Why Open Source Can Only Fail
Jan. 27th, 2006 08:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
Then open-source works perfectly...
on 2006-01-27 02:26 pm (UTC)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...
on 2006-01-27 04:32 pm (UTC)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.