> A bigger concern is that some of the benefits of open source, especially
> the attentive "hacker community" cohesiveness, are severely crippled in
> the case of general use and acquisition of linux by the larger consumer
> base -- the average home user (like my parents) wouldn't serach the web
> for updates and patches very often. They prefer something that works
> reliably and won't need to be edited or touched for years, and as far as
> they're concerned, until it's time to "buy a new computer" (they're used
> to keeping tabs on advances in hardware, not operating systems).
That's a good point; the 'cathedral' model, where releases are infrequent
and monolithic, might actually be better (right now) for people who want
to think about software as little as possible. New releases of a word
processor, much less a kernel, are an inconvenience to many people. As an
example, it's why we (at Yale) generally postpone major system and
application upgrades to the summer; doing it during the year could
interrupt people's work -- not specifically by downtime but by general
confusion and annoyance.
The best solution I can see is twofold. First, there needs to be greater
compatibility between versions of the same product. Second, software can
be written (and organizations set up) to manage software patches for
people automatically. (RPM and RedHat come close to this.)
Open-source software, by definition, has a looser sense of 'versions' than
commercially released, proprietary-source software. A key step toward
making users happy with free software is solidifying versions to some
extent. This definitely isn't unprecedented; it's a tried and true
strategy with the Linux kernel itself, as Raymond addresses in 'The
Cathedral and the Bazaar':
Linus coppers his bets, too. In case there are serious bugs, Linux
kernel version are numbered in such a way that potential users can
make a choice either to run the last version designated ``stable''
or to ride the cutting edge and risk bugs in order to get new
features. This tactic is not yet formally imitated by most Linux
hackers, but perhaps it should be; the fact that either choice is
available makes both more attractive.
Beyond this, there's not all that much difference between, say, Windows
and Linux. Both need to be patched periodically by alert sysadmins, and
most computers aren't managed by alert sysadmins. But that's a more
general issue than the open-source/closed-source distinction.
Shawn