Slashdot Mirror
The CVS Cop-Out
NewsForge (also owned by VA) has a short piece attempting to call into focus one of the major complaints of end users, the "CVS cop-out". From the article: "One of my biggest pet peeves with open source software is what I call the CVS cop-out. It works like this: I criticize (accurately) some shortcoming of an open source application either in an article or in conversation, and someone responds with, 'That's not true! That feature was fixed in CVS four weeks ago!' [...] I bring up the CVS cop-out not because I have an answer for it, but to air it out. Sometimes, giving a problem a name helps to foster discussion that leads to resolution."
"However, Microsoft and other upgrades are binaries, and installable by end users."
Of course, the Microsoft equivalent of 'it's fixed in CVS' is even less useful to the end user, as the end user quite likely neither has nor will get access to the Windows source code.
The project devs are not the end packager. If you submit your bug reports to the project devs, the CVS fix is what you get. If you want a binary end-user fix, then submit your bug report to your packager who can provide you with a binary, and propagate the bugfix upstream.
There's a reason the package systems allow patch-the-pristine-sources and build functionality...
This is certainly a PC response and only slightly better than the response, if any, you would receive from proprietary software. Of course, proprietary software would have a response more akin to "It's in the next release." which is essentially what is described herein.
I think a claim that the issue has been addressed and not yet released is a bit of a grey area between the ideologies of Release Early, Release Often and a perception of great stability in software (It Just Works). It can be argued that the OP is a whiney-ass cream-puff who wants what he wants when he wants it. Just as easily it can be argued that a statement with an inferred attitude of "It's in CVS alread, quit yer bitchin!" really is just an example of what always happens when the developer community and the user community approach each other.
Users want everything now but bitch about daily installs/builds. Which means that a CVS "fix" won't do them any good in the first place since they only use the "released" versions. Meanwhile the developers are doing what they can to fix things on the time they have but would like to have a release be something that's more stable than buggy. After all, their name might be on it.
Personally, the fact that it's being addressed in CVS means that they know about it, they fixed it, and it's coming soon to a package near you. If this is unacceptable at least you have the option of pulling the CVS version ahead of the released package version. If this is all too much to handle than think of things in terms of a proprietary software product. The bug, if serious enough, will be fixed at the next major release in 6 to 12 months. That's the alternative. Open source allows you to put yourself in between these two ends of the spectrum. If you are going to call CVS a cop out, then go to the other end and keep quiet.
It depends on a lot of circumstances.
Fixed in CVS may also mean the following:
We fixed this problem in our unstable development tree, which you can't deploy at a customer, or anywhere else. Also, we won't backport this patch to the current stable release, because we don't have time for this. So we basically leave you with your problem, until our unstable development tree at some time maybe gets released.
And this problem isn't restricted to OpenSource at all.
In a company, you would be paying me money to do the work. You can bet that if you're paying me then making it work for you and fixing any bugs you find go straight to the top of my priority list. But if you aren't paying me, you don't get special priority. They go on the list, sure, but they get prioritized based on what I think is important.
I see you all the time, BTW. You're the guy who's always asking me to fix his computer. For free. Even though he didn't get it from me, won't take it to the shop he got it from, won't listen to any advice I give him let alone actually follow it, and insists he didn't do anything to break the system. It's amazing how offended such folks can be when I insist on payment in advance at standard rates.
"If you don't care about it, then don't release it to the public."
You know what? If you don't like the response of a developer when you ask him a favor, then simply quit using the software. You have that freedom, same as the freedom for OSS developers to even do things such as 'release and forget'. For you: the same end-result, and for the rest of us, it means a plethora of software will still be available.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
Fine. Then check out the patched sources and start testing it.
Which is not an answer for most users. They need regular, predicable releases they can plan around.
The article is specifically about OSS developers and is just another instance of people using freely available and developed software believing that the developers owe them something. For OSS, developed as a hobby in the free time of its devs, committed to CVS is fixed unless you can show otherwise.
Some OSS developers may be hobbyists, but in terms of the most economically significant software I suspect the most are supporting themselves directly or indirectly as a result of their work. At least I beleive most people would like to. And for the ones that are supporting themselves through F/OSS, some users must be supoprting them, if not necessarily the whiniest. This is the same in closed source software too; the whiniest PITAs are usually not the ones who are paying the bills.
Speaking as a developer of over twenty years, the attitude you are taking here is not a result of the novel moral relationship of the OSS develoepr to the freeloading user. It's been a common trait of our species since we climbed out of the digital equivalent of the primordial slime. Most developers want users. In the same way that the aristocracy wants servants: they should take care of us, not the other way around. Like any good servant, they should be for practical purposes invisible; the brandy and cigars (or soda and chips) should just appear as if by magic, and they should not burden us with their problems and especially not their opinions about how we should use our time.
In your heart of hearts, you know you deserve to be taken care of, because you grace the world with your magnificent artistry. It's a scandal that the MacArthur "genius" grants have overlooked you so long.
On the other hand, most of us have learned that working for The Man sucks. The Man has the temerity to look at us as servants. Free and Open Source is attractive because we can take our blood sweat tears and inside knowledge with us if we need to ditch The Man. But being in business for ourselves isn't quite the right niche either. Every user become The Man. What's worse is they view us the same way we view them.
Which creates a new economic niche for companies dealing in OSS. They can make a living making sure all the spoiled, self-centered parties involved don't end up throwing furniture and stomping out of the room, despite the fact it's in everyone's interest they cooperate and compromise a bit. In fact, it's better that they don't end up in the same room at all.
In a sense, that's what companies with Linux distros do. They test a bunch of patches to to a variety of software, decide which ones are best and how how they are best packaged. Then they offer regular, predicatble and tested updates, rather than showering the end user with continual updates, which is in effect what the CVS tree is. Companies are also increasingly being formed around individual projects as well.
The main difference between open source and closed source companies is that for practical purposes the open source companies down own the product, even if by legal technicality they're the copyright holders. That means that users get the same benefit as the developers. If they don't like the service, the test and update policies of the company, they can walk away from the company without losing their investment in time and knowledge.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
In fact, awesome, the FFMpeg people come right out and say that if you're not using CVS to basically screw off and leave them alone.
And I confess to some sympathy for that. One of the things that stops me from releasing more of my code is that producing a nice, friendly, well-packaged distribution is a lot of work.
And honestly, that work can be pretty unrewarding. I help maintain a web-based service used by hundreds of people daily. We pay a few thousand bucks a year to keep it going, and put in a fair bit of time. We get maybe two thank you notes a month, but if it's ever down or buggy, we get a couple of complaints an hour, some of them frothingly rude.
Now, whenever I use or download something I like, I take ten minutes to write a little note to the people who make it. I encourage everybody to do that; it makes a big difference.