Ask Slashdot: What Defines Success In an Open Source Project?

rbowen writes "Nine years ago, Slashdot readers discussed what makes an Open Source project successful. The answers were varied, of course. An academic paper summarized the results, agreeing (albeit with more precision) that motivations for Open Source projects are varied. Has anything changed since then? In the era of mobile apps, social media, and Google Ad revenue, have the definitions of Open Source project success changed at all? Have your reasons changed for being involved in Open Source?"

Comments

Usage

[recoiledsnake]

I think widespread usage is a good metric and not just gloating over profit like the Apple fans like to do. "Apple derived the most profit from the cell phone industry." they say, to put down Android's usage gains. By that metric, IIS is totally killing Apache and Nginx in the web server space, but most folks consider Apache beats IIS. Which of this is true?

Re:Usage

[localman57]

I think widespread usage is a good metric...

I would say that any usage is a good metric. If you google the name of your project, and another person has made a positive comment somewhere about it, the it's a success, because you've touched someone. You don't have to measure yourself by the standard of Apache or Android or Firefox.

It reminds me of a story:
Two men are walking along a beach after the tide has gone out, leaving stranded starfish for as far as they can see. One man leans down and picks one up, and throws it back into the sea.
"Why bother?" the other man asks. "Look at all of them. It doesn't make any difference."
"It made a huge difference to that one," he replied.

Does it still itch?

[Hatta]

If so, you're not done yet. If not, find another itch to scratch.

When someone compares you to commercial software

[crazyjj]

When respected authorities begin to compare you directly to the commercial alternative, even if you're still found somewhat wanting, you have arrived.

Lots of things you can look at

[dkleinsc]

1. Did it solve the original problem it was intended to solve?
2. How many other people had their problem solved by it? (usage stats, as much as possible)
3. How many other people were motivated to improve it? (got involved as developers, testers, documenters, etc)
4. Did it reach a point where it was so darned useful and bug-free that nobody really needed to think seriously about the problem ever again? (e.g. GNU's "bc" utility, which hasn't changed since 2000, and does its job beautifully)

The ultimately successful open source project goes through a lifecycle of something like:
1. solve an immediate problem
2. get developers, testers, documenters involved solving the problem in a wider context
3. solve the problem for a whole lot of users
4. nobody thinks any more work is needed

The same thing

[AdrianKemp]

The exact same thing that defines success in non-open source software: It does what you wanted.

Doesn't matter whether it's a log rotation script, a web app, a POS system or firmware for electronics on the next spaceship. Software success is determined by only one metric. Open source doesn't enter into it.

Re:Usage is asinine.

[oakgrove]

You might not like Mickie-D's fair but nobody in their right mind wouldn't call them successful. That's what we're talking about here.

Success

[Gaygirlie]

Success is when you have reached the goal you have set, nothing more, nothing less.

An open-source project can be success even if it has NO users whatsoever outside the developers, and equally well it can be a failure even if it had 200,000 users. An outsider cannot really say whether a project is a success or not, it's the developers who has that say.

A lawsuit.

[DieByWire]

You know you've arrived when you've been sued for patent infringement.

Re:Score

[Anne Thwacks]

Or when MS shills tell the world how much it sucks!