Rating System for Open Source Software

prostoalex writes "Carnegie Mellon University, Intel and SpikeSource are launching a rating system for open source software, New York Times says. OpenBRR 'is being proposed as a new standard model for rating open source software. It is intended to enable the entire community (enterprise adopters and developers) to rate software in an open and standardized way.'"

Good idea...

[msmercenary]

I can't count how many times I've googled for some OSS to do a specific task, and found what I wanted only after installing and uninstalling four programs that were buggy, slow, didn't have the features I wanted, or simply wouldn't build/install.

On the flip side, there has always been an inherent and objective rating system for the quality of non-free software -- At what price will enough people purchase it to make it worth producing?

Re:Most people are stupid, this will not work...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking the same thing.

Why should open source software be rated different than normal software? Its not like being open source automatically makes you better than the competition. I mean, how convincing would it be if a Linux distro openly proclaimed it was lackluster compared to Windows, but the fact that it is open source makes it better than it?

I'm sorry, but I use software to get things done, not gloat about how I'm using an open source program.

A vignette for illustration...

[kimanaw]

SCENE: The year is 2007. Staff architect Erst Wile Programmer enters the office of low level IT manager P.H.B. Risq'averse.

EW: Boss, I think I've found a great little open source perl script to solve our database reporting issue...

PHB (turns to PC and begins typing): That was "p-e-a-r-l", right ? Sorry, SpikeSource(TM) doesn't report a BRR for it...

EW confused look: Er, no, "p-e-r-l"...

PHB looks anxious, types some more: OK...Perl is OK, but whats the module ?

EW: "Super::Califragilistic"

PHB typing furiously: OK, its listed, but the BRR is only 11.23065. Sorry, our required min BRR is 27.83409.

EW: Wha...?

PHB: BRR. You know, number of downloads, numer of reported errors, number of reporting users, that sort of thing.

EW: But its only been out about 5 months, and its only really relevant to this particular problem we've got...

PHB: Look, E-dub, we have to follow practices and procedures. If we don't, CEO's go to jail, and the insurance company drops us like a bad case of clap. And one requirement is, "Open source software must be a minimum BRR of 27.83409".

EW: But what about...

PHB looks concerned and sympathetic: Look, E-dub, I'd love to help ya, but frankly, I'm not even certain you're allowed to download this software; I'd hate to have to report you to Network admin, so why don't we just pretend this conversation never happened ?

Thats the road BRR leads us down.

I'd love to believe that the BRR was(a) a useful metric that would (b) be used intelligently, but 2.5 decades of experience leads me to believe otherwise.

Furthermore, we've given them the damn source! How about doing something actually useful, like running an automated metric on it (e.g., McCabe testing), or maybe just looking at it ? Apparently, BigBiz isn't satisfied with finding money in the street anymore, they expect someone to pick it up for them, too.