The very real limitations of open source (ZDNet)

Posted Jun 7, 2002 22:28 UTC (Fri) by DeletedUser1767 ((unknown), #1767) [Link]

Most programmers don't program exclusively for fun, though they may enjoy the task - they do so to solve a problem. Would I trust Free/Open Source software to take care of all my software needs - yes. So Mozilla took four years - big deal. One of the biggest costs for companies is the endless upgrade cycle - both in terms of license costs and support costs getting new software to work with old and solving the end-user issues and so forth.

I'd welcome four years between major versions of software instead of having to "upgrade" something like Word every two years or less to stay current. The primary motivator behind the upgrade cycle is no longer technical - it's based on the desire of proprietary software companies to establish a set revenue cycle. That's fine for them - but lousy for everyone else.

The proprietary crowd will say "but what about specialty programs that might not be coded without financial reward" - in many cases, these could also be developed as open source, funded by companies in the "specialty" industry that the software would serve. In the long run, it would be much cheaper for an industry to form a coalition to pay for the development of a Free Software version of the software they need to do business than it would be for each company to continue to be bled dry by licensing fees. Imagine if all the companies that depend on desktop publishing programs like QuarkXPress contributed to a fund to develop a similar program that could then be maintained and remain stable for years instead of having to upgrade to a new version every two or three years to stay current.

The bottom line is that software development that is motivated by the commerical bottom line will never really be developed with the customer in mind first. The primary motivating factor will always be profit, which is in direct opposition to the interests of the companies actually buying the software. I'm not just talking about it not being in the interest of a company to pay for software - I'm talking about the licensing restrictions that prevent a company from fixing bugs or adding features or whatever. I'm talking about the upgrade cycle that hits far too often and the upcoming drive led by Microsoft to move from buying a software license to subscription software that ensures you'll always be paying for the software no matter what - as long as you want to use it.

Posted Jun 8, 2002 6:50 UTC (Sat) by errorlevel (guest, #1803) [Link]

Because of my principles, I strive to be recognized. I want when I die for people to recognize my name as they recognize any other large figment in history. I want to dirty my hands with as many Free Software projects as possible and produce the best code that I can to hopefully gain that recognition. If I don't succeed, I don't mind. At least I would've helped out some people.

Regards,
Jared Lash

P.S. It's not so much the programming that I find fun, it's the sense of accomplishment that drives me to program rather than seek recognition in some other manner.

Posted Jun 8, 2002 18:10 UTC (Sat) by DeletedUser1823 ((unknown), #1823) [Link]

<br>No, no, this is all wrong. Fame is fine, but I'm looking for fortune. I program for money. But I am a big fan of open source.<p>Look, I'm not about to share the code that I get paid to develop. Quite honestly, those are proprietary programs owned by my company. It would be foolish to let those programs out because someone would be able to compete us out of the market with 0 investment.<p>But it doesn't make any sense for me to be spending tons of time writing operating systems or interpretive languages or GUI packages or anything else that is not central to the firm-specific programs that I write.<p>So I am more than happy to contribute to open source. How do I do that? Corporate and personal donations, support contracts, etc. I definitely make contributions through bug fixes and if I thought I could supply enhancements or coding help I would do it in a heartbeat.<p>You see, this is the real benefit of open source. A bunch of erstwhile money hungry programmers can agree to work together on common "middleware" for their mutual benefit.<p>Many core projects exist only because of diehard individuals who make contributions for fame, personal satisfaction, whatever. But a lot of contributors and users are simply using a good product that helps them in their real work.

Posted Jun 10, 2002 15:40 UTC (Mon) by dirvine (guest, #208) [Link]

Open Source is a fantastic medium. Lots of programmers in work can, in their spare time, create fantastic code through a hope of recodnition or simply because something lacks functionality they want. This is true of employers of non software development companies too.

However there are many software development companies and these are not all MS or Oracle, they are small companies with relatively good ideas who need money to get off the ground. They can someday have a business model which allows open source etc but it should not be compulsary. Developers are good at developng not support or customer service etc. but developing. They also have worldly requirements ie eating, drinking and perhaps looking after a famiy.

To effectively ban these programmers by making everything free would harm the industry. We need a mix and less of a gap between free and hugely expensive and also between open and totaly closed. Finding that gap should be our goal and keeping away from the extremes should be inherant in the methods used to achieve this.