Always the Alternative
By Amit Asaravala
The Open Source Initiative may no longer make headlines the way it did back when Eric Raymond wrote The Cathedral and the Bazaar, or when Microsoft let loose the Halloween Documents, but the movement has in no way stalled. In the past 12 months we've seen, among other things, the release of PHP 4, the overwhelming approval of Apache, and a surprising turn (in the form of Netscape 6 PR2) from the otherwise quiet Mozilla group.
The benefits of open-source software have been much touted: Peer reviews mean secure, reliable code; a large group of developers means more frequent updates; code availability means better customization; community feedback means better features; and the list goes on. Given the positive growth and seemingly strong business case, why doesn't every software company move to the-open source model?
The truth is, open source still faces big challenges. And it's possible that some of them can't be overcome because of the inherent structure of open source. For example, it's been said that the proliferation of the open-source movement results in software written by hackers for hackers. If you consider that the driving force behind open-source software is necessity (on the part of developers), then the complaint is indeed valid. Product releases consist of code updates that have been submitted by developers. Developers write code updates when they need to solve problems. Those problems may include not having the correct hardware drivers, or needing to use an as yet unavailable product feature. In the end, the problems that get solved and the features that get implemented are the ones that developers have chosen to work on.
