1. Coding is fun
2. EULA's are a farce, people wouldn't ever buy something else under the terms & conditions attached to software
3. It's great to have your name on something good, something you made or contributed to
Ergo: create free software. Any questions?
Well, I do have a couple.
I like getting paid for my work. Lean software development is cool, getting leaner developing software is not. How to monetize?
Someone who can do something I can't, or can genuinely do it way better, is welcome to add to my code. Everyone else should bugger off. How to maintain quality & ownership of an idea / some software?
Nothing is ever truly perfect. Who is going to take care of support issues once I finish uploading this baby?
In Rand's The Fountainhead the story's famously egotistical protagonist agrees to design a housing project for free, his price is to see it erected exactly as he designed it. Subsequently, some less-that-stellar architects proceed to do a mashup job on his blueprints by adding their own 'enhancements' and the result is not at all what he intended.
What I understand is that creation can be its own reward, and when you're busy doing something great money becomes merely a means to secure the resources you need to keep creating, rather than the reward for the work you do.
What I also understand it that sometimes you got to have it your way or not at all. Especially when any alteration would detract from the whole.
In this vein of thought the GPL seems an evil thing that lets other people appropriate the fruits of your labor, mess around with them and go on the internet going all 'look what I made'. Terrible.
However, this is not the reality of free software. The reality is that great people do great things which are then made even better by other people. Why?
Because of the free market of free software leads to incredible competition and a very, very good insurance against quackery. People can't fork, edit, relabel and sell software they didn't make because they will be called on their bullshit instantly. Also, anyone who screws up your good code will not be able to distribute it as widely, because customers will favor your better product.
Now the major weakness here is technological literacy. If I'm a car mechanic such as a good friend of mine I'll buy a highly customizable car that I can trick out how I like it, and that will outperform cars many times its cost. However, if I am an average Joe I'll buy whatever requires the least maintenance, or the product that has highly available support. The same goes for software.
Once in a while I'll try a new Linux distro, feel all warm and Tuxy and nostalgically use all seven bash commands I know just to recapture the cool. However, as soon as I run in to a problem that requires me to debug spit-and-ductape solutions for playing video files or scare up obscure drivers from exotic repositories I tend to grab that OSX disk, real practical like, and restore my mac to it's rightful smooth usability. So even though I'm at least somewhat technologically literate, I tend to prefer forking over my hard-earned dough for good software, instead of free stuff that needs more attention.
Free software can and does perform flawlessly in many critical environments such as servers, but the wizards in charge of those systems are second to none in setting them up and maintaining them in such a good state. As long as your mom doesn't use free software on the house computer with the same ease as she uses any appliance, we're not where we should be in terms of usability and all our freely distributed creative efforts will see niche use at best. Granted, this is a higher standard than being merely as usable as Windows, but that was kind of the point of building something else in the first place. And given that 0900-FIX-MY-FREE-STUFF won't be answering your calls, free software cannot be the future until everyone, including mom, becomes more savvy about the stuff they (could) use.
Yes, there are seem to be some counterexamples with free browsers and such being built and working well. Their development is actually funded by multi-billion dollar corporations like AOL, Google, Microsoft and Apple. Mozilla too stays afloat on grants and cooperation agreements with the likes of Google. It is really properly organized and funded development by professionals, only the product is distributed for free. The development certainly isn't. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't fit in a discussion of romantic basement programming by clever peeps on a creative jag.
Recap: Making free software is fun and we should all do it for fulfillment and major kudos, using free software is at times not so great. Until we're all better hackers, free software is going to stay in its established niches. Shame.
No comments:
Post a Comment