"You say you want a revolution, well you know...we all want to change the world"
The Beatles.
As i read through some of Eric Raymonds work concerning open source software these words from the Beatles came to mind. Open source software is an excellent example of how the direction and innovation that can come out of "produsage".
For myself, a very un technical, and un software wise person, i was not looking forward to this weeks content. However, i was suprised at how simple the idea of Open Source software was. It is simply a matter of sharing.
As Raymonds points out in nearly all his work, physicians and engineers have been sharing their developments like tennage girls share lipgloss. However, in the world of software it is a completely different game. As Adam pointed out in his lecture that "commercialisation of software production transforms software (code) into a commodity that must be guarded". However, technologies, and of course WEB 2.0 have made this is the case no longer. In the true spirit of produsage there has been a massive influx of people wishing to contribute, to the best of their abilities, to the software codes. Beta versions, become just plain better as "users" take on the role of producers. The very name "open source" software just connotes something better, something much more free, but it also gives me the idea that it is never finished as it is completely open. Which is true, yet another characteristic of produsage that Axel has discussed. As a software pleb (having only discovered Firefox in KCB202 New Media Technologies last year) this thought is daunting to me.
However to those who are not open source software retarded it is a true Utopia. Contribute if you can and want, add to a valuable community, create a name in software for yourself, and own a timeshare with your friends (meaning, there is a shared ownership between those who contribute).
However to those who are not open source software retarded it is a true Utopia. Contribute if you can and want, add to a valuable community, create a name in software for yourself, and own a timeshare with your friends (meaning, there is a shared ownership between those who contribute).
The world of software has been revolutionanised.
With every person who wishes, doing their bit for the project.
Once again, as Raymond points out there is this phenomenon of people just needing to scratch an itch.
I cant help but think of open source software of that cool kooky kid that stuck it to the man at school and was different, and didnt take anything from any form of authority. The kid that was in a struggling band. The kid that wore the gritty t-shirts with pictures of bands that were so underground they were practically mole people.
You always hear the stories about how that kid ended up getting the gig of a lifetime and getting signed to a major record label and now tours the world with twenty lady friends in each city.
Without some major funds, that kid might of ended up working a dead end job trying to make his music before eventually crashing and burning.
Hopefully Open Source Software will get the chance to tour the world with twenty lady friends in each city.
1 comment:
You spoke briefly in this posts about how open source applications take beta and make it better. This is not entirely relevant to your post but i want to discuss the perma-beta states of many web 2.0 applications. Take Gmail for example, that project started in 2004 and now four years later is still branding the "beta" tag. I think beta is a good way to describe web 2.0 because they are constantly in the "testing" phase, the users are the producers (produsers) and therefor the sites are always being refined and improved on as new users enter and add their two cents.
Post a Comment