Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.
Re: Email to Brian Behlendorf
Author: Ralph Hempel Posted: 4/24/2000; 8:31:17 AM Topic: Email to Brian Behlendorf Msg #: 16613 (In response to 16542) Prev/Next: 16612 / 16614
I'm an embedded systems developer, not really a writer, or even a scripting user to any great degree, but open-source is affecting my "place of business" too. Here's my take on it in my industry. I'll give my thoughts on why most of the open-source arguments are bogus, then I'll say what I really think about open-source.By the way, I use Frontier because it's a really good tool for generating content for my website, and I can change its behaviour using scripts if I need to, but usually I don't. I just don't have the TIME to customize interfaces and default behaviour, so I use the tools that work out of the box. It's the same reason I use TclTk - scripting lets you get the job done quickly on many platforms.
Anyways, here's my bit on open source....
1. Open source is good because you can fix bugs and you have control over the applicaiton. This is simply not true for > 99.9% of all users of software. If it doesn't work right out of the box, or even if the install is a little flaky, it's out the door. We don't have the TIME to fix stuff that doesn't work.
2. Open source is good because it promotes competition. This is a bogus argument because the fact is that we just don't need another CD player, or phone dialler, or even another new and improved version of vi. We need software that works - and we need less of it. We need an email program that lets you easily sort, archive, and find content. We don't need more stationary, or templates, or other useless features.
3. Open source is good because it gives the dominating monopolistic companies something to worry about. Well, if upsetting their established user base with buggy bloatware was not a concern, then they sure aren't going to worry about buggy bloated open source software either.
4. Open source is good because it gives users choices. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The typical consumer of software needs FEWER choices. We don't really care if we do a typical, compact, or custom install. Just install the software so it works, thank-you. We don't care if we have three or four browsers to choose from. All we want is one that works.
I was at the Embedded Systems Conference in Chicago this spring, and some of the leaders of the embedded open source world as well as ordinary developers were on a panel. The big question was how to make money on open source. The "big guys" essentially said that it didn't matter - eventually they would figure out a business model that worked. This is nice if you have the backing of hapless investors. The independent developer had it almost right. He said that he was able to improve the open-source tools and send them back out for peer review and inclusion so everyone benefitted. Nice. But no money changed hands. His clients essentially paid for his contribution to the public domain.
Open source is just another buzzword, like OOP was in the early 90's. We're just starting to really figure out OOP.
I guess after all of this, I'm siding with Dave Winer AND Brian Behlendorf. We need less software, and we need to pay for it. Computers are hard enough to figure out without making the number of interactions impossible to manage. The days of really understanding how your AppleII or CP/M machine worked are gone forever, but does it have to be THIS hard?
Cheers,
Ralph Hempel - P.Eng
This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:54:55 PM.
© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.