's hypothetical and prescriptive; "Red Hat needs to compete in the market X, so it needs to advertise in trade publication Z and add the de-pre-mux-defrobnostication patch that this special niche requires." Fine :)

Other times, the "need" is expressed as an imperative, when the speaker has no standing to demand anything ("The GIMP interface needs to change!") etc, or (as in the headline here) where there is no single Thing to change. "Open Source" covers a huge range; it's like "Things that have the letter R." It's true that some of these things (like Catherine Zeta Jones) are beautiful, but it it does not follow that all things with "R" better our existence in quite the same way.

It's perfectly nice and positive and welcome etc that someone has decided to promulgate what they consider higher standards of quality for "Open Source" -- as long as everyone realizes that only a certain subset of open source software can be scrutinized by any given such body, that developers may have their own ideas (even if they are not universally popular, and even if they have no intention of following someone else's ideas of UI perfection), that open source's great advantage in this context is that UIs are a) frequently separate from the underlying code and b) forkable.

timothy

Linux passed TelecomCarrier Grade Reliability Test

[Anonymous Coward]

Certain versions of embedded and server Linux had already passed the Telecom Carrier Grade Reliability Test. Carrier Grade Linux is 99.999% Reliable. Any Window is NOT Telecom Carrier Grade Reliable. Microsoft won't even try because it will fail.

And a redundant idea to boot

[passthecrackpipe]

Not only an overgenralisation, it is a redundant idea to boot. OSDL already provides a lot of the stuff they publicly talk about - code quality etc. The real purpose of the organisation comes to light when you read deeper into the site.

You need to be skilled in their "consulting framework" and you need to conform to some "financial framework" as well. Their membership criteria are mysterious (hint, you probably need to be a member of their club of buddies) and some of the organisations that are members (and knowing those organisations intimately, they probably are the drivers behind this thing as well) are decidedly dodgy - Open Forum Europe has publicly spoken as "Open Source Representatives" and as such, have signed a declaration supporting software patents. Looks to me like just another group of people trying to corner a market. Anyone remember the Open Group, and the "good" they did for UNIX? (another hint - a lot of the same people are involved)

This is so much the wrong crowd to hang out with....