

Open source is dangerous for computing education? - jwhitlark
http://opensource.com/education/10/2/open-source-dangerous-computing-education

======
alexgartrell
So, I've posted on here about looking for open source projects to work with
before, and I've worked with Mozilla in the past and Chromium currently. I've
almost always been embraced with open arms.

Open Source projects are normally just pumped to get the help. Even Chromium,
where the vast majority of developers are Google employees, was _really_
helpful in getting us online and moving. They love outside engagement.

And I've learned more about writing real software in my brief efforts with
bother Chromium and Mozilla than I ever did at my Cisco internship. I think it
comes down to this: when they're paying you to be there, there's no burden on
them to somehow educate you. You're there to work. On the flip side, open
source projects see helping you as an investment in their future.

~~~
gte910h
He's not saying "Open source doesn't like the help". He's saying "more people
end up working in lead in activities to software development in commercial
settings than in open source settings".

Here is the article that the linked article is responding to
[http://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/72144-the-impact-of-
open...](http://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/72144-the-impact-of-open-source-
on-computing-education/fulltext)

He's not saying "OSS is bad". He's saying "OSS for whatever reason is 99%
white and asian males, so if that becomes a large place for introducing people
to programming, then we've got troubling diversity issues upcoming"

One of Dr. Guzdial's big pushes has always been computing "inclusiveness",
that being, getting _everyone_ interested in computing. Here is a comment
buried on one of the blogs in question by Guzdial:

>Kirby, I'm not claiming that open source doesn't desire LPP. It simply isn't
happening for people not White or Asian or male. Whatever is happening to draw
in a more diverse crowd, to get a more diverse group involved in the periphery
-- it isn't working. There are lots of incentives for women and minorities to
get involved in commercial software development, but that 24% number is pretty
paltry. That's why efforts like BPC and NCWIT exist, to try to figure out how
to go beyond those incentives to get the diverse workforce that will lead to
better and more innovative designs.

------
jmount
The ACM (one of Mark Guzdial's associations) doesn't even believe in non-
paywall academic publication. So it isn't too surprising he doesn't like
seeing software published either.

~~~
gte910h
Did you read the article and report?

The man for _years_ has been building up the open source smalltalk (Squeak)
that lots of things are being built on these days.

He's saying _when you look at who's participating, company based software
development is empirically including more people in more "lead in" activities
to software development than open source is_.

That's all.

And the fact you expect a tenured professor to _not_ belong to the ACM is
laughable. MG is the director of undergraduate studies at GT, and the ACM does
plenty of work with and for the school.

~~~
jmount
A good point- I wasn't at all fair. Now that I have thought about it a bit, I
probably am in closer agreement. I very much like having open source software
(and the source to such software around)- but I don't think I could in good
conscience encourage students to subject themselves to the procedures and
politics often inside such projects.

------
samdk
Mark Guzdial responds in the comments, and it's worth reading. He says that
his comments were related to the demographics of open-source development, and
in that context I don't really disagree--although I'm by no means convinced
that the _problem_ is open-source. I think it's more a symptom than anything.

(Also, I'm a student at Wesleyan University and I've been very involved with
the Humanitarian FOSS Project since the summer and will be at the HFOSS
Symposium in March. If anyone has any related questions, I'm happy to answer
them.)

------
yason
In companies, developers are forced to work together -- in good and in bad.
This gets stuff done but it also pushes for questionable code quality as
personal conflicts remain unresolved and that takes time from doing good work.

In open source world, meaningful contributions only happen when the
contributor and the project maintainer connect on a certain level. Nobody
wants to work with people they consider jerks if they don't have to. And this
is not a fixed set either: differences in opinions can arise and get settled
later and a contributor--maintainer connection is respectively broken or
(re)established.

