I just don’t get it.
When it comes to home computers and the software that runs on them I’m not a developer I’m a user. A technically advanced user, yes but a user nonetheless. Same goes for software that runs in the so-called “Cloud”. It takes a certain mindset, a certain way of thinking to sit in front of a monitor and write line after line after line of code that I simply don’t have. Never could wrap my head around the concept of programming and I’m hardly alone in this respect.
Now this doesn’t mean I can’t track down a buggy piece of open source software to a certain line or lines of troublesome code–I can. What it means is I don’t have the knowledge nor the kind of experience (nor the inclination to get any) to be able correct the problem all by my lonesome.
So I head off to the appropriate forum and/or bug reporting site to find the answer or to report the problem in hopes that I will eventually find an answer. I have no problem making out a bug reports, participating in developer forums or helping out others who might be having a problem.
I’m fairly good at this and a whiz at Googling so I usually get along just fine.
So this is what I don’t understand: Why do the developers of Open Source Software even bother? I mean, what’s the point?
Simply put, open source software is software where the code that makes up that software (often called the “source”) is freely distributable. Anyone can download it, modify it to suit their needs, correct bugs, add features or even use it as a base to build their own version of the software. And there’s no cost associated with either using it or obtaining the source code.
The kicker is that the majority of developers of all this open source software do not get paid for their efforts ergo what’s the point?
Am I missing something here?
Take the current situation. I’m typing this post using TinyMCE which is a web based, javascript HTML/WYSIWYG editor–which is open source.
This TinyMCE editor is part of the WordPress install which runs my beloved old blog here. WordPress is open source.
I’m accessing all this using Mozilla’s Firefox–which is open source.
And all of this is taking place using the Ubuntu 9.10 desktop OS–which is also open source.
As I stated above, the majority of these developers (who range from all over the world) do not get paid. These folks are doing all this work, putting in their own time and effort to help build these programs and operating systems and they just give it all away at the end.
Every piece of software I mentioned above, relatively speaking, has only a handful or less of paid developers working behind the scenes on any one of these projects, say around 5 to 10 percent? That leaves around 90 to 95 percent of these developers, support people, testers, forum moderators, documentation writers, wiki maintainers and whoever else is contributing their time on any given project, working on a strictly voluntary basis.
And then they just give it all away? This is a business model? I’m amazed this stuff even exists let alone work as well as it does.
So what’s in it for all these non-paid individuals anyway?
Does it look good on their resumes? Does it give them a deep abiding sense of personal satisfaction? Does it help them in their chosen field? Do they do this just because it’s there? What?
Why am I able to sit here writing up this post using all this rather high quality free and open software that was developed by people who weren’t paid–that I didn’t have to pay for?
What’s the catch? Why does it even exist?
Perhaps I’m just too cynical but the world I live in there’s no such thing as a free lunch. The only thing I ever get without handing out a chunk of change is the junk mail I find in my mailbox every morning. And yet here I am munching happily away on a new post without having paid for anything except hardware and hosting. And as far as the hardware’s concerned this computer I’m working on right now is 7 years old which, by today’s standards, makes it effectively worthless. Yet it’s fast, efficient, reliable and does everything I need it to do. And the operating system and all the software that’s running on it didn’t cost me a dime.
People developing quality software for no pay and then giving it away.
I just don’t get it.
Many open source projects started because somebody wanted the software but it was too much to do by themselves. By allowing the end product to be free, they got to freely use others previous efforts AND may have also had free help putting it all together.
Others were designed to be for profit, but the advantages of free contributions still can be advantageous. I may have a great business idea, but be unable to afford to commercially create the software I need. By going open source, I can take the foundation I need. As long as I can keep a step ahead, I’m better off.
You could also draw the analogy of a pot-luck dinner. If I don’t go, I may not get the nutrients I need from the food I have. By sharing, everyone gets more nutrition, variety, and fun.
Tony Lawrence´s last blog ..Kerio Connect 7 Beta
Some people are like you: they just like helping others! If they get some fame and $$$ great, but their reward is being helpful to the crowd.
Good thinkin’!
@Tony – Now that’s the best explanation I’ve heard yet, especially the pot-luck analogy. That’s an analogy I can sink my teeth….well, maybe I shouldn’t bother with that old cliché?
@Sixty – The trouble with good thinkin’ is that my head hurts afterward.
I’ve always noticed that folks are a lot more cooperative and generally nicer to each other in their virtual life,always helping each other out and such. Too bad real life isn’t that way?
It’s a selection bias. the people you hang out with on the net are more likely to be nice because they are different people from those who aren’t. I bet if you got all of us together there would be equal amounts of helping.
Creating open source software is a great way to practice your programming skills. It also showcases your abilities without anyone having to worry about legal issues.
Some people do it for the charity of course. Personally, I hate how society works, so I’m all for people sharing their work. One day we’ll (hopefully) be using a Star Trek type system of government. I’m happy to do anything that can progress us towards that type of society.
Same reason you publish prose for free I suppose. Fun, creative outlet, challenge, practice, brand building, ego? …
Alan – All of the above?
A lot of ‘us programmers’ spend all day writting crap code for a crap product that we don’t even believe in. That pays the bills. Then in our free time we get to write the programs that we want to write, the way we want to write them. Imagine an architect who spends all day drawing up boring flats or houses and then in his free time works on the designs for his own dream house. The dream house might not ever be finished, but it’s the making of it, or even just the thinking about it, that is fun.
Tim – I can understand that alright. I think it might have been writing up tech manuals that drove me to writing for myself in the first place. Of course, that was before the WWW, blogs and such.
Or am I dating myself?
Here’s why I create free software (besides promoting reuse): There is no boss. There is no sales or marketing department. There is no schedule or deadline. I get to create software I want to, and the way I want to. It’s just me, ideas, code, and the people we cooperate with. It is a creative outlet. Programming is a craft, or an art even. I do not have to do things I hate. For me this makes a really big difference: the difference between work and a hobby..
Mudry – Probably both a craft and an art I would imagine. I imagine most of the “average users” out there wouldn’t understand that either even though they probably have at least one open source program installed on their system.
I use every program I make. I just like to think that someone else might like to use it too, so why not share it? I’m not losing anything,
I would contribute to Firefox if I knew enough about programming (the only programming I ever did was in BASIC) just for the chance to be a part of the team that will one day destroy Internet Explorer. That piece of shit has it coming and every day we get a little closer thanks to the folks at Mozilla Labs.
Having sponsored our own open source projects from my company, I can definitely mirror what Linus has said, which he posted in relation to Microsoft’s submissions to the Kernel:
“I agree that it’s driven by selfish reasons, but that’s how all open source code gets written! We all “scratch our own itches”
People write software that works for them, then share it–and people who need similar software or would like to enhance it to work for them, do so. I think you’ll find that on most projects, almost everybody relies on the software in question.
Open Source is approximately 75% “Scratching your own itch”, 10% “Help for stuff I can’t do on my own” and 5% “Good will” … or something like that.
I think you’re forgetting that Open Source software is an enormous business. Like you said, pretty much anything that runs the web is open source. Apache, MySQL, PHP, Linux, etc. I could go on all day. With that much technology being freely available for anyone to work on, that creates huge job opportunities. For example, do you think that there would be as many DVRs out there if embeddable Linux wasn’t available for free? Because it is free, companies can create devices for a lower cost than they would if they would either have to buy a license to whatever OS they had to use, or if they had to make one themselves. Every single one of those companies employ developers to work on the device. And because of the GPL, the work they do goes back to the original source, thus benefiting everyone.
Of course, smaller projects may not have an as big effect. For example, I am one of the developers of an application called Caffeine (https://launchpad.net/caffeine). While I haven’t earned a cent for all the hours I’ve spent working on it, I’ve gained recognition among my peers and have learned a whole lot about Python, Linux power management, packaging, and other related topics. As a software development student, there’s no greater benefit.
Tommy Brunn´s last blog ..Google Wave invites
Tommy – You know, for some reason I think I should have realized that. Many thanks for your explanation. I’ll definitely keep it in mind for those days when I get disgusted with everything. Makes too much sense not too.
Let’s say you are a graffiti artist.
writing an open source program is like throwing up a bomb somewhere. And it’s hell’a sweet!
You don’t get paid a cent, in fact you had to pay for the paint and supplies, so your at a loss, not to mention time (and risk) but other writers know your name and respect you, ask you to help, offer you help, whatever. and your sticking it to the man.
so open source writers gain respect, they gain knowledge, they help people, and the best part: you’re really sticking it to those assholes who charge a shit ton for Microsoft Office or adobe creative suite. Your saying, “we don’t need you, and we aren’t going to pay you.”
And when you can do something for yourself, for mostly free, and you aren’t paying some asshole too much money so that he can smoke a fancy cigar or some shit, that feels really good.
“you’re really sticking it to those assholes who charge a shit ton for Microsoft Office or adobe creative suite. Your saying, “we don’t need you, and we aren’t going to pay you.”
rocket – I can buy that–well, so to speak.
there’s something to be said for participating in something that’s bigger than yourself, even if that thing isn’t that important in the grand scheme of things…some people get satisfaction out of being able to think, “hey, I made the world a little bit better today, nice”
The answer is in why you’re not a programmer.
Writing computer programmes is an art, and your not understanding the artists drive to create is likely the absence of it in yourself.
Do you paint, draw, film, compose? If you can relate to why someone creates one form of art then to understand the open source programmer you just need transpose the motivation.
I have done a little programming – I have done a bit of art. You have hit it the closest to my understanding of anyone so far.
Some people grow flowers in the front yard just for others to see.
Fentex – I was a sound engineer at one time. A good one if I might say so myself. The sound board was my instrument and sound engineering was my much loved craft. In that I can certainly understand your analogy.
You don’t get it because you only see money, not passion for something you love. You have no understanding of the hacker (no, not the media-defined meaning of that word, but the true meaning) mindset and as such you are incapable of understanding the passion behind open-source and Free software.
“and as such you are incapable of understanding the passion behind open-source and Free software.”
Rebenga – Perhaps not. But I can certainly appreciate using it.
Glory. For the glory of it all.
Others are right on. Programming is an art.
Another thing to note is that the unpaid devs do it part-time for fun. I work in IT, but programming is my hobby. I like it, it’s fun. I’ve never contributed to an open source project but I understand why they exist and why unpaid people help. They do it for the sake of art, accomplishment, community, and probably a bunch of other reasons.
Why do people do anything with their free time? Why watch TV or play a game?
It may all be part of the great cognitive surplus.
http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/010218.html
Ask this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stallman
and this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
and one main thing is when you write code for a big CO that code goes behind the patent wall and its no longer yours. with open source you get to keep ownership of that code AND give it away
Why? I’d have to say open code is in a stage like the free love of the 60′s. You just give it away to make others feel good, you do it well and by someone enjoying what you do you get satisfaction out of it as well. Hopping into bed with Microsoft is more like being slipped the date rape drug…in the morning your wallet is missing, your memory is corrupted and your ass hurts.
I’ll leave it at that.
Peter – Now those are examples I can relate to. Makes me a bit nostalgic as well.
You don’t get why people do something they truly enjoy doing and then let other people who get real use out of their creations – labors of love – just use them without trying to squeeze something out of them for it? I don’t think I want to meet you. You’re probably not a very nice person. One might go so far as to wonder if your mommy never loved you, or ask how many bodies are hidden in your basement. Also, why are you blogging about this? Go away. Go away and die alone in a basement filled with rats.
Wow. Was this supposed to be satirical or are you actually that much of a douche? Taking it at face value, its tone is completely inappropriate for the tone of the article.
Alan – It’s satirical, obviously.
I think you do get it, you’re just so indoctrinated into a submissive way of life (brainwashed) that you refuse to believe it. Information…ALL of it should be free. That may scare you but it needs to be. You’re living with an archaic understanding of awareness. I could go on forever, but you still would probably not understand. I’m sorry I could not help you.
“I’m sorry I could not help you.”
That’s okay, you didn’t try to.
Thanks for all the comments folks. It was more than I anticipated to say the least. Enough so that I felt obliged to write up a follow up post, the link you can find right beneath the above post under “Possibly Related Matter”.
And many thanks to you OSS developers who did their best to straighten me out on why you people do what you do. Obviously you do it for all the right reasons.
I compare software to cooking.
Microsoft is the equivalent of KFC, Coke or Pepsi – they keep their recipes closely guarded secrets and only sell you the final product. So if you want a piece of Microsoft Fried Computer, the only option you have is to buy it from one of their franchised affiliates.
On the other hand, open source is like my (late) grandmother and her friends. Often my grandmother made a good recipe, and pretty soon everyone in the town had a copy. And then they changed the recipe a bit, and my grandmother (and everyone else) gets that new version. Nobody asks why people fiddle around with food for friends and family – it’s fun and tasty, and someone has to eat it.
The difference between software and cooking, is that in software you have the option of downloading the recipie (source code), or a _copy_ of the cake that someone baked from the recipe. Imagine if you could do this for food!
“I think we will have a copy of one of Jamie Oliver’s famous roasts for dinner tonight, followed by one of Rachael Ray’s deserts. And I believe we’ll have a copy of a nice NAPA valley wine to go with that.”
Joal – Stop! You’re making me hungry!
I just loaded up my old beater with Linux Mint 8 KDE CE. I had Mint 8 Gnome edition before but I favor the KDE version a bit more. Kind of ironic that your comment is an analogy of food and my OS is named after a flavoring?
I call it “cumulative small-wish”. Virtually nobody wants to be in the business of writing, or selling, software. Most people want to be in the business of doing something, and as a peripheral matter, end up _needing_ software to perform some task. For example the entire language “Forth” was originally written by an astronomer who needed a way automate the “clock motors” (very small, very precise, usually very slow motors) on his bazillion dollar telescope.
Once he had that software, which he wrote to fulfill his immediate need, he had two basic “no effort” choices. (1) keep it to himself. (2) give it away so other people could use it too. [note that "selling it" is not a "no effort" choice, though it is a valid option.]
Now there were other people who wanted to do similar automation tasks and since they _also_ don’t want to be in the business of writing and selling software. They also don’t necessarily want to be in the business of _buying_ software and then trying to make it fit, especially if they don’t have the budget. So they have two choices. (1) write their own system from scratch. (2) find some software that is “close enough” to what they want to do, and modify that. After this modification they have the two choices of the original guy of (1) keeping it to their selves or (2) giving it away so that others can use it.
The ecosystem forms when original guy discovers that modification guy has made good mods, and brings them back into his own code base.
So anybody who does item one at any step just disappears because they are irrelevant. They make no contribution to notice in the software field. It happens constantly, but it doesn’t _mean_ anything to anybody. All that software is just lost, like the baby shrimp that get eaten before they breed.
Those engaged in the silent number three, namely buying and selling software, are there in the economy doing that very thing. But if they do, they stop being astronomers or whatever, and they tend to lose track of what is happening in the original field. They have changed jobs.
That leaves a vital chain of people constantly doing item two. They are sowing their code into the wider filed of “everybody who wants to do that thing” and then they reap the feedback and, more importantly, the actual modifications. They can then keep the best bits as they see fit. The astronomer ends up with an even better automation control system just by giving away the old one and keeping an eye out for the improvements that others will make.
Finally, as a business model, lots of people need the customizations and modifications but they don’t want to learn even the first thing about programming and such. They have “option 2a” which is to hire/pay some person/company to find “the best starter stuff” and then modify and customize that for them.
This “2a” is what companies like Red Hat do. It’s also something that someone in India can pay someone else in India to do. If you have a problem with closed source software, you have only one entity available to make a fix. That controlling entity may not care to make your changes. You ever actually try to “make” Microsoft fix or change _anything_ specific? It either doesn’t happen or it costs tens of thousands of dollars, which rush away to the coffers in Redmond.
So open source is all about people who want to do _specific_ things taking the most circumstantial and financial “direct route” to solving their own problems with those things.
In business speak “open source software” isn’t necessarily “free”. The cost of the best stuff is _disclosure_ of your modifications, but _only_ if you give those modifications to someone else. You can acquire and then go all option one. Nobody really cares.
And if you make a cell phone, or a xPad, or whatever then you make your money selling that device. Why would you want to foot 100% of the cost of the software support when you can just give the software away and then have one out of every twenty complaints arrive at your company with a prospective fix attached. A hundred people complain and maybe you get five different ideas on how to fix it. Now you pay your on-site staff to pick a fix instead of invent one, and you can turn around patches in days instead of months.
Open Source is the epitome of business efficency. In fact, up until about 1979 most software was limited open source. You got source tapes with the product tapes for virtually every mainframe product ever released.
I, on the other hand, don’t “get” closed source as a business model. It is fraught with entropy and hassle. I know why someone would want to _sell_ the software, I just don’t know why anybody would want to _buy_ it. That program could be doing _anything_ in there, and you have no way to check it if you get “funky” results. If Microsoft or Apple decides to change their software then what happens to the _legacy_ of your business when you discover that you can no longer access all your designs from 2003? (and so on.)