If you want people to switch you need to make the transition as painless as possible. Firefox got people to switch to IE bySo, all we have to do is make something better than ArcGIS, but not so much better that it is not familiar to the existing user base, that works transparently with all their existing data and presumably their .mxd files too. And give it away for free.
- Making better software
- Not making user learn a new UI for interacting with the web
- importing all their IE favorites
- THEN building in cool new features that keep people around
"Just be like Firefox." There are a couple of problems with this idea.
- The first problem is the idea that garnering users is "the goal". It is not. The misunderstanding is reasonable, because for proprietary companies it is the goal -- more users implies more licensing dollars. For open source projects, more users just means somewhat more download bandwidth and slightly higher number of beginner questions on the mailing lists. What open source projects want to attract is not users -- it is developers. Developers will make the project stronger, add features, fix bugs, do all the things that end users want, but cannot do for themselves.
- The second problem is that Firefox is not a normal open source project. The Mozilla Foundation has a lot of employees, most of them working on development, and a deal with Google that nets them millions of dollars each year. They can afford to be end user focused, because they have a paid pool of developers already in house.
uDig has enough features and stability to be useful right now to a narrow pool of developers creating custom applications with specific toolsets. Hopefully in the future it will have more features and stability, and the pool will be less narrow. But I predict it will still be dominated by developers.
And that's fine with me.
If Steven adopted uDig and PostGIS for his shop, it would not do a thing for my bottom line. But if he built an application around it, he would either add a little functionality (which would help me with my clients) or maybe hire us to add a little functionality (which would help the bottom line directly).
Open source is not about users, it is about developers. It is only about users in so far as users become sufficiently engaged in the project that they either become developers themselves, or support developers through careful bug finding or documentation.
The correct models are not Firefox or Open Office (unless someone wants to point a money firehose at me... I won't object) those projects are aberations. The correct models are Linux, Apache, Perl, PostgreSQL -- not user-friendly, but still very useful.
13 comments:
Then why make software at all if it is intended for developers only? Users are called users because they "use" the application. If users aren't using the application then they're not your users. They're somebody else's users.
If you want to develop for developer's sakes, go right ahead. You're going to miss something if you overlook users.
In open source the needs of developers come first. They may overlap with, or completely contain, the needs of users (in which case, hooray for the users). But the driver is what the developers need. Now, the developers may be hired by users, in which case for whatever they are paid, their interests will overlap perfectly. But unlike in the proprietary world, where the developers are thinking "what will users pay for", in the open source world developers are thinking "what do I need". Which is why I think pure end-user focussed software is hard to marshall in the open source world, absent the 'ole firehose of money.
Unfortunately, it's this same slightly skewed perspective that is causing such (sad) problems in the GAIM community right now.
You have some valid points, but I think you're missing the larger picture. In particular, it is true that an open-source project needs to draw people that will strengthen it. But it's also true that one very effective way to that goal is to meet users needs. Current users can become future developers, but it's very unlikely to happen the other way around - that is, to gain a developer who isn't a user.
There are a lot of contributors to Firefox (myself included) who never would have become so had they not first been a user.
What rubbish.
I won't bother ranting against this ill-founded piece of crap, instead I'll just point you in the direction of Asa Dotzler's latest post which pretty much debunks every "point" you have tried so hopelessly to make.
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2006/08/for_the_new_and.html
Nice work on the not ranting, Mr Lizard.
Thank you.
Slightly less congratulations on the worthwhile blog post.
Paul,
I found this post through Asa's blog and while I would quible with some of your details, I think you make a good argument - especially if you finish reading the follow-up post and the admission of shades of gray.
One thing that I would add that really does seperate Firefox from other projects is that developers really need the users. It is great to have a good web browser but if 20% of the Internet is unreadable with IE only code, which is where we were or at least heading five years ago, then the developer suffers as well. In this case, the developers needed a large enough user share to give themselves a good browsing experience. I think this is the largest reason that open source has had a hard time building large user share in products other than Firefox (and servers where the users are developers or at least IT people), the developers don't need users and therefore they are not first in people's minds.
Money probably helps but in my mind it is the need for users that was more important for Firefox's success of building a user driven product.
Wow Paul you've upset these guys big time. I personally think there is a big difference between mozilla and GIS software. Users are important to mozilla because it's all about providing a better UI - lock stock and barrel (ok maybe ego and money has something to do with it).
But open source GIS isn't about the users, they aren't the primary driver for open GIS, as they are to mozilla. It's about being able to build a cost effective, robust, reliable and open GIS. But this open-ness is only benifical if you are able to develop the software, or take a peak at the code behind it and understand it.
Paul, I think your comments have been taken wildly out of context by those who shout loudest. citronpousty and james fee would make good journalists, but im not sure about good developers, and thats why they cant take advantasge of open source gis, i think they get cranky if they don't have their daily esri fix.
Actually I get cranky when I do have my dose of ESRI software. You missed the point of my original post - I was trying to be constructive about what I needed so I could get some buy in at work to lower our dependence on ESRI. My main debate with Paul is not on the value of OS software or the incredibly hard work that OS developers do. My debate with Paul is about the role of users on Open Source projects.
@PJXav
Uh I am a developer who uses and deploys open source GIS products for my clients. I've blogged about it for the past year.
Anyway who can take you seriously if you hide behind a handle?
You are quite right, Paul. Open source rarely produces good products unless there is a lot of commercial backing. It's inherent in the setup.
The exceptions are probably the GAIM IM client and Firefox itself, which was unfunded until about version 1. They succeded as they have autocratic leadership with a strong vision for the product.
By and large, you get what you pay for, or what some benevolent coporation choses to fund or give away for free!
BTW if you're after a decent browser, try Opera.
I couldn't help but join in this very insightful discussion. I would like to support Paul's argument in part, and extend it a little.
First I would point out that there are at least 2 major differences between most users of an application like Firefox and most users of a GIS program. (Notice that I said "most" and not "all".)
[1] The skills needed to operate a web browser are fairly basic, and it doesn't take a lot of training to understand what is happening with the program (click a link and a new page loads...) and how to operate it. (I want to add this page to my bookmarks/favorites.)
[2] Most users of a web browser have little knowledge of, or desire to learn about, software programming.
This is not typically the case with users of GIS software. (Notice I said "typically" and not "all the time".) Most GIS users have some level of technical training or experience and are very comfortable with computers. Many also have some knowledge of computer programming. (If you don't think this is true, take a look at some current GIS job postings.)
Does this difference between users of "common" computer software like a web browser and GIS software make a difference in the success of an open source project? I would argue that it does.
This is true outside of the GIS arena as well. Look at two of the examples Paul mentioned, PostgreSQL and Apache. You now what the users of those programs have in common with users of GIS programs. I'll call it "Technical Literacy" for lack of a better term.
Why is "Technical Literacy" important to an open source project that lacks a large commercial backer? The migration from technically literate user to contributing developer is a lot easier than the migration from "user of Firefox" to "Contributor to Firefox". What does this mean? It means that users are important to an open source GIS program, but not for the same reasons they are to someone who sells software licenses for a living. Users are important to an open source GIS program because:
Technically literate users turn into contributing developers. When the money is all gone, contributing developers keep a program alive.
I think OpenJUMP is a good example of this.
So are users important? Yes they are. But a user isn't important to every software developer for the same reasons.
What is the good news for developers of open source GIS programs? We're not developing a web browser, and we've got a lot of technically literate users out there waiting to join our effort. What is the trick you need to master? Motivating those technically literate users to contribute. But that's another discussion entirely...
The Sunburned Surveyor
Paul: I posted a response to an old blogument (did I just invent that? doubt it). I saw a lot of back and forth and concluded "everyone was right"; sort of. Any way, it is at http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2006/08/for_the_new_and.html. It just provides a "user" perspective, one who, I might add, isn't in the least offended that developers can take the opinion that their work is for and by other developers (in the Open source community). Thanks for keeping this blog. I'm new to it but am enjoying the exchange.
Here's the text:
Note: MAJOR newbie, here. Bit more than a "user" but WAY below a true developer (my code is weak).
Point to add (only 2 cents worth): I wonder if the Open source GIS community will fall into the same role in the development cycle that I, in my naivite, observe.
To wit: tremendous strides in technology occur in the Open source community, are freely distributed, discovered by corporate developers (I'm thinking Microsoft, most prominently), worked into the latest for-profit software release (but, of course, redone, so that they don't have to respect Open source requirements; cf., Microsoft's own brand of Java, etc. - I hope that this is a valid example), and fortunes are (sometimes) made. Small wonder MS is the target of so many breakers (I hate to demean the former connotation of "hackers" by lumping these former security guys in with malevolent types who destroy and deface).
The analagous GIS point: developments in GRASS and other "free" GIS community works are almost certainly not copied, in terms of coding, by GIS giants (I'm thinking ESRI, playing the MS role a la the Firefox e.g.). Rather more to the point, the functionality (or perhaps more correctly "functions"?) is seen to be a potential for improving their own commercial products and they quickly throw wads of cash into R&D to come up with their own versions. Sometimes, the money developers copy each other.
For GIS folks, I'm thinking in terms of the "ground-breaking" idea behind (Arc) SDE: store your data (spatial and/or attribute) in a commercially available RDBMS instead of one that's built into your product (or acquired, as was INFO, as in "ARC/INFO" - remember when ESRI used dashes instead of capitalization to denote modules?). I call out "ground-breaking" because Intergraph was doing this years before ESRI got a hold of it - anyone use MGE before? So, I can't prove ESRI got the idea from Intergraph, but the one preceded the other and, I might add, was commercially successful.
But of course, this is a digression from the point I am trying to make - there is a secondary, or perhaps ancillary benefit to both users and developers from Open source efforts, as far as I can see - the user gets more choices. If the user can manage to use and enjoy Open source products AS-IS (as they say), bully for them. They'll save money and get some fine products. On the other hand, if they belong to a well-established large-scale operation that is fully committed to a vendor's product (I'm in municipal government and ESRI is cock of the walk in this arena of GIS users), then we just have to work with what we can get and hopefully make the mods to the OTS products on our own to suit our own needs. Nonetheless, I know for certain that even as a committed (not necessarily by choice) commercial software user (both MS and ESRI), I certainly have benefitted from the developments made in the Open source community, albeit indirectly.
So, like a good (social) Liberal (not the town in KS), my overriding point is: everyone is right! Yeah!
Thanks for tolerating this post. I know you guys quit arguing about it months ago - I just found it tonight.
Cheers.
Posted by RockytheSquirrel at December 7, 2006 6:56 PM
Post a Comment