Why Open Source Can Only Fail

[mik3cap]

"I don't think the GPL v3 conversation is going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my code." - Linus Torvalds

Why does this mean open source can't work? Because ultimately, it's all about egos. Open source relies on force of will and influence to get things done. Essentially, if the project is "popular" or the person driving it is a "rock star" of programming, the project will thrive. If nobody (meaning programmers) gives a shit, the project fails (like, say, a particular driver that is highly demanded by the masses, but the programming community doesn't like the manufacturer).

This doesn't mean that open development of commercial software can't work - obviously it does, and it succeeds because there is a market force driving the development. But when the impetus is no better than rock star-itude, shit don't get done. When the rock star says "I dun wanna" it dies. Essentially what it comes down to is this: programmers are no better than anybody else at figuring out what is "good" for people. They are just as prone to following the herd and following trends as everybody else, and they are equally as short sighted. Without some outside force driving a project to an ultimate end (like a market gap) we have to rely on people making the "right" choices, and people just never seem to make those right choices.

Comments

Then open-source works perfectly...

[bluegargantua]

Look, when Elvis died did people just give up on Rock and Roll? No. Other people came along and worked with the medium. Just because shit-hot programmer X dun wanna do it, that doesn't mean it won't get done by someone. So Linus thinks that because he doesn't want to convert it no one will? OK, yeah, that's big ego, but it doesn't mean he's right. It just means he won't put his time into that project. If the demand is there, someone will do it. That's really the whole point.

And as for "Right" or "Wrong" choices...whatever. You only think he's passing up on the right choice because you have some vested interest in the "right" choice (either you want the driver or you think he should bow to the demands of the masses or whatever). There's no moral imperative here. People aren't going to live or die based on Linus deciding not to work on this driver.

Look, even though millions of people are starving around the world, you've chosen not to allieviate their suffereing by becoming a farmer or an NGO head or a politician or an agribusiness CEO or whatever -- nope you decided to take a programming job. (and so did I and Linus for that matter) *If* world hunger is somehow eased by your work, it's not because you set out to do so, it's just a happy by-product.

If you want, you could be a hero, *you* could convert the kernel and put the driver together and release it on open source. By placating the demands of the masses you would be an instant Linux hero. Open-source also comes with the idea that if you don't like it, you can change it and that one person or group shouldn't be solely responsible for producing every permutation of the product. If you're just going to sit around and complain that Linus isn't going to give you what you want, you may as well stick with MS.

Also? Venture Brothers DVD!
Tom

Re: Then open-source works perfectly...

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

But this is where you're wrong. There is an implicit morality because the community of coders has its own mores and whims, but has no impetus to do what is best for the public at large. Government does this based on the motivation of some political ideal or implied social contract. Corporations do what is best based on getting profit from the masses. What is the motivation for the open source coder? I think right now the only answer is adulation of the masses, for masses equal to other coders. Coders work for prestige in their community; everyone wants to be a Linus.

What you're basically saying is demand drives the coder. But what you really mean is that work gets done when a coder's whim *matches* the demand of the public. In other words, the coder has to share the demand... what does this mean if the majority of coders use operating system XYZ and don't care about the needs/demands of users of system ABC? Or hardware 123 versus hardware 456? I'll tell you what happens...

OPEN SOURCE GUY 1: "Video card 789 sux because it doesn't support Linux. Don't buy it!"

OPEN SOURCE GUY 2: "Yeah, and who has time to write the drivers for that company's products, they sux0r!!1!!1"

"It'll get done by someone" is a specious argument at best. The reality is that there's a limited pool of resources, and those resources have a limited amount of "spare time" because that's what the majority of open source projects are for most people: spare time hobby projects.

It's been 10 years since they opened the Bazaar. Where's the revolution? All I see is c0d3r kiddiez writing baby projects for their hobbies on an OS that a guy wrote for a hobby.

*agreed*

[jpittman.livejournal.com]

gah! you're right on here. I can only be grateful that most of my major software needs for right now are already met by open source options that are fairly stable. But overall, its just like exercising, eating right, calling your relatives, sending thank you cards.

Often times in life, we are just relying on people to do the right things. And speaking for myself, as much as I know I should do something - it often needs to have a strong personal appeal in order to outweigh my own personal laziness. I think that is a portion of the ego you're talking about. Rock Star knows that s/he doesnt have to do it. Nobody else can force said rock star to do it - so if s/he wants to be lazy, end of story.

Getting paid and needing a pesky place to live and food to eat kind of outweigh that laziness. :)

I think you just made a very good point

[jediseth.livejournal.com]

Though it's not the one you intended. The only way Open Source can fail is for people to give up and blame everyone else for not doing the work they want. The power of Open Source is in that anyone can contribute. If there's a driver you want start working on it or put up a bounty. It's amazing how much people stop caring about one company not being popular when there is money to be made.

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

I disagree, but there we have it. "Anyone" is still limited to the set of "people who can code" and that is still a tiny, tiny percentage of the overall population - there is no open source movement for the populace at large, just for the coders.

My point is that no one is bothering to serve the non-coding masses what they are demanding; the people coding open source are only serving their own ends, because they have no impetus to serve the needs of the larger population.

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[jediseth.livejournal.com]

Anyone can learn to code. If you don't have the time or the energy you can make use of the bounty system. Put up some money, the more people willing to put up cash the cheaper per person it will be to motivate someone to do the work for you. The system works if you're willing to participate. Your problem is that open source doesn't cater to those unwilling to participate and that's a big fat duh. No thing moves without motivation. If you're not willing to do the work you have to provide the motivation for someone else to do the work. If you don't vote you don't count. Seems a rather fair system to me.

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Anyone may be able to learn to code, but they shouldn't have to. I could learn how to be a brain surgeon or a pig farmer too, but I'm not going to spend my time doing that.

And I don't believe that paying someone a bounty means that you're necessarily going to get what you pay for - you're paying someone to code something the community doesn't necessarily believe is needed (otherwise it would have been done for free). You have no idea if that person is the best person for the job, and the person is still going to see it as a hobby rather than as a real project.

The question is this: is something "needed" even though no one is willing to pay for it, or even believes that it is needed? Why would you think that all people are able to recognize or understand all their needs - people don't generally comprehend any of the environmental legislation in place, yet someone has determined that it's in the public's interest to have clean air and water by a certain standard.

To me, the Bazaar is too Wild West and uncontrolled, and thus too prone to egotism and bias. Even the term "bounty" makes it seem like you're hiring cowboys to do dirty work and rustle up some code. The problem is that there are no guarantees, and that the lack of organization and governance can prevent needed projects from being accomplished. Anarchy isn't a good model for structured programming.

On another note, I've been expecting a schism between "free" and "open" for a long time now, and I'm a bit surprised it took this long.

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[jediseth.livejournal.com]

So Open Source has failed when the community won't do something you want but aren't willing to do at no cost to you? Dude. That's like not voting and complaining about the winning politician. If you're not willing to participate in the system it's bound to fail you. That doesn't mean it's failed the rest of us.

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

I'm saying the "open source system" is broken. With government, we pay taxes and we get public works - regardless of whether or not anyone votes. With corporations, we have commerce transactions, and success or failure is determined by the market (ideally). There is no similarly refined system with open source where "needed" things are done regardless of whether or not they are popular. If someone could just pick and choose which people got a public education, or which streets get paved - why, they would just up and pick their friends and family and their own streets, wouldn't they?

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[jediseth.livejournal.com]

I'm saying it's not broken, you're just not willing to pay the "taxes" to participate. It's a commune. You have to be willing to do the work, to contribute in some way if you want things done. You don't want to write the driver. You don't want to put up a bounty. Just put up the money for MS and accept the alternative. That's your choice. The system isn't broken just because you won't participate. The public at whole isn't a part of the open source community. You aren't born a citizen you choose to become one, and you do so by contributing to the community.

As a side note I'd argue that in this country it's often the friends of those making the decisions who get "their streets paved" or "go to public school" before the rest of us.

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Communism doesn't work because the tiny group of people who participate does not make up for the masses who don't. Those people need governance.

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[jediseth.livejournal.com]

Works great unless you're just in it for the free lunch. You want something for nothing. That's why open source isn't working for you. The whole point of things being open is that now everyone has the power to change and improve a project. It was never about having a few people support every piece of hardware under the sun for free for the masses. I'm saying if you're not willing to contribute you're not part of the community. It's very much a put up or shut up situation. If something isn't there you have access to make it yourself and the tools to try and motivate others to do it for you. The system isn't broken. If you really wanted hardware that would be supported without a large extra effort on your part you could have done some simple homework in advance and purchased something that was supported.

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

That's crap. It's just plain crap. It's like saying "Well, you could have made your own transmission for your car."

What you think is "not large extra effort" is *huge* extra effort for a lot of people. Average users shouldn't have to understand that there's a system of bounties and so-called community participation options available. The point is that people shouldn't *have* to be part of any programming community in order to get what they need. It is a _programming community_ for pity's sake. I don't need to understand anything about my car or television in order to get what I need for those things, and non-programmers should not have to navigate in and negotiate with an exclusive, selective, elitist programming community to get things they need in software.

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[jediseth.livejournal.com]

You could have made your own transmission for your car. But you didn't, instead you paid for one. You're not paying the open source community where's the motivation supposed to come from? You're not willing to make any kind of contribution yet you want a "huge extra effort" to be made on your behalf. Why do you think the free lunch should be handed out? The auto companies aren't making transmissions for the betterment of society. They're doing it for a paycheck. The same motivation will get your open source software developed, you just have to be willing to fork it over.

Those people who would find the community and bounty system such a huge extra effort aren't ever going to stop using Windows (or Mac). Not until Dell (or some large reseller they trust) tells them to. It has nothing to do with a community that doesn't want to support your video card failing, and everything to do with a lack of motivation. Open source development is fueled in a large part by what programmers want to work on. Unless you want to encourage them (with $$ or charisma) to work on something else how can you complain they aren't? That's not a broken system. It's the exact same way the rest of the world operates. Auto manufacturers aren't going to just go make cheap, safe, efficient, low polluting autos because people want them, or because the world would benefit from them. They're going to do it because people will pay for them. The government doesn't just build roads for everyones benefit without collecting not only the cost of the road, but a paycheck for their effort. Open Source is only revolutionary in that we can all participate in the effort to effect change, not in that it freely distributes work and effort for the betterment of society at large.

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to reconcile the concept of "free" software with the concept of "open". Everything you're saying is perfectly within the confines of open, and is all correct - it compeletely illustrates why there is a schism between the two. The thing is, there is something to be said for bettering society - there's a reason why free public education is made available for people by the government, and thank goodness for that. But there's a line somewhere in all of this that needs to be drawn, and somewhere out there there have to be software developers who are both open and free, who are willing to code for the betterment of society as a motivation and not just profit.

The problem is that the existing community of programmers does not contain this ethic, and is actually somewhat biased towards their own agenda rather than a big picture social agenda. I'm not advocating a "software welfare state" but I do think that mankind as a whole would benefit greatly from the equivalent of a social program for software.

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[jediseth.livejournal.com]

Having never thought either "free" or "open" meant welfare I'm having trouble with the concept of either failing. Free to me meant some individual or group wrote something because they wanted to and as an after thought decided to donate the product to the world for free. They didn't set out to write something they wouldn't benefit from just because lots of people *might* want it. Open just means it's open for others to see/use/modify/redistribute as they wish (with some small restrictions). Neither, to the best of my knowledge, has ever endorsed a "for the good of the state" mentality. If they had I'd agree they haven't quite reached success on that point. I suppose the movements have failed to become what you hoped they might, which is different than outright failure. Totally different scopes here. They haven't failed globally, in fact I'd argue most of what was promised has been delivered. They have failed to live up to an expectation you had that was never promised/stated by the organization.

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

No, I'm pretty sure when RMS started his "free" movement, he had the world's interests in mind from the very beginning. Free in this case means freedom, and that's a pretty high ethical standard.

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[jediseth.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure his "free" was talking about keeping information and source code free for the people. He was all about open development and giving the work away for others to improve. However, I never remember hearing doctrine about how programmers should donate their time to writing software for the betterment of the unskilled masses. I do have to admit that I wasn't there at the beginning. I think we're probably splitting hairs at this point.

Unless you start a software welfare program or some other specifically directed program solely for writing things that would benefit the thankless masses without compensation I don't think you'll ever see what you want happen. Even if you did start such an organization I anticipate membership would be small and progress would be practically nonexistant. Again, it's all incumbent on you caring enough about this to go out and create it. In that respect I think open source movement provides you with a large number of tools to make things happen.

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Again, when you say "provides you" what you mean is you and me, and the tiny cadre of elite programmers. We make up a tiny percentage of the world's population, and yes, we can get exactly whatever we want. The rest of the world is subject to our whims, and it's up to us to try to reach our own higher ethical standards.

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[jediseth.livejournal.com]

Exactly. The masses who you think need to be served and saved can't start the movement. That's up to you, the member of a tiny cadre of elite programmers who actually cares. If you don't care and you don't work for it why should anyone else? Like all volunteer work you need willing volunteers and willing leaders. I haven't seen anyone except you express this need and a failure to meet it. If you're not willing to be a leader/volunteer how can you be surprised that no one else is? How can you complain a movement has failed?

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

If the open source movement has never, and will never, express any ideology other than "we code what we want", then fine, it hasn't failed. I don't think that's the case however, because every time I see open source, it's always "blah blah for the masses". Which is bullshit, according to you, because you say it's only about other programmers and their desires and motivations, and the only way it can be for the masses is if programmers decide to do so.

If the so-called movement was touted as "by programmers, for programmers" then I wouldn't complain. But they are the ones using the word "masses", but it's only true where masses is equal to other programmers.

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[jediseth.livejournal.com]

Code what you need. Code what you want. Share it with the masses.

As it turns out I see more and more people who know almost nothing about open source or free software installing open/free operating systems and applications every day. At least thats how it seems in mailing lists and forums I watch. I believe this is because the barriers to use are being reduced and the general level of technical literacy of the general public is increasing every day. This seems to not satisfy your expectation that programmers should be donating their spare time to write drivers for esoteric hardware they'll never own or need so that some amorphous group of masses can benefit for free. On top of that you're not willing to be the programmer who donates his time... I still don't see a failure. I don't see any implicit promise to deliver what group a wants free of charge out of the kindness of group b's little coding heart.

Re: I think you just made a very good point

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

The failure is that there is no promise.

And I would be a programmer who donates resources - when I said "I shouldn't have to make my own transmission" I probably should have said "people shouldn't" and wasn't considering myself part of the open source thing because I am not currently. I was attempting to speak as one of the masses would, but obviously I am part of the programming community.

None of that means I wouldn't consider coding something for the benefit of mankind. But besides all of this, people should generally have some higher motivations than just profit, especially if they are claiming a higher moral ground.

Also - my bellwether for true use by the "general public" is whether or not my parents install something. If they are using it, it has made its way to the end of the acceptance curve. They use no open source software at all.