It was once a forum secret: codes were given to the online world, meant to be shared; but few knew of them. There were worries of legalities. There were concerns of manufacturer reprisals. Copyrights were dangerously close to being offended and users offered their software with much trepidation. Open sources, it was feared, would not last.
But the need for them grew throughout years and, as the 1990s sprawled into view, the demand for Unix sensibilities became shared among individuals. All wanted to see these codes developed.
That proved to be difficult, however — because, though the process became familiar to all, it was still chaotic. Casual designers were defining these programs, not distributors. Sources relied upon the whims of users and their schedules. Developing software was not an easy task. It was instead forced to follow weak rules and weaker methodology. There were no specific tools, plans or phases. There was instead just the desire to create.
This has recently changed, though. As of 2011, manufacturers have began to form their own versions of open software; and this has led to a defining of its processes. Initiation (where new projects are started and filtered through a rigorous pattern of testing and programming) and execution (where former ideas are shaped, recognized for their faults and addressed as needed) are the most common of these procedures. The plans are carefully followed, meant to ensure that development is easy and without the worries that once plagued this idea.
Offering organization to the open source notion is essential. It was once a too frantic promise, with users providing their half-finished codes and moving on to other issues. Now, however, there are guidelines to consider — and this allows all to benefit: distributors, designers and recipients.
The development of open sources was not a quick affair but it has proven to be worthy. The times have provided order and the result has been success.