The CVS Cop-Out

NewsForge (also owned by VA) has a short piece attempting to call into focus one of the major complaints of end users, the "CVS cop-out". From the article: "One of my biggest pet peeves with open source software is what I call the CVS cop-out. It works like this: I criticize (accurately) some shortcoming of an open source application either in an article or in conversation, and someone responds with, 'That's not true! That feature was fixed in CVS four weeks ago!' [...] I bring up the CVS cop-out not because I have an answer for it, but to air it out. Sometimes, giving a problem a name helps to foster discussion that leads to resolution."

It's not so much a cop-out,...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a way of saying that there is no need to bring a problem in front of the developers. The bug is fixed, so it doesn't need their attention anymore. Every software has release cycle problems: Users would love to get a fix for a problem right away, if they think it's an important problem. On the other hand users want to update as seldom as possible, because updates are time consuming, even the ones which you don't install. The balance is hard to keep, and with Open Source it's a little harder because users get to see what is already fixed but not yet released. Hence the relatively large number of users who regularly use beta software. "It's in the CVS" just means "if it's important to you, you can get it, but we're not going to force this update on everyone because we don't think it's that important."

Re:Not unique to open source

[tonsofpcs]

Read: Nightly Builds [slashdot.org]
Not everyone releases them, but those projects that do, "hey, that was fixed yesterday, visit the nightlies page (e.g. http://nightlies.videolan.org/ [videolan.org]) and grab the latest"

Re:The diplomatic response

[El Cubano]

We're still working to make sure that this feature fits in with the rest of the system without any trouble, but if all goes will, you should see XX improved in our next point release.

Which is how it should be. One thing the article says which struck me, What justification is there for ignoring the long-standing tradition of "release early, release often?"

Basically, he is complaining that they are not releasing early enough/often enough. I hate to break it to him, but not every project is a mozilla with daily snapshots or a Debian with a huge network of dedicate autobuild machines. Some projects are small and have only few core developers. Many of those people may have "real" jobs which leaves them only spare to work on their pet OSS project. He also seems to think that they bug should be fixed right away becuase it affects him. But then, isn't that how it always is?

"The bug that affects me is the most important and should be fixed immediately. I mean, I reported it yesterday. Why is the new point release fixing this grevious bug not out today?"

I guess if you have a bug that nukes your entire filesystem or something like that, you have a legitimate gripe. However, the vast majority of bugs are not serious at all.

This guy just has unrealistic expecations.

I seem to be saying this a lot lately...

[biglig2]

But... Linux is not Windows. Seriously.

With Windows, you get fixes/upgrades when the binaries are released. With Linux, you can wait for the binaries, or, if you are comfortable with compiling, you can get fixes/upgrades slightly sooner. It's a feature, not a bug.

If you are prepared to spend some time and have some time practicing compiling from CVS (and it's not all that hard to do) then bonus! You get fixes a little early. If not, wait for the binaries, and the really cool thing? Double bonus! You still get the fixes earlier, because open source delivers fixes faster than closed source!

Re:Oh .. I get it.

[jelle]

"Yeah, but if you don't care about creating a product people will use... why bother? The entire point of software is for people to use it..."

One of the main things you're missing about OSS is that OSS is not created for users like you. OSS it created by the developers to 'scratch their itch': The primary targeted user is the developer him/herself.

Then, the OSS is released as Open Source to attract other developer/users to help the project along. The non-developing users are along for the ride, and are more than welcome to join the fun. However, that does not give them any rights other than what the OSS license gives to users. None of the OSS licenses give users any right to bitch about the developers. The GPL is very clear on that issue in this quote: "we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software."