Slashdot Mirror
20 Years Later, Has Open Source Changed the World? (infoworld.com)
"Most code remains closed and proprietary, even though open source now dominates enterprise platforms," notes Matt Asay, former COO at Canonical (and an emeritus board member of the Open Source Initiative). "How can that be?" he asks, in an essay noting it's been almost 20 years since the launch of the Open Source Initiative, arguing that so far open source "hasn't changed the world as promised."
[T]he reason most software remains locked up within the four walls of enterprise firewalls is that it's too costly with too small of an ROI to justify open-sourcing it. At least, that's the perception. Such a perception is impossible to break without walking the open source path, which companies are unwilling to walk without upfront proof. See the problem? This chicken-and-egg conundrum is starting to resolve itself, thanks to the forward-looking efforts of Google, Facebook, Amazon, and other web giants that are demonstrating the value of open-sourcing code.
Although it's unlikely that a State Farm or Chevron will ever participate in the same way as a Microsoft, we are starting to see companies like Bloomberg and Capital One get involved in open source in ways they never would have considered back when the term "open source" was coined in 1997, much less in 2007. It's a start. Let's also not forget that although we have seen companies use more open source code over the past 20 years, the biggest win for open source since its inception is how it has changed the narrative of how innovation happens in software. We're starting to believe, and for good reason, that the best, most innovative software is open source.
The article strikes a hopeful note. "We're now comfortable with the idea that software can, and maybe should, be open source without the world ending. The actual opening of that source, however, is something to tackle in the next 20 years.
Although it's unlikely that a State Farm or Chevron will ever participate in the same way as a Microsoft, we are starting to see companies like Bloomberg and Capital One get involved in open source in ways they never would have considered back when the term "open source" was coined in 1997, much less in 2007. It's a start. Let's also not forget that although we have seen companies use more open source code over the past 20 years, the biggest win for open source since its inception is how it has changed the narrative of how innovation happens in software. We're starting to believe, and for good reason, that the best, most innovative software is open source.
The article strikes a hopeful note. "We're now comfortable with the idea that software can, and maybe should, be open source without the world ending. The actual opening of that source, however, is something to tackle in the next 20 years.
public domain.
There's never been anything about open source that suggests that developers should listen to the end users. Closed source is better at listening, because proprietary software developers are paid to listen to what you want. Open source developers, on the other hand, are there to do what they want and you can take it or leave it.
Respecting the end user is a different matter, though -- it's a bare minimum of not violating rights. You don't have a right to be heard, but you have a right not be given adware/malware/backdoors. Just because the software respects the users doesn't mean the users have to respect it back.
This space intentionally left blank
The internet would have come along just fine over the last 20 years if it were running on IIS and .NET.
Open source performs best on well established designs. Web hosting, databases, file systems etc are all well understood problems. There isn't a lot of room for innovation in any of these areas so it's perfect for Open Source where tiny incremental changes and maintenance is all you really need. Has Apache substantially changed since 1997? I would argue no and that's fine. IIS hasn't really changed since 1997 either so why spend money on it?
Where closed source seems to shine though is through projects with leadership and vision. It's easy to implement a new db engine on a broadly understood concept like a database. A concept taught in every CS101 class. It's a lot harder to stay organized and communicate when you're treading new ground and creating things that only 5 people on earth really understand.
The hard future I see for open source is entering the areas that only serve a handful of people. Niche markets are hard for open source because if there are only 1,000 customers in the world you won't find very many volunteers among those 1,000. And you need a way to ensure one of those 1,000 customers doesn't pay for all of the dev work and then get driven out of business by competitors using the tool for free and charging less. We've stopped helping some closed source products that we license where we've given a lot of time and testing to the company and then not been given a discount on licensing prices when maintenance comes up.
I feel like there is space for a new quasi-open license where you have to pay for a license, but substantial commits give you a discount. That way companies with no interest in contributing can pay cash and companies with more interest in contributing can pay in code. You could even then have developers who only contribute in code and get paid out in cash in lieu of a license at all. That I feel is the model that could expand open source beyond its current use: Bounty Source software.