Ponytails, Sandals, Linux and Why "Amateur" Ought Not Imply Inferior
Massachusetts' CIO claims the "unprofessional appearance" of the open source community contributes to the lack of adoption of open source software by some businesses. From an article on CNET:
I am guessing there is at least some truth in that, but my guess is that many in business are suspicious because they can't quite fathom how professional quality products can be created, maintained and supported by volunteers - the "suits", if you will, are so oriented towards profit, that they cannot understand that there are some motivated by other factors - and implicitly associate "amateur" with low-quality. I think it is instructive to note that the term amateur's source meant: "lover, devoted friend, devotee, enthusiastic pursuer of an objective". Viewed in this context, perhaps one might expect to get a higher quality from those who work out of love, or dedication to an objective than those doing it solely for profit. The best explanation, I've read on how and why open source "works" can be found in the essay "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", which remains relevant despite being a few years old...
The lax dress code of the open-source community is one of the reasons behind the software's slow uptake in commercial environments, says former Massachusetts Chief Information Officer Peter Quinn.
Quinn, who played a key role in the Bay State government's decision to mandate the use of OpenDocument-based products, said appearance matters when trying to convince decision makers of the merits of open-source software.
He pointed to the "sandal and ponytail set" as detracting from the business-ready appearance of open-source technology and blamed developers for sluggish adoption of Linux among businesses and governments.
"Open source has an unprofessional appearance, and the community needs to be more business-savvy in order to start to make inroads in areas traditionally dominated by commercial software vendors. (Having) a face on a project or agenda makes it attractive for politicians (to consider open source)."
I am guessing there is at least some truth in that, but my guess is that many in business are suspicious because they can't quite fathom how professional quality products can be created, maintained and supported by volunteers - the "suits", if you will, are so oriented towards profit, that they cannot understand that there are some motivated by other factors - and implicitly associate "amateur" with low-quality. I think it is instructive to note that the term amateur's source meant: "lover, devoted friend, devotee, enthusiastic pursuer of an objective". Viewed in this context, perhaps one might expect to get a higher quality from those who work out of love, or dedication to an objective than those doing it solely for profit. The best explanation, I've read on how and why open source "works" can be found in the essay "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", which remains relevant despite being a few years old...
posted by Mike at 5:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home