
Open-source software: Untangling code - davidw
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=17899970&amp;subjectID=348963&amp;fsrc=nwl
======
hvs
I haven't read the book, but this article doesn't really say anything that any
clear-minded open source advocate didn't already know. Outside of certain
dogmatic circles, it's become pretty clear that the future of open source
development is in the corporate world for many projects. That's not
necessarily a bad thing, either.

~~~
davidw
I think the novelty was in the actual research they carried out that seems to
confirm what everyone's noses had been telling them.

------
6ren
Here's a theoretical argument that seems unavoidable to me, though I haven't
seen any evidence for it: _many open source developers of a project consult in
its area. It makes sense that that project is hard to use._

The great appeal of software, for me, is that it can encapsulate knowledge and
expertise; a kind of abstraction layer. A magic talisman of wisdom and talent.
This can include guiding the user in how to approach the task, implicitly
providing concepts with which to reason about it. Like one of those old-
fashioned how-to books, it can aim to be _teacher, mentor, friend_.

The "problem" is that if you give it away, you can't make any money on
consulting, because (ideally) it itself is the best possible consultant. So
you have to charge for it. But it doesn't seem quite so noble...

------
RyanMcGreal
I'm reminded of a recent statement from one of the github guys to the effect
that by running a profitable business using proprietary software, they're able
to contribute more to open source.

------
weel
I know it's hard to write pithy headlines, but describing open source as
"programs written by volunteers" is misleading. A lot of open source software
is actually written by people who get paid to do so, or who get paid at least
partially because they do (or did) so.

------
edw519

             The Software Iceberg
    
                     /\
                    /  \ 
                   /    \ 
                  / open \
                 / source \
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
               /            \
              / proprietary  \
             /  & for sale    \
            /                  \
           ----------------------
          /                      \
         /       proprietary      \
        /    & written in-house    \
       /                            \
      --------------------------------

~~~
davidw
Funny, I have the pyramid exactly the other way: open source should be the
infrastructure, the base the 'crown jewels' at the tip of the pyramid are
built on top of. Especially for 'lean startup' types of deals, where the lines
of code for your startup will be several orders of magnitude less than what
it's based on: Linux, postgres/mysql/nosql, tcl/perl/python/ruby/php/erlang
etc....

~~~
edw519
I was referring to volume of code written, not function.

You bring up an interesting (and IMO valid) observation.

I guess this picture was only worth 999 words.

~~~
davidw
Volume of what? I think your pyramid is correct in terms of revenue, although
maybe it's not so much a pyramid as a fairly stark line.

~~~
njharman
Volume of code, lines written/bugs created ;)

In house software typically has 0 revenue.

