Anarchist Development Produces Inherently Superior Software (Eventually?)

Many people have a negative knee jerk reaction to the argument that anarchist software development produces superior goods. The opposite position, that proprietary software can be superior to its free counterparts, is defended by the same argument raised in our class discussion; closed software is perceived as more feature rich. I have always wondered if people with doubts about open source superiority would agree with the anarchist development principle if it were amended to include two words: over time.

Open Software Gets Fixed and Improved Better Because It Is Fixed and Improved By More People

A Car Analogy

Free and open software is inherently superior over closed for the same reason that cars would be better if every driver was also an engineer and a mechanic. Drivers would identify flaws and unacceptable product limitations, and then modify the vehicles to resolve these shortcomings. More efficient, safe, and feature rich cars would result. And not only would the cars be improved, they would be superior to cars only improved upon by the original manufacturer's staff, because GM's 244 thousand employees could not out perform America's 199 million drivers.

The same idea applies to software, except it is much easier for a user to learn to modify software than it is to become a mechanical engineer, and unlike with cars, the cost to modify software is virtually zero.

Although Superiority Is Virtually Assured, Timeframes Are Undefined

Though open source development will eventually lead to more stable and reliable software, the timeframe within which specific features will be developed by the large but disaggregated open source community is undefined and in many cases longer than in the closed source space.

For example, image editors are ubiquitous in the open source world, and there are few things you can do with the closed Adobe Photoshop program that can’t be done with the GIMP, an open source editor. But 14 years after the GIMP’s first public release, a small feature gap still exists, and it is significant enough that Photoshop continues to be the industry standard for image manipulation.

Admittedly, some of the feature differences between the GIMP and Photoshop exist for reasons other than simple lack of development by the open source world (i.e. proprietary formats preventing RAW file format support in the GIMP). But some features could be addressed by development, and we just haven’t gotten there yet. For example, the GIMP does not natively support the CMYK color model, an important and long time requested feature that is needed for precise printing.

This functionality will eventually be available (“experimental” plug ins already exist), but print shops aren’t holding their breath while they wait. Why? Because this example illustrates that open source development eventually produces the tools people need; over time people will create the tools they need. But there is less pressure for the community to create tools within a specified time-frame. To the extent that superiority is determined by comparing how fast tools and their feature sets are available, many times proprietary software wins the race by a mile. When this occurs, open source tools struggle to displace their closed source competitors.

MySQL? ’s Future Due to the Oracle-Sun Deal Further Questions Anarchist Development’s Ability to Keep Pace with Closed Source Competitors

The European Commission is investigating Oracle’s acquisition of Sun Microsystems. Sun owns the copyright and trademark rights to the MySQL? database server, one of the leading tools in its product category and major competitor to the Oracle database server. If Oracle is allowed to purchase Sun then the EC’s concern is that Oracle will discontinue support and development of MySQL? , which could decrease or eliminate the significant competition presented by MySQL? against Oracle’s flagship product.

Michael “Monty” Widenius, the creator of MySQL? , is asking the public to object to the deal. Monty fears that Oracle will indeed stop supporting MySQL? , thereby “killing” it. Other experts have provided strong reasons why Oracle is unlikely to do this. But, if Monty is right, then the resulting impact on MySQL? further raises the question of whether anarchist development can keep pace with closed software creators as needed to maintain market strength.

MySQL? is currently available under GPL2 by Sun, meaning that all of the software’s existing code is available for use, modification, and redistribution. In a worst-case scenario of sorts, after acquiring Sun Oracle could discontinue supporting MySQL? and stop releasing it to others under the GPL. But today’s holders of the tool could create a “fork” of the database server, continue to develop and support it using the code foundation available today, and distribute it under a new name. To some, this seems like a mild worst-case scenario that makes Oracle look like a small threat to MySQL? .

However, there is a real possibility that because of MySQL? ’s size and complexity, even with the ability to fork, MySQL? will slowly fall into disuse without significant resources and leadership by a managing organization. As Monty discusses at length on his blog, the fact that the source code is available and the open source community is licensed to use it probably won’t be enough to keep MySQL? competitive against its closed competitors. At base, the problem seems to be time.

Without quick and large investment by an organization willing to lead the creation and support of a fork with full time development, the task will fall to disaggregated developers investing varied time to the project. During this time, fork-MySQL is likely to struggle, losing user trust and reliance, while its proprietary counterparts move forward with new features. Over time individual forks could continue to improve and add features, but under fragmented development conditions, a fork-MySQL is unlikely to maintain parity with its closed source competitors.

Conclusion

Anarchist software production will produce superior goods. But sometimes, the trade off for superior tools means waiting longer for specific features. When that happens, open source tools have difficulty competing with closed source options.