

Beware of Open Source Software Zombies - mhausenblas
https://medium.com/@mhausenblas/beware-of-open-source-software-zombies-26a56f38a4f4

======
unimpressive
This notion that software must have a community is really tiresome and reeks
of entitlement. Most people who create OSS projects are doing so in their
spare time as a charitable endeavor and don't want to support it forever. Open
sourcing end-of-life products so they can possibly have a second life as open
source software, serve as code examples to the community and be preserved as
part of our collective history is undoubtedly a good thing. Spreading the idea
that only supported community-driven OSS is worthy of existence is basically
asking anybody who ever open sources anything to commit to involving
themselves with it indefinitely.

If that's the barrier to entry, I suspect you'll see a lot less open source
software going forward into the future. ;)

~~~
ternaryoperator
Agreed. I do wish that on projects--both commercial and individual--when the
owners have decided not to continue contributing, they'd put a note to that
effect.

A lot of times it's hard to tell if, say, there's been no dev activity for six
months, whether the project is just temporarily quiescent or whether the owner
has decided to move on to other things.

~~~
dalke
How does it affect your decision making?

If there has been no development for 6 months, have you tried emailing them
with a consulting or support offer? Because I've put things off for years
sometimes due to lack of funding.

------
klibertp
> So, the question is: how can we avoid these zombies, both from a user and
> also from a ‘producer’ perspective?

No, the question we should ask first is why being a zombie is bad (especially
compared to _not existing_ at all, ie. not being open sourced). I don't see it
answered in the article. I don't see it asked in the article. It's simply
assumed.

There are many different kinds of zombies. Most of them are essentially
immortal unless shot in the head. They may move rather slowly, but they have
great strength. They may become blind, but they often get a great sense of
hearing. They tend to rot if left alone but can last very, very long if
preserved properly. There are instances of zombies who continue to be
conscious after zombification and who continue to do what they did before
(think Mr. Slant from T. Pratchett books). They are unlikely to change their
ways, but sometimes it's a good thing. There are zombies who retain their
emotions (see Sankarea manga). And so on.

It's equally true for open source projects. Even if abandoned (for some
definition of abandonment) for the same amount of time, two different projects
may become two very different kinds of zombies. LiveScript, for example, is a
zombie if you look at its mailing list, but is one of the most productive (for
me, of course) compile-to-JS languages out there. StumpWM (a Common Lisp WM)
is also nearly dead, yet it's still the best WM if you want a WM that's
hackable.

On the other hand, there are projects which we'd really like to see dead, yet
they refuse to die or even zombify. Projects which suck a massive amount of
resources into their life support systems without any visible improvements.

> and if you find one in the wild: run!

Or you could just take a nice pump-action shotgun (ie. ability to read and
write the code) with you and have a good time.

In short: this article is shallow. It reads like a generic advice written only
to write something, without any deeper insight. And the author seems to know
very little about zombies...

~~~
dalke
Hear, hear. In the Xanth series, love rejuvenates a zombie.

------
bshimmin
An alternative tldr: spend your precious free time giving away your stuff for
limited or (most likely) zero personal gain, and then make sure to spend even
more time shepherding it afterwards, also for no gain (but possibly
considerable frustration, no doubt from entitled jackasses like the author of
this article).

Honestly, is this guy really suggesting that when you open-source some
software, you should also create "an exciting video walkthrough" and a Slack
channel? Seriously?

~~~
mhausenblas
Both you and others made valid points concerning individuals. I will update
the post to make the scope clear. And just to clarify this here: I certainly
don't feel entitled to anything concerning OSS, no need for an ad hominem ;)

~~~
unimpressive
>I certainly don't feel entitled to anything concerning OSS, no need for an ad
hominem ;)

No ad hominem here, it's entitlement. And even if you personally have a more
nuanced understanding, what you've written will encourage people who do not.

[http://byfat.xxx/what-is-opensource-and-why-do-i-feel-so-
gui...](http://byfat.xxx/what-is-opensource-and-why-do-i-feel-so-guilty) (Skip
to nineteen minutes in.)

[https://github.com/wpeterson/emoji/issues/23](https://github.com/wpeterson/emoji/issues/23)

For larger context of these, their relevant HN threads:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10093332](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10093332)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8712035](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8712035)

------
jeffreyrogers
Some software doesn't need a community. Unless it is a framework a lot of
software can be relatively stable. For example, NaCl[1], arguably the best
high performance cryptographic library, hasn't been updated since 2011.

[1]: [http://nacl.cr.yp.to/index.html](http://nacl.cr.yp.to/index.html)

------
gayprogrammer
I don't see any problem with OSS code without a community. I've always thought
of the freely available code online like a library full of books: nobody is
reading 99% of them, but their availability is important for someone who wants
to learn or find new ideas. What if only the most popular code repos existed?

------
daviross
This sort of expectation ends up being a mental block for me sometimes as far
as putting something I've done out there. _If I put it out there, someone
might use it and expect updates. How many projects could I maintain at once?
Is this one really worth that much trouble?_

~~~
pnt12
My suggestion: just release it. If someone uses your program or gives it a new
life under a fork, that's great. If no one uses it, there's no harm done. If
some asshole complains about support, either kindly ask him about a paid
offer, remind him of his right to fork the project or ignore him.

------
oneJob
I suspect I'm not alone is thinking, that it's not a problem specific to OSS.
The codebase at work,,, for 25% of it, basically if it worked the first time,
zombie.

------
ternaryoperator
This reads more like a description of what to do if you want to build an
active community. We're long past the point where putting OSS code out there
implies a project that the owner wants to build a community around.

------
CmonDev
A lot of .NET indie games are relying on such a zombie - Farseer. A Box2d
clone so full of features and complexity, nobody but the owner can support it.
And the owner checked out.

------
chris_wot
Does Apache OpenOffice fall under this category? Seems very much a candidate -
that project is moribund.

