What makes Good Open Source Software

Tags: General, Coldfusion

Awhile ago I made some very strong opinions against a Content Management System written in Coldfusion, and even though the developers and people who support the product are great developers. It shows a lack of foresight and direction that Open Source Software needs to adopt to survive.

The company that I work for Aegeon Pty. Ltd. is adopting the Open Source Software with open arms, we can be picky in what we look at as we adopt the Web2.0 and Enterprise2.0 and provide solutions.

So why are we picky, the major problem with OSS (Open Source Software) is that it is done as a need and is usually done on the backs of developers with no financial support. Because of this certain things usually get overlooked and support and documentation are the key areas that OSS must improve on.

Why are those 2 things so important, well documentation is a must and all developers have a minimum amount of time to evaluate and decide upon what he/she can read. Software with little documentation will fall by the wayside due to that, and even good documentation can get one to look at it further but the support of the product can usually be a big let down.

So why do I write about this problem, I have been a coldfusion developer for 12 years and have loved the language in all that time. However the company I work for, and many others in the enterprise arena are now looking more and more at the OSS solutions, which means that unless you can sell your product with good documentation and support your customer base will be small.

And that is the problem that most Coldfusion OSS has, and I am not going to say that it is just Coldfusion either any OSS whether it be PHP, Java or even ruby. If developers do not care about the documentation, or provide it but only when you sign up for training then they are not going to be around for long.

And all it boils down to is the mentality of the developers, or organization and foresight that is important enough to know this. I mean would one like to delay a release, and make sure that the Software can compete, or is providing the next release more important.

I'll tell you know the enterprise market, will look at a product and decide based on these 2 factors and that is a reality that seems to be missed by so many OSS developers.


TweetBacks


Comments (Moderated) | Add Comment

  • Brian Rinaldi's Gravatar "the major problem with OSS (Open Source Software) is that it is done as a need and is usually done on the backs of developers with no financial support"

    With all due respect, I think it is funny that amonst your list of complaints about OSS you never actually offer any solutions that require anything *you* or your company. I'm sorry, but that comes off as if you think you have the *right* to software that is well documented, well supported and completely free. How about contributing the features you need or assisting with the documentation? How about providing some financial incentives?

    I mean, you complain about having to pay for training? This seems to fly in the face of your argument about the lack of financial incentives. It does, nonetheless, fit an overall tone of entitlement that is (as an open source developer and general supporter myself) offensive.

    I am left with the distinct impression that by embracing open source, you and your company mean you expect everything but offer nothing. That is not the intent of open source. Hopefully your article just gave me the wrong impression.
    # Posted By Brian Rinaldi | 7/23/07 7:05 AM
  • Andrew Scott's Gravatar Brian, it is not just a complaint, it is reality. When you say we have the right to software that is well documented, that is not the case. If you actually read anything that is web2.0 or enterprise2.0 and then look at agile practices, the feelings are conveyed through the industry.

    We do not expect anything for nothing, and we do and will support open source projects that we take on board. But to look at the reality, what makes us look at something we think is viable to begin with, is documentation and without that how is one going to gauge whether that project is going to met any of needs to begin with.

    I am aware that OSS projects are done by developers on their own backs, have you looked at projects that become succesful and noticed that those projects end up being sucessful by code alone?

    I don't think so. Aegeon as a company will back the OSS market, but it also needs to benefit us as well. We are not the only large company thinking this way, and certainly will not be the last to think this way either.
    # Posted By Andrew Scott | 7/23/07 7:12 AM
  • Brian Rinaldi's Gravatar You make a valid point that it is difficult to evaluate a project that has poor or missing documentation. This is something most OS developers don't do well and know they don't do well. Thus comes the risk of open-source. You get something for nothing but at the risk of documentation and support...which goes back to why it is "open".

    To a lot of big companies the cost savings is worth the risk, which is why open source is thriving. It is a calculated risk nonetheless. Many large companies are big financial backers of larger open source projects. Others allow their programmers to assist on work time. Still others just want to save a buck by getting something for free. The last category is actually completely valid use...we are after all offering it for free why should we complain when someone uses it that way. The first two, though, help to move the development along...many a project had all the deficiencies you describe before someone backed them.

    My point is, contact the developers if a project seems like a good fit but needs some refining. Tell them your thoughts and concerns. Let them know that you would be willing to donate some time (at the least) to help move things along and you might be surprised by the response.
    # Posted By Brian Rinaldi | 7/23/07 8:03 AM

Comments (Moderated) | Add Comment