4 ms·

Have had this discussion occasionally with friends of mine.Always a little confused where they are coming from, since where I sit in academia most of the innova

by dmolnar 18y ago

Have had this discussion occasionally with friends of mine.Always a little confused where they are coming from, since where I sit in academia most of the innovation I see is built on open source. In particular, open source software tools provide platforms for experimentation that would not otherwise be available. For example, the Linux and BSD kernels made it possible for operating system researchers to try out lots of different ideas on everything from security to memory management with real hardware and real workloads. Without this open source software, your options are 1) write everything yourself, 2) license a kernel from someone, or 3) go work for a company that writes a kernel (e.g. Microsoft, Wind River, Green Hills). For another example, the Valgrind memory checking tool includes a platform for binary analysis and translation. That platform has let people innovate by building tools that run on large, real Linux programs. I know of at least two academic theses that build on Valgrind (including mine), and there's now three community-contributed data race detection tools. Both of these areas also have closed source software with innovations, of course. Still, they seem like cases where the open source software platform has lowered the barrier to entry and made it possible for a wider range of people to contribute, therefore spurring innovation. So I don't buy the broad claim that "open source" software fails to innovate. Maybe we could talk about more specific segments, like office software or microblogging to focus the discussion?

cschwarm 18y ago
I don't think focusing the discussion would help. The problems I see are the following: (1) The question -- when properly understood -- is empirical by nature. One would need to select a random sample in both fields, measure the innovation within the samples for a given period of time, and publish the results. While this is not rocket science, the problem is in the details: What is innovation? How would one operationalize the term? (2) In most cases when I've read such opinion articles, the discussion does not seem to be about innovation -- in the sense of "new way of doing something" (wikipedia). There are a million new ways to do something, but only a small fraction thereof is useful. That often seems to be the unsaid meaning to those who say Open Source is not innovating. Sure, nothing stops Open Source suppliers to innovate. However, they often don't care, simply because they don't profit by doing so. There's just one exception to the rule: Software by developers for developers. This is where Open Source shines because developers understand the needs of fellow developers (or technical people, in general). In general, however, Open Source developers don't care enought about common consumers to develop a new and useful product that helps them solve their problems. Thus, they just copy existing stuff. (3) Slightly related to (2), another problem is attention and presentation: Innovation usually doesn't sell despite the glory of the term. See the "Myths of innovations" by Scott Berkun. The first chapter points to many examples and is free to download. To sell an innovative idea, one first needs the attention of the audience. Second, one needs to present the innvovation so that it's understood. Open Source developers often lack these skills, according to their own statements. A proprietary vendor can simple hire people with these skills but Open Source developers often cannot due to lack of income. Consequently, open source is often percieved to be less innovative, even when it is. This is why I think, pointing to examples is pointless.

by dmolnar 18y ago

cschwarm 18y ago

I don't think focusing the discussion would help. The problems I see are the following: (1) The question -- when properly understood -- is empirical by nature. One would need to select a random sample in both fields, measure the innovation within the samples for a given period of time, and publish the results. While this is not rocket science, the problem is in the details: What is innovation? How would one operationalize the term? (2) In most cases when I've read such opinion articles, the discussion does not seem to be about innovation -- in the sense of "new way of doing something" (wikipedia). There are a million new ways to do something, but only a small fraction thereof is useful. That often seems to be the unsaid meaning to those who say Open Source is not innovating. Sure, nothing stops Open Source suppliers to innovate. However, they often don't care, simply because they don't profit by doing so. There's just one exception to the rule: Software by developers for developers. This is where Open Source shines because developers understand the needs of fellow developers (or technical people, in general). In general, however, Open Source developers don't care enought about common consumers to develop a new and useful product that helps them solve their problems. Thus, they just copy existing stuff. (3) Slightly related to (2), another problem is attention and presentation: Innovation usually doesn't sell despite the glory of the term. See the "Myths of innovations" by Scott Berkun. The first chapter points to many examples and is free to download. To sell an innovative idea, one first needs the attention of the audience. Second, one needs to present the innvovation so that it's understood. Open Source developers often lack these skills, according to their own statements. A proprietary vendor can simple hire people with these skills but Open Source developers often cannot due to lack of income. Consequently, open source is often percieved to be less innovative, even when it is. This is why I think, pointing to examples is pointless.