I've had some thoughts about Open Source Software percolating for some time now. Before getting to them, though, I want to lay out what Open Source is, especially for the non-programmers reading this. As a programmer myself, the concept of source code is so deeply embedded in what I do, it's a little like trying to explain "air". So I turned to Google. And while the linked search brings back a lot of sites that offer good definitions, I like the one returned by Google at the top of the page. "A text listing of commands to be compiled or assembled into an executable computer program." "Open Source" is, then, software that makes the source code publicly available. Some Open Source Software is free, some is not. Some allows others to make changes to the source code, some do not. But, by definition, all Open Source Software makes the code available for public perusal.Part of the reason I'm thinking about it is due to an opinion piece written by Open Source advocate Richard Stallman. Now, personally, I think Stallman relies too heavily on hysteria and exaggeration to make his points, but agree or disagree, this piece got me thinking. His point is that all software should be Free Open Source (FOSS). "Free", in this case doesn't refer to cost to use, but rather the freedom for others to use the source of a piece of software for their own purposes.
The other thing that got me thinking was Healthcare.gov making all of their code Open Source and even freely available for others to use. It's a bold step, darn near unprecedented.
To start out my thought process, I'm going to quote, verbatim, my comment on +Matt Quackenbush's post, where he linked the article. While my opinion has wandered a bit, I want to start out with an accurate historical record of where I started.
Yay. Another Stallman rant. SIGHMy point was that making a software's source freely available is only useful to those with the ability to read the code and the willingness and ability to devote the time to really understanding it. And programmer reading this understands the difficulty of this, but for non-programmers it's important to point out that when we programmers understand software, we have to hold the entirety of the code in our head. Paul Graham explained this in the best way I've ever seen, and I encourage all to read this essay of his. My point here is that even for an experienced developer, holding a significant part of, say Windows 7 or Adobe Acrobat, represents a serious amount of time and effort. Time and effort that is often better spent elsewhere.
Okay, here's the thing that Stallman either doesn't realize or just doesn't care about.
To most people, source code is useless. Even to most programmers. He wants to liken code to language? Then source code is a book. For any important software, reading it would be akin to reading the entire Encyclopedia Britannica. Doable, even informative. But hardly a priority, and rarely worth the effort.
So what you end up with is similar to RMS' beef with Ubuntu's Amazon search. You end up with one batch of so-called experts yelling "IT'S DANGEROUS" and another yelling "NO IT'S NOT!". For everyone else, all that can be done is decide is more credible: Someone known for blatant histrionics and exaggeration or a company looking to defend their product. The truth is likely somewhere in between and likely more shaded than either side wants to admit. But how am I to know?
So where does that leave the rest of us? Before I answer that, let me pose a few questions. Raise your hand if you're a trained and educated Climatologist. Figuratively, but literally if you wish. For those of you with neither your figurative or literal hand in the air, how much do you know, of your own experience and knowledge, on the issue of climate change? Have you done an exhaustive reading of the current research? If you have, how much of it do you understand? What about peer reviews of research on both sides? In other words, what do you really know? If you're like me, darn little. Not really.
That leaves us in the position of judging credibility based on... Well, based on what? Largely, I suspect, our own biases. Likely a bit of, "Well, that just makes sense to me", which is a terribly way to judge scientific research since results can often defy what we would see as "common sense results". Please note- this is not about what you believe to be true. It's about the fact that you believe something to be true, rather than know something to be true.
The same is true of FOSS. Personally, I don't have the time to put in a serious review of the Ubuntu operating system. On a practical level, it doesn't matter to me if it is FOSS or closed source. All I can do is try to critically judge the credibility of people who have and decide who I believe. I can read people's opinions, although I freely admit that it is not practical to do an exhaustive enough study to give me enough information to make an accurate determination of the credibility of the people involved. And this is coming from someone that understands the issue here. Those that have chosen other paths in life don't even have that advantage.
That's where I was as of yesterday. Today, I read something that extended my thoughts on the matter, namely the fact that HealthCare.gov has embraced FOSS to the point of making their back-end code, called APIs (Application Programming Interface), available to those that want to use it. HealthCare.gov is not an exception to the issue I outlines above. However, when I read their statement I found myself thinking "It takes real courage to put yourself under that kind of microscope". People will be reading their source code, people will be judging not only its quality but what it actually does. So Kudos to you HealthCare.gov. Not for finding a way to make your source truly open to all, but for having the courage to stand up and be judged by those that can and will. Sometimes courage is its own reward, and I hope it is for you guys.
No comments:
Post a Comment