Linux and FreeBSD are a bourgening force in operating systems, as is free software in general. One of the consequences of non-commercial software is that documentation sometimes lags behind development, and that's where I come in. I have enormous respect for the high quality software produced under the open-source development paradigm, and I genuinely hope this model becomes the dominant method whereby all people obtain their software. To support this goal, I have committed myself to assiting that documentation effort.
The task is huge. Many hands are needed, and on more development projects than can be counted. A quick glance at the Linux and FreeBSD Documentation Projects will show you the breadth and depth of some projects currently underway. Besides these, there are hundreds of projects oriented for endusers and for single user application software, not just administrative utilities and network tools.
Another area for development continues to be conversion and adaptation of tools and ideas designed for the Win32 subsystem and the Microsoft world. Internet Phone and CUSeeMe are interesting tools that could serve free-Unix platforms quite well too, so development on sister projects like Ethernet Phone and QSeeMe are also underway.
I made what I consider to be a moral decision. In today's computing environment, I see something similar to what Colonial Americans must have experienced before the Revolutionary War. A small number of very large multi-national corporations control nearly every corner of computing commerce today. For instance, it is difficult to go into a software store and see anything else than Microsoft Windows. And Microsoft operates much like the Kings and tyrants of old: they strive to control all aspects of computing that they possibly can; and, their appetite for more control is stemmed only by their current limitations. Microsoft has been so successful at competing in an economic market that it is doubtful there is anyone left for them to compete with in the personal computer operating system market. With their power, Microsoft tries to displace open standards with their own proprietary standards so that all users must do things their way, and pay handsomely for the privilege. This is reminiscent, in a way, of the taxation of King George. Like the early colonialists, we are burdened with growing costs, but we receive little more than dwindling service, growing irresponsibility for buggy software, and shoddier products from the Redmond Giant. Clearly, with Microsoft's size and market power, they're no long interested in what they can do for us, but rather what more we can do for them.
So, I decided that despite the economic prospects of betting on who has been a market winner up until now, I would place my fortunes where my conscience is most comfortable. I now avoid Microsoft products where ever possible, and I am nearly free of all Microsoft products all together. Everything I use computers for can be done with one of the free Unixes anyway, except my daughter's educational software, and I suspect even that can be done without Microsoft (I just haven't played with the alternatives yet).
Free software, otherwise known as open-source software, is not about starving programmers. It's about collaboration outside of non-disclosure agreements, proprietary protocols, and closed computing systems. It's about sharing knowledge as well as responsibility and credit for making the best possible product. Under this paradigm, money is not the highest reward or even a prime reason for doing things: making a meaningful contribution is. Instead of paying the high cost of two or three dedicated programmers on a project, the project is orchestrated by one or two programmers, but the work is distributed among many people.
In this day and age, for the profit motive not to be the prime mover sounds foreign and incredulous. Well, not all programmers are up for producing free software. And the open-source paradigm is stronger with Unix operating systems than with Windows software (yet many amateurish Windows "shareware" products still sell for big prices). It's not that programmers as a whole are any less money-driven than any other group. It's just that Unix open-source projects have received a lot of publicity of late. There are probably just as many workers in other industries who work first for virtue and secondly (or thirdly) for money as there are among programmers.
Instead of making money on the initial sale of their work, open-source programmers seem to make out rather well. Often, they work for some large company, but just as often they have carved out niches as consultants or system administrators. They certainly make enough money to be comfortable by and large, but they are more interested in contributing to what they believe in. Lifestyle is not so important as quality of life for them.
Under the open-source development model, users become debuggers. Still many software projects, and most all large projects, produce two types of software package for each projects: the stable release and the experimental release. These are sometimes known as the production release and the developers release. Those who wish to contribute to the development effort may do so, while those who simply wish to continue using their favorite software for daily production don't have to deal with the debugging process. The paradigm works very well.
For more information on open-source software, visit the Free
Software Foundation as well as the GNU website. Also, visit the
homepage of Eric S. Raymond, the author of
Last modified: Wednesday, January 02 2002 * 07:31:43 PM