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

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.