People who use and promote free software cite various reasons for their
choice, but do those reasons tell the whole story? If, as a community,
we want free software to continue to grow in popularity, especially in
the mainstream, we should understand better the true reasons for
choosing it—especially our own.
This is a repost of an article originally posted at
http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2010/05/25/the-behavioral-economics-of-free-
software/
People who use and promote free software cite various reasons for their
choice, but do those reasons tell the whole story? If, as a community,
we want free software to continue to grow in popularity, especially in
the mainstream, we should understand better the true reasons for
choosing it—especially our own.
Some believe that it offers higher quality, that the
availability
of source code results in a better product with higher reliability. Although it's
difficult to do an apples-to-apples comparison of software, there are
certainly instances where free software components have been judged
superior to their proprietary counterparts. I'm not aware of any
comprehensive analysis of the general case, though, and there is plenty
of anecdotal evidence on both sides of the debate.
Others prefer it for humanitarian reasons, because it's better for
society or brings us closer to the world we want to live
in. These are more difficult to analyze objectively, as they are
closely linked to the individual, their circumstances and their belief
system.
For developers, a popular reason is the possibility of modifying
the
software to suit their needs, as enshrined in the Free Software
Foundation's freedom 1. This is reasonable enough, though the
practical value of this opportunity will vary greatly depending on the
software and circumstances.
The list goes on: cost savings, educational benefits, universal
availability, social rewards, etc.
The wealth of evidence of cognitive bias
indicates that we should not take these preferences at face
value. Not only are human choices seldom rational, they are rarely
well understood even by the human themselves. When asked to explain our
preferences, we often have a ready answer—indeed, we may never run out of
reasons—but they may not withstand analysis. We have many different
ways
of fooling
ourselves
with regard to our own past decisions and held beliefs, as well as those</
a> of others.
Behavioral
economics explores the way in which our irrational behavior affects
economies, and the results are curious and subtle. For example, the riddle of experience versus memory (TED video), or
the several examples in "The Marketplace of Perception" (Harvard
Magazine article). I think it would be illuminating to examine free
software through this lens, and consider that the vagaries of human
perception may have a very strong influence on our choices.
Some questions for thought:
- Does using free software make us happier? If so, why? If not,
why do we use it anyway?
- Do we believe in free software because we have a great experience
using it, or because we feel good about having used it?
(Daniel Kahneman explains the difference)
- Why do we want other people to use free software? Is it only
because we want them to share our preference, or because we will benefit
ourselves, or do we believe they will appreciate it for their own
reasons?
If you're aware of any studies along these lines, I would be
interested
to read about them.
version 0.92 May
2010 by Frank Quinn
A convenient starting point to understand the natural selection rules
of free software developers among mainstream commercial software
practitioners.
2.1.2 Reliability and Sociology
My second encounter with reliability per se was in, roughly speaking,
sociology and ethics. The issue was whether heuristic arguments or
"physical level of rigor" should qualify as finished products in
mathematics. Two centuries ago the answer would have been "yes", and a
century ago "maybe", but today the answer - for core mathematics - is
"no". As a human enterprise core mathematics has adapted to - and become
dependent on - a degree of reliability that these methods cannot provide...
2.2 Level 2: Methods for achieving reliability. Mathematics
provides
basic facts and methods of reasoning with the following property:
if a mathematical argument produce a false conclusion then an error
can be found in it.
This is shortened to 'mathematical methods are error-displaying'.
Reliability is obtained in practice by making error-displaying arguments
and checking them very carefully for errors, see Proofs.