In this week’s articles, I learned a lot about peer production and about open-source software. The benefits of both of these topics are wonderful, such as better products, the possibility of better security, and the opportunity to collaborate with other minds. There are drawbacks, however, such as some security concerns and free riders (those who don’t offer much to a product but then claim it as their own).
This infographic shows how open source software is catching up to privatized software.
In the articles assigned, topics such as involvement in the sites were discussed when looking at Chinese Wikipedia in the case of recent blockings. When there are blockings on the site, more users, even those that weren’t from Mainland China, stopped contributing to the site. The researchers found that when there are smaller groups, the contribution increases when group size increases, but when groups become larger, this is no longer the case. Finding a balance for peer production sites is essential for them to be sustainable.
Also motivations for open-source software were discussed in the other two articles. Sometimes motivation involves recognition for the person who is contributing, simply for them to say that they took part in making a better product. Another form of motivation was the actual need for a better product. This is a huge motivator seeing as people will try to develop a better product when they see a need for it. It is really interesting to hear about the different ways that companies attract people to be contributors to open-source software systems. Sometimes, they may even offer them a reward, as was the case for MySQL, after the developers have done something of extreme merit.
One concern for open source is security, which I found in the provided articles and in the other articles that I found. Computer hackers have become very good at their job in recent years and because open-source software is readily available for them to look at, they can easily find bugs within it and circumnavigate the sites to provide them with information that they shouldn’t have. This creates a problem for all players involved in open source software because no one is sure where to place the blame or where the security should be funded. Most seem to believe, however, that the larger companies with bigger products stemming from the systems have the responsibility to make the sites more secure. In one of the articles I found, Google has been paying people rewards in order to find flaws in their system so that people who hack open source software can be deterred once Google fixes the bugs.
This chart demonstrates amount the bug fixes for software design errors and how they are getting smaller and more secure.
Overall, the open source software community is leaning towards being a positive and beneficial thing for the internet right now, but it will be interesting, as more people become knowledgeable about coding, to see if this changes and if people use it for more malicious purposes.
Resources
Albanesius, Chloe. (October 14, 2014). Linux Foundation Backs Open-Sourced Drone Projects. PC Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2470364,00.asp
Mickos, Marten. (Fall 2008). The Oh-So-Practical Magic of Open-Source Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(1).
Osborne, Charlie. (October 1, 2014). Google Triples Chrome Bug Bounty Rewards to $15,000. Retrieved from http://www.zdnet.com/google-triples-chrome-bug-bounty-rewards-to-15000-7000034239/
Strohm, Chris, and Robertson, Jordan. (October 14, 2014). Computer Hacking Scandals Rock Open-Source Software Movement. The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Computer+hacking+scandals+rock+open+source+software+community/10288701/story.html
Von Hippel, Eric, and Von Krogh, Georg. (2003). Open Source Software and the “Private-Collective” Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science. Organization Science, 14(2), 208-223.
Zhang, Xiaoquan(Michael), and Zhu, Feng. (2011). Group Size and Incentives to Contribute: A Natural Experiement at Chinese Wikipedia. American Economic Review, 101(4), 1601-1615.
