Why Open Source?

In this article I present my view on Open Source Software. There are a number of articles elsewhere that talk about advantages of Open Source and why it works [1][2][3]. (I use the term Open Source to mean Free Software, instead of diving into OSS vs FS debate.)

Point 1: Most software organizations are driven more by business objectives, and less by technology.

If you look around you notice several types of software companies: most of them are commercial ones like Microsoft, there are some like Sun that are commercial but pretend to do open source work, very few like Red Hat that build business out of open source software, and finally, there are some true open source software like Linux and Apache. I think most of Sun's Open Source attempts are for business reasons to provide competition to other existing businesses.

Point 2: Software programming is an art.

It is like learning a new language or doing sculpture or painting. Initially a programmer is too involved with the syntax and semantics of the language constructs and application. Once he is proficient, the programming comes naturally. For example, a good Java developer will think in terms of high level modules and classes, but once he starts implementing them things move smoothly instead of worrying about where to put the open bracket or when to create a new method. After a while, the software development process becomes an art of making beautiful, modular and efficient software. Some people have a built-in talent for the particular art, but most people learn by practice, practice and practice.

Point 3: Good art requires personal motivation.

Doing a scientific experiment is different than painting a new picture. At the broad-level, given the set of input data, and experimental setup, one is likely to achieve the same result in an experiment. On the other hand, an art piece requires inherent motivation of the artist and his personal inspiration to do something new, something different. Sometimes the inspiration gets driven by commercial interest, in which case an artist may end up producing art work without much motivation -- e.g., in the commercial Indian film industry, a music director has to produce tens or hundreds of scores per year, affecting the quality of the art as well as causing plagiarism from western music. On the other hand, motivated musicians who record one album a year do generate quality and innovative work.

Considering the above three points, a software engineer who is paid to work on a particular technology or piece of software is less likely to be personally motivated to create that piece of software. On the other hand, an open source developer who is not paid for his work initially, starts the open source work because of his personal motivation to create that piece of software. Thus, an open source software is more likely to be of better quality compared to a commercial software with the same amount of testing. Hence commercial software requires quality assurance to make it competitive with open source. Although quality assurance can reduce software bugs, it doesn't make the 'art' as good as the open-source version. If you compare the design of the Apache web server or SIP express router with their commercial counter parts, you can understand what I mean by 'art' in this context.

When I look at an open source software, I assume it reflects ideas and vision of the innovative and inspired developers who were motivated to write that piece of software. When I look at a commercial software, I assume it is created by software engineers who got paid to write code, to write documents, to test code, and more than that it is sold by salesmen who are paid to sell those pieces of software. I don't see much personal motivation or inspiration in the loop, and I don't aspect the design or the implementation of the software to be a good piece of art. (In small companies where all the people have same vision or inspiration about the software, it is possible to create quality work. However, things change over a period of time as the company grows and new software engineers are paid to perform work on other people's innovations.)

In the context of P2P-SIP, we haven't seen much of commercial interest beyond the few initial contenders. The main reason is that P2P-SIP inherently is peer-to-peer, and against the business model of services that the modern web/phone industry is so accustomed to. In other words, the industry has not figured out a way to make money out of open P2P-SIP. On the other hand, there are a number of developers who created open source prototype applications out of personal inspiration. The next steps for the open source P2P-SIP developer community: to build a bigger community, advertise and publish their work, prove that it works better than existing solutions, and use it on a daily basis!

No comments: