Middle Class Software

The middle class is where most of society resides. It's where most political campaigns take aim, and if they don't, they'll look as though they don't care. Why doesn't software do the same thing? It's funny how software can take control over every aspect of our lives, and yet, we're not all that concerned with accessible software. I don't mean accessible from a standards perspective for users with disabilities — that's an entirely different problem. In this context, I'm referring to software that's inaccessible even to those that fortunate enough not to be disabled. It's a problem, I think, that there is a ton of good code produced in various open source communities, and it doesn't get the kind of audience that it should. The reasons aren't plentiful, but not straightforward, because if they were, we would simply address these issues. But I'm sure that if we could try to identify the middle class software user, your typical every day user that might want to use your software, we could take steps in making the world of computing more appealing.

The Developer Audience

I wish we could just call developers users. There are so many developers in the world, that it almost makes perfect sense that we consider them users. Look at all the software, in particular, look at the open source projects on github. They're disproportionately geared toward developers. In essence, we're creating tool software where the users are other developers just like ourselves. Some may say that is a problem — too many tools, not enough applications to solve specific problems. Software not applied. On the other hand, too many tools is kind of hard to believe. There is such thing as too much choice, and under these conditions, only the strong survive. The great thing about tools, however, is that even if you've familiarized yourself with a specific tool that doesn't have a large community of supporters, you're free to either continue using as is, or to continue developing the tool. Either way, you're using it for your own project, which may happen to be another tool, or an application that a more typical user needs. Tools are just software. Developers are just users. It's not just in the open source space where tools are fundamental to the software development process — I hear Visual Studio has a few customers too. Myself, leaning toward the open source end of the spectrum, can't help but wonder — how do projects better serve their primary users when they are developers?

Open Source Democracy

This post discusses the fact that open source software projects are not a democracy, using an Ubuntu development disagreement as an example.

I always assumed open source meant you have almost any freedom you can imagine with regards to the code itself, not the community.

How To Volunteer Code

Have you ever had someone ask you what open source is all about? Once you tell them, do they in turn ask why would people volunteer their time for free? The latter is a much more difficult question to answer because more often than not, you have to be part of the open source community to "get it". Some people might answer along the lines of "its a cause we are fighting for" or "I simply don't like Microsoft". The good news is that you don't really need a justifiable reason for becoming part of the open source community. One answer to the question of why bother contributing my efforts to the open source community that isn't likely to be heard that often is that it is a world leading learning environment for technology. Open source is, well, open. So, by that virtue alone, one can take the necessary steps to learn. If you have a question about some aspect of some project, it is there for you to figure out on your own if need be.

Trying to dive right into open source project source code may not be the best approach to newcomers to the open source community. If not, then how do people get started with open source? The thing is, the method in which to contribute something back to the community varies on a project to project basis. This can be both good and bad. It is good because there are no restrictions on the development methodology used and other annoying restrictions found in proprietary environments. It is bad because some projects do a great job of letting newcomers know how they can contribute and other projects not so much. As for the projects that don't make clear how additional help could be applied, it is unfortunate since there are many very talented developers out there who are just getting started in their careers. If they would like to put their skills to use in the open source community but don't have a good starting point, those skills are waisted.

Also, as discussed here, There is also the prospect of starting a new open source project. This is another challenging problem since identifying valuable problems in which to solve in the open source world isn't easy. Another problem is there aren't any learning resources from other developers when starting a new project. The lack of mentors available isn't a big a problem for more experienced developers who start their own open source projects. However, younger, inexperienced developers might have a rough go of it own their own.

The best way to join an existing project of interest is simply to ask. But also give those concerned an idea of what you are capable of at the same time. This will also give you an indicator of what working with this particular community would be like.

Lastly, people can also volunteer data as is described here. This is geared toward non-developers who have an interest in contributing to the open source community.

Open Source Freeloaders

In an interesting entry about leeches in open source software, the question of big corporations and open source software freeloading is raised. Does such a thing as freeloading on open source software exist? Well, according to the entry, some members of certain open source communities believe that doing so in a corporate environment without ever contributing back to the community would be considered freeloading. However, the open source license used in many popular open source projects does not require any contribution back to the community. Is this an ethical concern then? Do corporations feel bad for not contributing back to a software project that they are allowed to use for free? No. Individuals, maybe.

When you have put a significant time and effort investment anything, you generally want it appreciated. It is easy to see how the core developers of a successful project become essentially unimaginative toward it. The willingness of someone to contribute back any kind of artifact boosts the overall project motivation. The project team no longer feels that they are working toward something that has already become a lost cause. However, there are also implicit contributions made to open source projects.

The mere public knowledge that a large corporation is using any given open source project is probably worth more to the project than anything tangible the corporation would be willing to contribute. People within large corporations didn't decide to use a particular open source solution for the good of their health. They use it because it does what it is supposed to do. This should be very motivating. I'm always impressed by the fact that I use a programming language NASA considers useful.

What about when large corporations complain loudly and thoroughly about a open source project? Well, this does two things for the project. First, it demonstrates that corporation is using the software otherwise they would never take the time to complain about it. Second, it sets the stage for the project. The corporation does all the leg work by pointing public attention toward the flaws in the software. Now all eyes are on the project. All that's left to do is fix it quickly deliver in front of everyone. It seems that there isn't too much damage that freeloading can do to the open source software industry.

New ECP community site.

I'm pleased to announce that the new Enomaly ECP community site is up and running. Feel free to report bugs, request features, or check out the documentation.

Community involvement is not open source

The NY times has an entry on "open source game design". I'm not sure if the title of this entry is a simple misunderstanding of what open source means. However, the title is misleading. Open source, in the context of software development means code. Thousands and thousands of lines of code. I could not find a single mention of source code in the article.

Open source software is really gaining a lot of traction. Maybe this is why several people who wouldn't otherwise care are talking about it. But titles like the mentioned NY times entry worry me when it comes to people who are new to open source and genuinely interested in what it is and how it works.

The community surrounding projects plays a huge role. The community, in several cases, could even be more important than the code itself. However, the code is available in open. The case mentioned in the NY times entry is not.