Skip to content


Why Open Source is not Magic Pixie Dust, Part 284

September 30, 2009

Posted by: Glyn Moody


One of the pivotal moments in the rise of free software was 22 January 1998, when the following statement appeared:

Netscape Communications Corporation today announced bold plans to make the source code for the next generation of its highly popular Netscape Communicator client software available for free licensing on the Internet. The company plans to post the source code beginning with the first Netscape Communicator 5.0 developer release, expected by the end of the first quarter of 1998. This aggressive move will enable Netscape to harness the creative power of thousands of programmers on the Internet by incorporating their best enhancements into future versions of Netscape's software.

Here, then, was the first – and for a while, the most successful – Internet company, giving away what many had regarded as its crown jewels. Of course, it was not a decision taken lightly, but the company had been forced to take dramatic steps in the face of its catastrophic loss of browser market share thanks to the steadily improving versions of Microsoft's Internet Explorer – and its own missteps.

The move was widely reported, and led to the ideas behind free software being introduced to many people for the first time. But the initial hopes of that announcement were not realised. Turning Netscape's Communicator program – the name used for the expanded version of Netscape Navigator, including extra functionality like email – into Mozilla, as the new code was baptised, proved much harder than expected.

One of the people most deeply involved in that process – and most disappointed in its failure to deliver an open source version within a reasonable time-frame - was Jamie Zawinski. By 1999, he found himself working for AOL, which had bought Netscape in November 1998. In the face of that failure, he decided to leave the company, and wrote an impassioned and important post entitled “resignation and post mortem” about why he was doing so. It concluded:

My biggest fear, and part of the reason I stuck it out as long as I have, is that people will look at the failures of mozilla.org as emblematic of open source in general. Let me assure you that whatever problems the Mozilla project is having are not because open source doesn't work. Open source does work, but it is most definitely not a panacea. If there's a cautionary tale here, it is that you can't take a dying project, sprinkle it with the magic pixie dust of “open source,” and have everything magically work out. Software is hard. The issues aren't that simple.

Jump to page : [ 1 ] [ 2 ]

Follow highlights from ComputerworldUK on Twitter
Sign up for our Daily Newsletter
The UK IT News widget Get it for your site!

<<newer entry | back to blogs indexolder entry>>

Advert

close

Email this article to a friend or colleague:




PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the recipient know who sent the story, and in case of transmission error. Both your name and the recipient's name and address will not be used for any other purpose.

close
  • This article is now being printed.
close

What are your views on this subject? Use the form below to post a comment on this article up to 1000 characters.


Characters remaining:

close

Click below to add 'Why Open Source is not Magic Pixie Dust, Part 284' to your blog.



If you do not have a ComputerworldUK Account and would like to use this feature, please Register.

If you are a registered, logged-in user, this will post the title and first paragraph of this story to your blog to share with your readers.

What is this?

Comments received

Exactly said on Wednesday, 30 September 2009

Because we all know how Mozilla eventually ended up filing for bankruptcy, since they were only able to produce a second-rate, insecure browser that garnered less than 1% of the market share... It's a shame that they were never able to turn Netscape into a decent browser that could actually compete with Internet Explorer in today's market.

Glyn Moody said on Wednesday, 30 September 2009

Firefox is finally delivering, more than a *decade* after Netscape open sourced its code. My point is that open source, like software, is hard - but that if you stick at it, it does deliver.

Bernard Swiss said on Thursday, 01 October 2009

And here I thought that Netscape was originally out-competing Internet Explorer, and that I distinctly recall how OEMs and vendors would trumpet that they pre-installed Netscape on the systems they sold. So much for the notion that Netscape was largely killed (might one say, suffocated?) by Microsoft's monopoly-abusing practices, and that going the Free/Open Source was a last-ditch Hail Mary play (tried too late in the game to help much) to regain it's footing against the behemoth. But I guess that big court-case, and Judge Jackson's findings of fact, were just a product of my fevered imagination?

Bernard Swiss said on Thursday, 01 October 2009

PS: that was -- in case there's any confusion -- a response to Exactly, rather than to Glyn Moody.

Advert

WHITE PAPERS

  • Legal risks: Employee use of the internet and email
    Exploring the challenges facing IT Mangers today and vital steps to ensure safe internet an email use by employees.
  • Phishing for victims
    This White Paper examines the phenomenon of phishing. It explains the potentially catastrophic threat it presents to all kinds of organisation. Exploding some widespread myths, it lights up the murky waters where phishing first emerged and where it continues to evolve. But it also highlights what your business can do to blunt the threat.
  • Challenges and opportunities of PCI
    The control framework implicit in the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) provides an enterprise structure for improving operational, security, and audit performance.
  • Social CRM comes of age
    Who is this “social customer”? What strategies and tools does the new breed of CRM provide to do something about this?
  • Risk Management: Protect and Maximize Stakeholder Value
    What has held organisations back from a broader adoption of risk management programs?
*