The Nature of Open Source
I read this on SlashDot today:
“Galen Gruman writes about the dark side of the recent flood of Android smartphones: versions run amok. ‘That flood of options should be a good thing — but it’s not. In fact, it’s a self-destruction derby in action, as phones come out with different versions of the Android OS, with no clear upgrade strategy for either the operating system or the applications users have installed, and with inconsistent deployment of core features. In short, the Android platform is turning out not to be a platform at all, but merely a starting point for a universe of incompatible devices,’ Gruman writes. ‘This mess leaves developers and users in an unstable position, as each new Android device adds another variation and compatibility question.’ In the end, Google’s naive approach to open sourcing Android may in fact be precipitating this free-for-all — one that might ultimately turn off both end-users and developers alike.”
Two thoughts on this. First, I think it is wonderful the limelight that Open Source software in general is getting by the surge of Android based phones. Not only are they usable (at least the one that I have and the ones my friends have) but they are easy to use and offer a myriad of features that people love.
Second, I think Mr. Gruman must be new to open source in general. The entire Open Source movement is based upon need, not dictation. Let me explain. Out of all chaos comes order. Through the infinite branches that emerge from the free system common features and needs stand out. Eventually this causes a standard to be created. Not because of fiscal decisions made in board rooms, but because of the actual needs of the group.
I find it fascinating that with all the historical evidence that the open source system works people will put it down as naught. The theory of evolution is based upon the same thought of free systems. Let me walk through it again. There are an infinite amount of variations on one theme. As the needs of environment dictate certain of these needs stand out more prominently, they are more needed for survival. The other features that do not promote survival die off because of under use, not being passed on, etc.
We see this point made in the software world on a continual basis. Remember Netscape? Or the more recent demise of IE6? These did not embrace the features needed to survive and as such have been left out as refuse.
In the end, people will not abandon the google platform, but from the trials of daily use we will see great standards emerge.
Tags: Random