Why is Open Source/Community Developed Better?
I have recently have debated (three times now) with a person I know over why open source and community developed software is better than software that you buy or that comes pre-installed on a computer. Our debates included Linux versus Windows versus Macintosh, Gimp versus Photoshop, and Internet Explorer versus Firefox versus Opera versus Safari. Wow, that's a lot of web browsers.
Anyway, just in case anyone was wondering, we are still arguing over which software is better, and I don't think we will ever stop, even if it is clear open source software has several advantages. What kind of advantages? Many: portability, enhancement, minimization, security, and dedication.
To begin, since the source code of open source programs is out in the open (hence the name), if one person wants to use the program on a platform that it is not available on, they might port the program to that new platform, and eventually a whole group of dedicated people will to manage the port will arise. This is all possible because certain sections of the code (which is available to everyone) are compatible across platforms, and the few sections that aren't might easily be changed.
Since anyone and everyone (with an interest) will view the source code, the internal workings of an open source program will inspire developers to enhance the current program, or create a new program completely based on the internal workings of a current program. Basically, open source programs produce other programs.
Since everyone who wants to is helping develop these programs, you can be guaranteed that the software you are getting successfully does what it has to in the least amount of code. The more people that work on a program, the more likely it is that there is going to be less useless code.
Yes, it's true that being able to view the source code of a program may allow hackers to develop bugs more easily for code, but this openness will also allow security programmers to more easily develop patches for the software and find the errors before they are exploited. What should minimize security actually increases it. The population of dedicated developers working on an open source program will also provide benefits when a bug is found: patches for this type of software will become available more quickly than patches for commercial software would.
Also, because the community is managing all this open source software, we will not have reluctant programmers creating this software. The people who are developing Linux, Firefox, and every other piece of free software are dedicated programmers who are doing this for their own personal satisfaction and the enhancement of computing all over the world. A person getting paid will not put their heart into the program. Sure, money helps in some aspects, but money can't buy love. (Wow, Beatles' references sound cheesy!)
So that's why open source and community developed software is better. I still don't see how my friend can argue with me. But I don't even care anymore. He can continue using Windows Vista, Internet Explorer, and Photoshop. Even if he has to pay a buttload of money for it all. Most people just pirate it all anyway.
Matthew Mikolay (matt.mik<AT SYMBOL>hotmail.com) is a software developer and student in New Jersey. He has interests in open source software, Linux, and security.
Would you like to be a Community Voices blogger? If so, please send a letter of interest and a sample blog entry (what you would post here if you were already a blogger for us) to forums@pcworld.com. We'd love to hear your perspective.
PC World's Marketplace
PC World's Free Whitepapers
PC World's Marketplace
PC World's Free Whitepapers
tech news tech blogs community & forums laptop prices software reviews downloads
What ridiculous nonsense. Bad enough to see a horse designed by a committee, worse yet to see a horse designed by a committee who don't know each other and have no boss. Every example of programs mentioned is incorrect, with the possible exception of Firefox vs IE.
"who are doing this for their own personal satisfaction and the enhancement of computing all over the world"
What a load of crap that ignores reality. Wasn't the latest report that 70% of contributions to Linux were from PAID employees of commercial companies? And admit it, if it wasn't for the money from Google, Firefox wouldn't anywhere near the position it's in right now. So leave the feel-good crap out of any discussion of the merits of any particular piece of software. Your article gave no information about why any open-source program is technically better than proprietary software, nor do you address the lack of one-stop support for non-business users of open-source.
Wow, clueless.
Even Microsoft will take your money and support linux as long as its Suse. And Redhat will do the same as will Ubuntu.
Just wondering how many times a microsoft employee has run out to do a service call for either of you two.
Did you install windows on your systems yourself of did it come preinstalled. Dell sells linux systems preinstalled and they support them too.
You don't have to use Linux, but ask yourself this. Why would companies like Ebay, Amazon and Google use something that "in your eyes" is inferior to other OS's.
Just so you know, if you don't want Vista, you can plan on waiting another 2+ years for windows 7. Linux users however will have 4 new versions minimum during that time frame. Speed of innovation is another place where Linux leaves MS in the dust.
And here is your reason. Windows 98 never stayed up more than 45 days before crashing cause of a bug in a driver, but MS didnt care enough to fix it even though it was known. Gee, to bad you can't.
"Wasn't the latest report that 70% of contributions to Linux were from PAID employees of commercial companies?"
What that report didn't specify was if these contributions were significant to Linux, or if they were they just enhancements that were made to satisfy commercial companies' needs. Linux is flexible, and half the time an "enhancement" is an overstatement.
Also, consider how many employees companies like Google and IBM appoint to enhance Linux. 3,000 Google employees can easily triumph over the 416 Ubuntu Launchpad members. And which one will be influenced by the community's needs? Certainly not Google.
Two responses based solely on emotion, not fact. Still not a word about the technical benefits of open-source versus proprietary.
Oh, and by the way - SUSE, Redhat, and Ubuntu distros are put together by PAID employees. The Debian fiasco is a perfect example of why open-source software will never succeed without commercial support - the politics and emotions get in the way. (I could also point out that even Linus is paid, but I don't want to demolish your beliefs all at once. He's a paper millionaire - did you know that?)
Most of the "premier" open-source apps are merely copies of Windows apps, OpenOffice being the best (or worst, depending on your point of view) example. Even online apps do the same. Where is the innovation? The only innovation I've seen in office suites is iWork from Apple.
And yes, I have installed Windows 3.0, 3.1, 85, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, Home Server, OSX, SUSE and Ubuntu. And guess which two took the longest time and the most interaction?
Okay, so SUSE and Redhat are put together by paid employees. You're forgetting how many volunteers helped in the process. And yes, Ubuntu is managed by Canonical, but it is a PRIVATE company. This cannot compare to the likes of Microsoft and Apple.
Many of these companies are just sources of money. How else is Ubuntu supposed to get money to give away free CDs, stickers, and everything else? How are they supposed to run their servers?
Oh, and when interviewed, Mark Shuttleworth (go look him up) said that Canonical was NOWHERE near breaking even. So basically he's donating time and money to open source software.
And you're right that many premier open-source programs are copies of other commercial programs, but this is because coders do not feel like paying $700 for a program that they could make themselves, so they do just that and get feedback from the community. If you want to pay $700 for a spruced-up version of MS Paint, you can, but personally, I don't.
No matter whatever you people say
East and West
Opensource is the best