Slashdot Log In
Why Do Open Source?
Posted by
Hemos
on Thu Apr 20, 2000 12:11 PM
from the talking-heads-speak dept.
from the talking-heads-speak dept.
harryhoch writes "The NY Times is reporting that a couple of business-school researchers at MIT and Harvard have written a report on motivations for participation in open source projects.
Among their somewhat-obvious insights is the somewhat-obvious comment that some folks work on open-source as a way to gain professional prestige.
" I love talking heads - but again, it is interesting to see outside sources commenting on the growth of the free software/open source movement.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Why Do Open Source?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 122 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Resume (Score:5)
Is it wrong to contribute to open source for those reasons? It seems kind of against the whole FSF philosophy, but I'm a bit too much of a pragmatist anyway. Has anyone else started on open source for these reasons?
Preposterous (Score:5)
I'm an Open Source Programmer, so I think that I know what motivates me. I am also a member of the International Socialist Organization (ISO), and yes, that does make me a "card-carrying commie". I perfer Open Source Software because it is the only form of software licensing and design which truly conforms to Marx's ideals: there is no special class of "developers" who weild power over users. Rather, everyone involved in the end product, programmers, users, documentation writers, even lawyers, can have a say.
Further, it is the only system based on the socialist ideas of equality and egalitarianism. All people, no matter what financial status, have access. Improvments in so-called "intellectual" property can be shared easily among many people without the interference of those in power who would profit by restraining new ideas.
While many Slashdot readers are simply terrified at the thought that there are actual communists using Linux, they should bear in mind that the leader of the Free Software Movement, Richard Stallman, is essentially a believer in socialism. Your movement was founded by communists, and we still persist today.
Heheheh.... (Score:3)
The article is important because it's not for us. (Score:5)
So the article and paper are useful because they help explain what is counter-intuitive: how software written by geeks in their spare time can be any good. Not only does it explain their motivation, it also points out that the people who are most likely to contribute to open-source are the top programmers, the ones the business people are desperate to hire.
The point is that articles and papers like these make using open-source an easier decision.
(And personally, I like Postrel's other point, which is that people acting primarily for their own benefit, whether psychological or pecuniary, can also confer substantial benefits on the rest of the world. Too many people ignore the invisible hand these days.)
Why do they assume motives are selfish? (Score:3)
Maybe some people just do open source software to make the world better? Greed and self-aggrandizement are not the only human motivators.
Giving software costs the giver only his time, and for his time he may improve the lives of millions of people.
There's also the pure satisfaction of creating something of worth.
Open software people are simply a class of people for which there is more to life than looking out for number 1.
Open Source Software == fun (Score:3)
For me, I would have to say it is.
The reason I'm paying massive amounts of money for university tuition to pursue a computer science degree is that I think school is fun, and I think computer science is fun.
Working on software projects is also something I enjoy. And there's nothing quite as gratifying as seeing your hard work produce an amazingly cool piece of software in the end.
So yeah, I do it for fun. Money doesn't really motivate me - as long as I can pay the bills and buy a cool toy every once in a while, I'm not concerned.
I suspect I'm not alone among slashdotters, either.
Show Me The Metrics! (Score:4)
I mean, the FSF is quite clear about what it wants to achieve, and questionable though those goals might be for some, it at least gives them a purpose. What is the goal in life for the Open Source movement?
Could Linux have succeeded as a closed source product, if the same brilliant team of developers could have been assembled and convinced to release the product for free? Or Apache? Why does a seemingly brilliant Open Source project like Mozilla only enjoy such limited success?
And: How many people are actually taking advantage of the Source part of the Open Source equation, not just the Open/Free part? Is there anything more to the Linux hype than that it provides low-income hackers with cool stuff to play with?
Now, don't get me wrong: although the questions are a bit tainted, this is definitely not flamebait. Having some real answers and real statistics here would really help a lot to advance Open Source. If you're a college student in the IT or statistics field, this sounds like a great project to me...
A deeply flawed study (Score:5)
They also downplay the successes of the Mozilla project, at one point claiming that it's only had a dozen or so outside contributions. This will come as surprising news to anyone familiar with actual Mozilla development.
I had a lot of problems with the paper at a deeper level, as well. The actual content of the paper is largely a restatement of esr's "ego-boo" theory in economics terms. To the basic concept of professional reputation, they add the economic value of the credential from the educational experience. This is a step in the right direction, as learning is a very important and generally underreported reason for working on open source, but still to my mind focusses too much on the "signalling" and not enough on the thirst for knowledge and understanding.
But the single greatest failing of the paper is that it doesn't recognize that work on free software is fundamentally different than work on proprietary software. It's not hard to see how outsiders can miss this, as after all the end-user fruits of free software development can be compared head-to-head against proprietary counterparts (Linux kernel against NT kernel, Gcc against MSVC, Apache against IIE or other proprietary servers, Gimp against Photoshop). However, the other "work products" of free software development are just as important, if not more so. These include the understanding of the software and the communication of this understanding to the rest of the community. It is here that Samba differs so dramatically from Microsoft's own implementations of SMB, or that wv [wvware.com] differs from whatever wad of code Microsoft uses to parse their own formats.
You also see the differences in the grand cooperative vision shared by so many free software developers. Free software is working towards everything working with everything else (although this is of course a fantastically difficult problem, so we're not quite there yet). Proprietary software often sacrifices this goal for the sake of short-term business incentives.
The paper asks (and attempts to answer) the question, "why do people work on free software, when it's possible to get paid for working on proprietary software?" I believe it might be interesting to consider the following analogous questions:
In summary, I consider the questions raised by the paper interesting, but the framework in which they're posed has problems, and the actual analysis presented suffers from both factual errors and lack of detailed understanding of the free software process and community.
Incidentally, I was all set to post an extended version of this critique to Advogato as part of a series of articles on the economics of software (previous articles have covered software complexity [advogato.org] and risk homeostasis [advogato.org]), but no interest was shown.
The article has one serious oversite (Score:4)
The original authors of most open source projects seem to have needed the particular piece of software they were writing. They also didn't care about potential economic gain from said software.
She quotes "The Cathederal and the Bazarr", but she missed one of the most important points for undertaing the fetchmail project used as the example in that essay. ESR needed a decent program to handle certian email problems. Most programs had some things he needed, and taken together pretty much every needed feature was covered, but no single program had all of the needed features. He wrote fetchmail because he needed it.
He also didn't have the time and energy to debug it properly. Turning to open source projects for many things creates instant feedback. If you have a good idea that is valuable, it will be improved by a huge number of people. Their motivation? It would make their lives easier too.
This seems to be the true reason for contributing to an Open Source or Free Software project.
Why did Linus create Linux? DOS sucked. Minix sucked. He needed something to suit his purposes. It turned out that it also suited the purposes of many other people. They saw the potential in Linux, saw where it needed imrovement, and contributed. Not because of alturism, or to get better known (although that is a factor), but because they also needed it as a tool.
If you look at any of the other high profile open source projects (Apache, Perl, etc.) You will find that people are contributing to those because they find them very useful, and would find the contributions they make useful as well. Once you have something that works, why not share?
If you keep the source to yourself, you might be able to sell it, on the other hand you might not. You may also just find yourself in competition with a large corperation who would think nothing of doing whatever they can to see to it that you never get your program out. Open Sourceing a project is essentially opening a pandora's box. Once you let it out, no one can put it back in.
These are the real motivatioins for Open Source. Not because it's fun (although that is a factor), not for prestige (although that is also a factor), but because you need that software to accomplish a particular task, and it's too difficult to do by your self. Since a lot of other people would be able to use the same software to accomplish the same task, they are more than willing to help if it gets them closer to their goal.
In his presentation ESR has everyone who programs for a living stand up. Then he has everyone who programs for a living, and their company depends upon selling the software that they have written.
In the presentation I saw, the first question had more than half of the room standing. I would estimate that over 100 people stood. The second question had four people stand up. Most people write code to accomplish a specific purpose. Once that purpose is accomplished, they see nothing wrong with giving it away. Their incentive has already been met.
You got to know why (Score:4)
For non-commercial folks, the reasons are very easy to find. You're a hobbyist and open source is like a big hobby meet. You're a researcher and open source fits into your notions of public disemination and peer review.
But commercial interests need to take a good look at it. You will not earn profits off of software sales. You have to think of something else to generate the revenues needed to pay your developers, testers, supportniks and marketroids. Something else is going to have to generate the dividends for your stock holders. If your primary business is hardware, open source is a no-brainer. Ditto if you can use your open source as a loss-leader for other products.
But if you really want to be in the software business and not the support or hardware business, you'll need to come up with a whole new business model. So far, none of the large Linux businesses have earned a profit. The market knows this and their stocks are in the tank. Like it or not, you have to sell something to earn a profit. If you give away your software, you have to sell something else. Maybe 100% open source is not the best solution for you. Maybe a mix is better. Sometimes you might even come to the realization that open source just won't work for you.
Just remember, you no longer competing with Microsoft, Sun and Apple. You're also competing with weekend hobbyists and college students. And your commercial competitors get to distribute your stuff in their shrinkwrap boxes. And SuSE will include it on CD #5 without even a registration card. If you can come up with a business model that will work, you'll be everyone's hero.
I've always thought that... (Score:3)
I've often thought that the reason some companies like Msft churn out bad software is that: it's relatively easy to fool your supervisor - i.e., if you have a project deadline looming and you know some part isn't done or hasn't been tested enough, you can let it slide, the boss remains clueless, the customers and tech support have to deal with it - yet your boss may still be under the false impression that you've done a really swell job! Hidden deep in inscrutable code lies lots of opportunity for office politics and shifting blame that open source scientific peer review just doesn't tolerage, at least not for long!
How about doing it for education.. (Score:4)
Many people create open source to "scratch an itch" and some do it to show that 'it' (what ever the it is) can be done. Most do it because they enjoy programming and a challenge.
I for one got into it because I like programming. And I was wondering how Photoshop worked or how different Window systems were coded. Well, Adobe and MS/APPLE were not about to let me in on their source, but E and the Gimp were happy to. I think, as a result (of actually reading real-world code), I'm a beter programmer. I have concrete examples of how things are done by comercial quality software products for use in my own projects (the knowledge not nesessarily the code).
What does it cost me? Time and the responisbility to one day give something back to the community that educated me. I can either work on an Open Source Project myself, or buy from companies that support and do open source. I can convince my company that it makes good business sense to use Linux/Apache/Tomcat/Java solutions for e-business rather than MS/ASP - then I would actually get paid to do open source.
All this and I get one hell of a good window manager and graphics editor - better than what I could buy.
Re:Why do they assume motives are selfish? (Score:3)
Simply put, there is a "good" kind of selfishness too, and that is the selfishness practiced by healthy, self-actualized people. They are selfish, but make sure their selfishness doesn't step on other people. On the other side of the coin, those with martyrdom complexes -- you've probably met them, they're the "completely selfless people who look out for others before themselves" -- are ironically the most parasitic, burdensome and draining people you'll ever meet. They too are trying to become self-actaulized, but in a destructive way.
Writing open source software is a selfish act; it's just that it's one that benefits more people than just oneself.
Re:Reasons to give *do* matter. Drug money donatio (Score:3)
Say you're a poor, welfare receiving parent of a child in dire need of an expensive operation. Do you care where the money comes from?
I know that it's pretty extreme to compare that situation to open source, but really... Who really cares if code is written and released for 1)building own knowledge and skills, 2)beefing up a resume, 3) greater common good, 4) penance for past piracy, 5) the desire to attain status in the OSS community (Karma whoring).
1) is a respectable reason, since the redistribution of code is voluntary. A skill-polishing coder, if they do not release their product, are not in violation of the GPL, and so do not HAVE to release the source.
2) is a respectable reason, but you must release product and code as proof of posession of skills you put on a resume. Can't just say "I wrote a portal site, so I have these skills. Pay me." You CAN say, "Go to slashdot.org, *I* did that. Here's the code that makes it go, as proof of my qualifications." If you base on GLP, you must release your work - but what of the reason? The source is free, you're deemed qualified, we're all happy.
3) Insert my metaphysics quip here. Doing something for the 'common good' is BS; things are done for the satisfaction of having done them 'for the common good'. I get a rush for thinking in 'Utilitarian' terms, for example; it's an application of the theory.
4) Guilt and conscience suck. Until we learn to ignore them, we will do good to balance the scales.
5) ESR, RMS, Perens do this all the time. Witness recent Bruce Perens act of 'making an example' of BeOS. What self-righteousness!! "I am GPL, hear me threaten litigation and steal your thunder!" Grandstanding and self-appeasement by respected people is a pretty good source of temptation - it shows that with enough credibility, you can occasionally shoot your mouth off, and people will still pay attention to you.
Would I take blood-money, knowing it as such, for convenience purposes? NO! For dire need situations? Real tough call...
How about taking it in ignorance, building a life with it, and then finding out it's source? Would I sell my house and car? No. What I would do is skew my life to do Good with the benefits of Bad money.
Oh. Why did Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates, et al give generously to charity? Do we care? Guilt for their good fortune? Maybe. Realization that past a certain amount, it makes no difference, so others might as well benefit? Maybe. Realization that you can't take it with you, so others might as well benefit? Maybe. Guilt for having exploited others to get the wealth? Maybe. Divine Inspiration? Perhaps.
Who really cares, and must we look the proverbial horse in the mouth? Not really - not in the case of OSS, that's for sure. Leach the code, read the code, tweak the code, share the code. Learn from the code to improve yourself and the code. And if the original author wrote it in the hope that it would help him get a better job... What of it?
Tangible Benifits to Open Source Development (Score:3)
The biggest benifit we have had with all the Linux IPO's was people asking questions. Most people don't understand Open Source at all, especially those in the traditional IT world.
I have had the most success with finding and explaining tangible business advantages to companies with using and contributing to Open Source projects.
One benifit is that of remote development expertise and tools. In today's labor market it can be very difficult to lure good talent to a location for 3,6 or 12 months, and remote development is not always a great option when using traditional software for development also the quality of these people can be questionable, no matter how good the resume looks. Mozilla's biggest achievement so far is a litany of tools that assist in managing distributed software development. When I can point to Mozilla, Linux, Apache, Perl, GNOME and KDE and talk about how these projects were developed and are maintained through the Internet by distributed developers, business types get big eyes. The pool of developer's is now larger to pull from for development talent, because distributed development is a reality.
Another problem facing companies, is the method with which they go about finding talent. Most use headhunters, you know the schmucks who can do nothing more than match keywords they know nothing about and pick up a phone (It's amazing how many of these people who can't use email). Headhunters manage to deliver dubious quality and tend to be expensive. There are many small businesses such as mine that can perform the work but who lack the inside contacts to get the job. Having internal IT departments use Open Source and participate in the community introduces them to a whole bunch of labor that may or may not be looking for work, or who may know someone who is. Typically one can lean on these relationships to find labor, and have a better idea of the quality they are getting.
One reason that I push for companies to sponsor Open Source projects has a lot of the same reasons as listed above. One project that I am pushing with a client, is remote automated remote administration and maintenance for a large number of database/webservers that will be located at customer sites internationally. They have looked at Tivoli from IBM but it looks like it will not meet their needs. Most likely they will have to develop the project in house. I have proposed that they develop the project as an Open Source project after the initial development is done. Why? Well the initial development will be done by a couple of internal developers that may leave, or move on to other work. If they sponsor the project as Open Source, if this comes around, finding a replacement developer may be as simple as posting to the mailing list for the project. Secondly, what if they need people to do administration and implementation work? Rather than hiring people with general skills and training them, they can simply find people who may already be offering these services as part of their own business. It will generally be much cheaper to contract them out than handle it all in house. Secondly it acts as PR and marketing for the company in question, like the Cluetrain says marketplaces are conversations and conversations create markets.
Another client is a small ISP who needs a lot of management and automation software for their lowest common denominator employee's to manage some of the day to day stuff. The owner is a software developer, and his first thought was to sell this software as a network management system something similar to NetMax and Cobalt et al. My suggestion was that this was not his core business and he would then have to compete with those guys, so why not make it an Open Source project, using the exposure to promote his core business and the find more talent for his core business. This would be preferable than entering a new market to compete with NetMax and Cobalt and everyone else who wants to play this game. After all he is probably the least capitalized out of all the players in question.
I have moral and philisophical reason's to prefer Free (as in speech) Software, but owning a business means that I have to make a business case if I want to stick to my convictions. I think this can be done, and there are many more business idea's that can be extrapolated from the Open Source movement. I don't think that most of them involve "ego-boo" and the less tangible economic benifits that ESR and company have espoused. I think that ESR was the first to try and formalize why this works and really explain it, but I also believe that we are far from understanding all the models that will make Open Source profitable.
So keep banging away guys, we all know deep down inside that Open Source makes sense, we just have to figure out how to explain it to everyone else.
After all, appearently even the economists don't quite get it.
Re:depends on what your intentions are (Score:3)
Becuase I can DIRECTLY make a living at writing closed source software. I can't write opensource here and make money. I suppose I could do it in my "spare" time, but I prefer to spend it with my wife and son. If I have time left over, I will study to learn some new skill which will make me more money when I take my next job. Or certification.
I guess I'm just a selfish bastard, huh? I spent five years being an "idealistic" reporter making jackshit. I give to charities like NPR and the like when I feel like being idealistic, not write code, sorry.
---
Re:Economics and the obvious (Score:3)
Now there's an open-source project that's needed: an open-source replacement for Adobe Craprobat. Acrobat does only two things, display documents and send them to a printer, and it does both badly. There's an opportunity here. (No, DocBook isn't the answer.)
It's worth noting that most open-source projects are in areas where there are already commercial products, but the commercial products have problems that aren't being fixed. We don't generally see open-source projects breaking new ground. Linux, after all, is Unix Reimplementation #4.