Ask Slashdot: How Do You Assess the Status of an Open Source Project?

Chrisq writes: "Our software landscape includes a number of open source components, and we currently assume that these components will follow the same life-cycle as commercial products: they will have a beta or test phase, a supported phase, and finally reach the end of life. In fact, a clear statement that support is ended is unusual. The statement by Apache that Struts 1 has reached end of life is almost unique. What we usually find is:

• Projects that appear to be obviously inactive, having had no updates for years
• Projects that are obviously not going to be used in any new deployments because the standard language, library, or platform now has the capability built in
• Projects that are rapidly losing developers to some more-trendy alternative project
• Projects whose status is unclear, with some releases and statements in the forums that they are 'definitely alive,' but which seem to have lost direction or momentum.
• Projects that have had no updates but are highly stable and do what is necessary, but are risky because they may not interoperate with future upgrades to other components.

By the treating Open Source in the same way as commercial software we only start registering risks when there is an official announcement. We have no metric we can use to accurately gauge the state of an open source component — but there are a number of components that we have a 'bad feeling' about. Are there any standard ways of assessing the status of an open source project? Do you use the same stages for open source as commercial components? How do you incorporate these in a software landscape to indicate at-risk components and dependencies?"

Comments

Not unique to open source

[pavon]

This isn't a problem that is unique to open source. Several commercial libraries that we have used in the past have entered the twilight zone where the developer is neglecting them, and refuses to release any sort of roadmap or EOL announcement. Eventually, you just have to make your own call based on how much work it will be to move to a new library vs the risk of staying with the current one. At least with open source if you get stuck with a dead library you can choose to take over maintaining it on your own either as a long term strategy or a short-term stop-gap until you can move onto something else.

Re:Not unique to open source

[LulzAndOrder]

it is a problem that is unique to open source, but the part that is unique is that it's not a problem in open source. Because the source is open, "legacy" and "discontinued" software can still be maintained and used by however small a community of users wish to keep it alive. If Windows XP were open source, there would be no pulling the plug on it; there would be a healthy community making security patches for it still. nothing to see here folks, keep moving.

Indeed. Are awk, sed, grep, vim dead?

[raymorris]

Yeah you want to be careful with activity metrics. Awk hasn't seen many updates in the last two years. Mostly because it hasn't NEEDED much in the last ten or twenty years. That means it's already rock solid, not that it should be avoided.