Open Source Software
- 2
- Add a Comment
John C. Dvorak is a cranky guy. Everybody who has any idea of who he is knows it. But he is not a curmudgeon, and he is also usually right. His opinions usually turn out to be the prevailing opinion on down the road. He was right about OS/2 being better than Windows, he was right about Windows XP, while some were lamenting the move from Windows 98, and he was right about Vista…you get the idea.
One of his latest ideas is about what is wrong with Open Source Software. Mr. Dvorak feels that while the idea of free is a great one, it allows the authors to be lazy, and indiscriminate. He asserts that the author, with a working program, next moves to feature addition, rather than efficient coding, for size and or speed. In doing this, the software becomes what it is so dearly trying not to be - bloatware. The effort expended, after the basic working code is done, is beautification and dubious addition of things not needed by 90% of those using the program.
This is one way that paid software has an edge. Because the author is wanting to maximize his efforts, he spends as little time coding as is necessary. The bugs are worked out, and the proper amount of beautification is applied - no more, no less. This results in more streamlined software - usually. (Microsoft is an aberrant example.)
Also, a problem that Dvorak notes is the inability of the public to get the software easily modified as needed. Because the software is open source, the user is many times expected to open up the code, and modify it for himself. In many cases this is not practical, and in most cases, not possible. Simply knowing how to work a computer does not confer programming skills upon the user.
As long as paid software has any hopes of continuing to sell, there is a fairly efficacious method of assuring that problems, and needed changes, will be implemented. If the author wishes to keep selling the product, the software will be adapted to a wider variety of hardware, and continued efforts will be put forth to assure software compatibility. Unhappy customers tend to share their experiences, and bad reviews are something no one wants.
When thinking about open source, the authors need to be more open to constructive criticism, not getting hurt feelings, and not disregarding what those who criticize say. Telling the users to modify it on their own will not be productive in the long term.
For the users of open source, care must be taken to give as much information as possible without being overly critical. The temptation to show frustration with a problem should be avoided, as “This software sucks” does not help convey the problems encountered, and engenders no favor from the author.
Open source is a cooperative effort, with the users a very big part of the solution.
-
Tags: open source software, free software, microsoft, os/2, vista, john c. dvorak
2 Comments
verdican
October 22nd, 2007
at 6:46pm
I agree with some parts of that post, but I also disagree with a lot of it.
I know that a lot of the programmers who create open-source projects are what you might call ‘lazy’, but that seems stereotypical and isn’t always true. The thing you need to see is that the programmer is create free software. Free. He is spending his time developing something for the benefit of himself and others. Of course you can’t expect it to be better paid programs, but it’s pretty darn close. Some free programs are better then their rivals in some people’s opinions. (Linux/Windows, OpenOffice/Microsoft Word). The programmer is spending his own time developing something, and I really think you should give him more credit for doing that. Again, it’s free program. I think that getting anything free is cool; let alone an entire program that works really well.
I might not be right, but I think that a lot of the programmers really want to help people with their programs. They have already made the choice of not having people pay to use their program, and it would be idiotic for them to just add certain ‘useless’ things to their program because people will just stop using it. It would be much more beneficial for the creator of the program to spend more time improving it. If the program gets improved, then the word will spread. As word spreads, the programmers popularity grows. More and more people would be using it, and large companies might be tempted to buy it. That way, the free source programmer would have just as much of a motivation. If he worked hard on his program, he would be well known and possibly be offered some money by a bigger company, if he didn’t work that great; people wouldn’t use it anymore.
Another thing is the term “open source”. People can edit the contents, and while I agree that it’ll be very hard for a technical newbie to do anything; there are other people out there who have the time and brains to edit the program. If you don’t like something; edit it. It’s as simple as that. Besides; if you really don’t like a program, don’t use it. There will be tons of programs just like it.
I have a lot more issues, but I’m too tired at the moment to type it all out. However, if you would like more reasons on why I think that there is nothing wrong with open source, do tell. I would be happy to type them out when I have some time later.
the oracle
October 22nd, 2007
at 9:02pm
verdican, the main points I agree with, and was trying to point out
1] if people are not allowed to make CONSTRUCTIVE comments that criticize, the software will not get better
2] I believe everyone appreciates FREE software, but it MUST work properly, or it is simply no good (that is, of no practical use)
3] People who don’t have programming skills can still be helpful, with those extra sets of eyes to spot problems, and suggestions for usability - the programmers should understand this, and simply be kind in responding to complaints for fixes to software
Thanks for the comment.