How Can Open-Source Projects Avoid Fizzling Out?

Original

Within the open-source domain, a growing trend is raising concerns among practitioners: numerous once-high-profile open-source tools are seeing their update frequencies slow, with issues in their trackers remaining unanswered for extended periods, ultimately leading to a "promising start followed by a disappointing fade-out." This situation is not isolated; it has become a shared problem urgently requiring resolution within the open-source community. The sustainable development of open-source projects not only affects the practical application of technological achievements but also influences the maturity of the global open-source ecosystem. To address this challenge, a thorough analysis from three core dimensions—resource provision, project positioning, and ecosystem building—is essential for exploring viable long-term pathways.

From a resource perspective, open-source projects often face a "resource gap," where initial enthusiasm proves insufficient to sustain long-term effort. Most projects are initiated either by corporate technical leads or individual developers who rely on passion and limited resources, lacking a stable support system. Company-backed projects frequently depend on the initiator's internal influence for resource allocation. If the initiator leaves the organization or the company's strategy shifts, the project loses its lifeline and grinds to a halt. For individually initiated projects, the founder typically bears the entire initial burden, often working extended hours. As the user base expands, demands grow exponentially, making it impossible for one person to cope. More fundamentally, the "labor of love" model is unsustainable for many projects—developers need employment to support themselves and often lack the time and funds for uncompensated maintenance. Hard costs such as servers, domains, and testing resources further burden projects. For example, an entrepreneur developing an open-source office system initially self-funded the project. When the user base reached tens of thousands, monthly server costs became overwhelming. Attempts to introduce fees were criticized as "betraying the open-source spirit," ultimately forcing the project's sale, after which it received no further updates. In contrast, mature open-source projects either enjoy sustained backing from tech giants (e.g., TensorFlow by Google, VS Code by Microsoft) or have well-established donation and commercialization systems that enable developers to earn reasonable income, creating a virtuous cycle of "resource input, project maintenance, and value output." To overcome resource constraints, open-source projects must move beyond an "amateur mindset" and explore sustainable resource models. As industry experts observe, "Open-source commercialization must be viable to better support the community and establish a positive feedback loop."

Ambiguous project positioning is another key factor contributing to "initial hype followed by later silence." Many projects deviate from the core principle of "solving real problems" from the outset, falling into the trap of "chasing trends" or "open-sourcing for its own sake." During the blockchain boom, for instance, dozens of related open-source projects emerged within a short time. Many claimed to "revolutionize traditional technology," yet closer inspection often revealed only superficial changes to existing projects, lacking genuine innovation. Once the trend faded, these projects quickly lost appeal, becoming "zombie projects." Furthermore, some companies, seeking to enhance their technical image, hastily open-source immature internal projects with incomplete documentation, disorganized APIs, and even absent basic tutorials. Users struggle to deploy them, and compatibility issues raised in trackers may go unresolved for months. Such projects essentially function as organizational "PR tools" rather than genuine technical solutions, making long-term sustainability unlikely. In stark contrast, enduring open-source projects consistently begin by addressing specific problems. Take ZenTao, a project management tool, as an example. It initially focused on the pain point of chaotic enterprise project management, with features designed to align with team workflows. Through delivering solid user value, it built a stable user base. Conversely, projects that "set ambitious goals first and then search for problems" have unstable foundations, leaving them highly susceptible to abandonment when facing technical challenges or market changes.

A weak ecosystem and a lack of a collaborative, shared environment represent a deeper, systemic obstacle to project sustainability. Collaboration lies at the heart of open-source, yet many projects remain trapped in a "one-person workshop" model, overly dependent on core developers. If key contributors depart, progress can stall. Mature open-source projects typically benefit from global contributor communities—some specializing in development, others in testing or documentation. Even if core developers leave, the project can continue through its collaborative structure. In contrast, many projects have limited contributor bases, with most users content with "free usage" and lacking the impetus to contribute. Many developers admit that even when they encounter minor bugs while using open-source tools, they hesitate to submit pull requests (PRs). This "take more, give less" mentality forces projects to rely excessively on core teams, undermining their resilience. Additionally, inadequate community management and flawed succession mechanisms exacerbate ecosystem challenges. Many project communities are either unmoderated—overrun with spam and disorder—or dominated by a single core developer's "autocratic rule," where user suggestions are seldom adopted, gradually eroding trust. More critically, some core developers treat projects as "personal property," unwilling to mentor newcomers or prioritize knowledge preservation. Poor code comments, inadequate documentation, and opaque architectures deter even motivated developers from taking over.

In reality, the open-source field does not lack skilled technical talent or genuine user needs. What is often missing is a steadfast commitment to project development and a robust open-source ecosystem. To help open-source projects avoid fading out, a concerted effort from multiple stakeholders is essential: Project initiators must abandon short-term, opportunistic thinking, focus on solving real problems, and proactively plan for resource provision and commercialization. Users should embrace a "collaborate and share" ethos, actively contributing and evolving from "users" to "co-creators." At the industry level, there is a need to build a more mature open-source ecosystem by promoting effective donation mechanisms and commercialization models, strengthening community management guidance, and fostering a culture of open-source collaboration.

Open-source is not a "one-off transaction" but a marathon requiring long-term dedication. Projects that rely solely on hype and trend-chasing are destined to be ephemeral. Only by steadfastly focusing on user needs, establishing stable resource systems, and nurturing collaborative, shared ecosystems can open-source projects endure and thrive. This is the pathway toward a genuinely mature global open-source ecosystem, capable of producing more high-quality projects that stand the test of time.