The trouble with Open Source...

is that it just doesn't earn the big bucks!



I just finished reading an article from a British Computer Society member called

The trouble with open source

Now I'm both the first person to evangelize open source but also the first to point out that it, like everything else, is imperfect. This article happened to identify several issues, however, some of which I take issue.



The author, a certifiable fellow identified as "Stephen J Marshall CEng MBCS CITP" grants OSS some validity, if only as having academic value. He refers to it as a "widely talked about" and "influential" "phenominon" with a utopian vision of free software. He refers to the champions of this vision as "high-profile pressure groups", citing the Free Software Foundation and Electronic Frontier Foundation as two.

As the catalyst for widespread OSS adoption, he explains quite correctly about the fears associated with vendor lock-in: all-eggs/one-basket, dimishing (or lets face it, "NO") support from vendors, never-ending cycle of upgrades whence there is no return.


He continues to decry some of the most powerful business benefits of OSS: large developer-base, likelihood of longevity, the option to bring critical development in-house, should the project-owners disappear, etc...



The author then changes the tone of his article with the phrase "become captivated by the idea of a free-lunch," then launching into his opinions of OSS weaknesses. Below, I'll list his issues, a summary of his meaning, and my own perspective (which is, of course, why you read my blog, right? ;)



* Intellectual Property: code written by employees is owned by the company, regardless of when they write it. Only losers with zero experience are allowed to write OSS.



= I'll have to verify the laws in the US, but the UK sounds rather draconian in this regard. I quess it's a good thing we told 'em where to stick it when we did. Beyond the differing legal-systems between countries, many companies officially contribute their own IP to OSS, as well as providing employee work-hours to benefit OSS. Look at many of the software projects which have made it to the bigtime. Most of them have corporate backing and/or corporate ownership. Beyond even that, part of the draw of OSS is the ability of a developer or team to prove their value in an open forum where their software might get noticed. Some OSS code is resume-ware

= Still, the author's comments aren't without lessons:

== Investigate the code you use before you rely too heavily on it. Get to know the developer=base and background a little and get a feeling for its overall quality. This is know different from the proprietary world, except the proprietary vendors are much more skilled at deception.



* Conceptual Integrity: OSS projects don't have leadership with any vision or control. Quality control is done on the first adopters



= Hogwash. First of all, generalizing about OSS is like characterizing every person on the planet. That said, OSS projects are almost as likely to have leadership with vision and control as proprietary code. Either way, it's a gamble. The key difference is driving-force. OSS is not driven by a marketting sheet and budget as their proprietary cousins. OSS is driven primarily by features and quality, neither of which are guaranteed. Furthermore, OSS projects are often a labor of love, being conceptualized and owned by the project leader(ship). This relationship is very powerful, more powerful than a paycheck often ensures. As for quality control, I can't say there isn't a bit of truth there. I have fallen victim to the occasional bug finding me. I refuse to condone it, as the quality of software needs to improve. I will point out that I have been bitten equally by proprietary vendor bugs. The difference is that the OSS bugs are free. Yes, you may be able to get the bugs fixed quickly by pay-for products faster than free ones... but I haven't met a OSS developer which wouldn't fix your problem quickly for a marginal fee. Difference: much faster, much cheaper, pay-as-you-go.

= Still, there are lessons to be gained here as well. QC/QA *really* need to improve, industry-wide. The software industry was at an all-time-low just a few short years ago. It appears to be improving slowly. This *must* be a continued effort, learning from the experience we've gained. Heck, most of the *reason* OSS has gained popularity is the lack of software quality in the proprietary world.



* Professionalism: duh.



= Ok, I can't knock this one very hard. I've seen the bedside manner of certain OSS developers. I know that as a geek I have to work hard for professionalism... I will say that paid developers tend to be more willing to make the effort... particularly in the OSS space. Stop thinking that OSS means immonetary! That short-sighted viewpoint will continue to cause difficulties in the software world. Support for corporate use is practically a given, a requirement many corporations will demand. This is where SuSE/Novell has a great deal of appeal.

== What to learn? 1) Be nice, guys! 2) Consider the needs of those to whom you are communicating.



* Innovation: wimpy little wannabe developers can't think up anything fun and new.



= Wow! I'm pissed off *for* the developers! They should be quite insulted. Is this guy a lunie or simply on the corporate payroll? He has obviously never used Mozilla, Linux (for so *many* innovations), Thunderbird, Apache, GAIM, Konqueror, KDE, Gnome, Unison, rsync, APT, and so many others which have put their proprietary cousins to innovative shame on countless occasions.



= Lessons? There are many who have opinions. Use those opinions to limit *test-driving* solutions, not negating them.



The paper goes on to mention some drivel, particularly focusing on the detriment of software vendors who cannot compete. I can understand how this space can be difficult. Problem: many corporate software vendors get outrageous amounts of money for limited value, buggy software I could write in a couple months. Why shouldn't OSS projects put the pressure on these? The software industry is certainly being shaken up with the acceptance (and relative maturing) of OSS. The reasonably-priced, higher-value software should have less to worry about from the OSS world. If they are offering significant value, OSS developers are less likely to target the space (ok, this isn't a scientific view, I suppose they might get an itch). $100k for a piece of software which could be written by a team of 3 in a month... Something is specifically wrong with that. It's why I rejoined the development community ;)

However, there are new areas of development which OSS has opened up, building upon OSS. ISVs are starting to harness the Linux platform to lower the costs of development, deployment, and improve visibility into the OS. Smart ISVs are learning to harness the power of OSS, even when they do not offer their own. The author is correct in stating the importance of the "middle-class" developer. I offer my respect and support to those, and hope for them intelligent business decisionmaking. Software companies have so much to offer, even in the OSS world we seem to be increasingly embracing.



To finish off the article, we find the author's fear of UK governmental preference tending toward OSS in detriment to software vendors, listing cost as the primary decisionmaker for the UK government. (wait a minute, I thought OSS was illegal!) I believe this is the cause for this article. Some valuable insights were shared, but overall it did indeed seem to be very closed-minded and old-school, neither of which work very well in the new technology age. No disrespect to the author, the article was well-articulated. The opinions are his, and his right to express them is what makes the web and open governments so great.



Before writing him off, however, let's be sure to keep in mind the lessons and concerns listed above. Learn from all you can, whether the opinion be pro or con.