mik3cap | Why Open Source Can Only Fail

Entry tags:

Why Open Source Can Only Fail

"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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Why Open Source Can Only Fail

Re: I think you just made a very good point

Re: I think you just made a very good point

Re: I think you just made a very good point

Re: I think you just made a very good point

Re: I think you just made a very good point

Re: I think you just made a very good point

Re: I think you just made a very good point

Re: I think you just made a very good point

Re: I think you just made a very good point

Re: I think you just made a very good point

Re: I think you just made a very good point