Reading 08: The craftsmanship model is still valid

I personally think that the greatest thing driving someone to participate in open source, above all else, is simply the need or want to create something (or improve/fix something) that they use. When people first start programming, and first start learning about open source software and the idea of free software, generally do not become ideologically fanatical about it and willing to contribute to open source purely because of their beliefs. For most people, their first contributions to open source are a small project that they’re proud of, or some fixes/features to a project that they use. It is only afterwards, as these people begin to use more open source software, and begin to contribute to more software that they begin to see the reasons that many programmers are fanatical about free and open source software.

Once people see why so many programmers contribute to open source software simply to further the cause of open source software (and in some cases to further their reputation as well), some will be persuaded by those arguments and begin to contribute to open source projects to help out, and also to build a name for themselves. But in my opinion, some contribute to open source simply because they want to create an elegant piece of software. I reject the idea that the only way to maximize quality is through peer evaluation. I believe that it is certainly a good way to do so, but the idea that it is the only way is something that I completely disagree with. You can maximize quality entirely on your own, focusing solely on your own software and some principles of software development (the unix philosophy, for example). I think of some small pieces of software that I have been working on - I haven’t released them yet, I have no feedback so far, but I already know what I want to work on and what I want to tinker with when I’m done. The only peer I need evaluation from is myself, and he has very good taste. I’m being a little facetious, but I don’t think you need peer evaluation because I believe the opinions of the creator allow for an open source project to have goals to work towards, and that these provide sufficient motivation for (some) hackers.

As for what prevents people from contributing, I think part of it is that this culture is very niche and difficult to understand for outsiders - it is pretty difficult for someone who’s never heard of the unix philosophy, or unfamiliar with the history of open source software / early hackers to understand why people are spending so much time creating software for free, instead of using their talents to sell it, especially in the society we live in. In addition, for many people it is daunting to create a project, especially when there is a good chance that something like it already exists. A lot of people may just not want to recreate the wheel, unless they have a sort of inbuilt drive to hack.

I think the list of taboos that ESR lists are essential to maintaining a community. Many hackers (not all, as I disagree with ESR) are motivated by their reputation when creating open source projects. If the taboos against forking / distributing changes were not present, then many hackers would be disillusioned if they found their work being distributed by someone else, with their name removed and given no credit, especially if the changes were not to their liking (if your software is like your baby, seeing someone else dress it up in a way you don’t is repulsive). These norms are essential to maintaining a community that rewards developers with attention and reputation, some of the few ways to reward developers in a community which doesn’t pay them.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reading 04: Programming is an art (Donald Knuth approved!)

Paul Graham sees hacking (and by extension hackers) as closer to an artform than anything else. Paul describes hackers as makers, people who are creating something beautiful, not necessarily something new and original, but something beautiful whether in output or in design. I believe his definition is compatible and in fact fits in very well with Levy’s description of hackers. The hacker ethic even mentions that computers can be used for art and beauty! Additionally, from the stories we have read of early hackers trying to impress other hackers through code shaving to tales of hackers choosing to program an astronomically accurate star chart for the background of a game, we can see that beauty has been part of hacking since it’s very beginning. There are certainly diminishing returns to code shaving - once you’ve reached the point where you are spending hours upon hours to try and shave off a line or two of code, you’re wasting your time if you purely think of your efforts as being to...
Read more

Reading 02: ABC Always Be Selling out

  In this week's reading and discussion, we learned about the second wave of hackers, who were more focused on hardware than just software. These hackers were of a very different type than the hackers who were shaped by the culture of the RLE lab. While the first hackers were systems hackers, who were obsessed far more with the software they could make on the hardware they had, the second wave hardware hackers were very interested in building their own computers, especially with the rise of microprocessors. While they both emphasized the importance of the Hacker Ethic and the hands-on imperative, the main difference was that software was not the end all be all for these hackers. They did write and give away programs for free (at least, in the beginning they did), but they also focused on building their own computers and increasing their performance. The fun for these hackers was often in the actual construction of the machine and knowing why it worked, which was not as important fo...
Read more

Reading 09: Open source? Sounds communist to me

Open source can still make business sense today, even if it isn’t necessarily the most profitable choice (by %). As ESR has mentioned, by providing software for free, you can increase your market share more than proprietary software, and then sell add-ons / support / premium versions of the software in order to monetize the open source software. I think another element in favor of releasing open source software is the potential for it to be widely used by developers, who then encourage their companies to use it (and their companies will pay for an enterprise license / support). I believe winRAR used a similar model of selling, since it allowed users to use the free version of it indefinitely even though it warned them that they would have to buy a copy of it eventually (albeit not being an open source piece of software). I think that services instead of software as a business model is definitely a viable model, potentially even more viable than the traditional model of simply ...
Read more