Softpanorama

Yet again the open source model fails to deliver
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @08:41AM EST (#19)

Well, what can I say? I'd say I've told you so, but I didn't, but anyway it's certainly not unexpected that the open source model so praised by /. and other similar communities has failed to deliver on its quite amazingly grandiose claims.

When people praise open source, they point to the legions of developers, the "many eyes" to find bugs, and the ability to quickly and efficiently incorporate user feedback and requests. But the truth seems to be a "little" different from this Garden of Eden coding paradise.

Most open source projects are really only the work of one or two people, who occasionally can be bothered to actually write a few lines of code and then release it as the next version (hence version numbers like 0.99beta-pre3). There is none of the dedication which occurs in a closed source software house, and certainly none of the encouragment or rewards, unless you count the mythical "kudos" which are often heard of, but never seen.

And as for the bugs issue, well, how many people ever read the source code to something they download? Not very many from what I can see. And when you've got projects as convulted and bloated as the Linux kernel, how many people can actually find the bug in the first place? Linus and a few of his cronies is about all I'd say. So this argument seems to be little more than hand-waving.

User feedback ties in with both the previous two points - it all depends on whether the coder(s) actually bother with doing anything often, and whether bugs and requests can actually be fixed.

Two high profile open source projects - Mozilla and the HURD - have both been pretty much vapourware for the last God-knows how long, and if you ignore the extremely buggy versions of Mozilla which we've seen, they appear to be so for the forseeable future.

Closed source may not be the best thing in the world, but at least it delivers what its customers want and on time.

"Troll"rating was unfair / Open source in general
by Master of Kode Fu ([email protected]) on Tuesday May 09, @09:38AM EST (#93)
(User Info)

I don't think that a "troll" rating for the previous post is completely fair. Whether open source is better than closed source is a matter of opinion, and the poster is simply voicing his/hers.

The points made in the comments "Most open source projects are really only the work of one or two people" and "how many people ever read the source code to something they download?" are well made. I can't say for certain, because I haven't carried out a poll or seen any statistics. What I know from the literature (such as CatB), experience and observation is that most open source projects start out as an itch that a programmer decides to scratch. The majority of people who find out about the project don't do anything except download the binary, a few download the code, a fraction of them comments and a fraction of that fraction hand back some modifications. Only a small portion of the much-vaunted "many eyes that make bugs shallow" are actually being harnessed. That's not a bad thing -- the closed source model exposes the software to even fewer eyes. It's just that there are many obstacles to fixing or modifying someone else's code: how the original programmer wrote it, availability of documentation, availability of the programmer to answer questions, whether it's written in a language you know, the complexity of the program's problem domain, how good a programmer you are, and the big one -- how much time you have.

The primary advantage provided by open source to a program's developer is the potential peer review and fine-grained testing that freely handing out your source gives you. There's a large body of evidence that code review is one of the best ways for incresing software quality. However, as Fred Brooks says, there's no silver bullet for the problems of software development, and peer review is only one step in making good software. Without good planning and process, all you have is a bickering committee. And we know why they don't make statues, painting or memorials of committees, right?

There's a very good article by Steve McConnell (author of Code Complete, Rapid Development, Software Project Survival Guide and After the Gold Rush) covering some of the issues around open source software. He points out that if open source wants to really reach its potential, the following needs to be done:

1. Create a central clearinghouse for the open-source methodology so it can be fully captured and evolved.

2. Kick its addiction to Code and Fix.

3. Focus on eliminating upstream defects earlier.

4. Collect and publish data to support its claims about the effectiveness of the open-source development approach.