Slashdot Mirror
Making Your Code OSS-Appealing?
goldcd writes "A while back I wrote some pretty reasonable forum code, a PHPBB alternative. A few years down the line it's pretty stable, I've stopped tinkering with it, and it's standing up by itself. I have neither the time, inclination, nor inspiration to do anything more with it, but would very much like to give the code to the world to use and expand upon. Now I could just upload it as it is onto SourceForge, but currently it's very specific in its usage and I'd be ashamed of what 'proper' coders would think of my amateur offering — I'm afraid it would be laughed at and ignored. On the other hand, I don't want to waste hours of my own time perfecting it for people just to 'rip off' as is, and never contribute anything. My question is, what do you have to do to make your code 'OSS appealing?'"
Post the code and let the people who want to clean it up clean it up. If people see potential in your existing code, that's what'll be done.
Considering the majority of OSS code, if I were to release any of my code, I'd have to make it more amateurish.
Don't worry about it. There are those that will like it, those that won't, but they'll all cream their star wars underoos because it's free (as in beer).
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Well, I started in on a comment on this issue, but then I realized I was drunk and babbling on about some shit so fuck it...I've hit AC, and I'll just tell you to stop being self concious and release your code, open source isn't supposed to be a judgmental thing, release what you have and if there are improvements to be made take them as constructive criticism and learn from it.
I'm afraid it would be laughed at and ignored.
I think you have that backwards. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Well, you could just release it as-is and see if anyone's interested.
Alternatively, you could go through and write up some documentation so that even if your code is messy and/or idiosyncratic, other people can find their way around with the help of the documentation. If they don't like the way things are set up, or if things are inefficient, they can fix it on their own -- isn't that a part of what OSS is about?
http://www.tenjou.net/
Problem solved.
Deleted
If its a needed product, and it has decent enough code, it will be accepted. For example, Linux is loaded with: Text Editors, IDEs, Media Players, Browsers based on the Gecko engine, simple rip-offs of games. Its the niche products that will survive, although there might not be 100 developers on it, it will be used by those that need it. The worst that will happen is its ignored, generally if theres a need for a program no one is going to flame you for bad code, they will either live with it, help you with it or privately fix it themselves. The reason most OSS projects don't succeed is because they end up falling into the "monopolies" (Not abusive monopolies that of the MS world but 1 de-facto standard) of the OSS world, for example, vi, emacs and somewhat nano are the only terminal based text editors that will be used by the majority of users, so whenever someone else comes up with one, its largely ignored, but things that put a "friendly" GUI on a common CLI program (Such as Synaptic for apt-get) it is usually appreciated, but bottom line, if it does something nothing else does, and does it better it will be accepted, if not then it will be largely ignored, you won't have people yelling at poorly documented code it will just be silently ignored.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
The reply button is on that annoying little floating widget to the left (or above comments, if you press the button with the arrow point up).
Not the best visibility, though, admittedly.
If you don't want to put any more work into it, it's effectively dead. OSS isn't just about giving away the source, it's also about allowing other people to contribute - simply posting it on SF.net and walking away does nothing if you're not willing to review submissions, process bug reports and/or bring people into the project.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
If it works, don't be ashamed of it.
It you planned it, and then executed the plan to completion, there's nothing "amateurish" about that. This is one
*definition* of professional work.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I make video games and release them under the GPL. Hardly anybody cares. There are plenty of BB programs out there already. The world doesn't need another one. Same goes for my video games.
I also make music and release it for free. Hardly anybody cares, because there's plenty of "free" music out there anyways.
If you don't think that your code is really all that grand, just quietly release it and hope it somehow finds a place in someone's heart. The few comments you get about it are still nice to have.
As I see it, if you want to make it available, you have to risk the luaghter and all. Either that or don't write armature looking code in the first place.
With that said, I would release as is and work on cleaning it up. If you don't want to make that effort, if it offers decent enough features someone will start the effort of cleaning it up. Otherwise, it will do like 1000s of other projects on Sourceforge and wither away, most likely deservedly.
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
> I have neither the time, inclination, nor inspiration to do anything more with it
Don't bother uploading it. Without its primary developer being involved, unless you've got some users with a real care that they can keep using it *and* that it improves, and who are also skilled PHP dev's (enough to read through and understand somebody else's code on the timescale they need modifications done) nobody is going to pick up your code.
I think it also depends how "crowded" that space is, in that if there's already a ton of decent to excellent forum packages out there, why dilute the space even further by posting your own?
One of the strengths of F/OSS is that there are usually a lot of solutions to any given problem. One of the major weaknesses is that often there are too many solutions to a given problem, with the end result being that there are too few contributors spread across too many projects.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Then you dont want to release it to the world as OSS. That is the nature of the game.
Id not worry about being made fun of either, 90% of the 'coders' out there are probably worse. Your stuff runs and does what it should, be proud of that.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
One man's trash is another's treasure. Let the user frantically searching for exactly your code on SF.net decide if it is worth something or not, not some flippant opinion here. Even if it the project is no longer maintained, it's not dead, it's just coasting. It's only dead if you never let it out into the world and then one day the hard drive goes silent.
Any who cares if people leech it and never give anything back? By a little act you just made someone's day.
Rate of change is a poor metric of project health anyway. Small robust mature bits of code may stay the same for years but are used by thousands every day.
-- AC as usual terminal HD catastrophically turned to metallic powder a few days back
Just release the code, and let people decide whether or not to use it or clean it up. Do not be embarrassed about the amatuer code. You can provide it in an as-is condition with a disclaimer that you will not be doing any more work on this code and if people want to improve it, they are free to do so themselves. I would say releasing the code in an imperfect state is better than not releasing it at all. It can't hurt anything, if you provide the proper warnings about its state.
Here's the question: Did you know what you were doing in terms of security. PHPBB not only has had a terrible security track record, but when you find significant security flaws (I have) they don't even want to hear about them. This isn't to say they haven't fixed their worst security lapses - they've had little choice once the fire gets hot. But they are far, far from proactive about heading off new ones.
... if you've got that stuff sussed, there are plenty of people who'd take what you've started with and extend it. PHPBB is a main reason the PHP people have asked other groups to stop putting "PHP" in the names of their projects; gives the whole language a bad rep.
So if you have something secure, that's a decent subset of PHPBB's functionality, not too ugly (PHPBB isn't much in the beauty contest category anyhow), and with an efficient-enough way for moderators to deal with comment spam and Russian spammer registrations (in the PHPBB instance I still run, I've rolled my own extensions to handle this since what's built in is just too damn inefficient)
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
...being ugly might just help protect it from stupid software patents.....
There are lots of established forum packages out there, and most people will use what they know or what Fantastico includes on their cheap web hosting. The way to get known isn't to take up space on SF.net and never get your code downloaded.
What you want to do if your software is to be debugged and iterated into newer versions is for people to use it. If it's powering some sites that people like, they'll consider it for their own sites. If people are using it, someone will invest some time in fixing issues with it.
Nobody wants to work with your code if there's no userbase. They can start from scratch themselves for that. If they want to work on something that's got user feedback, there are plenty of people using PHPBB, Postnuke, PHPNuke, miniBB, punBB, and more. Hell, would you ever have heard of Slashcode or Everything if some sites weren't using them?
If your code takes a different approach to something that makes a difference on the front end or is more scalable than the existing solutions then that's what interests users and developers. Implementing the same features in a slightly different but equivalent way on the back end just isn't important to anyone. Better security, a cleaner plug-in/module interface, better performance on the same system, easier administration, more options, simpler customization of layouts and colors, broader database support, and better docs are big things. Doing a merge sort instead of a quicksort when sorting your posts just isn't.
In short, differentiate your offering, get people to use it, and let your userbase decide what needs to be improved. Get someone involved who's going to be responsive to implement changes as needed so the users don't all migrate away. That's how you build a developer community around a project -- by making the developers care because they can see their work doing something.
If there's any good points to the project, it will either survive, or be integrated into something else, either way software (on the whole) will progress.
Hiding it away never to see the light of day benefits no one...
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
If this system is still "standing up"
you might give folks a quick preview,
eg, by opening it to demo access...?
I would just release it with the comment about some stuff you did when learning and now you don't have time to mess with it but hope someone can use it. Sort of what you posted in the article submission but a little more compressed.
But something you should look into is the license you would like to release it under. And I mean look carefully. If you go the GPLv3 route, you are basically certifying it to be patent free or if there are patents that everyone has a license to use it. This is mostly important for plausible deniable-ility which probably won't get you out of trouble if something is actually in the code, but it goes a long way to lessening some of the ramifications. On the other hand, if you are certifying it by the requirements in the GPLv3, you loose that innocent look. For me, this would be a no go because I'm not taking the fall for something I don't care enough about to research. I would use the GPLv2 and maybe let someone else take it to v3 with the or later versions. The only question there is would you agree with later versions of the GPL. And that is something you will have to look into yourself.
So anyways, it doesn't really matter which license you place it under. As long as you understand the implications of those licenses along with the attempted goal of them. It sounds like a BSD license isn't going to be good for you (people just to 'rip off' as is, and never contribute anything.). But at least understand what you are getting into with the licenses and make an informed decision over them.
Just cut-n-paste the following lines multiple times in each source file ...
After all, everyone knows one of the reasons it took so long to make the Netscape Navigator source available was "cleaning up" the source code to remove all the "F*cking Microsoft POS crap" comments,
First you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women.
My very first contribution to the OSS community can be found at PHPBuilder. Notice that the login names match?
Anyway, take a look at the first snippet if you want to see truly simple, juvenile code. No error checking, etc. Except that it solved a need, and somebody else who was (at the time) more developed than I, took my stupid little proof of concept and turned it into something a little more robust. And so have a few other people.
I don't recall anybody ever criticizing the simplicity and the juvenile nature of my first contribution. I would never contribute code like that again, but then, the lessons I learned from this guide me to this day.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Just as free speech can be an enabler for the distasteful, free code can also be an enabler for the distasteful. If you want the benefits of control, opt for control-- use a permission-based license. However, if you want freedom, understand and accept the lack of control that is freedom's byproduct. And, yes, I understand that one can write a license that prohibits distasteful uses of ones tools, and that is (and should be) in a writer's power. But to my mind, to place a "morally restricted" license under the banner of freedom in software says that author doesn't understand the concept of freedom. Freedom has to be as total as possible, or it's just relative freedom for a selected group.
Also, consider that if you use a viral/copyleft license, like the GPL or CC ShareAlike, even if Microsoft were to latch onto the code, they'd still be bound by the terms and playing in the same field as anyone else who chose to download it.
I don't deal in code as much as writing and images, but I've seen people get far too protective over their free work, which they're not planning to commercialize in the least, for no reason other than they think they ought to get a cut for someone else's monetization. (A bit off your point, but relevant to the Microsoft comment.) My personal stance is that when I intend to license things openly, I do it as openly as possible (Credit requested but not required, no verbatim redistribution (for images), and no misrepresentation of source or libelous use. All else is fair game).
The way I see it is that the playing field is level, albeit a bit higher now-- yes, some work is already done for anyone who wants to commercialize my work, but then again, that same work is available to everyone. Anyone has the same chance to make trillions of dollars off this platform if they can bring the right things to the table. If someone has the further wherewithal and the resources to cash in (using a resource forced to be a commodity, no less), then let them reap the rewards of their industriousness. I sure wasn't going to do it.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
It's worth noting that if you post the code, it will get into Open Source code search engines, and then someone searching for, say, a particular subroutine, or a newbie trying to figure out how to do something (perhaps something very simple), will be able to benefit and either use or learn from the code.
I've posted a lot of very messy code that does various Palm-related things. I get a lot more downloads of binaries than source typically, but nobody's complained that the code is messy, ugly or whatever. It's a gift horse, after all, and in my experience everybody understands that. Put a disclaimer about the code being messy if you like.
My advice is: Swallow your pride and post it. Nobody loses (unless you can make some money from its staying closed), and someone might gain.
Release early, release often if you want other people to get involved, if you just write everything yourself and release it afterwards i don't think many people would really care unless it is a really interesting project. The website you are going to host your source code doesnt really matter (that is atleast what i think, i can't think of any good reasons why one site would attract more developers then the other), so you might aswell put it on sourceforge or freshmeat. After using some search engines i found this site which might be of interest for you aswell. In short, try to get people involved early.
I follow plenty of other people here when I say just release it. I personally have quite a bit of half-written software that had potential at one point but has gone by the wayside because I never released it. It's easy to get caught up in self doubt or waiting until you can clean up the code and add a few comments.
Just F'ing do it, and announce it to a related community. If it's a phpBB alternative, announce it to their community. Don't spam, but just posting something like - I like phpBB, but I saw a few drawbacks so I decided to get my own thing going, if you are interested check it out. Don't get into arguments, and make it a point that you aren't spamming, just passing on the link and the code to those that might be interested.
From there, just keep doing your own thing. If it gets to a point where you think it really has potential consider spending some money doing a little bit of advertising - nothing huge, but a few adsense ads or similar in webmaster forum admin communities.
If you really want to get people to try your software and use it, be sure that it has an easy install and basic system requirements. WordPress' 3 minute, 1-click install was a marketing dream - especially considering how much of a hassle their competitors were to get installed when they first got started.
Also - if you can, offer binaries or a preconfigured download for common installations. Or maybe just a few sample configuration files that take you beyond a no-frills install. The easier it is to try a piece of software, the more likely people will be to try it out.
Documenting how things work, from both a user's and a developer's perspective, is certainly important. But it's even more important to write down why your program works the way it does. Any reasonably skilled programmer can reconstruct the "how", given enough time--it's in the code, after all--but nobody can read your mind to determine "why" you chose a particular method of doing things.
Without the "why", another programmer may be hesitant to change your code, even if he sees a potentially better algorithm, because he won't know whether it's safe to do so: Did you use your algorithm on purpose, maybe due to some aspect of the program structure that requires it? Does the rest of your program assume that the function will operate in a particular way? (I'm not going to turn this into a lecture on encapsulation or anything; this is just an example of why the "why" is important.) It's okay if your reasoning is just "it's the only thing that occurred to me" or "I don't like doing this kind of routine so I just rushed through it", and in fact, that sort of note will help others fill in any holes in your design.
As for the code itself, don't worry! Everybody's gone through more or less the same learning process, so most people will be perfectly understanding, no matter how your code looks. (Of course, there are always those who leave snide comments, but like playground name-callers, the best thing to do is just take them in stride.)
You have entirely the wrong mindset by just asking these questions. Open-source is actually very simple:
1. Does the code you wrote server a useful purpose for YOU? Is it something that solved a particular use case FOR YOU?
2. If yes, then release it. Period, end of story.
I used to be concerned with how my code looked to others, of trying to come up with the "next great OSS project" that everyone would get onboard with. Then I realized how wrong all that was.
Write code that YOU want to write (that's called "scratching your own itch"). Put it out there for others to use, as-is or by taking it and making it their own my modifying it. If you're releasing code for ego, or to make a name for yourself, that's the wrong answer right off the bat and it's likely you'll never succeed. at doing either.
That's not to say that if you have an idea that you think is a good one, even if it's something you don't really need yourself, that you shouldn't do it. On the contrary, altruism is a fine motivation, if you think the idea will help others, then by all means have at it. It's better if it's code you yourself intend to use, but that's not a requirement.
Like I said, it's simple: if the code is useful to you (or you believe it will be useful to others), then release it, and that's that. Don't worry about anything else, you've already succeeded if you do just this. Someone will always bash your code, someone will always think they know better, but that's not your problem because if they actually DO know better, they can take your code, fork it and re-mold it in their image. That's the whole point of OSS, and if you don't get that you shouldn't be releasing anything at all. It shouldn't be about ego, even though it always is a little bit whether people want to admit it or not (the trick is making sure that's a secondary or even tertiary concern, just a very minor part of it).
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
I went through this a while back with a 3D STL file viewer. I originally wrote it in the classic, "Scratch an itch" fashion for my own use. It was also to explore OpenGL a bit. At the time, I had an SGI, some docs and some time. Enjoyed it a lot and learned a lot. It was a C project and C was something I really had no serious experience in.
I'm totally not a professional developer, but I can say it ran good and did what it was supposed to. I could feed the thing ugly, huge files that had nothing to do with CAD, big files that did, etc... and it all just worked nicely. What more does one need? If it were written in total bad ass style, it would still do those things, so who cares?
When I put the thing on SourceForge, I was nervous. Turned out to be a complete non-issue. (viewstl, BTW)
Got a lot of downloads and people were totally cool. I got patches sent in for a coupla stupid bugs. No brainer to just add those and bump the project rev.
One guy, teaching comp-sci, sent me an e-mail about the code. He used it for some class project. Some of it was actual viewing of files. The other use was to give his students an example of some code and pose a, "what would you do?" kind of thing.
At first, this pissed me off huge. However, he did send me the class notes and my program annotated with great comments! I refer to that document to this day as it's essentially a really solid comp-sci course study, tuned for my specific needs!
He and I bantered around about this. At the end of the day, it's better to post it as people can use it. They will use it and that's good. Some of the OSS stuff you may be running now is highly likely to be no better than what you contributed and do you care?
I sure don't.
That hunk of code improved some as I took some of the comments, learned some stuff, then revised the program. I learned enough to realize maybe some of them were more academic than I cared to deal with, so I ignored those. Nice to get to that spot in the first place! Took that time to rebuild it on Linux, having set a machine up, it was a perfect get my toes wet kind of activity.
Later, it ended up as part of some product being commercially produced in Germany. They wrote me, wanting license terms that made sense for commercial distribution. The trade was their patches for some new functionality, so the project improved, and my name somewhere on the box, and a donation to the FSF. No worries there. They got their license, the project saw some more code.
Guess what? Theirs really was not a whole lot better than mine!! Pretty funny actually.
Bottom line, through all of that, nobody ever contacted me with any kind of "you fricking lamer..." kind of stuff. The code got used and those users would not have had the chance had I been worried about how much of a bad ass I might or might not be.
So, just post it up. My experience is that most all people are pretty cool. You never know where it might lead to, and it's a great way to give back to the nice body of code you might be running right now. That is how it improves every day. Why not?
Today, it's just there being used, from time to time. Once in a while I get an e-mail about it. No recent patches these days, and that's likely due to the thing doing what it is supposed to do. Most are some question, or answering my request for occasional feedback. I wanted to know what people did with it, out of pure curiosity.
If it's useful, people will use it, period. I wouldn't post crap, knowingly anyway. But I would post up something that is useful, because it's gonna matter to somebody somewhere.
Blogging because I can...