How is open source work (as an example of community produsage) different from commercial production?
While open source is a community enterprise for the good of those particpating, commercial production is funded primarily from the money made from selling the product. What this means is that open source software stems from a different revenue model, if they have one at all.
Open source exists primarily as a means to keep software free and keep it relevant, and is thus the process for contributing and sharing is a more liberal one. Open source contrbutions are made for the good of all, and are designed to benefit everyone out of the "generosity" of those undertaking the process. Open source promotes the freedom and access to goods, information, design and technology.
However, commercial production promotes that the information, goods, design, technology, etc, comes with the baggage of living in a capitalist society. Money needs to be made, workers/programmers/compilers need to be paid, and shareholders need to be satisfied that their time and money is being well spent.
The differences in approach to content is also markedly different. Because open source software is free to access by its very nature, it becomes easier for people with the knowledge and skill to alter and change the code to tailor the system to their more personal needs, and then to pass on that information or change to other users that might find their changes desirable.
Commerically driven software is mass marketed and designed to protect the company (and it's shareholders). The code is kept hidden by those that write it, and it becomes up to those who have access to it to make the changes that their superviser's think would best help the consumer. However, this is a long and wieldy process, and does not tailor the changes to the individual or even to a specific demographic.
Despite the fact that commercially manufactured and mass-produced software is the market leader in terms of sales and use, occasionally open source software reaches the publics consciousness to enough of a degree that it can take hold. Mozilla Firefox* and the Linux operating system are clear examples of this - they are open source, free to download and to alter as one sees fit. Perhaps because of their free avaiability, and perhaps because of they have successfully tailored their features and options to target a certain demographic - made largely as a result of community participation - they have become widely used pieces of software.
*This post was written using Firefox! ^_^
While open source is a community enterprise for the good of those particpating, commercial production is funded primarily from the money made from selling the product. What this means is that open source software stems from a different revenue model, if they have one at all.
Open source exists primarily as a means to keep software free and keep it relevant, and is thus the process for contributing and sharing is a more liberal one. Open source contrbutions are made for the good of all, and are designed to benefit everyone out of the "generosity" of those undertaking the process. Open source promotes the freedom and access to goods, information, design and technology.
However, commercial production promotes that the information, goods, design, technology, etc, comes with the baggage of living in a capitalist society. Money needs to be made, workers/programmers/compilers need to be paid, and shareholders need to be satisfied that their time and money is being well spent.
The differences in approach to content is also markedly different. Because open source software is free to access by its very nature, it becomes easier for people with the knowledge and skill to alter and change the code to tailor the system to their more personal needs, and then to pass on that information or change to other users that might find their changes desirable.
Commerically driven software is mass marketed and designed to protect the company (and it's shareholders). The code is kept hidden by those that write it, and it becomes up to those who have access to it to make the changes that their superviser's think would best help the consumer. However, this is a long and wieldy process, and does not tailor the changes to the individual or even to a specific demographic.
Despite the fact that commercially manufactured and mass-produced software is the market leader in terms of sales and use, occasionally open source software reaches the publics consciousness to enough of a degree that it can take hold. Mozilla Firefox* and the Linux operating system are clear examples of this - they are open source, free to download and to alter as one sees fit. Perhaps because of their free avaiability, and perhaps because of they have successfully tailored their features and options to target a certain demographic - made largely as a result of community participation - they have become widely used pieces of software.
*This post was written using Firefox! ^_^
3 comments:
Matt, your comments regarding the economic implications of open source software are justified. It is unfortunate that the adoption of open source software in the business sector is not as widespread, although this change will most probably come with time.
I love open source. I'm currently looking for free open source project management software as well as content management systems. I think that my qualms with the open source software that I have come across so far is the usability of the applications. Perhaps this may be the case as to why businesses haven't had a widespread use of it? Another thing could possibly be branding. For example, how much trust will businesses have with an open source start up compared to an established company?
My picks at the moment:
SugarCRM - I think that their Community Edition is free. Currently uploading it to my server..
dotProject - It looks to be the best when it comes to features, but I need to make it usable to people who know little about tech stuff
SantexQ - I think that you need to sign up to their server as a subdomain but I think I'll have a play around.
For open source CMS:
Joomla! - Only used this for a few nights but it was pretty 'friendly' for someone with no PHP knowledge
Silverstripe - Still yet to check this out
I found this was a great read and a clear explanation of the open source process. As you have pointed out, Firefox rivals its commercial competition. How far can this go with other types of software? Take specific programs from the Adobe range for example. Would an open source software be able to produce the content as well as a Photoshop or Illustrator finished piece? It may be possible, though it may also take just as many years as it takes to produce a new version of Photoshop as it does to create a freely available product of the same standard. Though open source does have many advantages, especially for students and people in general who do not want to make money out of using software and therefore do not want to pay the high prices for software if they will not get a return for the use of it. However, what about people who want to improve the open source software that they use yet lack the knowledge for writing the code. Perhaps in some cases it is better left to the experts to do the work for us and pay for the benefit.
Post a Comment