The open source paradox (2020)
Today we treat work by a professional as being of higher standard than an amateur. A pro footballer clearly plays better than someone in an amateur league.<p>But it was not always so.<p>In recent history &quot;professional&quot; indicated that the task was bounded by time, and thus constrained in quality. An amateur building say a clock could take unbounded time, and hence create a superior product whereas a professional had to sell the clock, so it had to be produced in affordable time.<p>John Harrison starts life as a carpenter, making some clocks on the side as a hobby, interested more in perfecting the concept of clock than selling clocks for money. (although he had a prize in sight for inventing an accurate nautical clock.)<p>Despite making only a handful of clocks in his life, he&#x27;s credited as being the most important clock maker ever.<p>Thus it is with OSS. Given the lack of monetary benefit, the benefits of writing it have to be elsewhere. In the satisfaction of a job done well. In the beauty and elegance of the code. The timeless perfection.<p>Or the idea that OSS presence will look good on your CV and held get you that job. In which case just throw stuff at Github to make a &quot;portfolio&quot;. Never to be looked at again.<p>I think it&#x27;s safe to say that the majority of OSS is the later, but we are all better off for the fraction that is the former.