Slashdot Mirror
Open Source is Not a Career Path
codermarc writes ""If you're getting into open source because you see it as a career path, you're doing something wrong." It's not that Linux creator Linus Torvalds thinks open-source programmers should work for peanuts (he doesn't), but rather that they should be properly motivated. Call it software with a soul, if you like. Only the truly passionate need apply."
This is so untrue... Novell now certifies "Linux Experts"
That applies to almost any job if you want to do well. Remember all the faux-geeks that went to school during the dot-com-bomb for the money? Those are the ones now working the help desk in their late 20's/early 30's or doing crap work for a 5 PC shop (assuming they're still working in the geek biz)
Trolling is a art,
I know several people who've got good jobs specifically because they had experience on OSS projects.
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
I don't see open source as an entire career per se, but rather as a sort of means to an end. Developing open source is a great way to augment your career, to get your name "out there", and to give something back to the community. Being an open source developer gets you recognition, and recognition can get you business from people, organizations, or businesses that need closed source software. That's how I see things, anyway. Not a whole career, but a viable part of a career.
Also remember that some open source developers are// paid and do make a career out of it.
Hey, do you mean the lusty robots?
The only reason to get into this game is because you like to play. If you are looking to advance in your career or make a lot of money, you have got the completely wrong idea. If that's your goal, go to school and get an MBA and then work on becoming a business person. Otherwise, play, rock, compute!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
[Site was already beginning to slow down. Text reproduced in case of full /.ing]
Open Source is Not a Career Path
"If you're getting into open source because you see it as a career path, you're doing something wrong." It's not that Linux creator Linus Torvalds thinks open-source programmers should work for peanuts (he doesn't), but rather that they should be properly motivated. Call it software with a soul, if you like. Only the truly passionate need apply.
That's the message Torvalds and several other open-source luminaries have for the next generation of programmers. "A career path is not a motivation," Torvalds said during Tuesday's Open Source Development Lab's enterprise Linux summit. A reluctant visionary, (he blushed a shade of bright red during an intro that mentioned his inclusion in Time Magazine's list of most influential people) Torvalds is nonetheless passionate about his life's work, an open-source operating system that has blossomed into a major force in the technology world.
The future of open-source software depends upon bright, motivated programmers filled with ideas and initiative rather than programmers promoting their own, or their employer's, self interests. It's a concept that has been embraced by many but is nonetheless counterintuitive to an entire generation of programmers conditioned to view code (rather than the code's problem-solving capabilities) as a competitive advantage.
Times are changing, and the developer community needs to get with the times, said Brian Behlendorf, who shared Tuesday's OSDL keynote with Torvalds, Mitch Kapor, founder and chair of the Open Source Applications Foundation, lead Linux kernel maintainer Andrew Morton, and OSDL CEO Stuart Cohen. Behlendorf, chief technology officer of CollabNet Inc. and a founder of the Apache open source project, pointed out that the traits that make for a successful open source developer are different from what makes for a successful proprietary developer.
"In open source, you have to be a better communicator and to be able to defend yourself," Behlendorf said. He added that a thick skin also is a requirement when laying bare one's work for all the world to see and criticize. "There's not a lot of room for prima donnas."
StrayByte.Net
When I went to uni there were a lot of people who were taking the IT degree to "learn how to program" so they could "make big bucks". Much the way law students take up law to join a law firm. Well sorry, software development isn't a summer training course. You need to actually feel some passion for the subject. I knew I wanted to be a computer programmer when I was 7 years old. I learnt to program in assembler when I was 9. That's the kind of drive you should have for your work, otherwise go do an MBA and become a manager.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I think there is plenty of "career path" in Open Source if you approach it as a "service industry." Well, basically I think that software development is dead as an industry, OpenSource or no, except for the "service industry" angle. People who try to make software into a "invention" that pays out long after it has been written are IMO fooling themselves.
Anyway, there are other good reasons to do open source. My current one is perhaps a little more "real world" than those I have had before:
USCVprogs
Someone had to do it.
This is like saying that you shouldn't build model trains unless you are motivated to do it. Poppycock.
Doing anything for pay is a great way to guide your career. Here's the thing: You never know what the next step will lead to. That's really essential.
I was reading about a guy in Ohio who married a Japanese exchange student. They were dirt poor, he was only, through odd jobs, able to bring home about $100 a month. They lived in his parents' basement and it was really a terrible life.
So his wife suggested that he and she move to Kyoto, where she is from, and she could have better job prospects and he could work as an English teacher. They moved and actually did fairly well in Japan.
Then he decided to follow a "career path" and started his own English school. It failed, miserably. They were forced to move further out into the countryside of Japan.
Out in the country, there was less demand for English teachers, but the wife was able to make enough to survive on.
The husband was experienced in some carpentry since he worked a little with his father in Ohio building houses and furniture. So he built a house for the family out in the countryside of Japan. Very Western. Next thing you know, his neighbors are asking him to build houses and furniture and to redecorate homes in Western style.
Well, if he had followed his career path, then he'd be flat broke and living on the streets of Ohio or Kyoto. But because he was flexible, he was able to find a way to make money and support his family.
There is no such thing as a "career path" except for people with very narrow minds.
Fact: Both space organizations used pencils at first, but pencils have problems because if you little bits of graphite floating in the air, you've got a problem.
And space pens were, in fact, not developed by NASA, but were instead developed by an independent developer.
Source.
(I suppose I shouldn't reply to this, but whatever. It's always good to get the truth out there.)
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
In fact it is a career path
Involvement with popular open source packages is very impressive. Being able to say to your employer "I added feature _______ to project ________" is one way to put something unique on your resume before you graduate college. It's worth double if the employer knows the product, and tripple if they use that feature.
IMHO that's important. It is a career path. It's not a career (except for a few lucky souls). There are a few who make a living off of it (Mozilla hackers for MoFo, IBM, SUN, Google, Novell), RedHat, etc. That is a career.
But to say it's not a career path... that's a boatload of BS. It's been a career path for many individuals.
Not to mention it's one of the greatest learning experiences. I think I've learned more from open source than any class. Much more.
So I've wasted my life?
You ask this on Slashdot? I think you already know the answer.
Programming open source, releasing your code, is something you should do for your own enjoyment. There have been a number of cases of developers becoming disillusioned because their open source project failed to generate them any money, or got forked off into something else that became more popular. As disconcerting as that can be, it is a natural result of releasing your code under a license that allows such things. If you want control, if you want to be guaranteed money, then you should license your code accordingly.
Open source code is about scratching your own itch, doing what interests you (and potentially no one else), and the pleasures of problem solving associated with writing software. Yes, some open source projects have resulted in success for their developers because it turned out that what that person was interested in writing was somethign that a lot of people were interested in using. In the end though, almost all the really successful open source coders are people who did what they wanted to do for their own reasons. People who are passionate and interested in what they're coding (an advantage an open source coder has, being able to code whatever interests them) are far more likely to write good code than those disinterested in their projects, which has helped make some open source projects highly successful, but it is no guarantee of success or popularity.
The advantage of open source from the developers perspective is that they have the opportunity to do exactly what they want to do, exactly what interests them. The disadvantage is that what interests you may very well be of interest to very few others.
Jedidiah
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
If your a unix geek and want to make money, write for Mac OS X.
Mac OS X: Unix with paying customers.
I agree that it's important to have open source programmers be people who really love the technology and want to innovate and contribute to the project. The thing about the article that confused me though was that it gives the impression that there are hoards of programmers jumping on the OSS bandwagon hoping to make a quick buck, but I don't really see that in my experience.
Still being in school, I see a LOT of people who went into computers just to make a quick buck, all of them are very strong microsoft advocates.
Are there people who go into OSS just to make a buck? from what I've seen, people who are primarily interested in money are also huge proprietary software supporters, sort of like if the only thing you care about is money, you can't imagine anyone else coding for the love of it, and therefore can't imagine F/OSS being any good at all.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
Bullet proof software? Many people on the OpenBSD source project are paid to work on OpenBSD full-time. Yeah, paying people to write software doesn't work.
...and by extension, business software is only as popular as it is easy to support. If it weren't for the people who don't code, the ones who just run the systems, and who do make some money at it, Open Source would not be as dominant in the server market.
So while I see his point, you're right -- it's from a narrow persective. Developers like Linus aren't the ones that get approached when the rubber hits the road, maintainers are. He may look at less famous developers than himself and see little chance of them making money off their work (or less chance of them developing something decent because they are expecting to), and he may be right. He's looking at the wrong group of people, though.
Someone had to do it.
An old man was fired from his janitorial government job of 30 years when a new hotshot manager discovered he could not read or write.
Walking home through the city after his last day, he really wanted a smoke, but could not find a place selling cigarettes. So, he took what little money he had and opened a small cigarette stand on that street.
People bought cigarettes from him. He opened another one. And he opened another one. Finally, he had too much money to keep under his mattress and went to the bank.
The banker was impressed at all the money he had earned considering he was not literate. The banker says to the old man "imagine where you could have been if you knew how to read and write." The old man replied, "I don't have to imagine, I would have still been a janitor."
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
Horsepuckey.
It all depends on what having an "Open Source Career" means to you.
I write database-driven weblications with Linux/Apache/PostgreSQL/PHP. I get plenty of opportunities to contribute to the OSS community, (and I do) typically by providing documentation.
I don't primarily make my living actually writing OSS code, but I frequently release libraries and codebases I consider "commodity". I help out other people.
I contribute to email lists, online forums, etc. and use Open Source software as a platform to provide services for small to mid-size organizations.
No career in OSS? PFFFT!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I'm not objecting the the article, but to the fact that yet again, the submitter plaigiarized the article. You can write 'Larry Greenmeier reports' or 'according to the InformationWeek Weblog' then quote to your heart's content. When the submitter simply copies and pastes the article and includes no attribution, it implies that the submitter wrote that paragraph. That's plagiarism. Editors, get it together - this is unacceptable.
Linus is really talking about OS developers, and people who tikner with the source code. Not so much the sys admins and sales people. I think it's a fair enough comment. Only those with a passion for coding will motivate themselves to excel at it.
In my experience, all the money motivated people that got into IT want to desperately jump on the Microsoft bandwagon. They saw how software licencing could be a total money rort (thanks to the MS experience) they wanted a piece of the pie.
When they failed to get into MS, they turned into IT sales managers.
I've met good sales managers, and bad ones of course. The difference is that good sales managers do their job PRIMARILY because they gain satisfaction from helping people.
The bad sales managers are only motivated to sell the product as fast as they can and wrangle as much money as they can in the deal. And they're also a pain to be around.
I won't ask "who makes more money?" because the answer is misleading. I will ask "Who enjoys their job more, has a happier less stressful life, and plenty of friends?" and the answer is quite clear.
Who sleeps better at night? Bill or Linus?
That's the real question.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Utter horseshit. While not everyone can get to work for a Cygwin or OSDL, a savy OSS programmer will eventually pick up the skills needed to participate in large, complex projects. This is resume fodder of the highest order. Those who are project initiators or maintainers will get to apply for jobs like "Architect" and be taken seriously. It's a way of ganing experience without having any experience... and experience means more money and seniority when landing a new job.
SoupIsGood Food
Dear Slashdot,
My name is Rob, I'm 24 and I'm a professional open source programmer. I like my job, and I'm paid comparably to other programmers in my field. The difference between me and most, however, is that I'm a researcher and I'm funded by a grant. Our software is developed to be used by the research and academic community. Now I'm not saying I'm typical, but certainly I see jobs similar to mine forming. Its no longer okay to just submit a paper and call that research. People are beginning to demand the code to go along with the paper and granting bodies understand this.
The market is changing everyday. Companies like IBM are proving that software is a service and not a product, and competition from other countries is turning many software jobs to commodity jobs. Everyone in software reinvents themself. My father has reinvented himself about 6 times during his career and will retire within the next 10 years doing a job completely different from his post graduate training.
I'm not going to sit and preach, but in two paragraphs I was able to give plenty of personal basis to reconsider the crux of the argument.
Food for thought
"Great hackers think of it [coding] as something they do for fun, and which they're delighted to find people will pay them for."
The other part of it is pointing out that choosing to go into open source like you'd choose to work in a supermarket at uni, really wont work. In the open source world it gets you almost nowhere because being a good coder is something you can't fake. If you're doing it for the bullet point on your resume then it'll all seem like too much work the first time somebody rips on your code.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
Look, any field you get into is going to say "don't do it for the money, do it because you like it!"
Computer geeks say it about IT.
Lawyers say it about law.
Doctors say it about medicine.
But what about the fields NOBODY likes? Did you ever hear Joe Toiletscrubber say "don't clean toilets for the money, do it because you like it!"? Highly doubtful.
The truth is, people do go into fields for the money -- including the computer geeks, the lawyers (especially corporate and IP lawyers), the doctors, and so forth. People take up jobs as garbage collectors, NOT because they're passionate about it, but because it's a job few other people are willing to do -- and it pays well because of that fact. Garbage collectors do it for the money.
So do strippers. And prostitutes (indeed, prostitutes in Nevada have been known to work for about 3-4 years, then retire for life with over $1 million in income for their time in bed).
There are people who get PhD's in the natural sciences NOT because they enjoy their academic field of study, but because they know they will make more money with a PhD than a lesser degree.
Telling people to "do it because you love it" is a nice ideal. But ultimately, all things revolve around money, and people will work in IT because there is decent money to be made there (yes, even now with the offshoring and the lack of dot-bombs to leech from, IT is still a relatively well-paying career path).
Be honest: are YOU passionate about processing business reports? How about maintaining 25 year-old COBOL apps? I sure as hell am not (though the theoretical side of "computer science" does interest me).
Are you even passionate about writing code for other people in general when the project is not one of your choice or even really particularly interesting? I'm not -- but I do it anyway, because there are far worse jobs (waiting tables, shoveling shit in Louisiana) that pay far-less too, and I can find ways to trick myself into liking the work I'm not interested in.
Anybody who says "do it for the love of the work" probably enjoys their work so much that they're at the top of the pack -- and Torvalds is probably the best example in the world. If you love your labor, more power to you.
The rest of us, however, will work at what we do because we're competent enough to get paid for it and we enjoy it just enough not to do something else we enjoy more instead -- but we're mentally-balanced enough not to revolve our lives around our work.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Your point, it's like saying we should not have used light bulbs because the candle makers go out of business. It's like someone else said a very narrow-minded and down right stupid way of thinking.
This is not 1984 or Brave New World, things in the real world change and shift. Change is not bad, unless you are an old school conservative but that's another point. If OSS makes better and cheaper software than good for them. However, OSS developers also make money somehow so in the need the total economic effect is none and society gets a better product.
Also, you assume things wont level out however they must somehow since unless OSS developers make money somehow they can't have a computer without which they can't make OSS software. It's a natural check in the system, so some form of steady state will emerge although traditional paid programmers may not be part of it. Too bad for them however things change.
I think that Linus is really trying to say that he really agrees more with the Free Software Foundation's GNU Philosophy more than the Open Source Initiative's, though he continues to use the term "Open Source." This is where some of the confusion comes from.
I think the OSI has effected great positive change in making business aware of the benefits of Free/Open Source software, but I think they were pretty arrogant and short-sighted to try to 'dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with "free software"'. The idea that freedom is important for its own sake may be confrontational to a lot of businessmen, but that doesn't make it any less true.
I think a lot of conflict could be avoided if RMS would admit that business cases are important for Free Software and ESR would admit that freedom of Open Source software is important in its own right.
The idea that the happiest people are those who have a passion for their profession is nothing new. Linus is just restating that old truism in the context of working with Free software. But in reality it applies just as much to the proprietary coder too and just as much to an advertising exec and even to a call-girl, or (dare I say it) lawyers (there are A LOT of unhappy lawyers out there).
Linus's statement seems to have brought out the latent belief in a lot of people that "you can't make money writing Free software." This belief is a falsehood and it only takes a few seconds of rational thought to discover that.
1) Redhat makes money, the employees of Redhat make money. Redhat works with 100% Free software, thus working with Free software CAN and IS profitable.
2) Last I read, IBM currently has over 600 engineers employed working on Free software, maybe even just Linux alone. Those guys are getting paid and IBM ain't doing it for charity, they are doing it to add value to the services and products that they sell their customers.
The way you personally can make money from Free software is not by selling identical shrink wrapped copies, that only works for old-school, copyright-cartel, value-sucking companies. Instead, you make money by ADDING value to Free software. In other words, custom development. This works for the 1-man contract developer as well as huge consulting organizations like IBM's Global Services. Take currently existing Free software and build on it to solve a specific customer's specific requirements. You get paid for that work and, depending on the contract, the effort either stays within the client company or is shared back to the rest of the world. The GPL is designed specifically for that kind of situation and it is no surprise given that RMS often worked on contract tweaking GNU software for individual clients.
So forget all this baloney that Free software "takes away jobs" and the like because it doesn't. Instead, Free software is about not having to re-invent the wheel so that business that USE software can do more for less and are thus even more efficient in the long run. That efficiency helps the ENTIRE economy, not just a select few members of the copyright cartel.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
A URL (Uniform Resource Location) is a specific type of URI (Uniform Resource Identifier). Two other types of URIs are URNs (Uniform Resource Names), and URCs (Uniform Resource Citations). More information at this URI.
Not that all pure sciences get the funding they need, but if you compare OSS core developers to academic and non-applied research scientists, there are many similarities -- and one difference. There are a lot less of them that manage to get funding for their "pure" research.
The parallels between scientists who pay the bills and get their toys by developing applied science to OS core devs that get hired on by companies for research work are pretty strong, and in that case, I'd say the playing field is a little more equal, though I doubt it is fair.
I picture the heavy OS developers as sort of floating in between the two mostly -- what they want to develop has more of an applied nature, so they don't get the respect pure scientists do (when they do), but at the same time, the spirit of the developer is more aligned with that of the pure scientist -- they want to explore things on their own terms.
If software was truly considered an "engineering" discipline, rather than "computer science" then maybe that would make a home for developers as research fellows at engineering colleges. But even that third category (which I must fess up to belonging to) doesn't consider it really to be "hard core" enough to qualify for their accolades.
Someone had to do it.