Welcome to TechNet Blogs Sign in | Join | Help

Arm Chair Discussion: Is Open Source like Communism?

So we were sitting in our arm chairs, watching some show on Discovery (probably Dirty Jobs, which is hysterically funny and makes me grateful for the fairly safe job I have. Although sometime later I will tell you about the time I tried to electrocute and crush myself in my Adventures of Server Girl).

He speaks up during a commercial, "you know, I think that Open Source is like Communism."

I am shaken from my TV haze..."Huh?"

"Yeah, there is no real way that Open Source will be able to sustain itself long-term, look at what happened in Russia."

And so the conversation starts...

Let's first look at the definition of communism:

classless political system: the political theory or system in which all property and wealth is owned in a classless society by all the members of that society (MSN Encarta)

Hmm interesting...now let's look at the definition of Open Source:

Open source describes practices in production and development that promote access to the end product's sources. (WikiPedia).

In technology, WikiPedia goes on to describe open source as "...software whose source code is published and made available to the public, enabling anyone to copy, modify and redistribute the source code without paying royalties or fees. Open source code evolves through community cooperation."

OK so communism and open source, by loose definition, sound similar. So there are several questions that I would like to explore with discussion that are interesting. Can there be true innovation using Open Source from a technology perspective? Can Open source be truly sustainable or will it fall apart like communism has?

Let's look at the innovation question first. Yes, I think that you can be truly innovative using Open Source, it is after all, open for everyone to see and contribute to. Sounds like a developer's utopia. A couple thoughts here: If it is open for all to see and contribute to (like the community farm), no one gets paid for the innovation they put into it. All that innovation goes into the collective. Sure, it feeds your creative beast, but it doesn't feed your family. Eventually, one takes priority over the other (hopefully the family!), and innovation begins to decline.

Why? In my opinion, it is because there are a lot of hidden costs to supporting an open source platform. If it is free, the deal looks great on paper. Do more with less! But supporting something like this is problematic, and very expensive. Large organizations have grown their business around supporting open source platforms (think IBM). Or you have that group of people within your org that are solely dedicated to supporting all of the updates, bugs, etc. of the platform, and then get all of those changes back out to the collective, because your org doesn't truly own the code.

So where is the time to innovate? It shrinks, because you have a business to run.

Is it sustainable? Will large enterprise companies truly bet their mission critical systems on open source? In my opinion, probably not. What's in it for your org? Let's face it, your CxO isn't out to contribute to the collective, they are out to keep their business running and making a profit, remaining competitive (which means, my edge isn't free for all to see and copy).

I think that open source will continue to exist, but in niche spaces, like small business solutions. Developers and technologists will continue to contribute to open source as enthusiasts, but will have a day job to keep the food on the table and a roof over their heads. Large businesses will not use it for mission critical enterprise class apps because it hinders their competitive edge and profitability.

So what do you think?

 

Published Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:50 AM by beth.patton

Comments

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 2:40 PM by Jimbo

# re: Arm Chair Discussion: Is Open Source like Communism?

Open Source is viable because it exists on top of capitalism.

So it is a communist type system relying on capitalism for survival.

So it is a modern hybrid form of communism - not the one we all know.


Wednesday, September 13, 2006 7:10 PM by Payton Byrd

# re: Arm Chair Discussion: Is Open Source like Communism?

Not only do I propose that open source is communistic in nature, but it is also exploitive of illegal labor and can only exist through unethical labor practices.  The only winners are IBM and their ilk and the losers are ultimately the coders who won't get paid.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 7:15 PM by Brian Catlin

# re: Arm Chair Discussion: Is Open Source like Communism?

Open Source is free, only if your time isn't worth anything.  There are plenty of young people 15-30 years old that have plenty of free time, and will contribute to open source.  However, these people are no where near the peak of their professional abilities, so their contributions to open source will reflect that and be riddled with inefficiencies and errors.  Granted, that people in the same age group that are getting paid to write software aren't any better, BUT they are typically working in a commercial environment that will usually maintain some sort of software engineering process, ultimately resulting in better code quality.  So, the argument that Open Source is so great because so many people are looking at it, is a fallacy; I'd rather have 10 experts review my software, than 1000 morons.

Another reason that Open Source will probably persist, is that it is like a religion for a lot of people.  I swear, talking to an Open Source zealot is a lot like talking to one of the Jehova's Witless that show up at my front door periodically; they're fanatics, and have no doubts that their way is the best, and everything else sucks (especially anything from Microsoft).

Just my 2 cents

-Brian
Thursday, September 14, 2006 9:02 PM by Jim Holmes

# re: Arm Chair Discussion: Is Open Source like Communism?

I'm a bit biased since I've written a book on open source and freeware tools, but there's no way Freeware/Open Souce Software (FOSS) is like Communisim, IMO.  FOSS is created by folks who are passionate about creating tools to solve specific problems.

Look at the range of amazing tools from NUnit, MbUnit, CruiseControl.NET, or Notepad2 and how these fill vital gaps in developer tools.  Look at Castle Windsor and see how that framework can do amazing things to cut dependencies via Inversion of Control.

All these are wicked cool tools that were written by folks -- some by individuals, some by teamsteams -- who cared enough to spend their own time to build something adding business value to their development cycles.  

"Illegal labor" or "unethical labor practices?"  Nobody's carting these folks off in the middle of the night and forcing them to work.  These folks do it on their own time because they give a hoot.  Man, what's better than some geek cutting code because they love what they're building?

"Open Source zealot?"  Replace "Open Source" with just about any term there.  There are Microsoft zealots, Linux zealots, Mac zealots.

FOSS tools can lend terrific value to the development cycle.  It's not just about entry-level coders wasting their time building lousy software that doesn't get used.

OK, sorry for the rant, but obviously I've got a different viewpoint.  :)
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 7:27 PM by John

# re: Arm Chair Discussion: Is Open Source like Communism?

It's actually quite hard for me to understand how you could view Open Source like communism when the key influentials and primary developers are on the payroll of large technology companies, either directly (like that Novell guy doing Mono and all the SuSe folks) or indirectly (Linus).  

Do you really think Open Source would be what it is today without $$ paying developers?  

Of course, open source started with an acadmeic and hobbyist tradition -- and that's a great thing!  It's cool that people like to build stuff and share it.  I like hobbies.  I think having a hobby helps people maintain their mental stability.  But certainly in the ridiculously vast majority of cases, the hobbyists are not building software products with the maturity that businesses want to run.  The open source products that IBM and others are pushing are extremely commercial products.  If nothing else, they sell consulting services!
Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:08 PM by timelord

# re: Arm Chair Discussion: Is Open Source like Communism?

Let us think for a moment, not what the formal definition of Communism is, but what it actually is - a society where those at the top are privileged, those that do their bidding get perks, some privileges, but are sometimes trod upon, and then there is everyone else.

That said, just to play devil’s advocate; THAT sounds like Microsoft, their partners & large customers, and everyone else. >:-|
Friday, October 20, 2006 7:05 AM by Brian Lee

# re: Arm Chair Discussion: Is Open Source like Communism?

This is an old repeated question and I'll give an old repeated (simplistic) answer, related to game theory. Open source works not mainly due to altruism (though there is certainly a lot of it) but mainly due to co-opetition. That is if my competitors and I work towards a mutually beneficial goal, we all win.

Example: Hollywood needed a better software application to retouch films frame by frame. It didn't exist, and since studios were in the business of making films and not software; no one studio had the resources to create this software. So one day the studios pooled their resources together to create the open source project now known as Film Gimp. In the end they created a tool that did everything that they all wanted, that was free from both vendor control and high vendor costs.

I probably did a poor job of explaining this but capitalist self interest is a very strong driver of the open source movement. It's not much of a surprise since a lot of Fortune 500 companies are either involved with or are using open source.

Friday, October 20, 2006 7:16 AM by Brian Lee

# re: Arm Chair Discussion: Is Open Source like Communism?

There are more key differences between open source and communism. Communism was extremely centrally controlled; that's where a lot of inefficiencies where. On the other hand, most open source projects have more decentralized structure (since there are multiple companies and many many contributors - both full and part-time)... Another major difference is that there is a lot more communication between peers in open source. In communism, communication tends to be one way; from higher authority to low level grunt.

Friday, October 20, 2006 8:34 AM by erik

# re: Arm Chair Discussion: Is Open Source like Communism?

You are mixing two things here, either you use a OSS that enhances your product; OR you will support an OSS platform. Why would a company support an OSS platform if there is no demand for it? That is stupid as you say, but it does not mean that OSS is stupid.

I also do not agree with you that OSS is too expensive. You can either buy a platform and have problems with that; or you can get a few platforms for free and have problems with them. Sure, theoretical buying a product will give you support for it; but that is not how it works in the real world. Even with a commercial platform you will end up with problems that the big commercial company will not fix as they don't see a business motive for it. The  beauty of it, is that with OSS you can try to fix it yourself.

The last month it seems that people are getting worried about OSS, because "using them will take my job away". I don't see it that way, OSS helps us in producing better software that keeps us in the lead. I don't want to invent a LinkedList every time I start working on something. And why would using commercial products keep my job safe? That is what keeps us apart from the apes, we evolve better and better tools; they dont.

Sure, I can agree in some term; if you are a crappy developer, you SHOULD be scared of OSS.

And BTW, why is communism a bad thing? Sure, it doesnt work; but that is because man is greedy. ;)

Friday, October 20, 2006 5:51 PM by redsolo

# re: Arm Chair Discussion: Is Open Source like Communism?

http://redsolo.blogspot.com/2006/10/open-source-is-not-your-enemy.html

Friday, October 20, 2006 9:50 PM by Chris Johnston

# re: Arm Chair Discussion: Is Open Source like Communism?

I think a clarification needs to be made here, open source does not mean that you can not sell your product to people. It simply means that you need to release the source code. As such, I think there is quite a bit of difference between the open source movement and communism.

Last time I checked, Red Hat, Novell, Mandrake, and many other open source companies all had capitalistic models based on the selling of open source code and the selling of support for that open source code. How is that communistic?

Saturday, October 21, 2006 6:13 AM by Shadow

# Ideas or means for production?

First thing I'd realize is the fact, that software is basicly an idea or information, not a physical object.

An information can be easily duplicated at zero (or negligible) cost, while physical objects can't.

Any physical product has to be produced using resources and labor. You can't create a "master" and then just make millions of copies at no cost. But information can be created, processed, altered and copied without restraint.

Idea of communism refers to physical objects (means of production) in common ownership, not to ideas or information.

World of information is different. Some information is copyrighted or patented and people make profit from it. Yes. But thats just a small piece of the puzzle.

Even in capitalism, most of the information is freely exchanged, shared (=is in common ownership?). You talk with other people, exchange thoughts and ideas. You don't copyright everything you say, do you?

Free information exchange is a necessity. It's also the main source of technological advancement, the very heart of science. You don't pay for using "Pythagoras' theorem". If you had to, we'd be at stone age again.

Or maybe take a look at blogging. You created an information (this article) and shared that with us at no cost. Are you a communist because of that? It did cost you your time and intellectual effort, the same that OSS coder used to create OSS.

Now, I used your idea, processed it and created this post. I might gave you a couple of new thougts that didn't occur to you. Maybe they even didn't occur to me, until I read your article. So, we both got a benefit. And this is what free information exchange is about. And that is the main idea behind OSS. Instead of blog posts, we exchange source code, we process it, copy it and use it.

Anonymous comments are disabled
 
Page view tracker