Open source better at release management? Maybe not

It's unfortunate that Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth doesn't blog more often, because when he does, it's invariably insightful. As a case in point, Mark's post about the superiority of open source at hitting release dates is wonderful. He writes:

Most people would assume that precise release management would depend on having total control of all the moving parts - and hence only be possible in a proprietary setting. Microsoft writes (almost) every line of code in Windows, so you would think they would be able to set, and hit, a precise target date for delivery.

But in fact the reverse is true - free software distributions or OSV's can provide much better assurances with regard to delivery dates than proprietary OSV's, because we can focus on the critical role of component selection, integration, testing, patch management and distribution rather than the pieces which upstream projects are better able to handle - core component feature development.

Unfortunately, it may not be true. At least, not the extent that I'd wish it.

As many have reported, including in the comments to Mark's post and including hard-core Ubuntu fans, Ubuntu's 8.04 release that Mark lauds still has a fair number of bugs that might have been resolved by more testing (read: time) put into the release...before it was released.

Ultimately, a solid release - be it of open-source or proprietary software - depends on excellent product management, and that really has nothing to do with source code, and everything to do with people. It is true that open source tends to be more regulated by product readiness and feature completeness, but the more commercial open source becomes, the more it is subject to the same market demands that proprietary software is: A product ships by X date, whatever the cost.

I wish it were otherwise, but I've yet to see an open-source company escape market requirements.

[jrepenning]

Hmmm ... you're kind of muddling the classic flexibility triad in your response, I think. OS projects (particularly pure-play, unsponsored OS projects) have a different set of release definers than commercial products; to say that they ship bugs that could have been caught by more intensive and extensive QA is to judge them by someone else's goals. Mark doesn't claim "lower bug counts," only "more-accurate release dates." From my experience with Subversion, I tend to agree with Mark.

The other side, that enterprises can and do provide more focus on quality, is equally well attested in the industry. Balancing those two strengths seems like one of the great gains from the hybrid development family of techniques (sponsored projects, dual licenses, open source your paid development, etc.)

[PACSferret]

"I wish it were otherwise, but I've yet to see an open-source company escape market requirements." Disagree. Software isn't worth a damn unless it meets market requirement- whether the market is about geeks looking for a text editor, entprise-level ECM or desktop infrastructure. We might like the market to change, but that's a different issue.

OSS product management is still very much an open question - not so much when a substantial core of the software is under 'management', but there are a number of OSS vendors now more in the mold of system integrators (e.g. Canonical), and a reliable path through is still being evolved. Untangle seem to do a good job from what I've heard but I don't use them myself (at present) so I can't vouch.

Canonical became for a while a bit of a leader of the product management perspective, but I think its happening too slowly for them. I use the Hardy Heron myself, and I get a feeling that there is still a tense boundary between the upstream consensus and the downstream requirements. many integrated OSS products still feel just a little like a chinese takeaway. (Disclaimer: I'm a client of many local chinese takeaways).

[The_Decider]

Canonicals insane release schedule has nothing to do with the fact that OSS more often than not hits release targets on time. It isn't even relevant to his comments.

Ubuntu is crap because it gets released every six months come hell or high water. It is always unfinished and behind of the release curve of major linux components.

[letterrepdotcom]

At the bigger picture, I'd like to think that Ubuntu watched the MS/Yahoo showdown and knowing it would weaken MS's position if the takeover failed, released Hardy (8.04) with bugs at just the time (May 08) to be there as an alternative...guess what? They scored!!!