I read a really interesting blog post yesterday from Robert May
He claims open source projects doesn't work and lists these arguments:
- Most people don’t care enough about stuff to contribute (NDoc, for example). The people who care about it, wrote it.
- Most people capable of contributing are getting paid to write code, and most coder’s like money. Some people are trying to get recognition and, as a result, contribute to support their ego.
- Many “open source” projects are VERY picky about what is included in the project (Linux).
- Most people using open source are doing so because it’s free (i.e. they’re cheap), not because they have any desire to do anything else with the code (most of my former bosses).
These are pretty hard words against the whole open source movement - and the initial reaction is to "defend". But it got me thinking. While giving IS always nice - in theory open source and free software are indeed a good thing.
However in practice I think Robert is correct. Take me for example. Seven years ago I was heavily
active with the free version of AdMentor for instance. Now, I have a family, 2 lovely daughters - so
for me to sit (unpaid) in front of the computer is nowadays really rare. Cause if I'm not not doing paid work
I would much rather spend time wth my kids.
The other thought is the nature of developers. Myself for example - I like creating things - that's one
of the reasons I love programming so much. I think many of you feel the same.
But maintaining code and projects is not as much fun. Therefore it might be easy to start up an
opensource project, but after a while when it all turns into maintenence instead of creating - few
are willing to spend their free time for it. So without some sort of funding the whole model seems rather unrealistic.
My last thought is the general aim: Take all Linux distros going for the desktop for example - with the outspoken
goal to be as good as/or better than Windows (XP etc). I mean - they will never catch up. All it does is triggering Microsoft to become better (which is indeed a good thing) but my point is: why must the aim be to be as good as - can't the aim be to just offer an alternative. Likewise OpenOffice versus Microsoft Office. Yes, they have done a tremendous job with OpenOffice, no question about it - but man is it slow...
Ok, that was not my last though - here it is:
The argument about security - "the whole world of programmers are looking for bugs in open source projects" - well
I think not many programmers at all would be able to track down a bug in the Openoffice code.
Heck I even remember my first try at compiling Mozilla code (many years ago). Couldn't even get it to compile. There are often few contributors to open source projects as Robert says - and the reasons are competence and time.
So while I do admire and respect all people involved in open source (I still am too to some extent in some projects),
I think that there are indeed problems and risks with open source/free software as well.