| 19 July 2011
Where ‘closed source’ falls short...
Five innovative characteristics of open source
Expert of Computable topics: Open Source en Smart IT, original blog: 2008, translated by Froukje Frijlink, 2011.
The media often runs headlines that start with ‘Open Source isn’t’, followed by ‘safe’, ‘flexible’, ‘serious’ or ‘free’. I would like to see more often the things highlighted that open does mean. Here’s a small start: five innovative characteristics of open source that closed source just can’t beat.
Coverage on open source often looks like a witch-hunt and (lobbyists of) licensed closed software and service providers knowingly pre-empty open innovations. My answer to this are five innovations of open source where closed falls short.
The first and most essential innovation and strength of open source software and its development teams is the world wide availability of open projects, its framework, extensions, bridges (to other projects) and patches (for faults). This is not a weakness, as is often claimed. In the majority of it, ‘closed’ software development simply can’t compete with this massive capacity and availability of free tools and experts. Developers are also passionate to work on the Open Source or Open Standard projects. This stands in stark contrast with ‘closed’ masses of people that mostly want to make a nice buck in a pleasant way. Open enthusiasts create in passing a worldwide exchangeable, common knowledge network. They form teams that in terms of size and organization, can easily measure themselves with closed IT multinationals like Microsoft, Oracle, and so on.
Killer-innovation number two: documentation, translation and localization. Larger open source projects will launch a big release today, and have fifty translations available tomorrow, ranging from Mandarin to Polish, and Spanish to Bahasa Indonesia! This user-generated content is extremely valuable, free and delivered extendable. Closed software developers however need to pay up for every release. Product managers are involved for weeks to coordinate the translation and localization work that needs to be done. Localization is implicit in how open teams operate. You don’t have to do anything for this. It has to be noted that translations and documentation of closed software is usually more complete and better. Many are however happy with ‘less complete’, particularly if it’s for free.
Open innovation number three: the community. It’s important to realize that the principle of Internet community work has been developed over roughly 20 years. Open source, open standard and open content didn’t grow overnight. Traditional companies can’t make up these arrears in a few years - and you shouldn’t want to. Open knowledge and experience has matured in its own culture. Who wants to spend their Saturday afternoon in some clubhouse with 19 others, talking about daawnloodmerap.org? Those 20 people do, full-hearted! It happens every week somewhere in the country. It happens several times daily, throughout the world and growing rapidly. Typical community one liners like 'many eyes make bugs shallow' and the fantastic 'scratch your own itch'-principle have already become legendary. More important: they result in progress in the form of patches and extensions. Therefore these powerful statements also concisely represent the intrinsic (i.e. its own) innovative value of ‘open’. Instant bug fixing as a remedy against own construction faults. Free expandability as bypass of the owner of closed software, who determines the tempo and nature of improvements. Within closed software, you rarely get a glimpse of the famed qualities or have the chance to make them your own, and commerce determines what is being build. No hard feelings towards customers but don’t diss open communities just because they are free and open.
On our way to open source innovation number four: the scale of working capacity and 24/7 availability. Generous experts on several Internet forums answer your questions. They sometimes try to outdo each other by solving your problem the quickest and smartest. It’s a win-win situation for everybody: not just concerning the answers but also the questions. How long before a ‘ticket’ of a closed product is solved? How much does a help desk cost and who actually ends up paying for that? How available are the questions (plus answers) to other users? The ‘open’ Internet forum shakes the fundaments of the help desk. I estimate that the number of people freely available in the English language within an open source project is by a factor of 100 - 1000 larger (and 10 - 100 times in Dutch) when compared to a closed software user group. People are available for correction, assistance, reflection and further development. An open source product is accessible to anybody, right into the code. The learning process is uniform, and if the customer doesn’t have the time, willingness or background to learn it, providers build up common knowledge. The large pool of exchangeable capacity means that the vendor lock for end customers is a lot less when compared with closed products. I’m saying ‘ a lot less’ because, just like with closed products, open source customers are still faced with the framework lock in and database lock in. Open standards help reduce the consequences.
The fifth and last innovation of open source that I would like to discuss (and there are plenty more) is the instant prototyping environment for end customers. Once you’ve installed open source, you can put it to work usefully. That goes far beyond ‘trying out a trial license’. You’re working towards its own future and invests there where it instantly adds value: gradual implementation and user feedback. The continuous change in customer wishes and requirements within a set price and time project is even desirable, because it allows you to showcase the full spectrum of the open package and its extensions. Knowing what you want when you see what can be done. The closed nightmare Scope creep as a welcome guest within open development.
Finally, I believe that open and closed are not real competitors of each other. These two worlds can make each other stronger. In the coming years this will happen on a large scale in the interest of customers. Already now mixed forms and transitions appear between open and closed. Just take Linux as example, with closed products and license-like service on open source software. Utilizing the (cultural) differences between both worlds is a power. Prejudices on both sides will slowly die down and business models will flow into one another.
The ‘open’ legacy will change the closed ict branch dramatically in the years to come. What remains now is the twitching of the strictly closed model. Vendors that solely sell licenses (or ‘package pushers’) and don’t move along with this change will gradually see their livelihoods crumble. Customers will look more critical at prices of software licenses and upgrades. Open seems to have the wind of the recession in its back. After all - does a ‘license’ hanging above your bed do you any good? Spend that money partially on open innovation once you can. That’s my advice to customers. It’s twice as clever: put the advantages of innovation into your business, and keep your budget in your pocket.
Henk van Cann
