On Wednesday 2004-04-14 20:00, Julia Thompson wrote: > Article at > http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_4/levesque/index.html > > I'm interested in anything folks here can add about open source > software, either from a user's point of view or a developer's point of > view. Or if someone has a refutation for any of the points raised in > the article, I'd be interested in reading that.
I think Levesque makes some good points and is basically correct. (I'm a bit of a sociology snob, so I don't think the essay rises to accademic quality, but that does not make it any less correct.) Levesque complains that FOSS, especially that intended for desktop consumption, has poor usability (except for the technocratic elite), poor documentation, obscure access to technical support (no matter how cheap or effective), tends to substitute technical support for documentation, and suffers from "not invented here" syndrome (particularly with regard to proprietary software). I think that she is quite correct. All of her complaints can be traced back to volunteerism. (And those projects such as Mozilla Firefox or OpenOffice that she might excuse have histories rooted in externalization of cost centers thus have been less influenced by volunteerism. [See: http://lintellect.org/index.php?p=2].) Volunteerism strongly implies that a "typical" FOSS project lacks discipline. When working on proprietary or in-house MIS software projects the developers are subject to managerial discipline. Management decides on the project goals, decides on features, user interface issues, and devotes resources to documentation. Developers (more or less) work toward the official project goal, confine themselves to features specified in the requirements documents, negotiate with the usability experts (which they don't like) and take time to answer questions from the technical writers (which they also usually don't like). Developers who get too out of line get fired. In theory it might be possible to get the industrial design and engineering folks to contribute to a FOSS project. You might even get technical writers to contribute. Presumably they would do so for many of the same reasons as the hackers contribute code. (Except that NOBODY thinks technical writing is fun. Also, most marketing and usability research CANNOT be done for free.) Even if a project COULD get reasonable documentation, marketing, and usability contributions, it would make no difference in the results produced in a classic bazzar style project developed by cowboy hackers. The developers would take the contributions of the marketeers and usability folks as (annoying) guidelines. That is, they would mostly ignore them. They would spend too little time with the technical writers, and release applications without waiting for updated documentation (since documentation necessarilly lags development). Only with managerial discipline could a FOSS project benefit from contributed documentation, marketing, and usability resources. Thus, we only expect to see an emphasis on non-programming aspects of software development in loss leader and externalized cost center projects. Academic projects could also emphasise non-progamming software development components but one expects that departmental structures and grantsmanship would de-emphasize para-programming in academic software development projects. In this light it is worth noting that Red Hat has basically withdrawn from the end-user desktop market. Perhaps we should simply accept that Linux (and most other FOSS) is for servers. FOSS on the desktop is for techno-geeks and those too poor to purchase proprietary software with higher quality para-programmatic features. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
