Work Rant

[dsrtao]

It is now clear to me that the quality of configuration methods and relevant documentation is much higher in open-source projects than it is in commercial software. Let me note that I am considering only server-side software here; I won't speak to user apps like Firefox or Office or what-have-you. I mean wikis and databases and such.

I also have a theory to explain this: the developers of open-source software are almost all interested users and administrators of the software, else they would not think it interesting enough to work on. Most commercial software developers are not ardent users of their own software.

Money can't buy love.

Comments

[dlevey.livejournal.com]

Mostly, in commercial software, you're reading their documentation because you've bought the product. Which means you *have* to read *their* documentation; you've spent the money and you're less likely to spend more to go elsewhere. So how good do they really have to be? But in an open source project, the developers are not only interested in the product, they want you to use it and they know you can go elsewhere (especially if it's both kinds of free). To keep you using it, you need to have a positive experience, or why would you bother?

[dsrtao]

Yes indeed.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

There may be two or more reasons for this.

With commercial software, the goal is to "make the sale". The relationship ends at that time, except where more money can be made in the form of maintenance, consulting services or upgrades. "We've cashed out".

With open-source, the relationship and the goal does not end at the time of "sale" (meaning download), but is measured through continued use and evangelism.