Admittedly, this apparently growing debate over open source is a new topic for me. At first, the topic was a bit overwhelming, but thanks to the clarification and ideas offered by many articles and my fellow classmates, it has become manageable. I commend everybody, from those that are learned to those completely inexperienced with open source, for their work and comments for they have inspired some interesting dialogue regarding this topic.
After reading a variety of articles on open source, there are a few points that seem to need addressing. One article I read was "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric Raymond. In this article, Raymond states that "the best way to produce quality software is to give the world free access to the underlying source code". Although I believe offering the code to the general public is an interesting approach, I don’t particularly agree that open source is the best way to produce quality software. It is true that by allowing anybody access to the code of a program the door is opened for different perspectives to isolate and solve various problems or bugs within the program. Such a problem or bug may be overlooked by one but easily picked up by another individual. This, I believe is essential to the production of any type. But, doesn’t this type of cross check and "proofreading" (if you will) occur even in the cathedral model of software production?
We also have to look at the type of software being produced and to whom it’s being marketed. In other words, what population of software users are we talking about here. As an educator, I feel I have differing software needs than friends or family who work in other fields. I find it hard to believe that these ‘hackers’ working on open source have expertise in a wide range of fields. However, by opening up the source code to anybody, there is the probability of gaining a larger pool of expertise from which to work.
I question how to keep these ‘hackers’ motivated and continuing the ideas behind the open source movement. According to Raymond, "to solve a problem, start by finding a problem that is interesting to you." Of course, this would keep the motivation initially, but will that be enough of an incentive to bring the project to fruition? How do these ‘hackers’ survive if they are not receiving monetary gains for their work? They must have other jobs, so will this slow down the rapid pace of software production through open source? Will the motivation dwindle if the problem is not easily solved? Who will be able to handle working with the source code of programs except for experienced ‘hackers’?
According to Raymond, money is not the motivation for open source, rather, accomplishment is. This is something we don’t see too much of in our society anymore. Pride in our work rather than how much money it will bring in is lacking in society. We, as teachers, haven’t given up on this idea. We certainly aren’t in this for the money.
Another idea that came to mind from reading about open source would be a support for the idea. Often we find ourselves working with materials or products and find alternative uses for them (at least other uses not intended by the manufacturers). So, we in essence, are tinkering with the product to improve it, which I believe is the idea behind open source. This is also the idea behind inquiry or problem based learning. Every grade level in my building has these inquiry based learning units throughout the year. They are completely cross-curricular projects and the students are motivated by the need to solve the problem at hand. It allows them to develop skills needed to solve real world problems.
A question I have regarding the software produced through open source is with ease of use. Aren’t the programs produced through the cathedral methods designed for computer illiterate people to navigate and use? What type of technical support will open source allow for with the programming they produce?
As far as the ramifications on the world of education go, open source could open a few doors. It would be wonderful to be able to use the money presently allotted for the purchasing of software and upgrades for other areas of need. We all know funding in education is tight. But, how do we get software produced that will be usable within the classroom setting? If open source takes off and causes software giants to come crashing down, will hackers then have to be employed by districts to create beneficial, low cost software for educators?
It seems to be that a balance
is needed between the cathedral and bazaar approaches. We still need
the ideas and those that begin the programming which is then furthered
by the hackers of open source. This is very much like the pendulum
that continually swings and often drives theories in education. The
middle ground always seems to be the best approach as opposed to delving
completely into and totally embracing new theories.