Is Open Source Software REALLY That Much Better Than Closed Source?

[Kernel Sanders]

What do you think? What do you perceive to be the advantages and disadvantages of both, and which to you feel is better, or do feel that neither is better, just different etc...

My view (rightly or wrongly) is that Open Source software is more community driven, but I prefer closed source software. It just "feels" better, safer maybe? Apologies if that doesnt make sense :(

What do you all think? (I'll add a poll on this in a second :) )

John :)

[podunk]

I'm not sure how you can feel safer with closed source? I mean - there could be anything in there. Remember the Sony rootkit? Or the call home ad-ware in gator?

[matthew]

Open.

Things that are done in broad daylight have less potential for harm than things done in secret. It's far more difficult to deceive the masses when thousands of eyes can see the code than it is when only those within a small circle can see it. It's also more likely that bugs and security flaws will be found when they are subject to the scrutiny of many...and that they will be fixed more quickly.

[Mathiasdm]

Both have their good and bad sides.

I choose software best on how well it works for me, not on the open/closed character of it.

[gnomeuser]

As a friend of mine put it years ago. Any given piece of Free Software might not be better now but at least given it's openness it has the potential. We see this whenever a piece of free software becomes good enough to replace a closed one, innovation explodes, take Firefox, it became good then the plugin system enabled vast innovation.

Nothing like that every happens in proprietary software since nobody can take it to that level or niche the developers never thought about.

[Kayne]

It's not about whether closed source or open source, it's about the skill of the developer (team)

[nalmeth]

Open.

The extreme end of a free software (GPLv3) world Vs. the extreme end of non-free software world (DRM for all).

No question. Of course it won't come to that, but whom do you really trust?

[Kernel Sanders]

As a friend of mine put it years ago. Any given piece of Free Software might not be better now but at least given it's openness it has the potential. We see this whenever a piece of free software becomes good enough to replace a closed one, innovation explodes, take Firefox, it became good then the plugin system enabled vast innovation.

Nothing like that every happens in proprietary software since nobody can take it to that level or niche the developers never thought about.

Thats a really good point.

However, if I ever take the time to learn how to code properly, if I make something, i'd consider it "my baby", and I wouldnt want anyone else getting their grubby hands on my source code! :p :mrgreen:

[GeneralZod]

It's not about whether closed source or open source, it's about the skill of the developer (team)

I'd refine this to say that it is about the skill of the developer/ team, coupled with the amount of time they have to spend on it.

All things being equal, there's no reason at all why a piece of open source software can't be every bit as well-programmed, slick and polished as a piece of closed source; in fact, the peer-review inherent to open source can give it an advantage.

[Bloch]

Often proprietary software has a more finished feel to it, with better set-up guides etc. They want to sell it to you after all.
Some open source software is tricky to set up, lacks documentation, won't install immediately.

There's also a lot of old junk hanging around in the repositories. If you do a search for, say, "maths" and choose something that looks good, chances are it will not work straight away, there is no quick-start info, it does not appear in the menu etc.

I wasted a lot of time getting gocr and kooka installed and running to find it was practically useless. The large projects - OpenOffice, Gimp, Mplayer, etc and the utilities are all excellent, but rather than search with synaptic, I search the forums to see what is good and then install it with synaptic.

[chaosgeisterchen]

I like neither better but I would always prefer to use Open Source software. The advantage, closed source has, is the fact that the developers keep the control in their own hands and decide by themselves what to do next. You can suggest new features but it's their task to implement it. Often, closed source developers take a quite bit longer to implement changes but it's most assuredly more conform to the other code of the entire project.

Open source is also great, the open spirit leaves the chance open to everyone to cooperate. This way round vast innovation can take place but sometimes at the expense of code quality. But it's a mere fact that open source coders are not worse than closed source coders - but the style differs among them, so the entire code will not have the same style (I am wildly guessing now).

Both have their advantages. The end-user will always prefer Open Source software as it offers more innovations and features, steadily growing.

[steven8]

If you are a programmer, of course, open source software can be, for you, what ever you wish it to be. Then it can be whatever the next person wishes it to be. Someone else may have had the vision before you, and you go "Wow! I can use that, but in a different way." Then you can make it that way. That is a wonderful thing. Doesn't always make for a polished thing, but it sure is neat.

Closed source is working towards a model based on the vision of one or a few people, with a documented set of guidelines and set goals. It is thought out 'somewhat' to the letter and is worked towards that end. That is why it is more 'polished' and can be more reliable, as such. However, even you if you say, "Wow! I could use that, but in a different way." You can't. It's closed.

Both have advantages. Both have disadvantages.

[Somenoob]

I prefer Open Source Software of course as anyone like me with programming as a big hobby.

[shining]

Are we comparing the two in theory or in practice?
Because I believe Open Source Software developers generally aren't paid, or paid less than closed source software developers.
Not being paid means less time to spend on the development (only in the free time), and this time is generally mostly spent on the things you like and have fun doing.

But in theory, I think the open source model, with a good organization, is more powerful.

[EdThaSlayer]

I prefer Opensource for 3 reasons
1.Its free
2.Its usually updated more often
3.I know its secure(and if it isn't, it usually is fixed with the above)

[56phil]

I prefer open source software. The profit motive is a corrupting influence that shows up in the software all too often.

[glotz]

The skill of the developer team is of course one factor. Another, at least as important, is the morality of the company. I think we've seen enough bad examples. Those would have never happened with open source.

[K.Mandla]

I voted neither, only because I think it depends on the software. I've seen some top-notch open source stuff, and some real thumbsucker proprietary software too.

[Klaidas]

Is Open Source Software REALLY That Much Better Than Closed Source?
No, no, no. Of course not.

Software is meant to make computers work. If it's easier/better/etc for me to write documents in MS Word or edit photos in PhotoShop, I use them. If it's easier/safer/more productime for me to run Apache and MySQL than some other apps, I use them.

It's like comparing bike to a car. Sometimes you use one, sometimes you use another. So let's not generalize.

(The only place to generalize would be games. You know what I mean ;))

[namah]

That's a loaded question on a forum like this. Essentially the choice is a philosophical one for many.

[aysiu]

I guess it depends on what you consider "better." That's a rather vague term.

In terms of the quality and functionality of software, I'd say it all depends. Firefox is a "better" (functionally) program than Internet Explorer (yes, even with the advent of IE7), and Notepad++ is better than Notepad, as Kolourpaint is better than MS Paint.

But OpenOffice is better than MS Word in only some respects (supporting open documents, exporting to PDF by default), and very few people think GIMP is better than Photoshop.

When it comes to software quality, it all depends on the software in question.

But then there are issues beyond the actual point-and-click quality of the software. There's also the availability of the software, and the freedom with which you can use it. This isn't always the case, but open source software tends to be cost-free and spyware-free. Closed source software tends less so to be. It is usually expensive or spyware-laden.

Open source software also tends to limit the end user less. I'm not talking about things like modifying the code--non-programmers don't care about being able to see the source. I'm talking about not having things like limits on how many computers you can install the software on or limits on how long you can use it for free (30-day trial period) or activation keys you worry about losing.

And sometimes the openness of the code has other tangible benefits for the end user because programmers take advantage of that. For example, since Firefox is open source, others have been able to fork it to be Swiftfox or Flock, and others have made hundreds of extensions available for end users to benefit from.

[deanlinkous]

open
no lock-in, data lock-up
ah freedom....

[MaximB]

I voted "open source" based on this site and interesting thinking of the man who wrote it :

The Risks of Closed Source Computing
http://www.msversus.org/risks-of-closed-source-computing.html

I won't talk here (unless you ask me) about open source as we all know about it being Linux users and all ;).

[cantormath]

whoever said niether does not know what open source is...:KS

[cantormath]

I voted "open source" based on this site and interesting thinking of the man who wrote it :

The Risks of Closed Source Computing
http://www.msversus.org/risks-of-closed-source-computing.html

I won't talk here (unless you ask me) about open source as we all know about it being Linux users and all ;).

MAXDDARK, that is a really interesting article.....
nice.

[aysiu]

That is a good article. I like how it doesn't try to make it sound as if the main benefit of open source is the source code being modifiable by the end user, as most end users wouldn't know head or tails when viewing source code (I certainly don't).

[cantormath]

That is a good article. I like how it doesn't try to make it sound as if the main benefit of open source is the source code being modifiable by the end user, as most end users wouldn't know head or tails when viewing source code (I certainly don't).

I second that aysiu.....

[glotz]

Somewhat related another good article is http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

Could be labeled 'is open source hardware really better than closed source hardware?'.

[mrgnash]

Closed source software doesn't feel 'safer' to me... there's often the question of 'how long until the current version of my software is arbitrarily obsoleted in favour of a new edition that I will have to shell money out for,' or 'the company behind my software isn't doing very well, what if they abandon it and I'm forced to migrate to an unfamiliar alternative?' You don't really get either of those scenarios with open-source software (I hope it's not necessary to explain why).

[cantormath]

... there's often the question of 'how long until the current version of my software is arbitrarily obsoleted in favour of a new edition that I will have to shell money out for........



I would conjecture that "different versions" does not have the same meaning in the linux world compared to the MS world. Usually in the MS world, new version usually means:
More resources needed,
More secure(because the last version was full of holes)
More copywrite crap(because the last thing they tried didnt work).

There are people still using the 2.4 linux kernel and I would bet dollars to disketts that there systems would rival XP or Vista on security any day of the week, not to mention speed.

[Phobia]

I like opensource software because it is free and the idea behind it. You get a stable system that you can freely upgrade so that the latest in technology is at your finger tips at no cost to you.

[herbster]

K3b and amarok always leap to the forefront of my mind when considering a question like this. Two of the best, most reliable apps I've ever used, and two that I use very frequently.