Why Does FOSS Development Lag the Innovation Curve?

by Sam Dean - Jul. 23, 2010Comments (4)

Are open source developers on the ball about delivering alternatives to cutting-edge proprietary products and services, or do they lag the proprietary innovators? That topic came up at this week's OSCON conference in Portland, and there is a case to be made for the idea that open source developers don't deliver key products in key categories fast enough.

Computerworld notes that GNOME Foundation executive director Stormy Peters said, "When it comes to Web services, we've gotten lazy." But aren't there many other categories where open source entries in hot categories just don't show up on time?

Consider the incredible boom in social networking platforms that we've seen in recent years. The facts are staggering. Facebook just announced it hit 500 million users, so many that if it were a country, it would be the third most populated one in the world. Twitter has dominion that extends far beyond technologists and tinkerers, appealing to celebrities and mommy bloggers alike.

Where are the truly competitive open source social networking products. Sure, there is Idneti.ca, but it doesn't have anywhere near the reach of Twitter. We've written before about why open social platforms can make a lot of sense, but all that arrives are half-baked projects such as Diaspora.

There are other categories where open source development seriously lags. This week, I noted that there are hardly any open source speech recognition projects to take seriously. So what are the explanations for this development lag? Are most open source projects simply cobbled together from existing parts, limiting any opportunity to deliver brand new ideas? Weigh in in the comments.

Previous: Three Tools I'd Love...Next: Is Perl 6 Imminent, ... Browse Blog

by JustSomeNick on Jul. 23, 2010

I think your perspective is set from an angle inclined to disect the lack of FLOSS software in regions where it's not a terrible emergency.

The voice recognition projects are in their infancy, sure, but there are much more heavier elements to focus on right now- and the FLOSS community certainly delivers. Look at business software, SaaS distributables and already existing integrated software.

If you were to compare the most monolithic FLOSS software to closed, you will find that the tables are many times turned, if not at least incredibly close. Lightworks (a hollywood prompted video editing application) speaks for this, as an example.

Moreso- were you to look at simple focal strategies invested in FLOSS projects, they have much greater potential to overwhelm the incredibly stale closed source market in many regions. Look at ticketing systems and how quick they have been replaced. What of car infotainment, and general embedded devices? What of the mobile industry and tablets?

I think if you were to broaden your perspective a little, you would see that the innovation curve is available in niche portions to either FLOSS or closed source or either one exclusively, but not in the monolithic sense that your article seems to implicate.

0 Votes

by Dega on Jul. 23, 2010

This is something I have been noticing as well. While I can definitely name a few open source projects that have no proprietary equal, I am often disappointed with the open source alternatives to some of the most important applications. I personally think this would change drastically if open source projects would spend more time blazing their own trail rather than simply trying to duplicate the functionality of their proprietary counterparts. 'Just as good' or 'almost as good' is never going to get anywhere. Firefox, for instance, gained it's popularity because it was safer, faster, and had functionality that IE6 couldn't even compare to. As a result IE has improved drastically since then, so it has been beneficial to everyone. It really isn't fair to call Diaspora half-baked, though, considering they just barely started. Who knows how well it will go over, but I have high hopes for it nonetheless. Users will switch from Facebook but only if there is a competent alternative.

0 Votes

by an anonymous user on Jul. 23, 2010

These kinds of discussions lack perspective. Facebook and Twitter are applications that run on free software and are free software success stories. GNU/Linux users have had private file sharing and collaboration tools for as long as OpenSSH has been legal in their country. They have run their own web sites, email servers and anything else they pleas for longer than that. The world wide web was developed on an offshoot of BSD called Next, and free software continues to run most of it. Today, free software users can easily deploy services like Wikis, Wordpress blogs and photo sharing sites. Free software basically dominates publishing from LaTex paper bound and ebooks to movie making, distribution and embedded systems to watch it. In fact, there is very little software that did not originate in the free software world, browsers, symbolic algebra and all other types of scientific tools were pioneered and flourish in free software.

0 Votes

by an anonymous user on Jul. 26, 2010

Dear Sam,

I'd suggest that the word "innovation" is at best overloaded and at worst just another piece of marketing speak that can be made to mean anything to fit the situation.

Businesses measure innovation by how much technology improves their bottom line and how much budget / manpower was required. Open Source projects are generally about scratching an itch without a business-related deadline looming over them. Claims of innovation are important to profit-seeking companies, but not so much to those who create things to scratch an itch. The latter are usually just trying to solve a problem they are having and think it might be nice to share their solution with the world.

Of course, that was before the HR-wannabes got involved and convinced everyone that Open Source was all about building communities instead of solving problems, but that's a topic for another day.

1 Votes