What's Wrong with the Open Source Community? 751
An anonymous reader writes "We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us says a Pogo-quoting James Turner, in trying to pinpoint "What's Wrong with the Open Source Community?" for LinuxWorld this morning. But he doesn't *just* say that it's we developers ourselves, he also has five hard-to-deny reasons, including 'Open source developers often scratch the same itch' and 'Open Source developers love a good feud.' He also suggests we often approach the whole issue of encouraging migration to Linux from Windows entirely wrongly." There's also a decent rebuttal with this story as well - worth reading.
just a guess.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:just a guess.... (Score:3, Funny)
Guess who? (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, here's a description of one particularly fanatical 'open-source supporter' (from PBS [pbs.org]).
"If he was busy he didn't bathe, he didn't change clothes. We were in New York and the demo that we had crashed the evening before the announcement, and Bill worked all night with some other engineers to fix it. Well it didn't occur to him to take ten minutes for a shower after that, it just didn't occur to him that that was important, and he badly needed a shower that day."
Please step forwar
What's Wrong with the Open Source Community? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm getting paid (Score:5, Informative)
In the other end, the horizontal market, people are getting paid as well. The Linux kernel, Mozilla, and Open Office are primarily developed by people getting paid to do so.
And in-between these two extremes, people are getting paid as well. Samba, Apache, GCC, GDB and other popular network and development applications are primarily being developed by people getting paid to do so.
It is true that most free software applications, if you count them on sourceforge, are developed by amateurs in their spare time. But most of these applications have very few users as well.
Most of the free software most people use are developed by people getting paid to do so.
Re:I'm getting paid (Score:4, Insightful)
Would it be accurate to say that most of the people being paid to develop the popular apps didn't start that way? I mean, didn't these folks start writing the apps in their spare time with no backing specifically for the apps, and then the apps got popular, so they got funding (doesn't matter how) to continue the development? If that's the case, the "amateur" programmers writing those apps on Sourceforge with few users could one day find themselves with a user base to match Apache, Samba, GCC, etc. And a regular paycheck too...
Re:What's Wrong with the Open Source Community? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a part time software developer (and full time University student) and I can tell you that I have made much more money associated with my free/open source software than I have with my generic Windows shareware. Most of the money has resulted from custom modifications for organizations that started by using the free software. I am also developing several new projects, for which I plan on fundraising through sales of the open source software (yes, you can sell free software [fsf.org]) as
Re:What's Wrong with the Open Source Community? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's Wrong with the Open Source Community? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure your studly regexp skills are a hit with the ladies. You have no idea how embarrassing it is to accidentally grep for the wrong pattern on a first date...
Re:What's Wrong with the Open Source Community? (Score:3, Insightful)
Much to learn. (Score:3, Interesting)
There is nothing inherently wrong with the Open Source movement.
Think back to when Chiang Kai-Shek took over China: before that no one worked, everyone was poor, morale was nonexistent. Under the benevolent dictator, a term used to describe Linus Torvalds, Kai-Shek ensured that everyone worked, and everyone had a purpose.
Within a few short years China was a world power.
With an identical structure, the Open Source leaders ensure a good pool of talent. Millions of identical workers producing code. There's no way the current method of the Cigar-smoking boss standing on the backs of the coders can continue. Chiang Kai-Shek died in 1975 but his methods and teachings continue to this day in China.
Open Source could learn a lot from him.
c39052b261506f846895cac6e0724290
Re:Much to learn. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Much to learn. (Score:4, Informative)
Elections were also held while Kuomintang was in power on the mainland.
It wasn't untill civil war started and they got chucked out by the communists that things degraded to a good old 1 party dictatorship on Taiwan.
(I'm ofcourse painting things a bit rosy but the democracy in China was above average measured by the political standards of 1910-1920.)
Re: Troll (Score:4, Insightful)
Think back to when Chiang Kai-Shek took over China: before that no one worked, everyone was poor, morale was nonexistent.
True, but -- then again -- no one worked, everyone was poor, and morale was nonexistent _while_ Chiang Kai-Shek ruled China and _after_ he got kicked out. If China has changed, it's only been in the past few decades -- thanks largely to peace and a moderate Communist regime.
Under the benevolent dictator, a term used to describe Linus Torvalds,
Some would describe Chiang Kai-Shek as "an incompetent dictator who permitted graft and corruption among his subordinates; a fool who handed the world's largest country to Communists at the start of the cold war." I haven't heard similar descriptions of Linus Torvalds. (In fairness, Torvalds has a much easier job than Chiang Kai-Shek.)
Within a few short years China was a world power.
China has been a world power for thousands of years. It reached a low point in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Chiang Kai-Shek died in 1975 but his methods and teachings continue to this day in China.
No, they don't.
Re:Much to learn. (Score:3, Insightful)
There's nothing wrong with socialism and communism either, as long as you speak "in theory." While you can find something wrong with anything if you look with a critical eye, I don't think OSS is at all close to perfect or optimal:
RMS pounces on anyone who does not both kiss his ass (his demand is that his contribution be acknowledged, see the GNU/Linux vs Linux/GNU vs Linux arguments) *and* sponsor his own personal choice method for open sou
Re:Much to learn. (Score:4, Interesting)
RMS pounces on anyone who does not both kiss his ass (his demand is that his contribution be acknowledged, see the GNU/Linux vs Linux/GNU vs Linux arguments) *and* sponsor his own personal choice method for open source (ie, use the license he prefers)."
I think the rebuttal article did a fairly good job of countering the 5 issues, but an argument already having been made has never stopped me before...
I get particularly tired of people's need to compare open source with some sort of political movement, ANY of them. RMS may have socialist views personally, but there are many capitalists in the open source movement as well. There are also large numbers of Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians, meat eaters, vegetarians, doctors and Christian Scientists.
Open source probably would not exist in a tightly control economy. The government would eventually choose an "official" operating system and demand that everyone use it or have their computers confiscated.
And finally I like to remind people that open source existed before it had a name. Computers used in universities and research environments for as long as there has been computing were largely programmed and tinkered with by people at those institutions. Even IBM computers where I went to school had modified operating systems. Source code was readily available from IBM and there were publications used for exchanging those modifications as well as the likelihood that some of them would show up in future versions of the OS. Until Microsoft came along in fact operating systems were secondary to the hardware that they supported. While IBM wasn't thrilled if you ran a non-IBM OS on their equipment they would much rather have that happen than to have you run non-IBM hardware.
Given all of that, it is really not the Open Source movement that is odd, it is in fact Microsoft that is worthy of study for it produces almost no physical products and has continued to charge premium prices for software that has long ago left the R&D stage. I don't think that historians will marvel at the emergence of Open Source in our time, I think they will marvel that a single company was able to so effectively suppress that which comes fairly naturally to people: the desire to explore and understand for such a long period of time. I think that period is nearing its end however. For those who grew up in the "Microsoft age" its ending must surely seem odd.
Using the words 'entirely wrongly' together (Score:4, Funny)
Pointless contrarianism (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you know that the same feuds and itch scratching don't happen at Sun or Microsoft? They certainly do, but you don't know this because your only interface to the firm is a PR rep. I like the transparency of the open source community. I want to see the debates and bickering take place in public, where maybe just maybe I can provide some input.
Re:Pointless contrarianism (Score:5, Insightful)
When he talks about each of the complaints he's got, he's not talking about competing with Microsoft, or Sun, or SGI -- he's talking about problems with the community itself. You're the one who turned his observation into a negative comment about FOSS compared to closed source. He's talking about things to fix, and you want to turn it into things to compete about. Look at his point 5, and tell me that doesn't apply to your reaction.
Re:Pointless contrarianism (Score:4, Insightful)
Admittedly I digress from your whistle-blowing about point 5, however, who is to say that these feuds don't *help* the community? If the developers didn't care enough to put their ego/self worth/zealotry on the line then we could very well end up with poorly written or mediocre solutions that nobody cared enough to fight about. You cannot (with a straight face) tell me that the bitter rivalries over vi and emacs, kde and gnome, linux and *bsd have not filled the pipes of many an oss hacker.
Speaking as a developer, I know I perform my best, cross all i's and dot all t's when it is my opinion, reputation, and/or self worth that is at stake. What he touts as a failure should be lauded as the competetive incentive that it is. If this is in the counterpoint, you will have to forgive me - the counterpoint was slashdotted by the time I got to it.
Re:Pointless contrarianism (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep, you're right. At least for the early stages of any project. There should be several competing products, and as they mature, the size of the user base will determine which product deserves to survive. Note that I'm not saying that the "better" product should survive, merely that the one people want to use should survive. One or more of the failures could be technically better, but less user-friendly, for example. Forks should hap
Re:Pointless contrarianism (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe the point is that the original article wasn't "why the open source community is worse than closed source communitis" but "places where the open source community could do better than it does now".
Re:Pointless contrarianism (Score:5, Insightful)
He's trying to say that the comment wasn't comparing closed-source to open-source and determining which is better. Just merely that turf battles in the OSS-community is bad.
Basically, put all the brains together and come up with something better. Don't have the brains of OSS-community battle it out individually.
The grandparent (and first reply to your original post) seems to take offense that you've turned this argument away from its intention to improve OSS-community, and viewed it as a "this is why closed-source is better" argument.
PS. I don't agree (or disagree for that matter) with this statement, but I point it out so you can understand the arguement. The obvious counterargument here is "Competetion creates a far better end product". I don't care which is correct, just that they're both good points and debating which case is probably purely opinion and can't be solidifed absolutely with facts.
Here's his point (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's his point (Score:4, Insightful)
Even that's an exaggeration. I usually don't even consider MS. But when I do, I remember why I want them destroyed.
When I work on my projects, I don't consider "How would/does MS do this?" And I couldn't if I wanted to, because I won't agree to their EULA terms. But when you ask me about MS, my only resonse is some variant of "Carthago delenda est!" If you don't know why, then you've been living with your eyes closed, but it sure isn't by happenstance. It took careful work and planning on their part to drive me to this position. That may not be what they thought they were doing, but that was (one of) the effects.
Just to pick a minor example, one of their EULA terms forbids you to compare one of their products with any other product and publish the results of your comparison without prior approval of the publication by Microsoft.
Now the US govt is (supposedly) forbidden by the constitution from passing such a rule by the first amendment. But a private monopoly can enforce it via contract law. And be supported by the US govt.
Were MS not a monopoly, one could just say "Well, let the customers choose some other product.", but MS *IS* a monopoly that had repeatedly acted in illegal ways to destroy the competition.
Microsoft delenda est!
Re:Pointless contrarianism (Score:5, Insightful)
> don't happen at Sun or Microsoft?
Have you compared the number of products for specific tasks?
Microsoft: Internet Explorer
Open Source: Mozilla, Galeon, Konqueror,
Microsoft: Media Player
Open Source: Mplayer, XMMS, Xine,
Microsoft: Word (and to a lesser extent, Works Writer)
Open Source: OpenOffice Writer, AbiWord, KOffice,
I'd have to say the "itch" argument is pretty accurate.
Re:Pointless contrarianism (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, because "open source" is not a company, it is a community, in the same sense that Windows developers are a community (for which multiple browsers also exist...Opera etc).
Microsoft: Media Player Open Source: Mplayer, XMMS, Xine, ...
But increasingly the GNOME world at least is using Gstreamer as a backend. If someone wants to code up yet-another GUI for Gstreamer, go nuts.
Re:Pointless contrarianism (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pointless contrarianism (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Source: Mplayer, XMMS, Xine,
Microsoft: Internet Explorer, Netscape, Opera,
Open Source: Mozilla, Galeon, Konqueror,
Microsoft: Word (and to a lesser extent, Works Writer), OpenOffice, WordPerfect,
Open Source: OpenOffice Writer, AbiWord, KOffice,
There's shitloads of products for both platforms. Unless you want to talk companies, then even in the linux world, it's a one to one relation, one to two for some some projects if you want to count Open Source and Proprietary offerings.
Re:Pointless contrarianism (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see why people see abundance of choice as a bad thing. The problem with the computer industry isn't too much choice. The problem is a lack of enforced standards. If the encoding of all documents was equal then the various products could battle it out on a level play field.
Look at the automotive industry, can you imagine if all the cars ran on gasoline but Chevy's needed one brand of gas and Ford needed another brand of gas and so on? You would have to carefully plan your trips to make sure the right gas stations were at the right locations so you could get you specific brand of gas. This would lead to a lack of competition among gas companies (what competition there is now) and more outrageous prices without any method of check to see if the cost is justified.
Kinda like software companies are now. Lets face it, if Microsoft knows it's probably going to sell X number of copied of Office, plus OEM packages and so on, why do they need to charge in excess of $400 for the professional version? You really think it's worth that much money.
Re:Pointless contrarianism (Score:3, Insightful)
vim or Emacs?
I happen to like vim, are you going to tell me that my preference is wrong? How can a preference be wrong?
My point is that as long as people have preferences, multiple solutions will exist for a particular problem, and this is not a bad thing.
Re:Pointless contrarianism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pointless contrarianism (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure you do, as well as many other people. But I think this is a minor group compared to the amount of people that just want someone to tell them App-X or Software-Y can solve their problems. I think OSS sorely misses that...a PR Rep to tell everyone "Yes, this will solve your problems. Look at this pretty presentation!" It may not be the most moral way of attracting customers, but it does work. Never underestimate the value that flash and p
Re:Pointless contrarianism (Score:3, Insightful)
Some level of quality control (I know, MS, quality control, har har), is exercised, and the weaker attempts get canned and their developers end up working on the stronger ones.
In open source, the weaker attempts languish on, while the stronger attempts could sure use the extra effort to make them better.
Re:Pointless contrarianism (Score:3, Insightful)
Not when it comes to pettyness. Just makes you look bad.
Why hide the warts? Who are you trying to impress? There are real people and real personalities involved in the community. Jerks who do not provide useful input will be purged. No long term harm seems to have been inflicted due to free speech.
The worst thing about the open source community (Score:5, Funny)
Name-calling doesn't help (Score:5, Insightful)
I obviously cannot vouch for the maturity and security level of everyone in the Open Source community, but I disagree with this conclusion. The partisanship and the sometimes irrational emotional responses are a problem (maybe the problem) with Open Source, but are not the result of "immaturity" or "insecurity." They are a natural human reaction to perceived attacks on X, where X is something into which a great deal of time/work/hope has been invested.
I agree that the community could advance more rapidly without all of the competing distributions, standards, etc., but that very same diversity is what gives Open Source its strength. The redundancy may slow things in some ways, but it helps guarantee that -- when the standards are winnowed down -- the strongest and best survive. Calling the members of the community "immature" and "insecure" is mere name-calling that is more likely to induce the exact emotional responses the author laments rather than the needed calm, rational debate on this important issue.
Re:Name-calling doesn't help (Score:5, Insightful)
ballmer screams "developers! developers!" like a cocaine-feulled monkey. steve jobs is well known for his temper tantrums and "reality distortion field". darl and the sco crew are running around like paranoid schizophrenics with delusions of grandeur (or even just plain adequacy)...
and the open source people are "immature and insecure"?
Re:Name-calling doesn't help (Score:3, Insightful)
There are CEOs like that.
Among the failed dot-coms, there are quite a number of CEOs like that.
Re:Name-calling doesn't help (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Name-calling doesn't help (Score:3, Interesting)
Some background. Tech-Ed is a conference (mostly) for developers using Microsoft products. Balmer was doing the keynote. If you've ever been to one of these things, keynotes are always HYPE, and are usually only worth seeing because they tell you what the conference sponsor is pushing that year. At that point, there was some internal fr
Re:Name-calling doesn't help (Score:5, Funny)
It's not just X, either, but also emacs, KDE, Gnome...
Oppositional Logic (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that a problem with a large number of movements is that they are based first and foremost on an oppositional logic and rhetoric. Rather than simply providing a model for open debate and getting things done, the oppositional rhetoric gives us infighting and great wars about the composition of naval lint and the direction of the great social revolution.
Of course, this is just a problem in OSS, it seems to be occuring just about everywhere. People are subdividing into camps based on whatever thesis/antithesis group the rant about, and are gradually losing the ability to community with the rest of the world.
Re:Oppositional Logic (Score:3, Insightful)
blah blah (Score:3, Insightful)
case in point, i just logged into the #debian channel on freenode, and asked why the package servers hadn't updated in several days.. at least 15 people got really nasty, ranging from "read the fucking channel topic" to some very nasty insults. Strangely enough, the channel topic had absolutely nothing to talk about the package servers, and the link in the topic was broken.
Re:blah blah (Score:5, Informative)
Uhhh.... I think that's just IRC, dude.
No... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the problem has more to do with your question. The Debian server compromise has been "all over the news", which I believe is why the package servers haven't been updated. It's reasonable to assume that people in #debian might have assumed you knew about the compromise, and they might have been a bit sensitive about it.
Also, you didn't mention
Now, I happen to think that Eric Raymond is a jerk, and wrong about a great many things, but he and Rick Moen wrote an essay on how to ask questions that should be required reading for pretty much anyone, and can easily be applied to fields other than computers. My father is a mechanic, and his job and mine have amazing parallels.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.h
Our LUG has a mailing list, and I've been on it for about 6 years now. I've rarely seen anyone flamed, even for asking really basic questions. One person in particular did ask several basic questions in a row, and was eventually pointed to the above document by several list members. Sadly, he decided to be an ass about it, and some flames were exchanged, but that's the only problem I can remember.
Re:No... (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, it was the newbie who was pretty rude -- often saying things like, "so and so book says goto's should never be used, so we shouldn't have them in the kernel. Why don't you guys fix it?"
People gave very detailed examples and their explanations makes for very interesting reading.
Now, in a commercial setting, one would often find some manager smiling and saying, "yes, you are right" and change the topic, or sometimes, almost rudely ask for a change in topic. For a casual person, it might seem that the manager is really polished and sophisticated, though it is far from the truth.
S
Re:blah blah (Score:4, Informative)
Compromised machine info: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003 /debian-devel-announce-200311/msg00012.html || Down: gluck (people, packages.d.o); || more info at http://www.wiggy.net/debian/
While lists.debian.org is down, a little bit of digging would have given you the Google cache [216.239.37.104]. Also, it says right there that packages.debian.org is down. How much clearer can it get? I agree, it'd be better if someone had explained the situation instead of flaming, but the information was right there.
Beaten up by Windows assholes: non sequitur (Score:3, Insightful)
What if you switched "debian" to "Windows XP" and were talking about a stale Windows Update server? Are you going to go to freenode and get on IRC #WinXP and ask a bunch of wannabes to give you free technical support or reason why they are not as competent as they seem or opportunity to reinforce their position in the #WinXP channel pecking order?
It isn't plain how the example cited in the parent of this thread is related to the general problems of the free software development community. Are the jokers
Don't bother with this article. (Score:5, Insightful)
Check this Linux Today article [linuxtoday.com]. James Turner wrote an article about how Linux is DOA on the desktop because it was missing two drivers he needed for his laptop. He was scathing and he basically baited the readers into giving him the takedown he deserved (and possibly was expecting, if as is suspected he was just trolling for clicks).
In response, he announced that he was going to use this as justification for another clickbait article about how immature the Linux community is. The article in question is the new one which this Slashdot story is about.
So don't expect any substance here. This is as much about taunting Linux users for clicks as any piece by Rob Enderle or Jesse Berst -- it's merely that this time, we have someone who writes for a supposedly pro-Linux publication stooping to this level.
Re:Don't bother with this article. (Score:3, Insightful)
I may not entirely agree with a few assertions in the article, but arguing that the difficulty involved in getting an off the shelf laptop to fully support linux (dvd player and all) harms widespread consumer accceptance of the OS is not an unreasonable assertion.
Re:Don't bother with this article. (Score:5, Funny)
Sign of a Troll #1,203: Critizing people for obeying the law.
value freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Idealism is a more long term motivator, and it's not unjustified when the focus of the idealism has already proved to be very practical.
This is party highlighted by the OpenSource Vs. Free Software terminology [compsoc.com], but we are not enemies, it's just a choice of where you put the emphasis.
Too negative... (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the big complaint about the Microsoft shoulder-chip, I agree. Anti-Windows fanaticism is just unpleasant to hear. The point the author makes is valid - many users don't have any love for Windows either, but don't have the level of dedication to hating Microsoft that they are willing to spend hours, weeks or months futzing with their hardware and peripherals getting them to work in Linux, or learning new applications. Developers should redouble their efforts and their committment to making ease-of-use, hardware compatibility, short learning curves, and usable GUIs key elements of major Open Source projects.
You are correct, but check his history. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/38038.htm
In that article, his solution was to award "kudos" (as you noted) for fixing the "problems" he claimed that rendered Linux "dead" on the desktop.
I believe that the real solution is to only purchase products from vendors that support Linux.
As for developers focusing on other aspec
Itch scratching... (Score:5, Insightful)
My Take on Things- (Score:3, Insightful)
There are, in no order:
(1) Documentation. I get far too many RTFM when the FM was written for software that is 3 versions old.
(2) 404s or links to other links which ultimately end up as 404s on web-based FM.
(3) Tired old sayings such as "Try another distro" (I have a stack of 20 odd distros burned onto CD, everything from the big players, down to things like ArkLinux and Icepak Linux) which obviously doesn't help in any way shape or form.
(4) The attitude of *nix users. When I was making the switch away from windows, I had two choices, *nix or BeOS. The Be community was (and continues to be this very day) more supportive, helpful
(5) The old re-inventing the wheel. You know gang, instead of slavishly coping MS, why not try being different?
Re:My Take on Things- (Score:3, Insightful)
Telling them to RTFM is useless when they are confronted wi
What Color Is Your Wheel (Score:3, Interesting)
Users only need one wheel, or they are overwhelmed.. Choice IS a bad thing in some cases..
Until there is more unity we are stuck in a rut.
A very funny example (Score:5, Interesting)
You'll probably like this:
A shed, any color will do [freebsd.org]
It summarises the observations of a FreeBSD hacker, on feature disputes. Also from the FreeBSD pages, is pretty ontopic:
How many FreeBSD developers does it take to change a lightbulb? [freebsd.org]
(these articles made me consider giving FreeBSD a try, but I haven't gotten around to it yet..)
Compared to what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Take HP as an example. What do you think some of the Alpha / True64 guys have conjured up against the Itanium/ Microsoft camp and conversely. That should give you a picture of main stream corporate infighting.
Inside corportions peoples job's are at stake and they fight hard and nasty.
Open source is a polite debating society in comparison.
DVD's? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:DVD's? (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is of course the main problem with the Open Source movment IMHO. People dont set "the software works" as the number one priority. Its "The software is Open" first with working being down around "has a cool splash screen" and "has a name starting in K or G".
Re:DVD's? (Score:3, Informative)
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Then his point is valid. End users don't care about legal reasons, they care about results.
I just submitted feedback on this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, you can't expect to start a reasonable discussion by spouting as many half-assed examples as you can think of, and then not backing any of it up with either facts or history. Although some of your points have a grain of truth in them here and there, your blind assertions do not help your case.
First, let us assume that many developers do "scratch the same itch"... why do they do it? Well, generally it's because there's something about the other solutions that are already out there that doesn't meet their needs. Sometimes it's a licensing issue, sometimes two projects spring up at the same time.
Starting with "sound systems"... the two main ones we have now are OSS and alsa. Originally OSS had two different versions--free and non-free. The free version included in the kernel had iffy support for some cards, and comparatively few people purchased or used the non-free version. Then alsa was born (originally just for better Gravis Ultrasound support!), and it will be replacing OSS in the kernel. What's this? Consolidation of sound systems? Uh-oh... Well, perhaps you meant to say sound daemons or media players or something... let's move on to another example.
BSD vs. Linux, here's a great one. Why didn't Linus Torvalds just use BSD instead? Well, he couldn't at the time, due to licensing issues. He started writing Linux both to learn about the 386 and because he couldn't afford to buy a workstation from Sun. And by the time the *BSDs were unencumbered, Linux was already a viable Unix system on its own, and certainly more functional than Minix ever was. Oh well, I guess he wasn't writing code just to scratch the same itch... let's move on.
Gnome vs. KDE. This one boiled down to--you guessed it--a licensing issue! In this case, it was the licensing of Qt, the toolkit used in KDE, that was the issue. Some of this has since been resolved, but there are licensing issues surrounding Qt even today. That's because Qt was written by TrollTech and is sold as a commercial product, whereas GTK was written for The GIMP, "to scratch an itch". Interestingly enough, The GIMP doesn't have a lot of competition--maybe that's because of its quality, its licensing, and its extensible nature.
Debian vs. Red Hat. Yet again, two different products with two different ideologies, one of which is backed by commercial interests, yadda yadda yadda. Interestingly enough, Red Hat's successor, Fedora, is using Debian's package manager now. So maybe they aren't such bitter rivals as you may have thought?
As for the rest of your generalizations, I resent being painted with such a broad brush. Sure, there are zealots in the open source community; they're present in any and every community. If those are the only people you talk to, then you might get some odd impressions of how that community works. For example, most of the people in the US are Christian, but the few people who come up to you on the street and shout about Christianity are inevitably zealots, crazy people who can't be reasoned with. Does this imply that most of the US consists of crazy zealots who can't be reasoned with? No, it doesn't, the sample size is simply too small.
Similarly, I won't just read this one article and conclude that the people at Linux World are totally clueless about the Open Source Community and its history, that they're all too lazy to do research, and enjoy making grossly inaccurate generalizations instead. That would be unfair of me. Nevertheless, I hope this article is just an isolated incident, and not the start of a disturbing trend. I recognize that this is an opinion piece, but that's no excuse for FUD, or sloppiness.
Read the article - he has some points (Score:5, Interesting)
About 18 months ago, I got a Powerbook, and while I still like Linux on the server end, man oh man, do I like OS X - for exactly the reasons that Mr. Turner brings up.
Simply put: it works.
I plug in a device - and it works. No compiling, no fiddling with conf files - works. I put in a game, and without once having to find Mesa drivers for X Windows and figure out why I can get video in Quake III but no sound - wait, not I get sound but no video, let me try another sound card and figure out of the chipset is the right kind - AGGGHHH!
The greatest strength of Open Source is its ability to evolve and grow and fill in gaps. It's truly software evolution - species of software fill in evolutionary needs, and the ones that work best (or are the luckiest in support/notice) get to grow.
The problem with Open Source, as Mr. Turner observes, is in some ways that same community. How many truly clear, concise, "idiot proof" manuals are written when we need to understand why some piece of Open Source (OS) software isn't acting the way you want? A cry for help will often be answered - all too often by "RTFM", though there are times when a more useful answer is given.
Probably the best thing that can happen for OS is the continued interest by businesses who want things for thier clients - like easier to use desktop operating systems (like OS X), or better office suites that can be used by secretaries (like Open Office) or administrative tools that can help configure the multitude of options easily and quickly (like what I hope Novell will do with their Suse merger).
I think that there will always be the dynamic Mr. Turner talks about - which isn't always a bad thing, but I hope the dialectic of Open Source and Business Needs helps to create a better hybrid software animal more suited to survive the wilds of the computer world.
Just my opinion, of course - I might be wrong.
Re:Read the article - he has some points (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that really a fair comparison? If I buy a Mac, I'm getting a closed system with a small hardware compatibility list. Since Apple knows what goes into all of them, it's no surprise they can make an OS that runs without lots of configuration twiddling. If Linux was sold on an equally small number of configurations, surely it could be made to run with equally little hand-configuring.
But because Linux is often run in the "anything goes" x86 world, hardware incompatibilities are more common. Where standards are well-defined (IDE, USB, etc.), Linux has no problems. In other cases (video cards, sound cards), Linux often lags behind the cutting edge and requires a bit of hand holding. But that's the nature of the platform rather than of the OS. Even Windows can't handle tons of different configurations without help; instead it requires seperate "drivers" for that purpose.
Mod parent up! (Score:3, Informative)
#1. Microsoft - 95%+ of the desktop so any vendor shipping a product also included Windows drivers.
#2. Apple - small marketshare so it compensates by restricting hardware selection. That way it can ensure that the drivers are available.
#3. Linux - small desktop marketshare but it doesn't attempt to limit the hardware choices. So YOU have to be carefull about what hardware you purchase. Some work flawlessly, some work okay, some suck bad, some don't work at all.
Now, the pr
Re:Your points are entirely distinct (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, err, remind me - how many closed-source word processors can I go out and by? How many web design packages? How many commercial IDEs? How many instance messenging networks can I join? Wouldn't they be scratching the same itch too?
'They', whoever the amorphous they actually are, probably do. So do the closed source lot as well. The particular feuds they have tend to be called 'lawsuits', and they leave even the most bitter open source feud looking like a kindergarten spat.
Cheers,
Ian
Evolution seems to work ok (Score:3, Insightful)
Closed source companies cannot do this, they operate in a constant state of limited resources. We can. We should consider it a strength and play to it.
Sure, it get's acrimonious, but this is a symptom of fiercely-fought ideas. If someone feels that passionately about something, they ought to be able to convince others, or they are being blinkered - if they're blinkered, they'll wither and die. If they persuade the rest, they'll move to the next stage. Where's the problem, apart from bruised ego's ? Nature is red in blood and claw. We're slightly more civilised than that already
Simon
He has the wrong idea of what OS aims for (Score:4, Interesting)
This whole article is just coming from the wrong direction. It assumes that the final goal of OS is to make usable software, that has features for everyone, to have an OS that can run all the binary drivers out there, to unseat Windows!...
What OS actually is for is, precisely, scratching an itch. Fixing what the developer wants to see fixed. Providing the features the developer wants. Having fun making something that a hundred other people made already. Many Linux developers (for example) couldn't care less about Windows, or converting Windows users to Linux.
And yes, they like bitching about Microsoft. Because it's so easy to do, I guess.
These things are only "things that are wrong with open source" if you have the idea that OS is trying to be something that it's not.
Some points yes, some points dumb. (Score:4, Interesting)
What is truly missing from the overall product creation standpoint is a universal bounty system. If someone were to create a universal bounty system for the application of new software ideas (that benefited the donor, and also gave incentive to the developers) there would be a drastic change in OSS development. Now all of a sudden your target audience is no longer yourself, but an ethereal goal list and a real cash dollar amount to buy some more raman and coffee.
Yeah sure, these things are "supposed" to be in existence already (sans the bounty) but I don't know how many projects I've seen on freshmeat with an empty
So I'm no professional developer, if I knew there was a series of progressively increasing bounties available for me to freely distribute my ideas to the ether I would be more inclined to spend time doing so seriously. Not all of us are driven by the solution at the end of the problem tunnel, some of us have monetary requirements to fulfil.
when did competition become bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
I much prefer this war of ideas to the way commercial companies operate -- the war of marketing departments. Is it any wonder OSS turns out better?
Don't forget to read the rebuttal... (Score:3, Informative)
(also linked here [linuxworld.com])
need for standards (Score:4, Insightful)
I personally do not mind having three plotting and five music playing and twelve font editing packages, it does not hurt anybody, and as the author himself points out, people get selfworth from other people using their package. So if we try to come up with a single solution the result will be fewer developers->fewer packages, not same developers->better packages.
meta-wrongness (Score:3, Insightful)
some small agreeance. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've had a pretty good deal of luck with my family and friends getting them switched to Mozilla and OpenOffice on win32 first, and then later on suggesting Linux. Like most desktop users, thoes 2 apps give them everything they need (web, email and and office suite). If they get used to it on win32, using it all on Linux is a no-brainer and they're generally at least willing to try.
Don't even bother giving the man the time of day. (Score:3, Interesting)
He had his damn "points" wrong for various reasons that he obviously didn't think about in the previous article that precipitated this stupid "response" (One, I might add, it was strongly suggested that he re-think the idea from the get-go over on LinuxToday's comment section...)- and most everyone on the feedback forum and on LinuxToday pointed out where he'd gone wrong (Myself included on BOTH forums) and most of them were fairly respectful but also strongly questioned is credibility and credentials, likening him to Enderle (Right or wrong, it felt a lot like Enderle's stuff...).
He then comes in with a chip on HIS shoulder claiming that we were all about with a chip on our collective shoulder and accusing us of ad-homninem attacks.
Never mind that the man failed to address the points LEGITIMATELY raised with regards to HIS points. And he still fails to do so now. He won't admit he might have been "wrong" about part or all of his premise and points. He may be right, there may still be things that we have that can impede desktop adoption of Linux, but what he came up with isn't the problem- really it isn't.
My Personal Experiences (Score:4, Insightful)
I am trying to extend PostgreSQL so that it includes efficient Materialized Views. I posted a couple of messages, and the team basically says, "We've all got our personal projects we're working on, but we all want to see M.V. a reality. Here's some pointers and good luck." When I come back with my findings, they point out some more stuff, and the discussion starts to build. I can see having M.V. in PostgreSQL a reality if I keep advocating it.
These are just two examples of things that just are not possible with closed-source software. The HTML::Mason and PostgreSQL teams are really good examples of open source work at its finest (along with other projects too numerous to mention). But imagine getting this kind of support from Microsoft or SUN. (Well, maybe SUN is fanatical about support and encourages its users to contribute to the codebase, I wouldn't know.)
This is why Open Source Software (or Free Software, whatever you want to call it) is going to take over the world. Petty irritations exist, but they exist everywhere and are not insurmountable. Eventually, everyone will see what I see in the open source community. I can't imagine "paying" someone for software that I can't look into or modify. No matter how useful it is now, it won't be useful in a few years. Heck, it won't even be supported by anyone. But open source software is timeless and invaluable. When it becomes obselete, it is updated (case in point: sendmail)
"We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Journalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Journalism, thats the real truth, this is just another example of Journalism's continuous need for sensation, almost all journo's are just the worst sort of Trolls, BSD is dying, Unix is dying, Aunt Nelly cat is dying, linux ate my clock radio, I moderate the article -1 Troll.
Allow me to add a big one to the list.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe it is because it is a "community" and nobody rules it, maybe it is because it is passionate about what it does and feels the need to defend it when attacked. There are some things that might need some improving, but the Open Source Community has done quite well the way it has been operating since it started. It will improve when it needs to improve, that is how it works.
What community? (Score:3, Insightful)
distros? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's try and find reasons for more than 3, shall we. Hmmm:
-Debian: solid, stable, completely free, at the cost of being outdated sometimes
-Mandrake:Simple distro, ideal for newbies. Not good for linux diehards who like to fiddle with everything
-Gentoo: bleeding edge, compilation optimisations, easy to reconfigure the way you want it if you know what you're doing. Not so many guarantees on the stability.
-Redhat:commercial, certified, expensive, well-supported, reasonably up to date.
-SuSE:somewhat similar approach to Redhat. Keeps Redhat honest through this crazy thing called competition.
-SELinux - security above all else
The difference is priorities. Trying to combine their properties (free+certified? Ultra-Secure and custom compilations?) would be hard.
Nothing new here... (Score:3, Insightful)
OSS/Free Software people often argue that there's no need for proprietary software, free software can provide everything.
But when I go somewhere like freshmeat, what do I find? More MP3 enocoders/players/front-ends/rippers/catalogers than you can shake a stick at. What don't I find? drivers for some of my devices like scanners, cameras. Productivity applications, like Tax software for instance, and many other things that I can't think of right now, that keep me chained to Windows. Or if I do find them, they are half finished, and barely usable. Some would say, "So fill the void!". I do write my own stuff, but the re are too many things, and I only have so much time to devote to it.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, and need Windows less than ever. But I have a pragmatic approach about it. OSS can do great things, but not everything, there will always be room for proprietary software, and the two should be able to coexist.
The other problem with OSS is lack of innovation. How many things does the OSS community go about attempting to clone only after someone like MS or another company introduced it? Was there a FreeMware before VMware? Was there Linux PVR applications before Tivo? etc.
Re:Nothing new here... (Score:4, Insightful)
The presence of copying commercial software products doesn't indicate the lack of innovation.
Earlier you mentioned that Linux is missing Tax software. So, which way do you want it? Do you want someone to create something similar to TurboTax, or create something innovative? You can't have it both ways.
Aha, you say - OSS developers should write innovative tax software! Yeah, right. If somebody created software that did everything the average taxpayer needed, everyone would immediately start comparing it to TurboTax (and the other commercial offerings). In many ways the OSS program would have no choice but to "clone" the commercial programs, because there's no other logical way to do things.
There are thousands of innovative OSS programs that are incredibly innovative, that have no parallel in the commercial world. Here are a few off the top of my head:
1. Audacity [sourceforge.net] - shameless plug, this is my audio editor. It's not a rip-off of CoolEdit or Sound Forge. Of course it looks similar in some superficial ways - they're all audio editors. But Audacity has dozens of innovative, unique features, like an integrated envelope editor, automatic real-time resampling when tracks are at different sample rates, three different types of sample-level editing, etc.
2. BitTorrent [bitconjurer.org] - robust, P2P way to speed up everyone's download speed simultaneously. And yes, it's primarily used for legitimate downloads, imagine that.
3. GAIM [sourceforge.net] - aha, you say, just another instant messanger! What's innovative here is that it's the only instant messenger to support AIM, ICQ, Yahoo!, MSN, Jabber, IRC, Napster, Gadu-Gadu, Zephyr, and more...which is incredible if you have lots of friends you want to IM and they all use different systems.
4. Gallery [menalto.com] - program that runs on your webserver that makes it fun and easy to upload pictures for everyone to see. Right from the web interface, you can categorize, show slideshows, etc.
I'm not even listing the thousands of innovative programs that OSS developers have come up with that are primarily of benefit to other developers.
Why not search the Sourceforge and Freshmeat top 100 lists for new programs? I think you'll discover lots of innovation.
What's Wrong with the Closed Source Community? (Score:5, Funny)
We hear that commercial software companies come up with new ideas because they "wanted to make some money." In other words, there was some need they had for a new application, and they "scratched" it by coming up with a tool. The problem is, it's not uncommon to end up with two or three (or more!) different packages doing the same thing. For a specific example, look at what's happened with the relational databases, where there are now several competing packages that have to be supported by each distribution.
2. Commercial software companies love a good feud.
Oracle vs Microsoft. Java vs
3. Commercial software companies often scratch the wrong itch.
The problem with commercial development is that the developers often aren't the consumers of their products, and thus don't feel the pain of their mistakes. The other problem with commercial software development is that they often don't fix problems or develop new features that aren't going to make them money.
4. In the commercial software community, you're either "with us or against us"
Attempts to point out flaws or places where there's room for improvement in an application usually lead directly to legal action. Attempts to contact the company directly lead to either unqulaified indivduals, fees, or, again, legal action. Direct comment from the companies if laded with fear, uncertainty, and doubt: "The GPL is a cancer." "Linux is stealing my IP." "Hey! No benchmarking."
5. The commercial software community has a huge chip on its shoulder...called Microsoft
Although Linux is also a popular a target lately too, the merest mention of MS is like a bull having a red cape waved before his eyes. All reason and sense of decorum flies out the window. And while I'm first in line to throw rotten tomatoes at Bill Gates, it's harmful to the community. The reality is that Microsoft owns the lion's share of the non-server OS market. If the first thing you tell all these people who own Windows is that they are idiots, you're not starting out on very good ground to convert them.
I'll sum up the real probem in a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
What? You may ask...
Open Source developers put out some great software, Linux, Mozilla, Gimp, GAIM, etc. I could go on for some time.
Why are they good? Stable, reliable, secure... most will agree to those. Why is it true? Because good coding, and demand to get it right. No corporate preasure.
So what's the problem? NO END USER FOCUS.
Mozilla now is working towards an enduser focus. That's a big change.
But the majority don't. The products are great, but lets face it. As wonderful as KDE is, it's not Aqua, or even Luna. It's good, but not good enough for an end user. There's still computer jargon in the user's face, and it's not pretty like the others.
Tech support for endusers - missing
Computer jargon in their face
Lack of marketing towards end users ("What's gimp?")
These are the problems.
IMHO, each project should create a group devoted to end-user focus. That group should work on marketing, and viewing the product through an enduser perspective... not a Geek perspective. And judge if it's end user friendly.
Linux won't hit the masses as long as the user gets shown the path's to 100000k different things. They don't care... they just want it to work.
It's great that open source developers are such perfectionists. I personally love it. But what they need to do, is be able to cover it up.
Perhaps the general release pattern should include:
Developer release - more powerful, crude like today
End user release - friendly, hide the ugly.
End users don't like feeling confused. That's the key. That's what Apple Knows when it invented the iPod's interface. That's what Microsoft is slowly learning. That's what Palm knew. That's why Google is so popular.... simplistic yet powerful.
Until open source comes to agree on that ideal, it's not going to get that far.
Again, the products are amazing, and I love them... but I also want them to succeed with the non-geeks who actually have a social life
Text of The Article (Score:3, Insightful)
James Turner leads off on the "too many itches" syndrome and other problems - Steve Suehring offers his Counterpoint
December 1, 2003, http://www.linuxworld.com/story/38073.htm
By James Turner [mailto] Steve Suehring [mailto]
Advertisement
James Turner: 5 problems with the Open Source community
There's no question that the Open Source community has a lot going for it. Besides a staggering amount of developer power that can be turned against important problems, the Open Source movement also has a passion and commitment to its work that the commercial software world often envies. But sometimes, the Open Source community can be its own worst enemy. Here are a few reasons why.
1. Too many developers "scratch the same itch."
We hear that Open Source developers come up with new ideas because they "had an itch to scratch." In other words, there was some need they had for a new application, and they "scratched" it by coming up with a tool. The problem is, it's not uncommon to end up with two or three (or more!) different packages doing the same thing. For a specific example, look at what's happened with the Linux sound systems, where there are now several competing packages that have to be supported by each distribution. Or in the Java world, look at how many competing MVC frameworks there are now for JSP development.
A little competition can be a good thing. After all, Linux is all about offering a competing vision for the operating system domain. But when too many competing visions exist, and aren't winnowed down to a small number of options over a short period of time, you end up with a mish-mash of conflicting standards, and a user community that ends up having to download and install a plethora of different packages that all do the same thing.
A perfect example of the "too many itches" syndrome is the absurd number of Linux distributions that exist out there. There's absolutely no reason for there to be more than two or three distributions. And because each one does things slightly differently, we've ended up with the problem that applications and drivers are rarely made available in binary form, because there are too many versions of too many releases of Linux to support.
As an application developer, you would have to provide 5 - 10 different binary installs, one for each distribution. Now multiply that times the five or more active releases of a distribution that may be in active circulation, and you see why so few packages are available as anything but source (especially the most recent releases of packages that have not been compiled and included into Linux distributions yet.)
The next question to consider is, why don't we see more consolidation of technology? The answer: because...
2. Open Source developers love a good feud.
BSD vs Linux. Gnome vs KDE. Debian vs Red Hat. For every interesting Open Source technology, there are two bitterly feuding camps that spend as much time taking potshots at each other as in improving their own products.
It's hard to imagine how much better a lot of Open Source software would be if these groups cooperated and consolidated their efforts, rather than act like the Hatfields and McCoys. Unfortunately, the downside of personal
windows to linux (Score:3, Interesting)
For what it's worth, every Linux zealot I've talked to can't remember the last time they used Windows, and wouldn't want to. Even if they do, they think it sucks.
It seems to me that the people who want Linux to overtake Windows on the desktop are those (like me) who are so used to MS DOS / Windows after using it for 20 years, and are finding it hard to do an instant migration. Instantly my difficulties in transitioning become "what's wrong with Linux."
I'm not a low-level C coder or anything spectacular, but I do enjoy fumbling my way through Gentoo and IceWM, trying to find the grail of replacing Windows, while still having fun with my OS and learning as much as I can.
I think that the people who want things to be "their way" are generally out of touch with what the underlying Linux community's goals always have been.
I could be wrong though. And as more people want to jump ship from Windows to Linux, I imagine that the sides will even out a bit, with a greater influx of novice Linux programmers.
I think something like _that_ would begin to influence the general direction of some projects. The fact alone that so many people want to ditch Windows anyway shows that some distros are trying very hard to make them very user-friendly.
But I find it hard to believe that was the goal of most long-term users/developers all along, or that it even is now.
comunity development/compromise OSX vs Linux (Score:3, Informative)
Look at configuration files for an example. A lot of programs use different formats for configurations, because the developers think there way is best and they're writing the code so its the way they want it. There is no linux boss telling people use X format for config files. This gives the linux distributions less of a conhesive feel than a OS that says "Config files will look like this.. love it of leave it"
This is why the linux distributions are so helpfull and its painfull to see them leave the desktop market(redhat/ suse etc..). They've been trying to pull everything together with setup tools and a consistent look.
I don't know about you... (Score:3, Insightful)
a) Myself
b) My employer
c) Other people that ask for a feature, or I know use the software
I'm not writing to replace windows, or even really for the benefit of the whole world (in the sense that I'm not trying to make a magic-button GUI app that satisfies everyone), I'm doing it for my own purposes. Nobody else should assume that those purposes necessarily match their own.
Rampant marginal Asperger's Syndrome? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Show me the code.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Read your own post and tell me again who's egocentric?
Your sentiment parallels that of many others, namely: "We've provided you with all these things, for free, and you complain? Peon! How dare you question us!" Sounds like you want to be God. Give 'em what you want, and if they complain, well damn them to hell.
In closing, go away and write some code. If you can't do that, then just go away.
In other words, you feel that open source should be by developers, for developers. You're entitled to that opinion, but bear in mind that it relegates the OS community to a little corner of reality, where nobody in the real world cares about what you do, and nothing that you do matters. If you want to be a useless, egotistical prick, that's your prerogative. I'm more interested in creating useful software to serve people's needs.
Re:Show me the code.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me expand what I said just a little bit. There are two classes of complaining users. The first class are just whiners, who complain about the state of things but can't provide any opinion on where things should be going. Case in point, people on the FreeType list saying "The rendering of this font sucks, you need to fix it."
There is another class of complainers who complain in useful ways, for example: "The rendering of this font sucks, all the stems for the lowercase characters are too wide. Perhaps this is a problem with the autohinter when using composite glyphs?" The complaint spells out the problem, and suggests where to look for a solution.
Some people on the list are even nicer; they provide code. These people are, of course, the most helpful in the long run, but there is no reason to treat them as more important than anyone else simply because they have the ability to program a computer.
It is attitudes like yours which are preventing more people from adopting Open Source. Maybe your goal is to maintain OS as the elitist club that it currently is, but many people (myself included) feel that it should be opened up to a wider audience. Why do we feel this way? Because we think people deserve access to free software that fits their needs. It's a philosophical issue. It's called, "Wanting to help people." And helping people does NOT equate to imposing your way of thinking on them.
Welcome to the reason OSS is being held back (Score:3, Insightful)
So what? It's not my responsibility to write code for you. I write code for me, and release it under a license that happens to allow for other people to use it. Don't tell me what code I'm allowed to write and what I'm not.
Translates to:
So what? I don't like to hear complaints, because it reveals how inadequate the state of OSS is. I'm so insecure that when someone mentions a direction I should take, my foaming-at-the-mouth, reptilian mindset views it
Re:Too Many Cooks, Not Enough Kirks (Score:3, Insightful)
And therein lies the strength and future of the Free Software movement. If you step back and look at the whole software industry, or perhaps even the whole information industry, you see the Free Software movement, and the other pro-commons movements with which it is related, making such a stir in the industry that governments, NGOs, companies and individuals are getting more and more interested, and traditional players in the industry are either la
Re:Open Source == Communism (Score:5, Funny)
I for one am planning on taking my own life in shame. I fear that
You appear to be writing a suicide note. Would you like to:
- Search MSN.com for psychiatric help in your area?
- Use a suicide note template?
- Browse quotes by Emily Dickenson?
- Find great deals on sleeping pills and handguns?
Gaaah! No! It's too horrible! We must never give up! Never surrender! Viva la Revolucion! Viva la Tux!