Why Do People Write Open Source Software? 283
M.Broil writes "Two interesting articles try to answer this question. One's at NewsForge, the other's at Cybernaut.com. The two writers reach conclusions that are almost exactly opposite. Which one is right? Or is it possible that different open source coders have different motivations? (That's what I think, anyway.)" I suspect as well that each developer has their own reason, ranging from ego to malcontent to benevolence.
The better question is.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The better question is.. (Score:5, Insightful)
As an OSS developer myself I have to say that it is not that I'm not willing to go all the way with a complete product it is often that the end users themselves are not willing to put in the effort to review it.
For instance, combined 500 people have downloaded the recent releases of my libraries. Which doesn't seem like a lot except that crypto libraries are generally not horded that much.
Often I will go months before receiving anything from anyone. Whenever a bug is found I often fix it within a few hours at most. Mostly I find the bugs in the libraries as I wander through it.
Though my projects are "limited" scale I bet similar reasoning applies to larger scale projects. If a developer doesn't get user feedback its not only hard to fix bugs they don't know about but often discouraging to continue development.
Tom
BTW my libs are at http://libtomcrypt.org for the curious....
Re:The better question is.. (Score:5, Insightful)
End users != beta testers (Score:4, Insightful)
End users don't want to review products. They just want to learn the minimum necessary to use them, to get done what they need to.
Companies have teams of people that they pay to review and test products. This is the only way for them to get large amounts of feedback during development; if they just threw their unfinished product at end users and said "Here, find out what's wrong, and by the way, we won't pay you," the end users would go "Pshh, find out yourself. Then deliver it to us."
Re:End users != beta testers (Score:3, Interesting)
When people say "Linux has to do X for it to be ready for the desktop", 9 times out of 10 they are talking about for the lusers, which contribute nothing at all back.
Thankfully, generally what is good for the lusers are also good for the users and so generally these things get done.
On the one hand I do like having the lusers because they have the side effect of dragging in hardware companies, games, users, and corperate funding. On the other hand the
Re:End users != beta testers (Score:4, Interesting)
Bottom line is: Don't complain about bugs in free-as-in-beer software if you haven't made a minimum effort to fix it.
Re:End users != beta testers (Score:2)
If they are not willing to put in even the minimal amount of effort then they should pay for software.
Re:End users != beta testers (Score:3, Insightful)
And indeed that is just what most people do.
Re:The better question is.. (Score:2, Interesting)
I have about 500 downloads during 2 weeks if i announce a release, webstart users not counted (which should be the majority of users), but there are only few incoming emails and they are often in phases of the project when no work is done for at least a week.
Most mails are about others who want to embed the ftp api, almost no bug reports even when there h
Re:The better question is.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Even with Gentoo and all the source packages sitting on my computer I rarely feel the need to unpack one just to find out the maintainer's email, though if there were an easy way (help:about is fine, except many people don't take advantage of it for this purpose) and maybe some sort of meta-information for a library. If every library exported a const char* "maintainer" string, t
Re:The better question is.. (Score:4, Insightful)
probably isn't a project that resonates well with most OSS programmers. write a program that'll do the opposite to php and I'll beta test the hell out of it. Might eve get inspired to help you.
When? (Score:5, Funny)
Go calculate [webcalc.net] something
Re:When? (Score:2)
Here I'll save you the trip:
Fame!
I'm gonna live forever.
I'm gonna learn how to fly,
High!
I feel it coming together,
People will see me and cry
Fame!
I'm going to make it to heaven,
Light up the sky like a flame,
Fame!
I'm gonna live forever,
Baby remember my name,
Remember, Remember, Remember, Remember, Remember, Remember.
Fame!
I'm gonna live forever,
Baby remember my name,
Remember, Remember, Remember, Remember, Remember, Remember.
:O (Score:2, Insightful)
Re::O (Score:5, Funny)
Simple... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Simple... (Score:2)
Re:Simple... (Score:2)
different people different motovations (Score:3, Interesting)
I personally write cause it passes the time, and because some projects I can submit and get marks in my classes at university for the projects I do.
I guess to answer you have to examine (or almost have to) a persons beliefs and lifestyle. I believe open source is the way to go for most things, some I don't however.
Re:different people different motovations (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:different people different motovations (Score:3, Insightful)
They still don't get it?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does it really take people that long to understand that someone may want to create something just for the sheer joy of creating something useful or helpful? How the hell do you explain drawing, music, painting, etc.? Jesus, corporate-boneheads must think everybody is a greedy, sonuvabitch driven only by monetary compensation.
blue
Re:They still don't get it?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Programmers... (Score:3, Insightful)
This article should really be titled...
"Why do people write Unix software?"
Right? I mean, that's really what we mean here right? All those things about being creative and experimenting and having fun coding...well, I mean that can all be done with closed source programming too...right? The only difference is that when you are ready, you throw your code to the hounds for inspection, and acceptance.
Anybody can "code". Whether it is closed source, ope
Re:Programmers... (Score:3, Interesting)
If somebody running a Microsoft OS decides to "fight back" by writing open source code, they just become one of us, not one of them. Look at the 3D engine community for an exce
OS - why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, because we have bad experiences with Microsoft. Microsoft is closed. Proprietary. Restrictive. Opressive. User hostil. Unreliable.
Etc.
Re:OS - why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, because we have bad experiences with Microsoft. Microsoft is closed. Proprietary. Restrictive. Opressive. User hostil. Unreliable.
If humans like freedom, then why is Microsoft so popular? I think humans, in general, prefer convenience over freedom.
Re:OS - why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:OS - why? (Score:2, Insightful)
I suspect that from the point of view of most non-programmer users of software, convenience *is* freedom -- they are free to get their job/hobby/whatever done without a lot of hassle. They are simply unaware of the additional freedom that they might experience by using Free software, and are put off by the (real or imagined) inconveniences of switching.
It is only wh
Mt. Everest (Score:5, Insightful)
local government ::: OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:local government ::: OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait, you're right. Local government is like OSS!
Two reasons... (Score:5, Insightful)
money/fame (Score:3, Insightful)
pfft (Score:2)
Why I wrote it. (Score:5, Interesting)
One was a simple addressbook, 2 were games, and one a graphics prog - the latter for Commodore 64s.
I released them all as free software, source included, and didn't know what the GPL was at the time. All the same it was open source, simply because I couldn't be bothered with the marketing/distribution/etc. I may have sold them as shareware or donationware had I a strong enough urge to, but for me the majority of the fun was in writing the programs themselves. Getting money for them seemed more work than I could be bothered putting into it
The same answer to different questions? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure nobody can say why exactly people write open source software because different people are quite likely to have different motives. That said, I think we can look to Slashdot posters for equivalence on at least a few levels.
I say this because I've often wondered to myself, "Self, why do you spend at least a few minutes each week drafting comments to slashdot postings?" And the answer, just for me, varies depending on the day, the post, and my mood.
Some days I post to avoid work and flex, perhaps, a different part of my brain. The same might be said for some authors or contributors to open source software.
Other days, I post because an article catches my interest and I have something compelling to say. Again, the same might be said about open source programmers. They contribute to projects about which they are passionate.
Other days, I post to get a rise out of others or to simply be an attention-seeking karma whore. Surely, some open source programmers contribute for recognition, status, or props from their peers.
My bet is that most people write open source software for many reasons and that, even for an individual, those reasons change from one day to the next.
Re:The same answer to different questions? (Score:2)
You raise a good point. Everyone wants to pigeon-hole OSS programmers into groups, explaining in order of importance WHY they do what they do. So many still think its purely benevolence, and put the programmers on pedestals, when its often not warranted. Some start something and are too lazy to finish it alone. Some write a program that fits their needs
OPEN SOURCE PROGRAMMING ~= SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY (Score:4, Interesting)
First, most OSS developers do not think they can make money selling their software. They think that software that sells needs to be super stable and perfect, with a perfect UI and a large advertising budget... Though, shareware shows that this does not have to be the case.
They do not realize that they are taking food out of their future mouths.
Think about this.
When someone makes a scientific discovery, usually, thier discovery becomes part of the public domain and everyone can use it without paying royalties. On the other hand, when someone writes closed source software, they must be paid whenever anyone wants to use that software.
Open source software (via the GPL in particular) causes software development to resemble scientific research, as you give your "inventions" to the public domain, allowing others to improve and advance the "science". The progess is then cumulative (or can be), as other programmers add to existing sofware and improve on it.
Re:OPEN SOURCE PROGRAMMING ~= SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY (Score:5, Insightful)
What a load of crap.
Among my projects is a class I released to phpbuilder.com's "shared code library". It is a method for web servers to send emails through a remote MTA. (PHP's "mail()" function only works on *nix if you have sendmail installed)
By releasing this library into the public (under the LGPL) I've seen it grow and get better as others have used it, and occasionally, tweaked it to fit their needs.
Why people release software to the public is different for each person. It's really like asking: "Why do people drive on freeways?" or, "Why do people dig with shovels?".
Open source licensing is a tool. Different folks use that tool for different reasons. The point, however, is that we *have* this tool, and isn't it kinda neat?
I call bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference here is simple. The scientist that makes a discovery is paid somehow to do that. They are just going to make another one later. If they make enough, they continue to be valuable.
Their living is new ideas.
OSS people work differently.
They have problems to solve. They make their money solving problems. These solutions typically require tools to build.
By building better tools they are more able to solve problems. Since they can solve more problems, they will make more money.
When you buy a license to run someones software, you are basically paying them to solve your problem. When you hire OSS capable people, you are paying them to solve your problem.
The difference between the two is profound.
When you purchase software, you do not own the solution. You only pay for the right to make use of their solution that you can use according to their terms. It is not your solution.
Spending your money on someone who can build with OSS means that you own that solution. How it is used and what it does is on your terms.
Given the licensing terms today and the potential per user costs they incurr, OSS provides a much better long term value proposition than closed software does.
Anyone who really understands what that means will become a lot more willing to pay for OSS solutions.
Here is another way to look at things. All the money for all the solutions can either go to Redmond, or it can go to the people you have to hire anyway to make that mess work in the first place.
Which will be cheaper in the long run?
Personally, I would much rather support and educate the folks around me and actually get something rather than pay them what I have to and also pay that big and very hungry gorilla in Redmond.
Stealing food indeed.
Re:OPEN SOURCE PROGRAMMING ~= SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY (Score:4, Insightful)
My company pays for the service of writing custom embedded software for the product they sell. My previous company paid me for the service of writing custom software for their internal use and for their web site. A vast majority of programmers work this way.
Other than that, I think you make a good analogy. What you fail to mention is that scientists get the benefit of the scientific research of others. My main motivation when I contribute to open source projects is that I want the free software that others contribute. I realize that if everyone just leached off of the system then Linux wouldn't exist at all so I try to do my part.
Re:Top 5 ways to earn a Red Hat certification (Score:4, Insightful)
I take it you don't have much of a connection to the scientific field in your daily life.
Sure, there is a vast international academic community that shares their discoveries and operates on a beautiful principle of cooperation (but only within the acadmic community). But for a biotech/pharma company, scientific research is an unnavigable tangle of patents and licences. You think that tech patents have gotten out of hand? For years it's been much worse for biotech - anything and everything is patentable and patented - sequences of only a few amino acids, genomes of whole organisms, very basic research methods, etc. For a long time companies have been submitting patent applications containing hundreds of pages of any sequence they could come up with, in the hopes that some of it might be useful later. In many areas you have to pay off millions of dollars in licenses to large pharma companies just for the privilege of doing research on that particular subject.
No, it's a very long time before a very large portion of scientific discoveries make it to the public domain. And don't forget, it's the industry not academia which does most of the science that directly affects our daily lives.
First, most OSS developers do not think they can make money selling their software. They think that software that sells needs to be super stable and perfect, with a perfect UI.
Oh, btw, I just assumed you were joking here - they are free software developers, not blind morons with no understanding of what software is. Incidentally, please do show me just one example of an application that's "super stable, with a perfect UI", commercial or otherwise.
Because its a conspiracy? (Score:3, Funny)
There are no more that 500 "open source" programmers...
Linus Torvalds was an agent initially working for KGB and then CIA when the wall went down in Finland. Alan Cox is part of MIT and the Israeli intelligence service.
peer pressure (Score:2, Interesting)
why i realease as open-source (Score:4, Interesting)
my boss tells me: We need a program that does foo
So i write the program that does foo, and if i decide that it could potentially be useful to someone else except me, i release it as open-source. I get enough money from my job, and have to write the program anyway. It's not like i'm obsessed with the thought of one day writing the killer program that everyone simply has to have and that i'm gonna become a millionaire from selling it.
Why open-source? Because my software will be customized for our machines, our OS and it may not work anywhere else. So instead of someone else reinventing the wheel, he could just as well check freshmeat, get my program and it would hopefully work with some minor modifications.
uh oh for you (Score:2)
I'm not even talking about any job contract you might have signed when offered the job... I think it's standard law that one's employer owns whatever you do/make/invent/create during the hours you being paid to do stuff for him/her.
Re:uh oh for you (Score:2)
What about laziness? (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, this project [sourceforge.net] was part of code we build at a startup (now defunct). Since then I used it in two other jobs. The team that build this software to start with, is still using it at several different companies.
So, rather than building the same thing again and again, I got to build it once and then since it's open source, I get to use it as long as I need.
Why DO people write open source software?? (Score:2, Interesting)
The Mother of Invention (Score:2)
Someone said here one day that nobody writes a sales database 8hrs a day because they enjoy it. But someone
Here are two reasons..... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. To show my customer that I can bring them a wealth of functionality with no additional cost (which goes a LONG way towards explaining why we keep getting awarded our military contract year after year even though our expense is a little higher than our competition)
2. To level the playing field and to empower the little guy. Here's a great example, travel agents are being put out of business slowly but surely by airlines and GDSs (SABRE, WorldSpan, etc) by the way of no commissions, etc.
Orbitz, a collusion between carriers to control the distribution channel for tickets, does things like sends ticket holders a notification if their flight is late and so on. Travel Agents have not had that ability until now. They CAN use such CRS solutions like Virtually There and so on but SABRE strips the customer data and will market to their customers behind their backs bypassing the payment of any commisions. This lack of commission is pretty huge. Imagine if your travel agency was turning 10 million dollars worth of revenue for the airlines to get nothing in return?
I created a Perl app called TripTiger [travelagencyhosting.com] that parses CRS terminal data and stores it on the travel agent's web server and stores it in a MySQL database.
The CRS cannot harvest their customers emails, I can have a Perl script running via a cron job to check flight information and send notifications but MOST importantly travel agencies can now control their customer data.
TripTiger is FREE to all trave agencies and they don't have to host with my service at all. It's more important to keep them in business by demonstrating their value to the customer and this helps.
Open Source hasn't crashed the travel technology party and I am trying to help make that happen. Otherwise travel agencies aren't going to be in business much longer.
By the way, I have placed TripTiger on Sourceforge [sourceforge.net] but am having some difficulty with file uploads if anyone can offer advice. I have the spirit just not a master at the mechanics yet.
Simple answer (Score:3, Insightful)
because it's fun (Score:2, Interesting)
Another reason (Score:2, Interesting)
As such, if there's a particular type of game that you like to play a lot, over a period of many years, you have what I see are two choices: play a series of disconnected commercial games that come somewhat close to giving you the feeli
Because no one else did. (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone wants an app that does X in a certain way Y. They could only find an app that does X-3 and it does it in a round about way Z. So they write an app that does X in the certain way Y and release it with the source so that others can modify it to suit their needs as well. Perhaps their mods will be benefitial to the original author as well.
Linux, Perl, blah blah blah, all started this way. It's not complicated or difficult to understand.
What's difficult to understand is why so many people release shareware that does one simple thing and expect people to pay them 20 bucks for it.
Boston Research group (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.bcg.com/media_center/media_press_relea
OVERALL HACKER MOTIVATIONS
Note: Question asked for top three motivators of F/OSS participation
Re:Boston Research group (Score:3, Insightful)
That is the main reason why I contribute to Open Source projects. I need something, it isn't there, I open the source and add it.
Maybe this is a list of why one would start an Open Source project?
Art (Score:2)
Seriously though, this analogy brings up an interesting point. You usually hear this saying in reference to some form of art: painting, writing, acting, etc. So when you view the act of writing open source software as a form a art that people enjoy (not as just "work"), then it starts to make perfect sense.
Open Source For Profit (Score:4, Interesting)
Reduce the cost of your tools and increase the productivity of your labor.
I've worked as a contractor on a number of database and batch environments in and around a small city. The amount of duplicated effort is astounding. Everyone has their own half-baked, written-from-scratch solution that is expensive to maintain and lacking in some respects. As a contractor, I have the advantage since I can apply some of what I learn at company X to company Y.
However, for legal reasons I need to very careful not to re-use code from one place to another. I'm also very careful not to reveal trade secrets that might seem obvious to everyone but a lawyer. Really, I think most companies see sharing of code as a legal thicket instead of a common-sense approach to saving effort.
(Now, I'm not saying a company should give away all its code, just the dull-but-imporant stuff unrelated to the core business.)
I think most of the primary contributors to significant open source projects do so with the backing of a company with an enlightened view of self-interest. I really hope this view catches on, since it would make the workdays of slobs like me that much more rewarding.
Don't Know Why, but Maybe When? (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming, of course, they're employed.
The one thing that has bothered me about OSS (I like the concept, don't get me wrong) is that writing software for free might be a coder pride thing, but folks, vanity don't pay the rent or the groceries.
Unless you're independently wealthy, you have to be doing something to pay for the pork and beans.
Re:Don't Know Why, but Maybe When? (Score:2)
To paraphrase Linus' response when asked why he would invest so much time into something he makes no money off of - "I am a developer, I won't starve".
The sad truth of it is, we are geeks - we write code for a living, and we write code on our own time - we spend more time writing code than any company can be reasonably expected to pay us for. Other people don't expect to be paid for everything they do while they are awake, it just so happens th
Re:Don't Know Why, but Maybe When? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hobby [reference.com]: "An activity or interest pursued outside one's regular occupation and engaged in primarily for pleasure."
Nothing there about needing to be independently wealthy to have one
Or is it possible that different open source coder (Score:5, Funny)
No... its been my experience that every human being thinks and acts exactly the same.
Re:Or is it possible that different open source co (Score:5, Funny)
Me too!
There is no mystery (Score:5, Interesting)
Why does this question even get asked? Why are people always questioning the motivation of this particular hobby or activity? It seems like someone out there would prefer that people *didn't* write open source software...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Releasing source code as a consultant (Score:2, Interesting)
The NewsForge article concludes that we go open source because "there's something in it for me." And yes, that's true. My #1 marketing plan has always been, "Get it distributed; get it used; get it accepted." Open source is a great way to "get it distributed," especially for customers with thin wallets.
On the other hand, Maslow's hierarchy of needs in the Cybernaut article also applies. At this point in my career life-cycle (I
I just love coding. (Score:3, Insightful)
They both seem to make a mistake (Score:2, Insightful)
If he's reasonably nice, but too lazy to arrange payment, he'll often share these changes. I'd wager almost all the device drivers for Linux were written by someone who owned a device that wasn't already supported in the OS.
Various reasons at various times (Score:2)
Originally for myself from probably 14-18 is was to learn.
Then from 18-24 it was because I thought I was doing something important.
From 24-29 it was done only at times of boredom.
30 on has been for one reason: to fuck Microsoft
Perhaps.. (Score:4, Insightful)
...because they love what computers could be.
I've always thought that the great thing about computers is their mallability - the way you can change the way they act.
Then comes issues like licensing, and the way that proprietary software can only be extended using special macro languages.. These things drop artificial flexibility barriers onto a completely open system - a very sad waste of the potential of such devices..
Because malleability is the best trait of computer programs over specific, fixed systems, it is only at its best if no such artificial barriers are imposed on the system.
The open source model really just seems like a natural method of software development that avoids such wastage...
In the full color spectrum of the possible.... (Score:2)
Why I develop OSS (Score:2)
Impulse to Create (Score:2)
I think it can best be explained by Malsow [ship.edu] pyramid or hierarchy of needs. Those toward the top of pyramid have an increasing desire to create. Also OSS provides a way to create without an artifical "leadership" or power structures that dominate almost all our other areas of living.
Also, the invention of the internet provided the basic infrastructure for like minded people to get together and create some
Excellent discussion about that on that /. site (Score:2)
To get a little brainy (Score:2)
"As a person satisfies a set of needs, starting with the survival needs, she becomes motivated by the subsequent set of needs."
That's my reason. My woman is turned on by what she calls brainy things. So basically, it gets her to satisfy a set of my needs
It helps you get a job. (Score:3, Insightful)
There was also a bonus. When starting a job you often have to get a utility library to make life easier. With the open source project under my belt, I could just import it and start using it.
OSS Community and Emulation (Score:2, Interesting)
Doesn't the OSS community work as a culture where one's motivation comes, in part, from emulating what others have done? A culture isn't centralized, it doesn't have committees or even goals. In many ways, "it just works"...
There are obvious leading figures and groups, of course. And, surely, some people start coding because they read The Cathedral and the Bazaar or they look up to RMS or Linus. Others are just part of it because it works...
On the other hand
Seinfeld answered this question years ago (Score:2)
Men have no idea what impresses women. They build bridges, join the army. And write open source software... to get laid.
Simple answer. (Score:3, Interesting)
Scientific Dissemination (Score:3, Insightful)
I myself make the source code for my software [tina-vision.net] freely available for the purpose of scientific dissemination. I work in a field (computer vision) where complex software is developed and forms the basis of experiments. Publishing papers which describe the algorithm and results is the main output but this has some limitations. Often there isnt the space to describe all the subtle aspects which make the program work. Perhaps the author does not even appreciate themselves what it is which is really driving the process (code can chge an aweful lot from conception to use). Also we want others to build on our work and that process is made much more difficult when everyone has to re-implement algorithms from scratch, possibly from incomplete or inaccurate papers.
Sharing code to explain techniques is something that has happened in experimental science for many years. Mordern open source frameworks such as GNU have made this task much easier by providing tools and standards. The web has also massively improved distribution.
Re:Most open source coders (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I disagree that communism failed because people got tired of contributing. In my opinion, there really hasn't been a "ideological" communist state to exist yet. Russia and Cuba are both just glorified dictatorships, not communist states - no matter how much they claim otherwise. Their governments ended up hoarding all the resources and not really giving back to the people they governed.
Getting back to open source software, however, a key difference is that you can LEAVE an open source project whenever you feel like. Do some people have the attention span of mayflies? Sure. But sometimes they just need a break to be able to get back into the project. Since this is their personal interest, it's less likely to be subjected to permanent disinterest. Somewhere, somebody loves everykind of project.
blue
Re:Most open source coders (Score:2)
Russia??? I assume you mean former Soviet Union.
Re:Most open source coders (Score:2)
Does any open-source software come out of Cuba or Other Socialist States (OSS)? Since scope for profit-making is rather limited there (and most of these states have a very good education system), I would imagine that some of the disincentives applying here would not apply to people living there.
Re:Most open source coders (Score:2, Insightful)
That's because when you have free will, you choose not to live under an unfair system of sharing everything between everyone, no matter what their merit. When most people have free will, they believe they should receive similar to what they give. If you work hard, you get more. If
Re:Most open source coders (Score:2)
The first stage to Communism, according to Karl Marx, is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This corresponds to the use of force to tear the state apart and rebuild it as a classless society.
So you're right that the ideological state has yet to exist, but that is because the ideology is fundamentally flawed, and cannot exist due to h
Re:Most open source coders (Score:3, Insightful)
The open source model certainly resembles communism (socialism, actually), but the differences are greater than the similarities. First of all, for the large part free software relies on capitalism, it needs that class of educated and reasonably well to do people who can afford to spend the time doing what they like. Secondly, this model is applied to only a specific product, one for which almost limitless resources exist - the
Re:Most open source coders (Score:3, Insightful)
Then pay them to! What does this have to do with Open Source?
What is the "open source" you speak of? (Score:5, Interesting)
What open source needs to do:... blah blah blah
Sorry, but this concept really drives me up a wall. What centralized 'open source' organization are you talking about? Open source isn't a single group. It isn't a solid movement. It isn't a company or even a consistent culture. Heck, I'm on open source developer, but I have no connections with most major projects individuals think of when they say 'open source.' Sure you have the FSF and the Apache Software Foundatation. There are larger projects like Gnome and KDE and the Linux Kernal. We also have some companies like Red Hat and SuSE. But they all distinct entities! They often disagree with one another. They often disagree internally! So let's repeat it again: There is NO open source master plan!
Despite what anyone tells you, the 'open source' you speak of is a loose connection of individuals each with their own interests and reasons for contributing. And no open source developer has any obligation to make a peice of software any better for you as a user anymore than you do! I'm doing this as a hobby. Because I like it. Because I want to. Because it's fun. And if I don't want to build "in-between" programs like games or media servers, then that's fine. Who are you to tell me I should. Heck, I don't even have to make my software, which I write and give away FOR FREE, any more user friendly than I want it to be. If you want something more user friendly, then WRITE IT YOURSELF!
I can't stand it when open source users cry about why "open source" is going to fail or why the software sucks. Well, the beauty of it is, if you really think that, go over to sourceforge and start your own! Or maybe you could spend some time writing some documentation, or funding the project (in which case the developer would have an obligation to listen) or maybe even submit some code yourself.
But one last time: OPEN SOURCE IS NOT A SINGULAR MOVEMENT. Each developer does it for his or her own reasons and in most cases that means that they'll write and develop what they want to. No one beyond ESR or RMS has ever promised anything more. Linus sure hasn't. So before you claim the movement will never work, you might want to check if there's really a movement to begin with.
Re:What is the "open source" you speak of? (Score:2)
I have a bit of a problem with the former part of that oft cited statement - what the heck does "fail" even mean here? To me that would mean that every single free project is somehow wiped off the face of the earth, and not a single person releases a single line of code freely any longer... and I seriously doubt that could happen as long as there are people who write code, at all.
(well I su
Re:Most open source coders (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess you didn't get enough responses to your Communism troll that time.
I disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
So do commercial products. If noone bought Windows, do you think they'd continue selling it?
I am an OSS developer. Here's my three reasons why:
1. I want to make the world a better place by contributing with free software. It may not be much, but it helps.
2. Credit. Dislike it if you will, but being an OSS developer is a nice way to show off your code. Read some of the the OpenBSD sources and be impressed. Those guys really know how to code
Re: Communism (Score:2, Interesting)
Communism doesn't mean that "everyone works on it", it means only that everyone owns it. In USSR, everything belonged to the state which was supposed to belong to the people, so theoretically I as a citizen of the USSR (only a child back then) owned a microscopic share of everything, but did
Re:Most open source coders (Score:2)
Open source is based on the very principles of communism: everyone works on it, everyone owns it.
That not necessarily true. The main OSS project that I work on is available for anyone to use (or adapt, extend) but I still own it.
So, projects die as they become less "hot" to work on.
That project started in a closed setting. It had no value beyond solving a short-term i
Re:Most open source coders (Score:4, Insightful)
You conclude open source is based on the principles of communism. Not sure how you come to this conclusion. Most open source authors write the software because *THEY* wanted the software, not because someone else did, specifically. It just so happens that the software might be useful to someone else too, so if the source is openned up, a lot of people can work on it, and the original author gains directly from other contributions as well. Communism? No... it's quite selfish, actually. It just happens to be an interesting upshot of this form of selfishness that a lot of people happen to get something out of it.
It might also be worth adding that real success is measured not by a bottom line on a bank statement, but solely by the measure of satisfaction that one has with oneself. Anyone who says anything other than that is probably trying to get you to do something for him.
HAHAHAHAHA (Score:5, Funny)
-Joe G.
Re:HAHAHAHAHA (Score:2)
Personally, I write open source for the chicks. Sometimes it's gratifying and intellectually fulfilling, but mainly, for the chicks
Re:For scratching an itch... (Score:2)
Were you trying to be profound just then?
Re:OT: New worm (Score:2)