by Coder Geek

Created on: July 15, 2007

When it comes to software licensing, there are two predominant paradigms: open source and proprietary (commercial) licenses. I have been a member of the open source community for some time taking part in pet projects as well as larger projects such as Gnome. So I've long understood the perspective of open source programmers. However, now working at a company that produces software released under a proprietary license I'm beginning to understand the friction if not downright animosity that exists towards the open source movement.

Working at a software company obviously puts me in close proximity with developers. One also get used to the way proprietary software companies handle issues especially when you deal with them on a near daily basis. However, it can be fustrating to developers who submit an inquiry to an open source project, perhaps pointing out a specific flaw. Instead of receiving an informative response or at the very least a "we'll look into this," in my experience open source project managers will scream "Well it's open source! Since you have the source code YOU FIX IT!"

Seriously wtf?

However, from the perspective of open source developers - having a project's source code be open so everyone is free to make it do anything they want is the highest priority. Everything else, especially "stupid" end-users, take a back seat as freedom is of utmost importance.

Something I never expected from working for "the man" is realizing how much responsibility a proprietary software producer willingly takes on. They take on the responsibility of ensuring users can actually use their product. They take on the professionalism to not call end-users "stupid" as a means of stirring conversation away from their defective product. These companies also take on the responsibility of providing appropriate tech support for their products, often free to those who have purchased that product.

When was the last time you received useful tech support from an open source project you didn't pay for?

Open source is great for professional programmers and expert users who know what they're doing. However, with the emphasis being on code rather than users it's no wonder the entire open source community has but one or two products that the average person on the street would recognize the name of. With this attitude, open source projects will never go mainstream unless legislated to do so.

Legislating governments to use low-quality open source products such as OpenOffice.org (don't even get me started on this PoS) is akin to the government bailing Airlines out of bankruptcy because they went into bankruptcy for treating their customers like crap. Yes, I just compared the open source community's lack of care for the customers to that of the Airline industry. Unfortunately, I think I may have managed to insult the Airline industry in that statement. Sure, it's great to see governments saving money by not paying for proprietary software. But do our government employees really need yet another excuse to not be productive?

There's a reason that despite there being open source counterpart to virtually every piece of proprietary software in existence, proprietary software continues to survive and thrive. It all boils down to good business and caring about users rather than one's own ego. However, that major shift in thought on the part of the open source community that would ultimately benefit is not going to happen quickly or soon. So get out there and in any open source project you take part in, think about the user more.

A program is a lot more than a bunch of compiled code.

Learn more about this author, Coder Geek.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.