It's somewhat interesting to note that many point how open source is not a good model to follow, having a big number of open source projects that failed as proof. But that many open source project fail, it doesn't mean that the model is bad.
It all comes to how good,and useful, each project it really is for users. If it's good, and well implemented, projects become successful and gathers a vibrant community around it. This community is then the one that helps to develop and refine ti further, allowing the project to grow.
And even if a project dies, it doesn't mean it's a complete failure. In some cases the code, or ideas behind the project, go on to be part of established project or become the staring point of new ones.
Yet, even if projects live on, the ideas and code behind them are shared with other projects. Communities tend to share ideas, and knowhow, with each other. Meaning that most projects cross pollinate each other. Most importantly, in open source culture, this cross pollination occurs on the open and public manner. There is an understanding that doing so it actually more helpful to the whole open source community, than doing so behind closed doors.
As in any facet of human life, there will be ideas that die out while others will last longer until a better one replaces them. Open source just reflects this more closely, making it look the community a lot more chaotic than other models. And this is because it's open, so people can see the inner workings.
So, open source as a model is not what determines if a project will be successful or not. Success is entirely up to the project and its managers, if they have something in their hands and know how to deliver the project will succeed.
It's up what you bring to the table what determines success, not the table itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment