OStatic

It's so obvious, and it's still so easy to forget. Open source software is, well... open. People can modify it, give it back, pitch in, and use it as they wish. They can poke at and observe how scripts work and interact in one application, and apply those principles -- if not the code itself -- in their own projects. Still, it's so easy to forget it isn't simply about the code. Code is a major component, of course, and it's a driving force, but when it all boils down, it's still a means to an end, a tool, a way to get a job done.

It doesn't mean that code just has to work and have a function. There are oodles of other factors playing in -- usability, accessibility, and outright aesthetics. There's extensibility, compatibility, interoperability. There's spreading the word, demonstrating, advocating, and educating. And it sounds, sometimes, really endlessly time consuming. It can be -- but so can a few minutes of playing Fallout 3 before writing that email for work. Just ask my husband.

It doesn't have to be. Crazy as it is, contributing can be light work, and still effective. Sometimes, especially when it comes to advocacy, there are better results when alternative applications are mentioned and outlined in a general sense. Talk about the software further when asked, tell the person asking what the penguin (or the neat red swirly design) on your shirt represents.

Ah, the open source business model, and the inevitable question that always accompanies its mention -- How can you make money if you give the product away? Then come the raised eyebrows when you mention support and training services. It does work, of course. Any business, whether it makes open or proprietary software products, or noise makers and party hats, needs to diligently think of ways to make its products more useful and appealing to its current -- and potential -- markets.

One of the best ways to do this is to just listen. What are current users (or those who'd like to, but...) asking for? Funambol is no stranger to asking its users how they feel about the business and its services, and seriously considering the feedback that is received. Customer demand is in large part why Funambol now offers hosting services for its commercial Carrier Edition software.

Over at the Lynx blog, Dougie Richardson cast his vote for the best comment made during the course of Ubuntu's Open Week. While his choice might be completely subjective, there is no denying that Mark Shuttleworth's response when asked whether WINE (in its own right, or as a general synonym for Windows compatibility) or native Linux ports were more important to Ubuntu's success was thought provoking.

The question (and answer) invite all sorts of tangential queries. What should any desktop computer be expected, by default, to deliver? If equivalent applications on different platforms have identical features and functionality, and content produced by one application can be opened and modified on the other, will user interfaces and familiarity matter less -- or more? If Microsoft made every last line of its code available to peruse and modify right now -- how would Windows change? How would Linux change? If you need a Philips head screwdriver, is it possible to squeak by with an approximately sized flat head type?