Open Source vs Proprietary Software

[michaeljb2005]

I like the ideaology of open source software because it is constantly being updated with bugfixes, new versions and so on (seems like it's faster than proprietary if you ask me), however, it seems that much of the heavily used open source software is a sort of "generic brand" if you will, of the proprietary software already released. That may or may not be the case with some(maybe even most) open source software, but the more prevalent ones (Evolution and Thunderbird vs Outlook) (Openoffice vs Microsoft Office) (GnuCash vs Quicken) seem to be there to clone, or replace already existing proprietary software. Some of it may actually even be better than it's original, intended competition (Firefox vs IE) but I think much of this is due to the lack of marketing people in the open source software development world. Some of the people who develop this software aren't actually power users of the software itself.

What does that say to me? It says that the origination of ideas in the open software world may be more difficult to come by than in the proprietary world where people are paid to think up new things vs people who are just doing it for fun. When organizations of (paid and unpaid) people get together to think and create new ideas and contribute to the open source world that's when things seem to really move along. Otherwise it seems that open sourcing a product seems to help more on the security and bug fixing side rather than new creation/development side other than individual efforts to improve a program for the individual's sake and not others. Individuals throw out ideas but generally, inevitably don't have the skill or time to put their time where their mouth is.

That doesn't make open source worse. The argument could be made that there is more original thought in open source due to the diversity of ideas that go into it. However, given that open source software is just starting to hit the point where a system like ubuntu could provide a full spectrum of apps to reduce the need of windows to zero it says to me that the problem may not be a lack of lack of creativity but a lack of incentive (and manpower) to move the (original) software out faster. Just some thoughts.

[skirkpatrick]

I don't think it's just the incentive, I think it's also the publicity. Take a look at SourceForge and see just how many open source projects there are. Then look into some of them and see just how many have been abandoned. It's not a lack of creativity but a lack of resources. When some company decides to start selling a piece of software, there's big bucks behind it to push people to buy it. When the number of user's hits a certain point, then the open source variation of it will also start gaining momentum. When it does, you have all kinds of people wanting to help out on the development instead of just one poor soul who had a good idea for something he wanted.

[G Morgan]

Communication is the key really. There is so much work repeated unnecessarily and a lot of similar projects that never get off the ground because they attempted 10 instead of 1.

[aysiu]

I realize a lot of open source software is volunteer stuff, but don't some developers get paid, too?

[michaeljb2005]

I realize a lot of open source software is volunteer stuff, but don't some developers get paid, too?

In some projects yes. And you have to notice that almost all projects out there that are significant are/were developed and maintained at a majority that the originator; xgl, evolution, thunderbird, firefox, gaim. So it's a good bet that many of the developers on open source projects (like mozilla) are paid and then some of bug fixing decentralized to those who don't mind making contributions in their spare time.

[bruce89]

I realize a lot of open source software is volunteer stuff, but don't some developers get paid, too?
The Ubuntu ones do anyway.

[michaeljb2005]

This inevitably points towards the primary weakness of the open source model which also suffers from the primary weakness of socialism. A lack of incentive to be innovative tends to stem a lack of innovation. Those who are innovative are enthusiasts with extra time on their hands. Inevitably I see one method of getting past this is to do what mozilla does and create capital from indirect sources such as advertising (mozilla gets money from google). If open source companies can use and grow with this model then perhaps open source will become a dominant industry. Otherwise projects will continue dying before they begin and innovation will be stifled. The goodness and desire to be creative in people's hearts doesn't last long enough to bring a project to the point that the major projects are at now. It requires organization, cooperation, communication, and MONEY.

[BoyOfDestiny]

This inevitably points towards the primary weakness of the open source model which also suffers from the primary weakness of socialism. A lack of incentive to be innovative tends to stem a lack of innovation. Those who are innovative are enthusiasts with extra time on their hands. Inevitably I see one method of getting past this is to do what mozilla does and create capital from indirect sources such as advertising (mozilla gets money from google). If open source companies can use and grow with this model then perhaps open source will become a dominant industry. Otherwise projects will continue dying before they begin and innovation will be stifled. The goodness and desire to be creative in people's hearts doesn't last long enough to bring a project to the point that the major projects are at now. It requires organization, cooperation, communication, and MONEY.

Humbug to the flaw. That's what bounties are for. Same as in the mathematics world.

In the mean time you have donations, sponsors, paid work, etc...

As an example, one of my favorite apps moved here:

https://www.bountysource.com/

ZSNES to be specific, I imagine more sites like these will pop up. Not to mention canonical has been using bounties as well...

[michaeljb2005]

Humbug to the flaw. That's what bounties are for. Same as in the mathematics world.

In the mean time you have donations, sponors, paid work, etc...

As an example, one of my favorite apps moved here:

https://www.bountysource.com/

ZSNES to be specific, I imagine more sites like these will pop up. Not to mention canonical has been using bounties as well...

I am aware of bounties. Novell uses them as well. I'm not saying that the only way to go is corporate, more I'm saying that the only way to go isn't just open source. The real point I'm trying to get a across here though is that I don't see how open source can be as innovative and expedient as proprietary software. Empirically there isn't much evidence to support it. Theoretically a lot of people out there think it can with a large community. There's more evidence to show that when something is developed as proprietary software that it is followed up by a clone of sorts in the open source world. That software is taken and made better no doubt, and it is debugged like crazy, but can open source software be the original ground breaking software as opposed to proprietary. In many instances open source is playing catch up with proprietary much less being innovative. Compare it to the drug companies in the United States and the Canadian drug companies using generic and much cheaper versions. But would Canadian drug companies be the originator? If they were would they still charge less? Novell is doing some ground breaking things to try to become innovative but they're also charging for the software that takes advantage of what those studies digest. They don't include the usability they take from those studies into their opensuse distribution.

[egon spengler]

That may or may not be the case with some(maybe even most) open source software, but the more prevalent ones (Evolution and Thunderbird vs Outlook) (Openoffice vs Microsoft Office) (GnuCash vs Quicken) seem to be there to clone, or replace already existing proprietary software.

It's always interesting when someone with such blatantly meagre understanding of an issue spouts off. As someone with a very rudimentaty knowledge of the subject even I know that Outlook and Office (or at least most of the Office components) were not the first examples of their respective genres of software . Perhaps you should put the rest of your analysis of the shortcomings of OSS (or proprietary for that matter) on hold

A lack of incentive to be innovative tends to stem a lack of innovation. Those who are innovative are enthusiasts with extra time on their hands. Inevitably I see one method of getting past this is to do what mozilla does and create capital from indirect sources such as advertising (mozilla gets money from google). If open source companies can use and grow with this model then perhaps open source will become a dominant industry.

Wow, so you mean there's other ways to generate income other than sales of software or licenses? It's a good thing you're here to bring all of this to light.

Btw, the sucess of perl, php, apache, bugzilla, ethereal, mysql and others somewhat undermine your notion that simply by virtue of being open source a project is doomed to failure

[BoyOfDestiny]

I am aware of bounties. Novell uses them as well. I'm not saying that the only way to go is corporate, more I'm saying that the only way to go isn't just open source. The real point I'm trying to get a across here though is that I don't see how open source can be as innovative and expedient as proprietary software. Empirically there isn't much evidence to support it. Theoretically a lot of people out there think it can with a large community. There's more evidence to show that when something is developed as proprietary software that it is followed up by a clone of sorts in the open source world. That software is taken and made better no doubt, and it is debugged like crazy, but can open source software be the original ground breaking software as opposed to proprietary. In many instances open source is playing catch up with proprietary much less being innovative. Compare it to the drug companies in the United States and the Canadian drug companies using generic and much cheaper versions. But would Canadian drug companies be the originator? If they were would they still charge less? Novell is doing some ground breaking things to try to become innovative but they're also charging for the software that takes advantage of what those studies digest. They don't include the usability they take from those studies into their opensuse distribution.

Well, for some things it plays catch up. For others, it's the originator.

Considering history shows many things are built upon the shoulders of giants. Look at science, medicine, architecture etc. Does it honestly matter who made it first, or who made it the best later?

Ask yourself how many American manufactures for Television sets remain (I believe Zenith is the only one.)

If you want to say across the board, proprietary software is always released more quickly than an open project, this is simply false. Is open source software always produced faster, nope.

Is it more reliable, in the case of open source the answer is likely yes. There are again exceptions.

I can't answer about the drug companies, it seems like a lot of if's. I'd like to avoid circular reasoning. All I can tell you is the high prices are a result of greed, since it can be produced and sold for much less, and still bring in a profit.

Also, open source can be proprietary as well. I personally prefer the GPL Free Software model.
www.gnu.org

When something is closed source and goes under, unless they release their code, that's it. There may be a reverse engineering effort, etc. This becomes more problematic with architecture changes, often requiring emulators. In the case of free of software and certain open source licenses, this is less of an issue. It is easier to port, reverse engineer if it's white box, etc etc... Somethings are closed and then become open, and it can "survive".

For example in the ubuntu repos, there is sopwith. A game enjoyed back in the early 1980's, and believe it or not there is a 64-bit SDL port...

I guess my point is, free and/or open source software has too many perks for me to ignore. For general purpose PC's I'd be more than happy to do without proprietary solutions. Cloned or not.

P.S. Please break your responses up a little. One block of text is very annoying to read.

[michaeljb2005]

It's always interesting when someone with such blatantly meagre understanding of an issue spouts off. As someone with a very rudimentaty knowledge of the subject even I know that Outlook and Office (or at least most of the Office components) were not the first examples of their respective genres of software . Perhaps you should put the rest of your analysis of the shortcomings of OSS (or proprietary for that matter) on hold



Wow, so you mean there's other ways to generate income other than sales of software or licenses? It's a good thing you're here to bring all of this to light.

Btw, the sucess of perl, php, apache, bugzilla, ethereal, mysql and others somewhat undermine your notion that simply by virtue of being open source a project is doomed to failure

I post these things so that people with less than a meagre understanding will set me right. I want you to tell me I'm wrong and why. This is to stimulate discussion, not make you feel bad about the products open source spouts out. There is no need for it to get personal.

[Belathor]

Outlook and Office (or at least most of the Office components) were not the first examples of their respective genres of software .

This is a good point. Both open source and proprietary softwares largest projects revolve around the same basic needs.

That may or may not be the case with some(maybe even most) open source software, but the more prevalent ones (Evolution and Thunderbird vs Outlook) (Openoffice vs Microsoft Office) (GnuCash vs Quicken) seem to be there to clone, or replace already existing proprietary software.

I see this as just being a product of being due to trying to attract users from the proprietary world. You'll notice that Egon gives some good counterexamples.

However, it is obvious that the proprietary world offers a lot more varied software but of course that is where all the users are.

Humbug to the flaw. That's what bounties are for. Same as in the mathematics world.

Bounties as I have seen them on most sites are fatally flawed. No one (to my knowledge) can add to the bounty without making a totally new bounty.

A lack of incentive to be innovative tends to stem a lack of innovation. Those who are innovative are enthusiasts with extra time on their hands. Inevitably I see one method of getting past this is to do what mozilla does and create capital from indirect sources such as advertising (mozilla gets money from google). If open source companies can use and grow with this model then perhaps open source will become a dominant industry.

Open source people are very innovative, but yes, Money and time seem to get in the way of realizing our capacity for innovation.

OFF TOPIC:

By the way, how do you get the quotes to show their original authors?

Thanks!

[BoyOfDestiny]

Bounties as I have seen them on most sites are fatally flawed. No one (to my knowledge) can add to the bounty without making a totally new bounty.

Well, that is an issue with bounty sites, not the concept of the bounty. Did you look at the site I linked to?

https://www.bountysource.com/

"That user, as well as any other user of the Bounty Source system, could then proceed to place a monetary bounty on that task.
All bounty amounts are publicly viewable and the total adds up with every posted bounty."

Honestly... If some sites don't do bounties properly, they will change it or won't be used. Simple as that.

Also, can you give an example of "most sites". Sources are good. Maybe it's time to register a complaint with them, get things moving?

[michaeljb2005]

Well, for some things it plays catch up. For others, it's the originator.

Considering history shows many things are built upon the shoulders of giants. Look at science, medicine, architecture etc. Does it honestly matter who made it first, or who made it the best later?

I agree that all software that is made now and at this point built on previous failures/successes. It matters who built it first because it is arguable if it would've been built at all in the case of open vs proprietary software.

I can't answer about the drug companies, it seems like a lot of if's. I'd like to avoid circular reasoning. All I can tell you is the high prices are a result of greed, since it can be produced and sold for much less, and still bring in a profit.

High prices are a result of the willingness to pay. If there wasn't a willingness to pay then the prices wouldn't be that high. You are right that the drug companies do charge a lot, however, they made the medicine available where no one else would and spent millions of dollars to get it approved. By charging they are simply getting their investment back. It was a risky venture but they did it anyway. For taking such a risky venture on they should be rewarded. With a risky venture the prospect of high return may be the only motivator to take on the venture. I didn't mean to bring that into this. In the case of monopolies (Microsoft) it differs. Microsoft was, can and should continue to be punished for their anti-competitive practices.

Also, open source can be proprietary as well. I personally prefer the GPL Free Software model.
www.gnu.org

You would be correct in saying I didn't touch on the topic of different open source models enough.

I guess my point is, free and/or open source software has too many perks for me to ignore. For general purpose PC's I'd be more than happy to do without proprietary solutions. Cloned or not.

I only use free software as well.



P.S. Please break your responses up a little. One block of text is very annoying to read.

Sorry about that.

[Belathor]

Well, that is an issue with bounty sites, not the concept of the bounty. Did you look at the site I linked to?

https://www.bountysource.com/

"That user, as well as any other user of the Bounty Source system, could then proceed to place a monetary bounty on that task.
All bounty amounts are publicly viewable and the total adds up with every posted bounty."

Honestly... If some sites don't do bounties properly, they will change it or won't be used. Simple as that.

Also, can you give an example of "most sites". Sources are good. Maybe it's time to register a complaint with them, get things moving?

Bountysource.com looks great! I was looking for a site like that. No luck until now. Thanks!!!

An excellent example would be Launchpad. I Can't think of the others I was looking at at present.

[BoyOfDestiny]

I agree that all software that is made now and at this point built on previous failures/successes. It matters who built it first because it is arguable if it would've been built at all in the case of open vs proprietary software.



High prices are a result of the willingness to pay. If there wasn't a willingness to pay then the prices wouldn't be that high. You are right that the drug companies do charge a lot, however, they made the medicine available where no one else would and spent millions of dollars to get it approved. By charging they are simply getting their investment back. It was a risky venture but they did it anyway. For taking such a risky venture on they should be rewarded. With a risky venture the prospect of high return may be the only motivator to take on the venture. I didn't mean to bring that into this. In the case of monopolies (Microsoft) it differs. Microsoft was, can and should continue to be punished for their anti-competitive practices.



You would be correct in saying I didn't touch on the topic of different open source models enough.



I only use free software as well.





Sorry about that.

Hmm, it is really tough to come up with answer if it would have been built at all.

With open source, software is often written to scratch an itch. People don't settle on one thing... So there would be competition regardless.

See: KDE vs GNOME, OpenOffice vs plenty of other office suites, music players, video players...

Yet, some have corporate influence, others may be based on some other proprietary solution...

All I can be sure of is there is competition and cooperation... It just takes someone with a vision, idea, goal, etc to make something new. So without a crystal ball, or a time machine, I guess we can't really know what "would have" or "would be"...

As for those drug companies, I still have some doubts about their motives.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0523-07.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4366514.stm
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/251067/third_world_drug_trials_the_big_lie__the_pharmaceu tical/index.html?source=r_health

(this one is a little graphic)
http://www.dermatologytimes.com/dermatologytimes/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=157704

This is a different topic for sure, but I can definitely see the possiblity of conflict of interest here...

[BoyOfDestiny]

Bountysource.com looks great! I was looking for a site like that. No luck until now. Thanks!!!

An excellent example would be Launchpad. I Can't think of the others I was looking at at present.

Awesome, I wonder if anyone has posted a bug report on launchpad about this...

EDIT: Yes there was! :)

https://launchpad.net/products/launchpad/+bug/2178

Add your comments there.

[michaeljb2005]

By the way, how do you get the quotes to show their original authors?

Thanks!

Before you type what they typed, type in parenthesis "[QUOTE=person that typed it]" then what they typed.

[ZylGadis]

Also, open source can be proprietary as well.

Bunk. This is analogous to stating "Also, white can be black as well." Perhaps you meant that open-source software can be commercial.

[BoyOfDestiny]

Bunk. This is analogous to stating "Also, white can be black as well." Perhaps you meant that open-source software can be commercial.

Well I mean something like this:

Even if the sourcecode is visible, it is still forbidden to change it and then pass it along. All changes have to be sent to Sun and only Sun decides whether these changes will be implemented; in the end all rights remain with Sun. What Sun managed to create this way is a kind of "proprietary Open Source license." The most important reason for the use and success of Free Software, the freedom, has not been given to the user. This is why we dislike the SCSL just like any other proprietary license.

http://www.gnu.org/brave-gnu-world/issue-11.en.html

Just because it's open source doesn't guarantee you can use it. This is analogous to a regular copyrighted work, like a book.

That too is open source, you can't just change a few words and re-publish it.

Although with things like creative commons, various licenses give permission for certain behavior...

That's the point I was trying to get across.

P.S. Yes, open source and or free software can be commercial. No problem with that. :P

[egon spengler]

I post these things so that people with less than a meagre understanding will set me right. I want you to tell me I'm wrong and why. This is to stimulate discussion, not make you feel bad about the products open source spouts out. There is no need for it to get personal.

Well it doesn't make me feel bad about OSS because I played absolutely no role in the creation of any OSS and have no moral, spritual or any other form of investment in OSS. I use what works, before I started using Linux where so many people make such a fuss over it I didn't even realise that so much of the Windows software I used every day was OSS e.g. bblean, litesep, thunderbird, php. The license a piece of software is released under is thoroughly unimportant to me.

What I am tired of seeing though is people who come here and make broad sweeping statements about "The trouble with OSS development is..." when they know even less that I do about the subject. And I consider my knowledge of it to be less than patchy.

Maybe if you really did want to just stimulate discussion then perhaps putting your thoughts forward as just your thoughts instead of as definitive truths the rest of us are foolish to ignore might be the way forward


Oh and btw medicine prices are not so high because of a willilngness to pay in the way that the price of Louis vuitton bags and Ice Cream t-shirts are high because of a willingness to pay. The prices are high because people really have no choice but to pay. If you don't want to pay £95 for that Ice Cream t-shirt you simply don't pay it, if on the other hand you don't want to pay £xxxx for that cancer treatment you better pay it anyway

[Jussi Kukkonen]

Well I mean something like this:

Even if the sourcecode is visible, it is still forbidden to change it and then pass it along. All changes have to be sent to Sun and only Sun decides whether these changes will be implemented; in the end all rights remain with Sun. What Sun managed to create this way is a kind of "proprietary Open Source license." The most important reason for the use and success of Free Software, the freedom, has not been given to the user. This is why we dislike the SCSL just like any other proprietary license.

http://www.gnu.org/brave-gnu-world/issue-11.en.html

Just because it's open source doesn't guarantee you can use it. This is analogous to a regular copyrighted work, like a book.

That is absolutely not correct. Using SCSL to prove your point doesn't work, since SCSL is not approved by the FSF or OSI, thus it's not a free software license or open source software license.

[egon spengler]

If you release the cource code then surely it is open source, end of story. Why do you need apporval from some self appointed body to officially make it open source?

[Jussi Kukkonen]

egon spengler, I didn't mean that these organizations are something that we should blindly follow. However, there is a quite solid agreement that their lists pretty much define what "free" and "open source" mean nowadays -- if you want to use another definition (like you obviously do), you should probably make up your own term for it (like e.g. Microsoft has done with their "shared source")...

You might want to look up what Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens have written about this (they pretty much coined the term and founded OSI).

[BoyOfDestiny]

That is absolutely not correct. Using SCSL to prove your point doesn't work, since SCSL is not approved by the FSF or OSI, thus it's not a free software license or open source software license.

What do you want exactly. So it's not approved. That isn't going to stop a company from calling it "open source" and trying to trick people. That's the whole point in it being proprietary. Some company made it up, and attempts to pass it off as open source.

If it's not the case, then what does one call an unapproved open source license? Is it not open source at all? What do you refer to it during the approval process?

Stop trolling!

[Jussi Kukkonen]

What do you want exactly. So it's not approved. That isn't going to stop a company from calling it "open source" and trying to trick people. That's the whole point in it being proprietary. Some company made it up, and attempts to pass it off as open source.

Come on: I can call SCSL a tomato -- That doesn't make the license a vegetable.

Our language is based on agreements and definitions. These can be either written, spoken or un-spoken, but they do exist if enough people agree to them. My impression so far has been that pretty much the whole software community agrees on the definitions of free software and open source -- not absolutely of course, but strictly enough so that we can say "SCSL is definitely not open source".

Sun legal may try all the tricks they have, but if the term "open source" really already defines something, as I believe it does, the tricks won't work. Considering you used the words attempts to pass it off as open source you seem to believe so also.

Stop trolling!
Excuse me... Wasn't that a little unwarranted?

[BoyOfDestiny]

Come on: I can call SCSL a tomato -- That doesn't make the license a vegetable.

Our language is based on agreements and definitions. These can be either written, spoken or un-spoken, but they do exist if enough people agree to them. My impression so far has been that pretty much the whole software community agrees on the definitions of free software and open source -- not absolutely of course, but strictly enough so that we can say "SCSL is definitely not open source".

Sun legal may try all the tricks they have, but if the term "open source" really already defines something, as I believe it does, the tricks won't work. Considering you used the words attempts to pass it off as open source you seem to believe so also.


Excuse me... Wasn't that a little unwarranted?

Tomatoes are fruits...

People can misuse terms. Open source is not some sort of trademark. I can call a book open source or a recipe. It would still be valid.

If someone claims their license is an OSI approved license, then we don't have to worry much. Whether or not it is the accepted definition is up for debate unless it is explicity stated.

Sorry if I offended you with the trolling comment, it seems like you are just focusing on semantics. Just because someone uses the term open source, does it make it a free license. I can't explain it any further than that.

EDIT: Just to take it a step further:

"The Open Source Definition spells out the essential qualities of open source software. Unfortunately, the term "open source" itself is subject to misuse, and because it's descriptive, it can't be protected as a trademark (which would have been our first choice). Since the community needs a reliable way of knowing whether a piece of software really is open source, OSI is registering a certification mark, OSI Certified,"

http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php

This essentially echoes what I've said here, go visit their page to learn more:

http://www.opensource.org/index.php

I hope everything is clear now.

[Jussi Kukkonen]

Tomatoes are fruits...

touché...
Sorry if I offended you with the trolling comment, it seems like you are just focusing on semantics. Just because someone uses the term open source, does it make it a free license.

No problem. I was focusing on semantics -- I believe it is very important to do that, otherwise "Sun legal" and their like win... I originally objected to this:
Just because it's open source doesn't guarantee you can use it
Now it seems from you last comment that you meant something like "Just because someone says it's open source doesn't guarantee you can use it" -- that I can agree with. The first statement implied that you (and we) accept their twisted view of the world... The situation here isn't very different to a trademark: you need to defend your definition, otherwise you lose it.


Now, it's time to hit the sack. Good night and peace everyone, regardless of your license of choice (even you heathens behind the stacks of EULAs).

[angkor]

Tomatoes are fruits...

Well, there's some debate about that...;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#Fruit_or_vegetable.3F

As for the question about open source vs proprietary, I really don't think MONEY gives people the strongest incentive to create something. My belief is that most major innovations (wether in thought or product) are usually thought up by a single (or a small group of) individual(s).

If the corporate world is interested they invest money ...after the original idea. Einstein for example wasn't highly paid to come with that crazy theory of his you know.

I also fail to see how proprietary models should naturally give more incentive. I must say I haven't seen much innovation from Microsoft (very keen on propietary ;)) in the last 20 years. Most of the stuff they sell already existed before they started or they bought new innovative technology.

[BoyOfDestiny]

Well, there's some debate about that...;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#Fruit_or_vegetable.3F

As for the question about open source vs proprietary, I really don't think MONEY gives people the strongest incentive to create something. My belief is that most major innovations (wether in thought or product) are usually thought up by a single (or a small group of) individual(s).

If the corporate world is interested they invest money ...after the original idea. Einstein for example wasn't highly paid to come with that crazy theory of his you know.

I also fail to see how proprietary models should naturally give more incentive. I must say I haven't seen much innovation from Microsoft (very keen on propietary ;)) in the last 20 years. Most of the stuff they sell already existed before they started or they bought new innovative technology.

Well, I go with the botanical definition. :)

As for your other comments. I agree. :)

[spiritraveller]

it seems that much of the heavily used open source software is a sort of "generic brand" if you will, of the proprietary software already released. That may or may not be the case with some(maybe even most) open source software, but the more prevalent ones (Evolution and Thunderbird vs Outlook) (Openoffice vs Microsoft Office) (GnuCash vs Quicken) seem to be there to clone, or replace already existing proprietary software. Some of it may actually even be better than it's original, intended competition (Firefox vs IE)

Evolution - Clearly an Outlook clone.

Thunderbird - Descendant of Netscape Messenger (originally a proprietary program), which handles email and news. First version came out in 1997. Same year as the first version of Outlook. Doesn't really look like Outlook. Does mail and newsgroups, but no calendar. Outlook does calendar and mail, but no newsgroups.

Firefox - Descendant of Netscape Navigator... and we ALL know that that came out before Internet Explorer don't we? Not only has it been around longer than IE, it has made too many innovations to count... where IE has given us little more than a clone of the original Netscape.

OpenOffice - Descendant of StarOffice, which was first released in 1986. First version of MS Office came out in 1992.

Gnucash - If you've ever used it, it is very different from Quicken. The most obvious difference being that it uses double-entry accounting methods. Doesn't even look similar to Quicken. It is also the only project which is completely unpaid volunteers, non-proprietary, and has always been open-sourced.


The only example that fits the hypothesis is Evolution. The original developers of Evolution (Ximian) had as their business model, consulting and selling proprietary solutions to connect Linux computers with Microsoft Exchange Servers. So it's no surprise that it would be similar to Outlook as the stated goal was interoperability with another, related MS product.

Open Source is generally going to be more innovative for the simple reason that it ALLOWS people to innovate and build on the work of others.

No one but Microsoft can improve on Microsoft Office, despite the fact that none of Office's programs are really an innovation themselves. Word processing, spreadsheets, email... all of these were invented by other people a long long time before MS got involved. But because the code is proprietary, you can't improve MS Office. Even if you wanted to pay someone else to do it for you, it would not be possible, because the code is proprietary.

Real innovation--as opposed to the mere appearance of innovating that is created by well-executed marketing plans--happens when someone has an itch to scratch... and scratches it.

[vayu]

This inevitably points towards the primary weakness of the open source model which also suffers from the primary weakness of socialism. A lack of incentive to be innovative tends to stem a lack of innovation. Those who are innovative are enthusiasts with extra time on their hands.

To me I see it entirely reversed. The flaw stems from proprietary software and since you bring it up, capitalism.

Capitalist advocates as well as those who are just mired in it and don't know or believe any other system could exist and/or be successful seem to often point to the incentive argument. The argument goes something like: everyone would sit around and do nothing if there weren't monetary incentive and/or authoritarian consequences. There would be chaos and thievery everywhere. Nothing would work.

In my mind there are plenty of examples to the contrary. What was the motivation for our ancestors who existed entirely off the grid? Those who were separated enough from commerce that they had to grow all their own food, make all their implements, housing, etc.. The motivation was life itself. And that is the same motivation for all the rest of the species apart from humans that exist without capitalism.

Every non-job oriented pursuit I've ever involved myself with has always had players with incomprehensible levels of skill and achievement. For me things like windsufing, drumming, throwing pottery, cycling and child rearing, have seen me spend enormous amounts of time and energy. In each of those activities and almost infinite others I see people displaying levels of excellence and motivation to achieve it for "non-monetary" reasons.

If there is an emergency or natural disaster there will be non-monetary motivated cooperation by people for people.

The flaw exists with separatism. Those that don't understand the unity of all beings and all things. Both capitalism and proprietary software are separatist, closed, not open. They are grabbing for themselves rather than giving to the whole.

In our current world scheme 85% of the worlds wealth is held by 1% of the people, 95% of the worlds wealth is held by only 5% of the people. That 5% relies on the motivation of life from the other 95%. The 5% are led to believe they are motivated by money, but they are motivated by survival, and by life itself and the inifinte that it entails.

With open software and an open world, the product is unity. People work together to create a whole greater than the parts. There is not chaos, because life itself is ordered. There is more order and more efficiency than when small numbers of individuals are hoarding the masses of resources.

If the wealth of the world were distributed evenly there would be less hunger, less crime, less chaos, less destruction.

If the likes of Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, etc.. were open, if their resources were available and combined with the power and ability of the current FOSS community, there would be more innovation not less. The real chaos and thievery is perpetuated by those who act to garner everything towards themselves not by those offering to others. The greater achievments are and have always been by those that do it by inner motivation not those by outer motivation.

If FOSS has shortcomings because a truly motivated programmer has to work to feed her family and can't devote as much as she would like to, it's not the fault of an open society, it's the fault of a closed society.