Users as Innovators - Why Open Source Works

eaglemoon writes "Many people still have difficulty understanding why open source software projects are successfull. The Boston Globe has an interview with Eric von Hippel, a Professor at MIT Sloan School of Management, on users as innovators. In his new book, von Hippel, discusses how open source projects draw on the creativity of ''lead users," who are often ahead of the curve on technology and marketplace trends. Von Hippel shows the trend already is more advanced than is generally known, and users often freely reveal their innovations for the common good. The social efficiency of a system in which individual innovations are developed by individual users is increased if users somehow diffuse what they have developed to others.....he also notes that the transition to user-centered innovation is hard for some companies to swallow.
The online version of the book is available under a Creative Commons license."

Comments

Problem with Article

[Anonymous Coward]

They're implying that open source works in the first place!

OSS discovers science.

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words, Open Source discovers what scientists already knew.

Re:OSS discovers science.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps it is re-proving what corporate influence is helping the scientific community to forget.

Re:OSS discovers science.

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words, Open Source discovers what scientists already knew.

WHOAH! What are you talking about everybody on /. knows the emperors new open source clothes are brilliant. C'mon everyone let's gather around and throw rotten tomatoes at this dissenter.

Re:OSS discovers science.

[Sj0]

To dissenters, to supporters, I have just one thing to say: Put up or shut up.

Simple as that. Open Source is just religion unless people are actually getting into it and working on stuff. Knocking Open Source is just trolling unless you're doing something to actually improve the situation.

That is all.

Re:OSS discovers science.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is all.

Nice absolutist language. Your arrogant little rant is kinda like what an inquisitor might use. Who made you an arbiter of oss?

Re:OSS discovers science.

[Sj0]

The spanish granted me the title. No one expected it.

Open Source Presentation

[siokaos]

My writing class had an open topic presentation, and some friends of mine and I just did a presentation on the Business and Development elements of open source projects :)

Check it out
http://neuclid.com/OpenSourcePres.pdf

Re:Open Source Presentation

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you ruin it with the semi-proprietary pdf format...

Re:Open Source Presentation

[Anonymous Coward]

Coral Cache Version since your post got rated up so much. And yes, I just loaded it to get it on the network.

Re:Open Source Presentation

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't even call it semi-proprietary. PDF is Adobe's baby, but the standard is open and I would wager that 90% of the PDFs on the web are created using free software (i.e. TeX and friends).

Problem

[elid]

One major problem with open-source is the lack of artists willing to work under such a license. For an example ot what results, see the "new" FreeCIV.

Re:Problem

[Coneasfast]

excellent point!

even the best of F/OSS games have only adequate, at best, graphics.

the F/OSS world has a shortage of artists. why is this? maybe they have enough to do without contributing to open source projects? i'm not sure.

Re:Problem

[Short Circuit]

Positive example: OpenQuartz. They made a Free replacement for Quake I's content.

Re:Problem

[aCapitalist]

The reason is that artists don't have a culture of sharing like coders do (way before FSF or GNU), because that model doesn't really work with art - at least traditional art for obvious reasons.

Re:Problem

[sp0rk173]

No, it's because artists don't care. Compound with this the fact that modern society rewards less than 1% of all artists and you have a population of starving artists that just don't want to work for free in the name of the greater good.

Re:Problem

[aCapitalist]

Compound with this the fact that modern society rewards less than 1% of all artists and you have a population of starving artists

Are graphic designers starving artists? Are game world/model/texture artists starving?

The development of those above mediums tends to be a much individualistic process than code. Now whether that is just cultural/traditional or otherwise is another story, but that's just the way it seems to be.

As far as "modern society rewarding less than 1% of all artists"...if the other 99% were any good then they wouldn't be starving now would they?

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Artists certainly do care, but they can't build on each others' work. Thus it takes a lot more political dealing to get an art project running.

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Are graphic designers starving artists? Are game world/model/texture artists starving?

No. They're the one percent. :-)

Re:Problem

[bersl2]

This needs to be modded up higher.

In general, artists fear that someone will claim their work as their own, so they tend to be very anal about their babies: often, they ask that you not redistribute or alter their images, which kind of goes against the whole idea of free culture. (Trivia: the Berne Convention happened essentially at Victor Hugo's insistence. Case in point.)

We must mollify their fears if we are to largely gain them as an ally. We must show them that they will be no worse off using the principles of free culture than they are now, if they are willing to accept some change.

I cannot stress the importentce they play.

Re:Problem

[bersl2]

Last line should read: I cannot stress enough the importentce they play.

Re:Problem

[NanoGator]

"One major problem with open-source is the lack of artists willing to work under such a license. For an example ot what results, see the "new" FreeCIV."

I see your point, but I'm not sure the problem is the licensing. I think it's the lack of incentive.

To get a job as an artist, you have to do some stand-out work and/or have project experience. Sadly, this creates a nasty problem: How does one get a job as an artist if they haven't had a job as an artist? The answer? Do some cool stuff on your own. Many artists do this. (Check out www.cgtalk.com to see what I mean.) However, it can be difficult for a self-starter to complete some ambitious work. I know I had that problem. If I couldn't get something done in an evening, I wouldn't do it. So what'd I do? Simple: I took on some pro-bono work.

I did some artwork for a game called Ferion. (Now some of you will understand why it's in my sig.) There was no paycheck. Instead, the agreement was that I'd do the work provided I could take the time I needed to expand on my artform. The result? The work I did for Ferion almost single-handedly got me my dream job. There's absolutely no way I would have produced anything like that without somebody needing me to do it. I'm too lazy.

So, how's this relate to OSS? I think really all it needs is the right presentation. There are LOTS of people who want to make artwork for a living. So long as they know that they're gaining valuable experience, you'll be able to find people willing to get the job done. If the project can offer some visibility, even better!

Re:Problem

[QuantumG]

I think you're so fundamentally right that us, programmers, need to revolutionise "artwork". We've already done this with scalable vector graphics. It's common for people to take SVG icon sets that they like and extend them, or copy bits from one icon to make a new one. You try to do the same thing with bitmaps and you quickly discover how limiting it is. I think the same thing goes for 3d graphics. We need to drop this artist-tweaks-the-vertexs-till-it's-right mentality and start coding our "art".

Re:Problem

[NanoGator]

"The reason is that artists don't have a culture of sharing like coders do (way before FSF or GNU), because that model doesn't really work with art - at least traditional art for obvious reasons."

You'd be surprised. Head on over to www.scifi-meshes.com. There are models of a bunch of starships there that anybody can download. Then you can post your artwork with those models. It's been around for years.

You've got a point that traditional artwork isn't so easy to share. However, communities can share in more ways than one. Technique is just as valuable as sharing code. At least with the communities I hang out with, most people are quite happy to share how they achieved a certain effect. Quite a few even take the time to post how-to's.

I realize we're not talking about precisely the same thing here, but I hope you get my point. Quite a bit of time is spent between artists helping each other out.

Re:Problem

[daVinci1980]

hahahahahahahahaha....

let me know how that turns out.

(Coming from a video game graphics coder)

Re:Problem

[syousef]

...A clone of something slightly better, 10 years too late?

Re:Problem

[QuantumG]

Well have a look at all the graphics in 2nd life.. everything there is built from primitives, except for the player characters, which are algorithmically generated. It is doable, I've just never seen much of it in open source.

Re:Problem

[elhedran]

I started something like this (coding artwork) at gasnippets.sf.net

Basically one of my projects was a way of generating tiles for a RTS game. But no one really wants pixmap tiles anymore so I tried opengl mesh based tiles. The idea is that the way to make the tile is broken up into bits. So someone can get grass right, someone else trees.

Unfortunately I gave it up before anyone took it up. But I agree,there is a lot out there that is collaborative art. Photoshop tennis, meshes, povray bits etc. Basically just need a good framework where people can do a bit of the work, and get advantage from the whole. Easy to add, nice incremental advantage at each stage of artwork.

I think if you want better graphics for your game, step one is to make it really, really easy to create new graphics. And I don't just mean 'load some png's. I mean have tools to help with relative scale, promote sharing of meshes or source images (e.g. 5 different guys on horses can share the horse bit) etc. Its more work, but its the work coders can do. If its fun and easy, the artists will come. Well, so long as they like your game and not your graphics.

Re:Problem

[Benny2891]

There are artists out there who do embrace the FOSS method in the production of their work. They just don't make graphics for video games. (As far as I know). There is a population of contemporary "fine" artists (I really hate that term) who are attempting to do this. You are not going to see there work in conventional venues that often however. Simon Yuill and Chad McCail are working on such a project [http://www.spring-alpha.org]. [http://www.agile-process.com/] and [http://www.machinista.org/] are other examples of artists looking at this. There are others, I just mentioned these to make a point. In a lot of ways, artists and programmers operate in similar ways.
Actually, I am one of them. I recently started a PhD candidacy on this very topic. While my research is still very much in the early stages, I am beginning to realise that in order for the FOSS way of doing things to be more widely adapted, the methodologies need to be reworked. I don't think that actually economics are the determining factor here. Very few of the artists I know (and I know a lot) make much money from the direct production of there artwork. They need to supplement their income either by doing something like teaching or constantly chasing down grants, endowments and the like. It wouldn't be too hard to make the argument that "opening" your practise would actually help you secure more of this type of income. For the most part, Creative Commons [www.creativecommons.org] is sorting out the availability of licenses that are appropriate for artwork, so thats not that big of a deal. I think the biggest reason that artists are reluctant to embrace this kind of working is that we are still too hung up on the "original". It is deeply ingrained in the collective culture of the the arts. Originality of the idea and the art object itself is of the highest value when artists are assessing art. The FOSS way of doing things is perceived as encouraging copying and unoriginality. This is a big no-no for your average contemporary artist. If artists were just to look their history, they would realise that this obsession with the original is a relatively new thing, and that all creative works are built on top of the creative output that has already happened.
While all that i just mentioned is within the framework of art as in Tate Modern / Guggenheim kind of art, the artists that do more commercial work most likely went through some sort of art education that the "fine" artists went to. They all more or less leaned the same values, and regard their work in a similar way.I think it will be a while before you see this happening more commonly in areas like Graphic Design and CG stuff.

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, as an artist, an animator, and a graphic designer, I *do* care. However, some people seem to think we're cold-hearted, unapproachable jerks, so perhaps it's because we never get asked. It might be perception, or a difference in personality, but I seriously doubt its for a lack of generosity or interest.

If you don't advertise adequately, how are artists supposed to know? Many graphic designers look at OSS software and say, "Um, yeah...there are some things that could be fixed." However, programmers have a bad reputation for being cantankerous and hard to work with, so many artists might be afraid to approach them. Turn about is fair play, I suppose.

Re:Problem

[torpor]

let me know how that turns out.


Seems like it turned out pretty good to me ..

Mod the URL, and do a grep on it, to see more details about how 'us lame non-artistic programmers' are helping 'artists' create rich content ..

Snobbish pedantry aside, open-source Art software is Art.

Re:Problem

[master_p]

Coding is almost a commodity; many people can do it...it's mostly about logic and coherence. Art requires an aesthetic talent; few people have it. So it's natural that artists will not share their work; it's much more precious.

Another difference between code and art is that code are tools to be used by others. Art is not a tool, art is a medium that can pass around messages, and therefore is much more powerful than code.

Re:Problem

[zero_offset]

The FOSS way of doing things is perceived as encouraging copying and unoriginality.

Especially ironic since the original article is one of many instances where the FOSS types are trying to lay claim to the title of Supreme Innovators. "If we say it often enough, it MUST be true."

Re:Problem

[maxpublic]

the F/OSS world has a shortage of artists. why is this?

My guess is that it's because artists like to eat, and it's a hell of a lot harder to make a living as an artist than a tech-head. Not a whole lot of time left over to wank off to Natalie Portman pics.

Max

Re:Problem

[chthon]

I think that the problem more has to do with the fact that programmers don't tend to have people with graphical skills in their environment.

My father can draw (as in oil painting, water painting, etching, sketching, ink art, etc).

After he is finished doing the electricity for my brother's house, I will go with him over techniques to produce icons, because I would like him help to create a new set of icons for WebMin, which the Webmin people would then get.

Re:Problem

[Tim C]

In other words, you got paid for your work. No, you didn't get any money, you got paid in experience, and the opportunity to produce something that you can show to other people.

I can definitely see that as a viable model for aspiring artists, but I'm not sure how many established artists you'll manage to attract. Of course there will always be some that will do it for fun; with luck, that'll be enough, because Fate knows there appear to be precious few willing to do it at the moment.

I don't think it's a problem of the licence or the artists, so much as the projects themselves being unable to attract the right people.

Re:Problem

[4of12]

The art world is so much famine with occassional blips of feast, that it's hard for starving artists to feel good about one of their own that strikes it big, particularly if the one striking it big is not regarded as a particularly talented artist among professionals (Thomas Kinkade - who is a certainly a good artist - but arguably not a great artist), or if they happen to get lucky applying a technique that was pioneered by someone else.

Some great artists never get recognized while they're alive.

Artists do help each other out, teaching, learning. Many of them are among the kindest human beings around. But everything I've seen indicates the profession is innately cruel to its own. Pour out your innermost feelings, your identity, your best efforts, and then try to sell them in art shows to raise money to live on.

Re:Problem

[Hatta]

The reason is that artists don't have a culture of sharing like coders do (way before FSF or GNU), because that model doesn't really work with art - at least traditional art for obvious reasons.


What are those reasons? The OSS model seems to work quite well for musical artists. Why should graphic artists be any different?

Re:Problem

[neopara]

That is such a stupid comment. I can pick up a pencil and draw, or any other tool. Will it be good? I don't know; it is in the eye of the beholder. Same goes with coding; there is good code and bad code. Anyways, I don't think you can compare the two. You should compare coding to drawing or sculpting. The fact is coding can be very artful, just like math or poetry.

Here is an example:
From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetry:
"Poetry (ancient Greek: poieo = create) is an art form in which human language is used for its aesthetic qualities in addition to, or instead of, its notional and semantic content."

Now lets sed it:
sed -e 's/Poetry (ancient Greek: poieo = create)\(.*\)\human/Coding\1computer/'
Coding is an art form in which computer language is used for its aesthetic qualities in addition to, or instead of, its notional and semantic content.

Re:Problem

[arose]

POV-Ray has been going strong for a long time.

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people can draw as well, it's all about copying and comparing.

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Wtf needs artists anyway? We're nerds. Art and nerds don't mix.

Re:Problem

[master_p]

Poetry (ancient Greek: poieo = create)

Thank you very much for explaining to me in my own language what 'poieo' means. Really.

That is such a stupid comment.

Coding is an art form in which computer language is used for its aesthetic qualities in addition to, or instead of, its notional and semantic content.

Oh come on, let's cut the crap! coding is not art, it's mathematics. Coding is about the lambda calculus, the pi calculus, the type and category theory. It's not art. Stupid notions like this have been spread by people who know nothing about art. Code's quality can be quantitatevely measured; art can not be measured, it's a totally subjective thing. That difference alone should make it clear for you: art != code

Re:Problem

[drsmithy]

Compound with this the fact that modern society rewards less than 1% [...]

Firstly I think that number is horseshit, unless your idea of "reward" is "make unfeasibly wealthy".

Secondly, maybe that's because only that percentage of artists are *worth* "rewarding" ?

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is true that artists don't do pro-bono work, then it would be because they are already jaded by everyone else picking on them, because everyone else knows their work has close to zero economic value.

But the big scandal here is, the significance of "economic value" is way overrated in a lot of disciplines. Who really thinks music will cease if Britney Spears ceases to be paid millions? Who really thinks medical research will cease, if Pfizer is forced to market new drugs at only 200% above cost?

The fact is, sharing of stuff and info, without getting hung up over whether the trade is fair, has always gone on in human societies. And most of us like it that way. Who wants to get charged or sued every time they use a word somebody else invented? That is more or less where this overblown concept of intellectual property is headed.

Fact is, any person can do art. And a lot more of us would too, if we didn't collectively kid ourselves by giving certain "professionals" astronomical dollar valuations for their slightly superior work, implying that their skill is somehow so many lightyears beyond what us normal people can do. That principle applies somewhat in scientific fields too.

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

the F/OSS world has a shortage of artists. why is this?

They all use Macs.

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I've read that the reason modern art is so bad is that anyone with actuall artistic talent can get a decent job. There is enough demand for illustrators/graphic designers/whatever.

The only people who spend their lives as full time artists either can't keep a 9-5 job due to various personallity problems, or don't have any real talent.

Hence instead of good, the have to go for progressivley more bizzare. And the art world convinces themselves that a 3 inch piece of rope with a nail in it is creative.

Re:Problem

[rtb61]

Artists are know for their immature self centered egocentric point of view, not what any body would consider the optimal state of mind for sharing anything.

Re:Problem

[sp0rk173]

As far as "modern society rewarding less than 1% of all artists"...if the other 99% were any good then they wouldn't be starving now would they?

"Good" is subjective. Things considered "universally good" in art are only universally good because a handful of influential people point them out as good. Then the drooling masses follow.

Another reason might be...

[Sprotch]

That Open Source is successful in markets abandonned by other companies. Firefox took over where IE 3.0 had left. Open Office might be doing something similar. Users will only be milked for so long...

Re:Another reason might be...

[MrKahuna]

and yet another reason may be what is "missing" in the open source world, namely the marketing/corporate layer that usually sits between the users and the developers. Think about all the fluff that's between these 2 groups in most large software companies. Without direct interaction much of the potentially valuable communication gets lost or, at best, watered down.

Re:Another reason might be...

[timmyf2371]

Considering IE 4/5 were far superior web browsers to the existing Netscape 4.x web browser suite, I would say it's fair to say the Firefox has started to innovate from where IE 6 left off.

In regards to Open Office, yes it's free both as in beer and speech, however in terms of quality IMO it is not yet a patch on Microsoft Office by any means.

Re:Another reason might be...

[Anonymous Coward]

In regards to Open Office, [...], however in terms of quality IMO it is not yet a patch on Microsoft Office by any means.

I don't know whats worse...the fact that I agree Open Office still hasn't caught up to the stability & feature set of MS Office, or the fact that MS Office can is so often such a pile of ****

Re:Another reason might be...

[Sprotch]

Fair point, however I never really saw any significant improvement between IE 3 and 6. Apart from the Google bar... Office is such a bloated, frustrating, overbearing experience that I would say the door is as open as ever for a replacement to be successful.

Re:Another reason might be...

[Anonymous Coward]

From 3 to 6? Really? 4 to 6 I could sorta see, but 3 was a piece of shit. Netscape 2 worked better than IE3.

Re:Another reason might be...

[McDutchie]

Yeah, I'm sure it really helps the average user to be called a fscking n00b and to go RTFM before bothering the developers with their dumb questions.

Developers like to develop, not to support, and most have atrocious people skills. They are not necessarily good support people and relying on them for support is silly.

Re:Another reason might be...

[arose]

Most of them will be the best support you can get if you look for answers first and know how to ask questions: present new problems in a way they can understand. A first step is to make sure at least someone else than you can understand what you want.

Scratching an itch

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux came about and developed because a bunch of people needed it for 'something'. It wasn't easily available so they developed it themselves. The trick was for Linus to provide a starting point and then not get in the way too badly.

Half the secret of encouraging innovation is just to stay out of the way. That's a lot easier with open source than with proprietary products.

Time for revolution

[Janitha]

Opensource also deals with almost no money, this in return sets the path of a developer to develop the code for his love of it = good product.

Plus the no back-stabbing hidden crap code spyware clean non-malware products also just work, if it doesnt or is unclean others have a oportunity to come and fix it.

More brains = Better, compared to just a few programmers doing it closer source.

RTFM!

[CHESTER COPPERPOT]

If you /.'ers post your opinions without reading the ENTIRE online book I'll be very, very disappointed.

Re:RTFM!

[Janitha]

You mean RTFB!

or RTFOB! (for precision)

Re:RTFM!

[CHESTER COPPERPOT]

By Golly you're right! I should RTFP (read the fucking post) before hitting submit!

Re:RTFM!

[siokaos]

You're obnoxious.

Re:RTFM!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obnoxious.

And you're insulting people on /.

Re:RTFM!

[CHESTER COPPERPOT]

"You're Obnoxious"

Thank you. It's very hard being a gaseous cloud and being able to type.

Re:RTFM!

[uberdave]

Um... RTFM *could* stand for Read The Fancy Manuscript. [grin]

Unless I read wrong...

[kryogen1x]

...but the article seems to be comparing user feedback with open source, which are two different things. Just because the end user is saying what could be improved doesn't mean it is open source.

Re:Unless I read wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but "open source" is more likely to accept user feedback. When Programmer Foobar isn't under pressure to come in under budget and on time, any given user feedback is easier to consider.

Re:Unless I read wrong...

[Canberra Bob]

Not true at all. How many times do we hear "well why dont YOU code it then?" That is not accepting user feedback.

That was probably a bit of an extreme example but it is just not true to claim that open source accepts user feedback better than closed source software. User Acceptance Testing is a critical part of the commercial software development lifecycle, something that is sorely missing from open source development. This is a part of the SDLC that has resources allocated to it in commercial software, you say that in open source software it is done if the developer has nothing better to do. A preset budget v an afterthought, this is one instance where commercial software is better (yes I know I am generalising with 'commercial software' as there is much open source commercial software which also has rigorous UAT)

Re:Unless I read wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yes but "open source" is more likely to accept user feedback. When Programmer Foobar isn't under pressure to come in under budget and on time, any given user feedback is easier to consider.

There is open source code that is under budget (e.g., Zope).
There is closed-source code that is not under budget (e.g., John Carmack's game engines, and the team at Microsoft whose job it is to keep trying to break SAMBA compatibility).

There is open source code that doesn't accept user feedback (e.g., X-Free).
There is closed-source code that accepts user feedback (e.g., Bitkeeper HAHAHAHA OK how about Delphi, or Google?).

Re:Unless I read wrong...

[arose]

How many times do we hear "well why dont YOU code it then?"

Almost never, but I don't ask for the same things over and over again.

the user's perspective

[kebes]

Users will have a perspective on products that the programmer never will--namely the perspective of someone who *doesn't understand* how the application works! After designing and/or programming a piece of software for a long time, you can get to know it so well that every aspect of it seems obvious. Yet to a fresh user, who has no clue what is going on behind the scenes, your choice of layout may seem confusing. It has been said (many times) before, but programmers/designers need to *listen* to what users are saying. If something is hard to use, then it should be fixed! And yes, the users of a product will have tons of useful ideas for how to make a product better.

Programmers know too much about the inner workings of a system... and thus they will immediately think of all the reasons why an innovative idea (interface element or feature) won't work. But the naive user, not encumbered by such restrictive thinking, may propose powerful features and novel interaction schemes. Some of these won't work, and some really are too hard to code, but there are many gems.

Re:the user's perspective

[daVinci1980]

That's true sometimes.

Most of the time though, users don't have the FOGGIEST idea of what they want. They know what they want to accomplish in the abstract sense, but they really don't know how to get there.

I agree with you in one regard though, programmers are terrible at designing user interfaces. That's why at most moderate-sized companies there is a seperate position for UI designers. They generally also double as QA.

To be honest, in the time I did commercial shrinkwrap, I rarely found users' direct input to be terribly useful in workflow design. The reason was usually because they were only thinking about how they would use the feature, not how the 300K+ other users of my software would use it.

Re:the user's perspective

[datafr0g]

I agree.
I am amazed at how most programmers don't look at what they're trying to achieve from a users point of view.

This is highly noticable to me in Open Source GUI's which is what sets a company like Apple apart.
Everything is designed around efficiency for the end user while looking sexy and being intuitive at the same time.

Unfortunatly, there are not enough designers who work for free.... either that or they have no interest in OSS

Re:the user's perspective

[Bastian]

The most fun example of this in my experience is when I make a request for a feature or modification to the functionality of a program, and the programming staff (who, naturally, aren't the ones who are using the tools they produce day in and day out) dismiss the request without much discussion by claiming, in essence, that they know what's best and the users don't know what they want. It's not uncommon for this to take the form of them responding to a complaint about some aspect of the software that everyone who uses it finds infuriating with some permuntation of the classic, "That's a feature, not a bug."

(disclaimer - I should admit that my job responsibilities include a bit of programming and maintenance, and I can't claim to be innocent of having done this in the past, either.)

Re:the user's perspective

[zobier]

Users will have a perspective on products that the programmer never will--namely the perspective of someone who *doesn't understand* how the application works!

What are you talking about I know plenty of developers who don't understand how the application works!

Re:the user's perspective

[qnetter]

And that's why you need a product manager: to coalesce and prioritize the differing requirements of users witohut getting bogged down in the implementation.

Too often -- especially in open-source land -- developers design functionality, then slap a user interface veneer on it.

What they really need to do is to design a user experience, then architect a solution that can serve it and potential similar uses, then develop the implementation to support the user experience.

Re:the user's perspective

[gregmac]

Programmers know too much about the inner workings of a system... and thus they will immediately think of all the reasons why an innovative idea (interface element or feature) won't work. But the naive user, not encumbered by such restrictive thinking, may propose powerful features and novel interaction schemes. Some of these won't work, and some really are too hard to code, but there are many gems.

As a programmer, this is something I try really hard to do -- step back, and forget everything I know about the backend. When coming up with a new concept, I ask myself "What is the optimal way this GUI would be implemented?" without any regard for how things are structured behind the scenes .. just thinking about how the interface should act. Sometimes I'll even draw out an interface on paper first, or do a quick non-working prototype to get a feel for it. (Note, I'm refering to the usability, not necessarily the end look .. though these are related, I'm not concerned with colors, positioning, etc, at this point).

Once I have the "best" interface I can think of, I then start figuring out how to apply that to my backend structure. Sometimes this involves making comprimises and changing from my optimal interface, but usually it is doable. The big difference is now the problem is simply a matter of figuring out "how do i represent data x as y?" which is a specific task, as opposed to trying to figure out how to manipulate data AND display an interface at the same time.

It's just a different perspective to take, which is really the important thing.

Re:the user's perspective

[Cyno]

Programmers know too much about the inner workings of a system...

And end users know too little. The problem with most commercial software is it looks like it was designed by the end users without much programmer innovation.

Programmers innovate everything. They create code that wasn't there before they wrote it. I would trust them to innovate a more creative solution to most problems including user interface than the typical user would understand.

Re:the user's perspective

[zero_offset]

Most of the time though, users don't have the FOGGIEST idea of what they want.

It isn't just "users", it is people in all roles, in general. Two simple examples come to mind, both of non-computer-related situations in which I have heard professionals complain that their customers or clients rarely have any idea whatsoever about what they want when they walk through the door, cash in hand:

1. Custom homebuilding. I am building a new, 100% custom home. It is an extremely time-consuming and complex process. My builder tends towards homes in the $1M+ range, and over the past 18 months we've gotten to know each other well. He frequently complains about how most of his customers don't have the slightest inkling about what they want in a home. It isn't uncommon for people to walk in and not even know something as basic as whether they're looking for a one- or two-story home. One of his customers recently demanded that he stop asking so many questions about details and just build his ($1.8M) house.

2. Picture framing. I recently had a piece framed, and the woman working at the framing shop commented that few people are able to decide upon what they want without making several visits to the shop. (The discussion resulted from my attempt to describe to her the framing and matting I had pictured in my head for this particular item.)

Neither of these directly involve computers or software, yet they are identical to the problems faced by programmers who are expected to interpret a user's desires and produce a usable end product.

I believe the best answer in all situations is prototyping -- the more realistic or functional, the better. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be an especially reasonable course of action for most FOSS projects (unless you consider "Office" the prototype for "OpenOffice", but I don't feel like arguing innovation-vs-copying right now).

Re:the user's perspective

[daigu]

Inputs from a variety of people are going to lead - on average - to a more creative solution than a solution devised by a single person. Of course, there are genius programmers, just as there are genius users. But, they aren't the norm.

Although, I would agree with you if I had to select one or another, I'd probably leave it to the programer to solve the problem. But this isn't an OR situation. It is an AND where users work together with programers. It is also a situation where there may not be a defined problem until the user identifies it.

Re:the user's perspective

[sachachua]

I maintain a personal information manager. We encourage people to send even their silliest ideas to the mailing list. What seems frivolous to one might be incredibly useful for other people, and I've implemented half-jokes that turned out to be incredibly cool things. Code complexity is kept manageable through liberal use of personal configuration files. =) Basically, it costs the rest of the community nothing if I add additional features for just one person. One of my goals is really to tailor Planner to the needs of individual users, so even if code is useful for only one person, I'll still try to write it or encourage other people to try it out. Our community is a fantastic example of user-driven innovation. =) This environment has not only encouraged people to think about personalizing their PIM to fit the way they work, it has even gotten non-programmers and newbies to explore LISP. People describe themselves as addicted to Planner! =) User-centered development makes maintaining software so much fun.

Re:the user's perspective

[sachachua]

I love helping users figure out exactly how their suggested feature should work, even to the point of helping them write documentation for it before I start programming. I really enjoy listening and trying to figure out what they want and how to put together existing and custom code to get there. =) They might not start with a clear idea of what they want, but with enough questions, we usually get somewhere useful.

Re:the user's perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

> "design a user experience, then architect a solution"

You're in marketing/sales, aren't you?

Re:the user's perspective

[Cyno]

Well, okay, I agree. :)

Bottom-up innovation

[Spy der Mann]

I think this may have to do with companies' "top-down" corporate education. They believe they're "the best", they spend MILLIONS on hiring "the best". They spend millions on maintaining this structure, hiring even more people, buying the competition (*cough* Microsoft *cough*), etc etc.

What can a simple user teach them? What can one single guy do? He's got no budget, doesn't have the resources to get "the best of the best", and can't possibly manage dealing with copyright issues. 'You think a bunch of hobbyists can do better than us?'

Bottom-up, gentlemen, bottom-up.

Re:Bottom-up innovation

[cgenman]

They believe they're "the best", they spend MILLIONS on hiring "the best".

I know you put "the best" in quotes for a reason, but it's worth pointing out that corporations in no way get "the best" for their money.

Generally speaking, corporations are stuck in the illusion that if something costs more, it must be better. An employee that was making 105k as an Active X programmer must be better than the QNX programmer making 85k, so let's hire the 105k programmer and pay him 125k. If a fast-talking guy can come in and say all of the right things, the heads will believe that this guy is the perfect person to be lead programmer, even though he just sold you on the idea of doing your 1,000 concurrent user database app in Access. Corporations are great at throwing money at getting great salesmen, but they're not always so good at getting good leaders, programmers, designers, etc.

Re:Bottom-up innovation

[Junior J. Junior III]

Like that time the car company decided to build a line of automobiles designed by Homer J. Simpson. Yeah, that worked.

Re:Bottom-up innovation

[QuantumG]

You do know there are technology companies out there that let the engineers hire people themselves? When I was at VMWare an interview took all day. The recruit would be taken around to every engineer in the company and asked to help out with whatever the engineer was working on. The engineer would form an opinion of the person and their abilities and then send them on to the next engineer. This worked especially well because, at the time, every engineer at VMWare had their own office, or shared with 1 or 2 other engineers, but there were no cubicals. At the end of the day the recruit was sent away and the team leaders asked everyone what they thought of the recruit. If there was an overall good feeling the recruit got hired.

Re:Bottom-up innovation

[Tim C]

We don't go that far, but all interviews where I work are conducted by the interviewee's prospective peers. That is, designers are interviewed by designers, programmers by programmers, etc.

The only time HR gets involved is in signing off permission to hire, and sorting out the contract, etc. Once we have the permission, we handle *everything* ourselves (including filtering of CVs, etc). I (a senior programmer) have personally said "yes" or "no" regarding prospective hires. (Although we tend to interview in twos and threes, so it's not *just* my word)

Re:Bottom-up innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Bottom-up hiring! What a concept!

Re:Bottom-up innovation

[zotz]

"Corporations are great at throwing money at getting great salesmen, but they're not always so good at getting good leaders, programmers, designers, etc."

You may have hit on something very powerful:

Salesmen, you need them, but they cause you big problems. (To be fair, and are often a big part in paying your salary if you have one.)

Well, with Free Software, our reliance on salesmen goes way down.

all the best,

drew

Re:Bottom-up innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all users are idiots, you have to listen to the good ones.

Just remember

[YrWrstNtmr]

open source projects draw on the creativity of "lead users," who are often ahead of the curve on technology and marketplace trends.

Some of those curves and trends lead to dead ends. Valid dead ends.

Don't get discouraged when they do, know when to kill it, and move on in a different direction. But do move on.

Re:Just remember

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Ah, but the ecological diversity is a *good* thing. What is justifiably a "dead end" right now might be useful later in another context. The code stays available.

Time for revolution-Bad Equations.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Opensource also deals with almost no money, this in return sets the path of a developer to develop the code for his love of it = good product."

So can one conclude by all the crap source code out there. That a lot of free coders hate what they're doing?

Re:Time for revolution-Bad Equations.

[hazah]

You can conclude that all the crap code out there will have the crap beat out of it eventually.

Why it works

[jefedesign]

The reason open source works is because people are working towards a common goal. Why are people shocked to find out that something good can be produced without promise of huge profits. Thank you open source:)

Open source worked for me!

[Harish Rallapali]

Open source works for me. I'm no linux fanboy (I have been spotted, on rare occasion, praising Microsoft's assorted wares) however I have to say, considering the price, it works perfect for my needs. In fact, I don't think I've had a "Windows-only" situation in the past six months.

Although I could be the exception, not the rule. I'm not really big in to games, and I don't really participate in a large-scale network.

A New Business Model?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask the customers what they want, then design the product! Actually listen to your customers when they ask for features!

It's bold, it's daring, but somehow, it's catching on! Amazing! Those guys in business school these days: geniuses, the lot of 'em! Such innovation! I hear one of 'em patented a "wheel" or something, too... :-)
--
AC

Re:A New Business Model?

[zotz]

"Ask the customers what they want, then design the product! Actually listen to your customers when they ask for features!"

Yes, but what are you going to do when your customers will not tell you because they don't want you freeloading off of their "intellectual property" - come up with your own ideas and see if I want them. Or, you can pay me for mine and give me a percentage of the pie. Now that's capitalism boys. Or is it?

all the best,

drew

user innovation hard to swallow

[Princess Tarja]

why wouldn't a mega coprporate machine side against user innovation, it makes them appear slow to react to market wants (if they ever do react) takes a control out of their hands as well as their pockets.
most people/countries would do just fine without a gov entity getting in their way, why should the software industry be any different..

Shortest distance between two points...

[superpixel2000]

Makes sense to me. And as an Apple fan that's a lot to say... Doesn't it make sense to have "vanguard" users set the pace? Everything should be user-centric. Of course, that doesn't mean there should be anarchy. The empirical evidence laid out in the book bolsters this opinion, and makes a grand case for the limited viability of focus groups and closed-system processes like those at Apple and Microsoft.

Re:Shortest distance between two points...

[Anarchitect_in_oz]

As an Apple fan, therefore from a world that is user-centric design, it would make sense to me too.

Re:Shortest distance between two points...

[BlackIce_101]

Seems to me that Apple has been trying like hell to marry the two theories and find it's most passionate lead users, give them a salary and build a company around them. Whether they manage it in practice is another matter.

Polish

[mr. marbles]

My question is even though Open Source can create massive amounts of ground work, why is it still generally incapable of shipping fully polished products? Take a look at the Mac, they went the extra mile, they took all the innovation of the open source world and did all the work hobbiest don't do. What does open source need to make linux or something else fully polished? What makes open source projects like Firefox beat the curse?

Re:Polish

[jehreg]

Structured QC/QA team. That's what makes or breaks a FOSS project.

Re:Polish

[jayloden]

I often think about this very topic...if someone or someones would come along and put the pedal to the medal on polishing those things off, Linux would become one hell of a competitor.

I think it comes down to the hacker mindset, where the interesting problem is king. No one wants to work on the "boring" tasks like cleaning up GUI buttons and interface text. They'd rather work out exotic new gut level kernel code or rough out the next great feature. We're always questing for the next feature and getting it sketched into the system, and never quite get around to inking everything in. I think eventually, this will happen, at least to some degree. In some places it IS happening, but it's going to take time.

-Jay

Re:Polish

[Bastian]

The same thing that allows the OSS community to produce so much ground work so efficiently is what keeps many (most?) projects from becoming particularly polished. The great majority of OSS programmers like to just sit down and hack stuff out, and aren't particularly interested in the overhead and extra effort involved in maintaining a high degree of internal coordination and consistency. Plus, since most OSS developers are working on a volunteer basis, you can't really force anyone to conform to anyone else's standards.

I haven't been a member of the OSS community for very long - about a decade - but I get the impression that this is largely a fairly recent cultural development that coincides rather closely with the rise of Linux. If you look further back at older projects such as BSD Unix and XFree86, you may notice that there isn't nearly as much of this explosion of forks and competing projects. BSD only has five OSS offspring that I can think of - Free, Open, Net, Darwin, and Dragonfly. Of these, all have very different goals - FreeBSD is aimed at being a high performance Unix for commodity hardware. OpenBSD is designed to be rock-solid secure and stable. NetBSD is insanely portable. Darwin has its own kernel and is largely a move by Apple to get OSS help in developing its own operating system, and Dragonfly is aimed at scalability.

Compare this with the Linux community, where there are oodles of different distributions - many with only minor differences in architecture or philosophy - in a constant state of flux. Many of the Linux distributions that I have used as my primary OS over the years have all but disappeared (Yggdrasil), and many others appear to be in a state of rapid decline (Slackware).

Again, this is both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, this culture leads to a tremendous amount of exploration and innovation - consider the plethora of package management philosophies you have to choose from in the linux world, or the huge pile of GUI toolkits available to software developers. On the other hand, this leads to a whole mess of duplicated (some would say wasted) effort - consider how many different packages of the same program many software projects have to maintain and how most major distributions roll their own packages of all the most popular software, or how you may find yourself installing several UI libraries (all of which, you must admit, mostly do the exact same thing) in order to use all the applications you want.

The projects that escape this - Mozilla, the Linux kernel, Mono, etc. - mostly do so because they get a lot of corporate backing, which provides a lot of paid developers and business discipline which can exert a degree of control over the swarm of amateur and hobbyist programmers who are constantly coming and going.

Re:Polish

[Peter La Casse]

I think it's a matter of the "90/90" rule; the first 90% is the fun part, and the second 90% is the not fun part.

Re:Polish

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox is simple, easy to use (due to users often previous experience with IE), and has a slick logo.

The reason why Linux hasn't made it into the forefront is because it has a way of functioning differently than Windows. If there was a distro that replicated Windows down to Clippy, it would become extremely popular.

Re:Polish

[QuantumG]

All the BSDs are operating systems. Linux is just a kernel. The reason why there are a large number of "linux distributions" is because you can do a heck of a lot with a kernel.

Re:Polish

[daVinci1980]

Mod parent up. This is *exactly* the reason.

The first 90% is all of the fun stuff. Database access, rendering engines, networking layers...

The last 90% is all of the unsexy stuff. UI layout, tweaking and bugfixing. Pesky user complaints. That one case that violates the rule. Then the other case that violates the rule. Then ...

Re:Polish

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people tend to go on about this. It might not be happening as fast as you want, but it happens a lot. Look at how much time gnome has spent trying to make the gui easy to use etc.
And in KDE (disclaimer - i'm a kde developer) we spend a large amount of time on such things. Just the time spent on icons alone must be pretty damn high - and it shows. The large amount of time has been spent on reducing context menus in konqueror and so on. Please point out in kde some area of 'boring tasks' that isn't being worked on, and fairly enthusastically.

Re:Polish

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the Linux distributions that I have used as my primary OS over the years have all but disappeared (Yggdrasil), and many others appear to be in a state of rapid decline (Slackware).

How is Slackware in a state of decline? It's as good, if not better as it's always been. I prepared to accept that there other distributions that are better than Slackware for certain niches, but that hardly means that Slackware is in decline; the law of relativity non-withstanding.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but your statement sounds like an opinion and I would like you to justify it. If only because it will furnish us, the great unwashed, with information that we can use to improve the state of affairs.

Re:Polish

[nathanh]

If you look further back at older projects such as BSD Unix and XFree86, you may notice that there isn't nearly as much of this explosion of forks and competing projects. BSD only has five OSS offspring that I can think of - Free, Open, Net, Darwin, and Dragonfly.

BSDI, SunOS, 386BSD, dozens of others. Though I'm guessing you're only counting BSD offspring that are still "alive".

Compare this with the Linux community, where there are oodles of different distributions - many with only minor differences in architecture or philosophy - in a constant state of flux.

I think that has more to do with the relative sizes of the communities. Linux has significantly greater numbers of users and developers. I think projects would fork sooner if software was easier to write. However software isnt easy to write so forks occur at a rate in proportion to the number of highly skilled developers. I saw this also with XFree86/Xorg. It wasn't that forks weren't desired long before the Xorg split but rather that there were very few developers with sufficient talent to sustain a fork. Fortunately the leads on the Xorg split are two of the best X developers that ever existed.

On one hand, this culture leads to a tremendous amount of exploration and innovation -

I also see it as good for survival. History is littered with the corpses of software that chose the wrong path at the wrong time. The flexibility of Linux means that it exists in every niche at once. If one niche dries up, Linux will continue to thrive in any of the other 100s of niches.

Re:Polish

[mav[LAG]]

Dead right, except when it comes to games - amusingly so given your .sig :) - it's more like 20% is the fun stuff and the other 120% is grind: resource management, user interfaces, reusable frameworks, in-house replacements for standard library functions that don't quite cut it, gameplay polish and so on.

Having looked at a couple of commercial game engines in detail, I reckon maybe only 10% is the fun stuff - the rest is the necessary admin.

Re:Polish

[njh]

Well, off you go!

Re:Polish

[asciiRider]

Dude - you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Extra Mile? These folks have gone THOUSANDS OF EXTRA miles - and there are plenty of polished products that ship, you may have heard of some of them:

-GNU/Linux
-Apache
-MySql, PostgreSql, Firebird
-KDE/Gnome
-GCC,Perl,Python,PHP
-Samba ,rsync,wine

Do you really believe that the folks that write this software get excited about animated icons? Those folks work at Apple, and they have their place. They have their own customer too, who pays them for this polish.

Smart people don't get excited about stupid eye candy software for stupid users. There are simply too many interesting projects.

Did I say that out loud?

Re:Polish

[Zoxed]

Because most people users/coders are happy with good-enough. It is simply not worth the amount of effort, unless you want to sell to Mac users :-)

Hell: we have a whole generation that thinks it is normal to keep re-booting the whole PC to perform simple tasks (eg installing new s/w).

Re:Polish

[Bastian]

Linux may be a kernel, but linux distributions are operating systems.

It turns out that all the BSD babies have kernels as well.

Linux distributions can all run pretty much the same software, and in many ways all the major linux distros are far more similar to each other than the various BSDs are to each other.

I think what I'm trying to say is, I really have no idea what you're trying to get at, here.

Re:Polish

[Bastian]

Relativity is pretty much my basis for saying Slack is in decline.

When I started using Linux back in the mid-late '90s, Slackware was _THE_ distribution.

Nowadays, while Slackware is still going strong in its own right, but not too many people actually use it. I think I'm the only one I know who still does.

Re:Polish

[QuantumG]

The point is that it's all about management. *BSD shoves all the code for the entire operating system into CVS and restricts who can commit to it. Linux distributions are a mixture of lots of different projects to create a coherent whole. With that kind of culture, obviously there's going to be lots of different distributions.

Re:blah blah blah Microsoft sux blah blah blah

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, it sure sucks to be you, doesn't it?

Lead Users

[pyrrhonist]

In his new book, von Hippel, discusses how open source projects draw on the creativity of "lead users," who are often ahead of the curve on technology and marketplace trends.

I'm made of copper, you insensitive clod!

Re:Lead Users

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad pyrrhonist, no bisket!

horrible pun....

Re:Lead Users

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a copper in our midst, guys. Quiet!

Or it can just be the numbers

[houghi]

There are a lot of OS projects. Just look at sourceforge. The when there is something interesting, people are ABLE to join. If you do not think it is interesting, you leave it alone.

A lot of FOSS projects never reach version 0.2

Also every normal maner is able (or at least should be able) to tell you that if you have a project and you give some of it out to those who need to work with that project, they will be your best advertisers and your cheapest ideatank of that project.

So instead of saying we are going to be a more secure company ask everybody How can we become a more secure company and we would like you to lead this with our help. The difficult part is to listen to those who do not have the functions but do have the idea.

Everybody who ever went to some basic teambuilding session or weekend will be able to tell you why and how.

Re:Or it can just be the numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

"A lot of FOSS projects never reach version 0.2"

So perhaps the topic should be "Why open source sometimes works".

Why does open source work?

[showardkid]

Simple. Because it is written in the interest of getting software written, and not in the interest of promoting a public agenda (at least, most of the time - there are exceptions). Corporate America has more money to spare for advertising, and because they want you to see things their way: rather than letting you configure things with your goals in mind, you have to configure them with DRM, activation, and proprietary formats in mind. Now, open source comes at things from a different angle - they design things saying, "We'll let you configure it yourself - you get full control." The only problem here is that configuration is often all manual, via cryptic configuration files. So why does open source work? Simply because it gives the user what the user wants, even though the user has to work more for it. Why does the GPL work? Because it allows software to be free as in speech, but does not force it to be free as in price.

Re:Why does open source work?

[kz45]

Simply because it gives the user what the user wants, even though the user has to work more for it.

users don't want to work more for anything. They just want it to work. This is why linux is still not fully mainstreamed.

Because it allows software to be free as in speech, but does not force it to be free as in price.

it might be free as in speech, but this does in fact force it to be free as in price. GNU software requires all source to be open. There is nothing stopping someone from 1) re-compiling the source code for free or 2) re-distributing the binaries for free. It's human nature (take p2p as an example): free will win over something that costs money.

right now, the reason people are starting to use open source is simply because it's free. Not free as in speech, but free as in money (or less than Microsoft).

Re:Why does open source work?

[showardkid]

That's more or less what I said (or was it meant?): Linux is for those who want to put time in for their freedom of choice.

You do have a point about recompiling software, but most people don't know anything about compiles (and not all distros have people waiting to redistribute for free).

Re:MIT

[AvantLegion]

>> PLEASE, can we get some opinions from some other schools please. There is nothing this professor is saying that hasn't already been said a thousand times on slashdot.

Indeed. Quotes from my professors that are regularly on Slashdot:

"In our discussion on type systems last session, we noted that, in Soviet Russia, systems type YOU!"

"A lambda term is in normal form if it contains neither a redex nor hot grits."

"In Korea, only old people use the nameless lambda calculus."

"An ALU may consist of an adder, a block carry circuit, an input circuit, ?????, and profit."

SI units please:

[Truth_Quark]

From chapter 1:

Estimated OLS function: Y = 2.06 + 0.57x, where Y represents attractiveness of innovation and x represents lead-user-ness of respondent. Adjusted R2 = 0.281; p = 0.002; n = 30.

WTF???!!

Re:SI units please:

[UlfGabe]

i believe that is an attempt to relate the innovation of a project to the amount of "leaderness" in respondants to a survey

n=30 //30 people surveyed(sample size)

p=.002 //poisson something? (i don't know this one)

adjusted r2 is the correlation coeffiecient between leaderness and percieved innovation, (closer to one is better, more of a relationship)

adjusted stands for removing outliers (data points which are not like the others by a significant margin)

y=2.06+.57x is just a least squares attempt to correlate the data into a linear function. //end school

Re:SI units please:

[TrashGod]

Possible interpretations:
Adjusted: after eliminating the outliers and trolls:-)
R2 = 0.281: a measure of the correlation between x & Y; modest in this case.
p = 0.002: a measure fo the probability that this result occurred by chance; very small.
n = 30: thirty respondents were included.

Re:SI units please:

[Truth_Quark]

I was really after the SI units for "attractiveness of innovation" and "lead-user-ness".

The data was collected by a reference paper, but I do wonder what the international standard of lead-user-ness is. For the projects in the study lead-user-ness ranges from 5 to 14 on a continuous scale.

I have felt for some time that "attractiveness" should be measured in Helen-of-Troys out of a possible maximum of 1000 ships - perhaps a supset of this scale could be used for "attractiveness of innovation". Maybe out of 1000 of those little wind-generators on the mast.

The issus with this is the standardization of those little generators. If you use a modern, smaller one, you only get y = 1.32 + .23x - with smaller coefficients if you have a generator with solar capability.

We said this years ago

[klipsch_gmx]

(and we'll probably have to keep saying it for another three years)

The innovators have spoken, and they like what they saw.

Now the volume will pick up, as more people take notice, and the ease-of-learning continues to grow in leaps and bounds. As businesses start deploying Linux on the workstation for cost competitive advantage and security competitive advantage, there will be more demand of open-source integration - and more open-source programming jobs.

Then come the hordes that are the mainstream users and late adopters. Oh how I hope the Linux community is actually ready for this.

Re:We said this years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Warning: troll.

Re:MIT

[katana]

Anyone else absolutely sick of MIT?

Yes. Harvard.

Microsoft helping open source

[klipsch_gmx]

(and we'll probably have to keep saying it for another three years)

The innovators have spoken, and they like what they saw.

Now the volume will pick up, as more people take notice, and the ease-of-learning continues to grow in leaps and bounds...as businesses start deploying Linux on the workstation for cost competitive advantage and security competitive advantage, there will be more demand of open-source integration -- and more open-source programming jobs.

Then come the hordes that are the mainstream users and late adopters. Oh how I hope the Linux community is actually ready for this.

Re:Microsoft helping open source

[Anonymous Coward]

Warning: troll.

Re:Microsoft helping open source

[AussieVamp2]

as in urpmi ... server not available apt-get ... timeout if number of users rapidly quadruples o something?

Problem-Your work is "evil".

[Anonymous Coward]

"the F/OSS world has a shortage of artists. why is this? maybe they have enough to do without contributing to open source projects? i'm not sure."

Try hanging around a Copyright/Patents/Trademark "content providers are evil", Slashdot thread sometime for a clue.*

*Or just look in the "/." archives for when this was asked last time.

Want to know how? Just ask M$

[klipsch_gmx]

Microsoft has helped the Open source revolution happen.

Look at the UI. Look at the applications. The basic look and feel hasn't changed significantly since 1995. Almost every new technology "innovation" has been either bought or copied (poorly) by Microsoft.

OSS' growth has been more viral, more grassroots, more innovative than the top-down "we know better than you" approach that Microsoft has successfully imposed on its users in the last 5 years. It is with this suppression of innovation that Microsoft has directly spawned and contributed to the open-source revolution!

On another note, after 10 years on Wintel, I switched to Macintosh recently. After 5 minutes inside of OSX, I experienced more innovation and creativity than I had on Windows for as long as I can recall.

Thank-you Microsoft for helping me switch to truly useable applications.

Re:MIT

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard they exist because not everyone can go to CalTech.

fp

[Anonymous Coward]

first post?

Re:fp

[Anonymous Coward]

this has to be one of the saddest FP attempts ever.

Tommorow your mom will make you eat your keyboard

I guess I missed the "Open Source" part

[Liquidrage]

I RTFA, but I did not RTFB.

The article doesn't appear to anything more then talk of user feedback. Which really isn't open or closed source specific.

For example FTFA:
Boeing Co., for example, solicits feedback from its airline customers on new jumbo jet configurations and is heavily involved with its machine tool suppliers on the design of new production equipment. ''What you see is economic activity shifting to the side of use," von Hippel said.

The medical example is similar. Passengers aren't using Boeing's Open Source Jet to modify their own. Instead, Boeing is *gasp* taking into account passenger feedback. Likewise, suppliers for Boeing are, *gasp*, listening to Boeing.

The one part that gets into the area at least is:
"The social efficiency of a system in which individual innovations are developed by individual users is increased if users somehow diffuse what they have developed to others,"

Which I agree with. But the examples given weren't up that alley. Furthermore, I think a vast majority of organizations leverage software that is open source because it's free, not because they care for the source. I know we have pieces of OSS no one is *allowed* to touch. Ever. We didn't get it to modify, we got it because it worked. If we had to modify it we would'nt have used it. Of course, not everyone is in this situation. And not all OSS I have is like that. And that does leave us the choice, which is good even if now we don't touch it. But I think a vast majority of developer OSS use is Free Software they won't ever touch. I think the true use of the Source in Open Source is the exception, not the norm.

The book might be more "Open Sourcey". I'll wait for the movie.

Silly ...

[angel'o'sphere]

Many people still have difficulty understanding why open source software projects are successfull.


And I have difficulties to understand why people with such difficulties ask themselves such questions?

Come on. Everybody likes to stay in the light and say: look what have I done!

Regarding successfull open source projects: they are not really commercial successful, but merely successfull software project.

One reason why they are successfull is: now they can be done. 20 years ago they could not be done.

Now we have internet and remote version controll systems (CVS via SSH or pserver).

Before that existed it was HARD. Now its easy.

20 years ago, a student did not hava a computer. Now you can say most poeple in age bwtween 16 and 46 have one.

Open source or free software triggers more open source. Without FAIB compilers, operation systems, IDEs, editors most contributors could not even conribute. Because they could not afford a development platform.

For me the current situation is very natural. I wonder why anybody is so stupid to wonder about that.

angel'o'sphere

Did any mod actually read the linked pdf paper?

[Anonymous Coward]

The pdf paper isn't particularly informative, in fact it's redundant because you can find most of the information on the web, and the business plan suggested in the paper is completely one dimensional and is based around total cost of ownership. Real world business models are way more complex. The ones written by Michael E. Porter for an example.

Anyone thinking this is informative should gain some critical thinking and/or business skills.

Re:Did any mod actually read the linked pdf paper?

[siokaos]

This isn't a paper, it's notes from a presentation. A presentation for a writing class, you clod.

Re:Did any mod actually read the linked pdf paper?

[Rick and Roll]

Well it's an interesting overview with interesting quotes.

Most information in computer books can be found on the web, but does that mean I don't buy any computer books?

Hell no.

Re:Did any mod actually read the linked pdf paper?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GP poster is correct. Yes it's classroom NOTES on a open source & business thread and it's modded INFORMATIVE when in fact it isn't informative at all.

You may be informative from the perspective of mods because you posted early but all that shows is the mods didn't read the presentation and that you may be trying to score karma. The information contained in the presentation is made up of a very weak business model and is filled with a half hearted attempt at business analysis.

Re:Did any mod actually read the linked pdf paper?

[Pinefresh]

Do you really feel the need to cut some guy down? Or was this a troll. If it was, bravo, you certainly pissed me off.

Re:Did any mod actually read the linked pdf paper?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GP certainly was blunt and lacks a bit of tact. However, IMO, he's right in pointing out the article isn't informative. It seems that certain mods jumped in on this guy and mod'd him up either too early or didn't read the link.

Re:Did any mod actually read the linked pdf paper?

[siokaos]

Elements.

Not analysis.

Re:Did any mod actually read the linked pdf paper?

[Anonymous Coward]

Elements. Not analysis.

Allow me to interject here as guy currently doing his MBA.

A component of business analysis is breaking up the bigger picture into elements. So your semantic argument falls short.

That is all.

Scratching an itch-Bleed a victum.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Half the secret of encouraging innovation is just to stay out of the way. That's a lot easier with open source than with proprietary products."

The other half is telling them "write it yourself" when they complain about the software. That too is easier with open source, compared to proprietary products.

Re:Scratching an itch-Bleed a victum.

[Dwonis]

The other half is telling them "write it yourself" when they complain about the software. That too is easier with open source, compared to proprietary products.

Part of the reason for that is that any teenager can complain and make half-baked "suggestions", even if they barely have any idea of what they're talking about (written by Yours Truly over 4 years ago).

I think if the "write it yourself" attitude completely disappeared, there would be no large open-source projects, because all the developers would burn out due to frustration. :-)

What does "lead users" have to do with open source

[aCapitalist]

The interview had nothing to do with open source.

Proprietary software companies have been using usability studies, feedback systems, beta testers for a long time.

Does anybody remember the whole Gnome/Eugenia/end-user flap? Or how about the bounty system that was rejected by KDE developers?

There must be a big myth that open source end-users have more influence with open source projects. In fact, if they don't code they probably have less influence than with proprietary products because there is less of an incentive for a developer to bend his vision, since it's all about "scratching an itch" anyway.

I'm not saying that developers don't listen, it's just that I don't see anything special about end-users of open source projects.

OSS is a double edged sword

[pg110404]

Suppose microsoft for example maintains tight control of their development environment for windows, they can fall victim of their own success and soon, the OS is so bloated and buggy, no one can maintain it and eventually, you have the soggy mess that is XP. I don't know how many developers maintain it, but it might be only in the thousands.

Linux for example is fully open source and no one has the remotest monopoly on it. Anyone can add/edit/modify as they see fit, although a select group of individuals maintain the official and primary source. Given that in any reasonably large population of users, the number of competent developers looking at the code are able to find and report/fix those bugs. It should not be an unfair assumption to estimate that figure to be in the hundreds of thousands.

As far as the OS is concerned, I strongly believe that open source is essential. No one has strict control of it and thus the product improves because it is freely available to be modified for the greater good, not the whim of some evil empire out to control, dominate and maintain a monopoly.

To me, that is where the line should stop. I have no problem with closed source software maintained and sold by a corporate entity and for the most part, is necessary as developers like me have to eat like everyone else. While open source software can be beneficial, trying to sell the whole world on the greater benefit of open source as oposed to closed source is like the double edged sword and can cut both ways.

While I also prefer open source software for things like media players, utilties, etc, not everything need be. Games and special purpose applications for example, while possibly maintaining open standards, to me are better off as closed source projects. If the platform it runs on is an open standard and the files created by it are open standard, then a potential competitor can come along and make a better product on their own that works as good if not better than the original, and to me, that's where true innovation comes from.

Suppose windows was free open sourced and everyone could contribute to making it more stable/secure, there would be no special advantage of one company v.s. another to make an office suite that runs on it and the one that is truly less buggy and more feature rich and more secure is the one that ultimately wins. While the grand notion of developers working on an open source project for the sake of the art will either turn them into a 'starving artist', eventually making them feel jaded or unappreciated or they'll not do it at all become a corporate whore doing something else for pay. Either way, after a while, the gains of such a project may not be as great as one that generates revenue.

All I'm saying is that while OSS may very well work, I advise caution in its widespread adoption.

Re:OSS is a double edged sword

[Anonymous Coward]

An untouched issue, though is the fact that I want to access my data in a non-propriety manner. So far most closed software may import open data, but is encodes it and tries to lock you into their proprietory format, which they dont want you to break free from.

Re:OSS is a double edged sword

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense! Open Source and Free Software follow the scientific method. Many business people have never heard of this, or only have some vague notion of what it is. Medical Science (and chemistry, physics, biology and other sciences) have followed this for Millenia (somewhere between 3 and 4). It's proven succesful for all those thousands of years. There is no 'communism' about it. Open Source developers earn and eat very well thank you. While it's true that OSS/Free Software caters to the masses first and foremost, it can do niche markets too. Innovation ultimately comes from people. The only difference between innovation in a non-corporate setting and innovation in a corporate setting is that in a corporate setting, someone will come along and ask the developer to justfy their time or quit (at the very least slowing them down), outright telling them to quit (and making them), getting in the way with arbitrary mandated (stupid) ideas, or taking the project from them, giving it to an incompetent 'bosses pet' and watching it die from stupidity. Do you really think you would act differently if you knew you were publishing under a different licence (apart from making sure silly programming hacks didn't get put in, and the code looked polished so that when other people look at it, it doesn't reflect badly on you)?

Re:OSS is a double edged sword

[maxpublic]

I disagree with you here. I have a problem with closed source since unless I implicitly trust the supplier I'm never quite certain what the software is doing. For that reason I very much favor open source over closed source, even though I myself sometimes use closed source software (e.g. Opera).

However, I very much disagree with the 'free software uber alles' folks. I do not think everything has to be GPL'd or dumped into the public domain. I'm firmly with the copyright holder and think the unwashed masses need to shut the fuck up when it comes to something that isn't their property. Mob rule has no place here.

Although I despise MS for a variety of reasons I don't want Windows GPL'd or provided for free. I do, however, want it open source so I can see what the bloody hell is going on in the OS. It's fine if MS doesn't want to GPL, but I personally want to have the option of tearing apart the software on my computer to see how it works and to confirm that it isn't doing something it isn't supposed to.

Open source != free. You can open the source and still keep it for yourself via copyright laws - and protect jobs.

Max

Eric von Hippel's course at MIT

[patiwat]

Eric is a great teacher - I took a graduate course with him on Innovation Management (15.356) a few years ago. The course was recently renamed "How to Develop Breakthrough Products and Services" and is available via MIT's OpenCourseWare at http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Sloan-School-of-Manageme nt/15-356Spring2004/CourseHome/index.htm. The course home page also gives a very brief overview of Eric's lead user concept. It's one of his pet ideas, and although it isn't the sole focus on the course, it certainly is one of the foundations.

The actual class was wonderful: a mix of working scientists and R&D executives, Sloanies and other MIT grad students, and a couple of undergrads sitting in. Lots of student interaction and learning from your peers. The individual project was a good experience as well - I wrote a paper analyzing why Lockheed's X-33 space plane project failed, and what could have been done so that the the technologies developed (autonomous navigation and landing, composite materials, linear aerospike engines, metallic thermal protection system) didn't die with the project. Eric gave lots of guidance and advise on the analysis.

Re:Eric von Hippel's course at MIT

[Scott7477]

Any chance you'd post that paper on the X-33 publicly? I'd be very interested in reading it.

A New Business Model?-Everyone Happy?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ask the customers what they want, then design the product! Actually listen to your customers when they ask for features!"

And you end up with KDE.

Here's the "give'em what they want in action:

"I want a car with tail fins!"

"No I want a car with a bright pink paint job!"

"I want a car that flies through the air, and swims underwater!"

"Foo to the others. I just want a basic car that goes from point A to Point B!"

"Nuts to the above. I want a car with a hot tub, and a wet bar, and plenty of space for all the women I'm going to get by driving this pimpmobile!".

Re:A New Business Model?-Everyone Happy?

[EzInKy]

And you end up with KDE.

And this is bad why? I can build KDE with as few or as many features as I want and configure the UI to my liking through an intuitive and easily accessible interface.

Re:A New Business Model?-Everyone Happy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the "give'em what they want in action:

A lot of viable, profitable brand ideas?

"I want a car with tail fins!"

Sold like hotcakes in the 50s.

"No I want a car with a bright pink paint job!"

Still sell quite well to a certain cosmetics company. :-)

"I want a car that flies through the air, and swims underwater!"

Well, the Rolling Stones sang a song about this one. ;-)

"Foo to the others. I just want a basic car that goes from point A to Point B!"

Commuter cars are so popular, they're a staple within the industry.

"Nuts to the above. I want a car with a hot tub, and a wet bar, and plenty of space for all the women I'm going to get by driving this pimpmobile!".

Limos are also quite popular.

You see, you research the market demand first, then you find points of commonality in the demands, and then you meet the demand.

Step 3: Profit! (no really, profit! What a concept!)

--
AC

Re:A New Business Model?-Everyone Happy?

[ozmanjusri]

Here's the "give'em what they want in action:

"I want a car with tail fins!"

http://www.openvms.org/ Vintage design, looks a bit strange, but still classy in its own way.

"No I want a car with a bright pink paint job!"

http://www.linspire.com/ It's a real Linux and seems to do the job, but it may be a bit soft compared to the trad distros. Looks a little like one of those "strange" OSs

"I want a car that flies through the air, and swims underwater!"

http://www.knoppix.com/ Frisbeed it at the cat. Dunked it in the sink. Dropped it into the CD drive and it still booted into Debian. Nice.

"Foo to the others. I just want a basic car that goes from point A to Point B!"

http://www.goosee.com/puppy/ This is one quick little puppy. Not much to it, but it goes like a train.

"Nuts to the above. I want a car with a hot tub, and a wet bar, and plenty of space for all the women I'm going to get by driving this pimpmobile!".

http://www1.mandrivalinux.com/en-us/ This sucker's big and fluffy. Has everything and the kitchen sink, and it'll look after you while you install it.

could be....

[Tangurena]

There are a lot of academic projects that vanish when the students graduate, or the professors lose funding (or fail to make tenure). Some of them end up as OpenSource. If you read academic research in computer science/engineering, you'll see it is 5 to 30+ years ahead of mainstream commercial development. Add in a nationwide distaste for All Things Educated, and it becomes clear why FOSS is years ahead of commercial stuff.

The nature of the developers

[hellfire]

It's not limited to linux. I've seen several Mac and Windows programs that don't appear to have a lot of polish. Hell, my own company, who happens to have the largest market share of software sales within its niche isn't nearly as polished as some competitors.

So many developers are either simply not experienced in proper structure, or proper GUI design, or they are under pressure by execs or marketing departments to get the project out the door. The important part of the software is does it do what it's supposed to do? Yes? Then ship it.

The type of polish tends to differ. There are plenty of windows and mac apps with bad GUI, but it happens more in the Linux community because the body of developers don't have a deep background in coding GUI interfaces as to Mac or Windows developers. Windows programs tend to have more bugs but the windows environment provides a stable interface usually. Mac apps probably have the best of both worlds (as long as you agree the OS X interface is as good as the OS 9 interface).

Re:The nature of the developers

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you give some examples of "Linux" programmes that have bad GUIs? The only one I ever hear about from others is The GIMP but that suffers from being "not Photoshop" as much as anything else.

I can think of a couple of interfaces I don't particularly like (Adobe Acrobat Reader and Nero off the top of my head) but any "problems" they have aren't show-stoppers by any means. I'd be interested in hearing of some examples from you.

As an aside, I've been using computers for 20 years and apart from initial irritation occasionaly I can honestly say the user interface is the least of my concerns. Why is the user interface a major issue all of a sudden? In particular why is "consistancy" a concern? I don't even understand why this is desirable TBH -- different program, different interface.

Users Aren't Programmers

[Anonymous Coward]

And thus it's not generally possible for "individual innovations" to be "developed by individual users". Users may know what they want, but they have to translate their ideas through a programming team, and so the end user doesn't recally care if the source is open or not. They'll never see it.

The one area where this statement is not true is where programmers happen to be the target audience -- that it, compilers, editors, operatings systems, and so on, plus some ancillary tools that programmers also find useful and interesting, such as web servers and three hundred IM clients. Oddly enough, most of the open source success stories are in just this category, while the success rate in other application areas is much lower.

because they want to do it

[Eternally optimistic]

Open source software is made by a bunch of people who actually want to do the work. Some of it turns out to be good. Perhaps it is not obvious to management types that people can do good work without threat of punishment.

Tech Review seeking tech innovators

[CHESTER COPPERPOT]

From here

Nominations are now open for the TR35, Technology Review's selection of 35 top young innovators whose contributions to emerging technologies will shape the world. Nominees can work in any area of technology, including computing, biotechnology, nanotechnology, energy, medicine, telecommunications, and transportation. Nominees must be under 35 as of October 1, 2005. Technology Review will showcase all 35 in a special October 2005 issue and recognize them at a gala awards ceremony at the Emerging Technologies Conference at MIT on September 28-29.

Re:Want to know how? Just ask M$

[Short Circuit]

Warning: troll.

Mods, he's just telling you what you want to hear.

Re:What does "lead users" have to do with open sou

[benjamindees]

There must be a big myth that open source end-users have more influence with open source projects.

There's more money in OSS than you think. Of course proprietary developers listen to their customers too, but to a lesser extent. The difference is, OSS providers can't hide behind lock-in file formats, obtrusive licenses, and established monopolies if they want to make money. They have to earn it, by listening to users and providing for their needs.

And it's not as easy as a "usability study" would have you believe. It means living with users day in and day out and dealing with all of their problems, not just watching them click a few buttons for a couple of hours and optimizing the menus. A vast majority of the proprietary crap software wouldn't exist if all programmers were forced to then support it from the "hell desk". Fortunately for OSS, many developers *are* supporting end users directly, and code accordingly.

Re:MOD UP! PARENT USED 'M$'!!!1! SO TEH FUNNY!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh? Linux doesn't have a UI. It is a kernel. It doesn't concern itself with the UI.

There are a plethora of window managers out there. They are not directly tied to Linux in any way. Nothing about Linux 'copies' Windows or OS X; that would be the actions of developers of individual window managers.

What does memes have to do with open source?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The difference is, OSS providers can't hide behind lock-in file formats, obtrusive licenses, and established monopolies if they want to make money."

A common meme around here. Just as "All geeks are unwashed". Now how many software products don't fit your meme and are successful? More than you think.

Re:What does memes have to do with open source?

[Anonymous Coward]

successful != high quality

Those lead users tend to be.

[LWATCDR]

Major corporations not "normal" people. Mozilla was pushed by AOL/Netscape. Open Office Sun. Linux has Red Hat, IBM, and many more. Frankly I worry more about the "grass roots" nature of OSS disappearing. As it gains popularity the ratio of leeches to developers gets smaller and smaller. Just look at the number of people that do nothing but complain about this OSS project lacks this or that feature vs people that say "this is cool and if I add this feature it will be even cooler".
For the fast amount of people even those that claim otherwise only care about free as in beer. How many people here have ever ./configure; make; make install much less ever look at the source.

Re:MOD UP! PARENT USED 'M$'!!!1! SO TEH FUNNY!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

So youre one of these "this is the year of linux on the desktop" people when it suits, but when it doesnt suddenly becomes a "linux is only a kernel".

oh i see! windows is an OS and when IE has a vulnerability we bash the stability of windows even though its an application that causes problems, when any userland apps in the linux world have vulnerabilities we cant criticise linux as its only a kernel. but desktop linux is here because suddenly when it suits linux is the whole OS and applications.

i suppose you still criticise outlook for automatically running attachments even though it hasnt done this for a number of years now?

ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux has what? 2% market share on the desktop? Yet we get these articles:
"WHY OPEN SOURCE IS SOOO TEH R0X0R!!!1!!1! THE END OF COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE IS HERE!!!!!!"

Stop congratulating yourselves all the time! Its really pathetic. If you had some large market share then yes but this is just fanboi crap that looks really stupid

Oh, heres another headline:
2005 IS YEAR OF TEH LINUX DESKTOP

Or how about:
WHY OPEN SOURCE IS SO SECURE COMPARED TO CLOSED SOURCE

Or
WHY MY LINUX BOXEN NEVER CRASHES AND ANYONE WHO HAS LINUX CRASH IS TEH LIAR!

Re:ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

[showardkid]

In truth, no one ever said Linux was for the faint of brain. It's about choice, and those who have no capacity or desire to learn and therefore to choose do not need to run Linux. It's those people that demand that their system work for THEM and not Microsoft or some other company that Linux is for.

Re:ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about Linux, but Apache has the majority share of the web server market and is Open Source. Looks like it's working to me.

Re:ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

[indifferent children]

Linux has what? 2% market share on the desktop?

And Apache? Who is going to be the first moron to shout that Apache is the suxors, and OpenSource doesn't work? The Apache Foundation must have gobs of cash to bribe companies to use their software. Such a sucky product has 60+% market share, how criminal!

Re:ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because one (or two or three) projects do well does not mean that all do well. Yes, Apache works. But for every Apache, I can go to SourceForge and show 50 that don't.

The next thing you'll be saying is that because your brother's friend's cousin's sister-in-law's friend doesn't have a CS degree but programs well, no one needs formal CS training and it's a waste of time.

Re:ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

[Sj0]

I'm not understanding why market share matters in this case.

On the other hand, I'm not sure why you think open source has to be Linux.

Users as innovators

[_ph1ux_]

Of course users are innovators. There is no better person to tell you what would be better in an application or interface than people who use the software day-in and day-out.

I am not talking about your average users though, like Grandma etc..

I mean power users. For example, I am an expert at AutoCAD as I have been using it since its inception, and other CAD programs before that. By the time I was in highschool I was teaching other students how to use AutoCAD version 9.

I have made many suggestions to autodesk based on my useage of their app. While I think its incredibly powerful, its only now begining to incorporate some useability "wishlist" items that have been desired for many many years.

I will concede however, that many of these features require the maturity of the application and the savviness of the developers to reach a certain level before being implementable. I also feel that hardware needed to be there - such as good video cards.

Finally, I also feel that we just have not "gotten it" yet with just about every interface. I have yet to use some interface that is entirely smooth and "intuitive" (functioning as I would desire it to function in a manner that feels entirely natural). This is a pretty obvious statement though, and I know that many applications have their shining points.

As an example, there are aspects of AutoCAD that just kick ass over any other application ever used (by me) - and there are aspects of Softimage and Maya as well that are stunningly fluid, while others are exceedingly obtuse.

If I were an application developer who was worth his salt, I would be seeking the most active users of my applications and solicite their feedback to a much greater degree than simply 'Focus Groups'...

Hopefully, I am preaching to the choir.

-phlux

Innovator toolkits - Innovation in Utility

[empedocles]

I found the most interesting part of this article to be the idea of companies using toolkits to sow & gather innovation, deploying innovation-enabling toolkits and then drawing the resulting innovation back to you.

Interesting because that's a method we're trying to develop here at BRINQ for use in the Base of the Pyramid, the designation for 4+ billion of the so-called "poor" living in the base of the global economic pyramid.

The heart of our work is the belief that different cultures, different perspectives, lead to novel and unique innovations. So our focus is less on innovation in technology and more on what we were calling "innovation in utility", or the novel and unexpected ways in which people use technology. It takes very different capabilities than discovering innovation in a lab, aka it's the opposite of the Segway approach.

Any ways, more or less the same idea as von Hippel's user centered innovation (or "market pull"), but focusing on the poor as a source of innovation. Definitely lots of challenges, but we believe the opportunities could be huge. Our primary focus is on toys too!

Gee could it be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee could it be that the design process follows closely the scientific method (a continuous self-correcting feedback cycle) for both innovation and bug resolution with peer review and rapid publication followed by feedback and repair/redesign? Could it be that the idea of hoarding information ala software patents was tried from roughly A.D. 500 to A.D. 1400 commonly known as the "Dark Ages" when neeto stuff like Alchemy ruled, and thousands upon thousands tried turning whatever into gold. Any real progress got treated as a state secret, no information got shared, everyone got past the first steps, and subsequent generations followed the same innovations as their forefathers because there was no means of passing innovation forward (gee like modern patents) resulting in a stalled innovation/development process. Go ahead, open your window and shout "Alchemy is better than yukky Chemistry"!! Sharing information is wrong, wrong wrong! Leaches *CAN* cure dropsy! When people ask for proof or want to see how your magical medicine show cures are made, shout "not on your life", but ya know, make sure to tell 'em that your magical cures will save theirs... well it might ya know! Just make sure not to visit the same town twice....

Users Aren't Programmers-Yet!

[Anonymous Coward]

"And thus it's not generally possible for "individual innovations" to be "developed by individual users". Users may know what they want, but they have to translate their ideas through a programming team, and so the end user doesn't recally care if the source is open or not. They'll never see it."

http://www.acypher.com/wwid/

"Today, we have windowed interfaces everywhere, and even a number of iconic object-construction kits. We have macro capture systems of every kind, and scripting languages. But we don't have "end-user programming". Nor do we have "programming by example"."
[Alan Kay]

Mac vs Wintel

[falconwolf]

On another note, after 10 years on Wintel, I switched to Macintosh recently. After 5 minutes inside of OSX, I experienced more innovation and creativity than I had on Windows for as long as I can recall.

I was almost the opposite, I used mostly MacOS for years. I did use Windoze 3.x a little, as that's what my programming classes used. But even then I still used Macs more. After about 10 years I ended up getting Windows, NT (and Linux)on a DEC Alpha from Microway, and have used mostly Windows since. Now, to the right of the computer I using now, an HP w/ME I've got my DEC Alpha, and to the left is a PowerMac w/MacOS 7. The next computer I plan on getting now is a 17" Powerbook Mac. I'm wondering if I should have it dual boots with Linux or use BSD. In general, while I prefer Macs, I'm used to using Windows Explorer. I don't know if I could do some of the things with Explorer using Finder.

Falcon

As usual

[Anonymous Coward]

OSS Zealots talk out of their asses. OSS, with the exception of FreeBSD, is a steaming pile of some of the shittiest code ever written, and LinSux zealots everywhere are stark raving mad social dropouts with a sweaty, precarious grip on reality

I find it amusing....

[Ponzicar]

that this professor is just one dyslexic capitalist away from being dubbed "Von Hippie".

Users as Inventors? This not a new idea?

[ryan76]

Isn't this like in the opening statement of ESRs The Cathedral and the Bazaar?

More feedback in open source

[EmbeddedJanitor]

I think there's more honest feedback in open source-land. Firstly, people generally get an email address of an actual developer (how many Outlook programmers addresses do you have?).

The users and the programmers both feel part of a community rather thatn the screwer and the screwee.People will give honest feedback when they feel part of the action.

IMHO, one big defect in the GPL is that it does not protect the rights of the testers and others who put in the hard yards to change a bunch of lines of code into real useful software.

Re:More feedback in open source

[zero_offset]

one big defect in the GPL is that it does not protect the rights of the testers and others who put in the hard yards to change a bunch of lines of code into real useful software

What rights do you believe are being infringed upon?

Double edged swords

[MichaelPenne]

hmm, didn't they pretty much replace single edged swords?:-)

there would be no special advantage of one company v.s. another to make an office suite that runs on it and the one that is truly less buggy and more feature rich and more secure is the one that ultimately wins.

But that isn't how has to work, instead corps that use the software hire programmers to work on the software to keep making it better. Since the corp's business model is in using the software not in making the sofware, it's in the corp's advantage to keep improving it: then corps compete on the strength of their actual products while the software that enables their business model keeps getting more secure, more feature rich, etc. See Google's investment in Firefox, IBM's investment in PHP, etc. for example.

More corp. IT $$ can then be freed from continually patching buggy software products and chasing down the damage they cause to improving the software and helping users learn to use it more effectively.

There need be no net loss of programming jobs, in fact since we would all be involved in making better software (instead of just good enough for marketing to sell), most programmers would probably see a net improvement in their worth to their employers and their self worth.

Re:Double edged swords

[pg110404]

That's a very good point I hadn't considered.

Is there a size-of-company point at which this no longer holds? I doubt small sized companies would be capable or willing to hire a programmer to do something like that and rather simply use the product as it is - that is if the software is GPL or something.

I was referring more to the microsofts of the world whose software developed IS their product, not the tools used allowing them to make their product. I may be out to lunch, but I would say that once most companies that use software to run their business find a set of tools that work, they stop making that particular investment and focus on making their products.

In this case, the programming jobs over time would level off, perhaps even drop. Only the larger companies (like IBM, google, etc) with more petty cash than most people make in a year would have enough resources to keep such programmers on year after year, and while it might make sense from the perspective of large companies to hire programmers to write or improve upon software like firefox or php which they use internally, those smaller businesses essentially get to use it for free.

I don't really know economics, but I believe the strength of the economy (on any scale) depends on the concept of 'make work'. When retail stores for example don't spend money buying software they need but download FOSS or perhaps OSS and use it without paying for it, the people who would otherwise have written that software get laid off and don't have the money to buy the product sold by those retail stores.

Re:MIT

[zerocool^]

You think that's bad? Wait 'till your astrophysics professor starts talking about the possibility of homosexual africans developing space travel...

Why OSS works...

[Anonymous Coward]

von Hippel, discusses how open source projects draw on the creativity of ''lead users," who are often ahead of the curve on technology and marketplace trends.

He's right, but he 'lead user' tends to be companies with deep pockets. Gnome and KDE are ripoffs of the Windows interface. Open Office doesn't blaze any new trails, choosing instead to mimic MS Office. So too are FreeCiv, FreeCol, and FreeOrion ripoffs of someone else's work.

I'm not saying there aren't true pioneers involved in open source, just that they are few and far between. However, most OSS tends to be cheap copies of better originals; like a cubic zirconium is of a diamond.

Proprietary technology causes this problem

[argoff]

In a normal world the software that is well designed, would also be a very pretty and asthetic too. But we don't live in a normal world, we live in a world where people try to controll information and try to force "ownership" like it is physical property.

In this kind of world, it is in financial best interest of proprietary software companies to expeidate what looks good at the expense of what is good - wether it be good as in engineering, design, security, or good as in just plain ole freedom (eg the freedom to copy without being legally assulted)

One example, when UNIX was no longer free to copy, innovation in the X-windows gui space came to a schreaching halt, and then when linux came onto the scene with a free license - it picked right back up again. That growth rate will eventually blow away apple too.

The 80-20 rule

[syousef]

Basically it's boring and expensive and hard work to polish a product.

If something is open source it's usually also free as in beer. It may take a hell of a lot of work to get it to the point where it's a good open source product. Unfortunately that last 20% of the work to polish it off takes 80% of the effort. Most of the time by the time you have a good product there's no one left willing to pay for it to be polished off. The developers themselves also lose interest: After all they could be making a small fortune doing something similar elsewhere, but they do it under the open source model for a variety of reasons - obviously they're usually more motivated by interest than money.

D'oh !

[Anonymous Coward]

And I thought open-source was good because it was free ...

*Has a Homer Simpson moment*

Redhat should have done that before Apple..

[xtal]

I often think about this very topic...if someone or someones would come along and put the pedal to the medal on polishing those things off, Linux would become one hell of a competitor.


Redhat had enough money to do what apple did for BSD.. In a way, apple is the perfect company to put that polish on - it's what they do. I'm not sure there's a place anymore for a polished desktop UNIX the way there was a place for it in, say, 1997.

It certainly is what Linux needs to smash onto the x86 desktop. People seem to get too caught up on Holy Wars (tm) to make this one happen though. Maybe I'm wrong - but I'm writing this on a powerbook, too, and in 1997 I was one of those point-and-laugh at mac types.

But again

[Anonymous Coward]

A small company that has a good programmer to make the OSS product works better for THEM will have a competitive edge over other small businesses.

This will make programmer jobs MORE sought after so as not to lose the competitive edge.

"OSS will be the death of paid programmers" my arse.

Ta.

Walmarting of IT.

[Anonymous Coward]

"There need be no net loss of programming jobs, in fact since we would all be involved in making better software (instead of just good enough for marketing to sell), most programmers would probably see a net improvement in their worth to their employers and their self worth."

Problem is that "better" is both relative, and not infinate. In fact it obeys the "law of diminishing returns". Could there be a loss of jobs? Yes, and that's an issue of efficiency. Just like other professions have lost jobs due to greater efficiency. Why have five guys working on FOSS, when four will do just as well? Plus the nature of software means that a cheaper indian, could do the same as a more expensive american. Even if they work for the same company. The bottom is easier to reach with F/OSS because one of it's goals is to make software a commodity.

no way

[cg0def]

I hope there isn't any one out there that still believes that users drive anything in OSS projects. There are very very few projects out there where the developers ask some of the users for design ideas and features that they would like to see incorporated. The rule in OSS is that the developers drive the software and that users usually have no say what happens. Now this is different from closed source corporate environment in the way that there you have managers making decissions and de people that end up writing the software usually do not have a say in what happens. It is not really as grim as this but you get the picture.

Blaming others causes this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"In a normal world the software that is well designed, would also be a very pretty and asthetic too. But we don't live in a normal world, we live in a world where people try to controll information and try to force "ownership" like it is physical property."

Funny thing about this "normal" world. People need to eat. And the law of "diminishing returns" applies. Guess that's why in spite of the millions of years we've been around. We still haven't created a utopia.

"One example, when UNIX was no longer free to copy, innovation in the X-windows gui space came to a schreaching halt, and then when linux came onto the scene with a free license - it picked right back up again. That growth rate will eventually blow away apple too."

Utopialand: Most unrealistic place on earth.

Re:Blaming others causes this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny thing about this "normal" world. People need to eat. And the law of "diminishing returns" applies. Guess that's why in spite of the millions of years we've been around. We still haven't created a utopia.

Funny thing is that in a normal services and support have a natural limit in supply and demand, information doesn't. So when people controll information, the average creator gets screwed at the expense of the very very few that make it big and consolidate controll over that information.

not abandoned

[midgley]

perhaps commoditised

Re:What does "lead users" have to do with open sou

[JohnFluxx]

I'm a kde developer, and want to reply regarding the bounty system..

It was rejected because the developers weren't convinced it would have a positive impact, and pointed out there is no reason why the bounty system couldn't be implemented outside of KDE. Anyone could setup a website for a bounty system for kde apps. But the kde developers themselves did not feel the hassle and difficulty in trying to such a system working was worthwhile. (And there's a lot of subtleties involved. Imagine one user does 90% of the work, and another does the final 10% and finishes it off - who gets the money?). The issue was discussed for ages and ages, trying to find a way it could work.

This is a case of the developers being whole heartedly cooperative with the users, but deciding in the end that a 3rd party needs to do it instead, or some sort of proof of concept.
That's a far cry from users not having influence.

"open source" has a blind side

[garote]

As I said: No Internet, no Linux. No internet, no Open Source Software in general.

The keystone of open source projects is their appeal to previously anonymous contributors, and without the Internet, they could not be anonymous. They'd be part of a users' group, a lab, a company, a readership -- even if they were all just customers at the same coffee shop, there would be no reason for them not to form a body and take legal ownership of their work, and seek compensation for distributing it.

This also explains why, to wired-up geek collectives like the slashdot crowd, the world appears lethargic in its adoption of open-source tactics. We forget that a big chunk of what could be called "the software industry" doesn't give two shits about the internet (except perhaps as an extra storefront).

Embedded-systems developers, coders for proprietary gaming consoles, DoD contractors, and wranglers of copyrighted databases like navigational systems and medical data -- many companies in these areas have only a tenuous connection to the internet, and very little interest in making their code publicly available. Many of them work within specs that are provided to them under strict NDA. An open-source approach is worse than useless for them.

The truth is, open-source isn't a "movement", spreading from one company to another. It's an "attractor", drawing in projects that are suited to the approach, drawing in developers with idle hands and a keen interest, from the corners of the internet. Some companies have the projects and the connectivity to go this route, others don't.

It's all about motivation...

[elFisico]

Why is OSS often better than commercial software? Because it is written by people who write it for themself. Think about it, most of the programmers at large companies are bound to do it for the money. Even if the project is technologically challenging and provides good hack-value, money is still high on the list of priorities.

But a lot of OSS started out because a person had a problem, solved it to her own satisfaction and then donated it to the public. And/or developed it further.

So think what type of software will be beter on the overall: the one written to get your paycheck or the one to solve your own problem to your own satisfaction?

Re:It's all about motivation...

[smithberry]

The idea that OSS is always better than commercial software just isn't true. There _are_ OSS projects that are better than any commercial equivalent but it is not always true.

Many OSS projects start with great ideas but fail to progress past version 0.2 because there is insufficient interest, either because there are other similar projects going or there are sufficient cheap-enough commercial projects or because the OSS projects fails to attract sufficient talent or the problem being solved is not important enough to anyone.

As you say where someone starts out to solve a problem which is important to them the project will often succeed. But it ain't always so.

I'm not knocking OSS: I use Mozilla, OpenOffice, and lots more on a day to day basis. But I'm not so blind that I can't see that there are a whole raft of projects which are left incomplete.

Re:It's all about motivation...

[elFisico]

The idea that OSS is always better than commercial software just isn't true.

I'm not talking absolutes...

Still, most OSS that gets off the ground (i.e. gets some following and manages to get a cooperation set up) can compare positively with commercial software, meaning that lack in features or user interface are not so severe that the price difference argument doesn't hold. :-)

Many OSS projects start with great ideas but fail to progress past version 0.2 because there is insufficient interest, either because there are other similar projects going or there are sufficient cheap-enough commercial projects or because the OSS projects fails to attract sufficient talent or the problem being solved is not important enough to anyone.

This is right. And IMHO this is good, because it's evolution in action. And that won't be seen in commercial projects often...

Re:It's all about motivation...

[smithberry]

As to your last point I confess I don't know- wonder what ratio of commercial projects fail compared to the ratio for OSS? I'm sure most commercial products don't last more than a few years unless they have some merit. Or are called Windows ;-)

What's this got to do with OSS?

[samael]

My company uses users in exactly this way - each of the develoment teams in our area has a business person working with them. They might well be doing other things as well, but the important thing is that when we have questions about how something should work, they're sitting there at the desk able to help, provide ideas, etc. It works amazingly well.

For more info on it, see here

Re: this argument is false

[BitterAndDrunk]

And it's repeated all the time on /.

The argument is essentially that the UI for Microsoft products is also counterintuitive, and has similar problems to the linux GUI offerings.

There's also the idea that "lack of innovation" in Microsoft is why the UI has remained consistent.
This is also untrue. There are innovations between each suite of Microsoft Office products; some of them aren't the hottest (the extended clipboard is extremely cumbersome to anyone who's a hotkey copy/paster like myself) but nonetheless they are innovations.

Way back before I even knew about Linux I read about the Microsoft Office suite strategy - and one of the primary goals was a consistent UI that allowed an end-user to learn the UI of one Office app and by extension have a fair understanding of the remainder of the applications in the suite.
And frankly, they've done a wonderful job on that. Sure, there's tons of issues with the Office suite; Word has annoying bullet bugs, and tends to inherit properties from the pages you delete, applying them to the remainder of the document. There are template issues as well that can cause massive headaches. I hate using the product for documentation and would prefer using Textpad, but the Corporate Masters which pay me like pretty documents. Word is reasonable at that, and to the Corporate Masters it's the only game in town.

The crux of your argument is that the poor UI design of Microsoft has caused the shift to Linux, and I'd say that can never be the reason. The UI is no more intuitive than Microsoft. People who have grown up with Microsoft (such as myself) find the switch difficult. I'm a smart guy and use computers regularly (and every one of my comps has a linux partition to monkey with) but to claim that the UI is intuitive is laughable.

The simplest example is copy/paste. It doesn't "just work".
A more complicated example is almost every program you ever install on a Linux box. It's very rarely a trivial task.
You can make the argument that the choices taken away from the user in the Windows installation process can lead to security holes and instability - these are true.

But it's categorically untrue that the UI is what drives people from Microsoft.
If anything, the UI is what keeps users with Microsoft. Users stick with what's comfortable. Particularly with computers, which most end-users find complicated and difficult; when they acheive a level of competency with one set of programs they're loathe to switch.

Incentives

[zotz]

One thought to ponder:

The old way:

Company owns product. Product lacks features. User suggests feature to implement. Company implements. Company owns users innovation and sells it to the user.

The new way:

Community owns product. Community member implements feature or suggests feature to implement and community implements feature. Community owns innovation and members benefit from it.

That is in very simplified terms. But do you see how the old way might lack some incentive for a user to give his innovative ideas to the company only to have them own them and sell them back to him?

all the best,

drew

Re:the user's perspective - money

[zotz]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but with Free Software can't a user put an ad out for a programmer to implement the feature they want? So what if the original programmer tells them to write it themselves, they don't have to, they can pay someone to do it for them. Contrast with non-Free Software.

If you do this right, when you are done you and possibly the community own this innovation. Contrast with non-Free Software.

all the best,

drew

Innovators?

[zungu]

I understand and respect that enormous project management and coding effort is required to recreate what has been done before. But to call open source as innovation is just plain wrong. Open source is innovation as far its free-as-in-freedom concept goes. Open source projects mostly take other projects/commerical software and then recreate in under an open source model. That isn't innovation. To ingite an idea, create it into a product and popularize its use is innovation. The orginal K&R C and Bell Labs Unix are real innovations. It bugs me to no end that most new comers (users I mean) to open source get an impression that RMS and Linus created everything that is GNU/Linux today. Well they just rehashed what as innovated before. The credit as "innovators" for concepts and tools in GNU/Linux and UNIX rightly belong to K&R and Bell Labs. I will be happy to take back my statements when open source does something fundamentally innovative, not rehash of yet another commerical product.

Re:Innovators?

[eaglemoon]

errrmmmmm...have you heard of Apache - I hear its a really good webserver or PHP - I hear its a great web scripting language or wait Perl - the duct tape of the Internet?

Its real baloney when people say that open source is chasing tail lights. If you read the history of Unix - Salus has a good overivew - the users had a HUGE impact on how the system got developed and extended - and yes they were sharing source code then as well.

You are just buying corporate marketing if you belive that open source is simply copying commerical company innovations.

As von Hippel shows in his book - functionaly novel innovations come from users - and not from firms. Today user communities - as demonstrated by open source - are not just creating the innovations - but also making complete products out of them and then distributing and supporting them.

Re:Innovators?

[zungu]

How about conceptual novelty? Where is that coming from? Where is even one fundamentally novel piece of software (like a creation of say a new database paradigm ) that open source has created? PHP/Perl are just types of scripting languages. Hardly an major innovation when computer language theory and practice is so well established. Apache is a great webserver, but was it the first one? Just as civil engineers building one building after another is not innovation since contruction techniques are so well established, open source is that kind of work. It is "innovation" of course because each building is a new building different from other, but any conceptual novelty here? None.

Re:Innovators?

[eaglemoon]

Based on your definition of conceptual novelty - there has been no innovation in the fields of architecture and civil engineering since a VERY long time.

Can you give me examples of conceptual novelty recently in the software industry? And then check who really came up with the innovations - mostly it will be USERS and not the developers of the software at that time.

Re:Innovators?

[Anonymous Coward]

PHP/Perl are just types of scripting languages.

What do you mean by 'just'? Before Perl there was Shell and that's not really a scripting language.

Re:Innovators?

[zungu]

How about "awk" ? How about "Rexx"?

Re:Innovators?

[glasse]

I really hate this kind of reasoning because it makes the reasoner unwilling to accept anything open source as innovation. A similar argument is often used in AI -- since many people define intelligence as "that which sets humans apart", if a computer can do it using simple math, it's not intelligence. AI is defined as making computers do that which computers can't do, so nothing remains AI for long.

I've collected a list of Open Source projects that display innovation for situations like this. Here's the best ones:

• Dashboard
• Piper for a while was trying to implement an entire new Unix desktop based on GUI-based command-line scripting, but never quite got off the ground, and eventually abandoned the idea.
• Knoppix and other liveCDs are innovative -- an entire operating system on a CD-ROM! -- though you might quibble with "prior art" in the form of boot disks that you'd use to play your DOS games. They didn't have entire filesystems on them, though, so I'd maintain that this was innovation. A Windows liveCD exists in a primitive form somewhere, I think, but I don't know anything about it.
• gaim and other pluggable communication programs -- Firefox and xchat spring to mind -- are very useful, and you can probably find a plugin on one of those programs that does what you want. To my knowledge, the furthest the proprietary world got in this direction was skinning, but I could be wrong.
• Also in this vein is KDE, specifically the use of DCOP to help automate GUI tasks. DCOP isn't very well known and you have to discover it, but it can be very useful.
• GNU Screen, to my knowledge, is one-of-a-kind software, though you might cite inspiration in terms of VNC programs, which I don't know much about.
• I believe the concept of numerous virtual terminals on the same physical terminal (ie. Alt-F1, Alt-F2) is not only unique to OSS, but unique to Linux.
• 
  Ethan

Re:Polish - fix

[zotz]

Let the Fortune 1000 and world governments switch to linux and a free office suite. Let them take one half of their it budget for licenses not needed anymore and buy the time of some polishers.

all the best,

drew

Customers != Lead Users

[eaglemoon]

A key practical finding from this work is that lead users are the actual developers of many new products and services - including disruptive ones.

The key point to understand when reading von Hippel's book is that lead users are a much broader category than customers of a specific firm. Some of the innovations lead users develop are clearly disruptive from the viewpoint of some manufacturers. However innovating users are unlikely to care about this, being focused on their own needs. Tim Berners-Lee, for example, developed the World Wide Web as a lead user working at CERN a software user organization. The World Wide Web was certainly disruptive to the business models of many firms, but this was not Berners-Lee's concern.

Re: RMS Laser Printer

[johnrpenner]

users as innovators -- isn't this what
inspired stallman to invent open source?
he wanted to tweak a laser printer.

j

Patience

[Crag]

The difference between proprietary Polish and free (libre) Polish is that the former is paid for and the latter is created by the people who care enough about it to put the work in.

Free polish will come along when it's ready. It's already starting to show itself. There's plenty of projects working on eye candy, and themes.org is a good example of efforts to create coherent look-and-feels that are useful or aesthetically pleasing.

So, the answer to your first question is that FOSS _is_ capable of 'shipping' fully polished 'products'. (Why do people keep thinking FOSS is competing or selling something?) The answer to your second question (what does FOSS need to make something polished) is "people willing to put in the work." The answer to your third question (how does Firefox 'beat the curse') is "people care enough to put in the work on that project".

Free software doesn't owe anyone anything. If someone wants the stone soup to have a particular herb in it, they can go gather that herb and throw it in the pot. There's no point in complaining that the free soup tastes like wet rock.

Lastly, the most important part of Free Software is the Freedom.

OT

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, the link to your webpage is broken.