My views on open source.

[GuitarHero]

It seems to me many linux adopters quickly become brainwashed into thinking anything closed is the devil. It is my opinion, that OS developers have every right to keep their software closed. To make a profit this is the best route. No one tries to tell musicians that they should let everyone take their music and distribute and change it how they please, no one says that new inventions should be open to copying and reproducing. Why should OS's be open? I run linux because I got tired of Windows crashing and could not afford a mac. Now I am planning to save for a mac and make another switch. Linux, Ubuntu especially, is great and works for a lot of people. But as far as using the top tier programs in graphic and sound design it is worthless. I wish the best to Ubuntu Studio, but what it comes down to is the lack of hardware support for USB interfaces, mixers, etc... This is not linux's fault but as an end user, it greatly affects me.


My point is that I think people should use linux if they think it is superior, not because they think Operating Systems are exempt from the protection that being closed offers them. I have read many other people's views on open source software and this is the conclusion I have come to. I always respect others opinions, so please respect mine. Id just like to hear what you have to say about this

[Polygon]

the reason linux IS so stable is because it is open source. It has thousands of people looking over the code, reporting bugs, sending in patches all to make the code better faster, more stable and more secure

closed source stuff isnt automatically evil, but since its closed source you are relying on the developers of the program to basically read your mind and hope that they notice the bug thats been bugging you, hope that they dont include anything malicious (for example, drm and wga in windows) in the closed source program. And most of the time it will cost money... but not all of them do.

sure they both have their advantages and disadvantages.. but wouldn't it be nice if all computer software was free and open source... it would just be one less thing to spend your money on and worry about =P

[Ob1]

As a hobbyist programmer I find the advantages of Open Source enormous. If it was not for source code availability I would not know much of programming today. It does not bother me that some developers release only the executable form of their software, I don't see that as "evil" or disrespect for their users.

[GuitarHero]

I can get what you guys are saying. What really gets to me is when people bash Apple and Microsoft for not releasing their code and declare them evil. There are plenty of other things to bash them for (sweatshops and crashing software respectively). I also respect people that want to learn from the code, I've never been able to get much from other people's code, i guess i just learn differently. I suppose linux isnt really meant for me. I enjoy the customization and freedom that linux gives me but id trade that for hardware support and interoperability any day.

[aysiu]

Isn't there some saying about the person who makes the code deciding the license? I like that.

No one has a right to tell you you must open your code. You decide for yourself if that's appropriate. It is your creation after all.

There are definite advantages to open source, and you can still make money off of it, but you are not necessarily evil if you want to close your source code.

That said, people have different opinions and values. Some people think closed source is evil. Others don't. I just happen to fall into the second camp.

[aysiu]

I can get what you guys are saying. What really gets to me is when people bash Apple and Microsoft for not releasing their code and declare them evil. There are plenty of other things to bash them for (sweatshops and crashing software respectively). That's the thing, though: I don't ever see people bashing Apple and Microsoft for closing their source code off.

I usually see people criticizing Microsoft for making crappy software (i.e., bad quality software) and engaging in predatory and/or illegal business practices.

I don't happen to think their software is crappy, but I do think they engage in predatory and/or illegal business practices.

FOSS purists get most upset by Linux distros using closed source products or software. The bulk of the outrage I see from these people is over Canonical keeping Launchpad closed source, the Ubuntu Forums using VBulletin (proprietary forum software), or Ubuntu thinking about including proprietary video codecs by default.

[Ob1]

What really gets to me is when people bash Apple and Microsoft for not releasing their code and declare them evil.

Fortunately not every one who is in favor of Open Source/Free Software bashes closed-source developers. I don't think it's wrong to spread awareness of the issue but it's unnecessary to bash them.

[fuscia]

i don't have a problem with closed software, at all, unless the 'owners' of that software were actively trying to prevent someone from coming up with an open source alternative (i don't know of any such thing. i was just imagining a situation that i would object to).


guy in a jazz club: "hey, what's that song you're playing?"

musician: "my funny valentine."

(five minutes pass...)

guy: "what are you playing now?"

musician: "it's...still... my funny valentine."

guy: "it is?"

[steven8]

i don't have a problem with closed software, at all, unless the 'owners' of that software were actively trying to prevent someone from coming up with an open source alternative (i don't know of any such thing. i was just imagining a situation that i would object to).


guy in a jazz club: "hey, what's that song you're playing?"

musician: "my funny valentine."

(five minutes pass...)

guy: "what are you playing now?"

musician: "it's...still... my funny valentine."

guy: "it is?"

You mean like suing them for IP infractions. :lolflag:

[chewearn]

One of my biggest concern about closed software is the lack of third party audit on the behavior of the closed software. It is too easy for companies to add undesirable "features" into the code, and hide our consent to install them into fine prints of EULA.

Software that wants to "phone" home for no useful reason, install root kit, etc.

[hardyn]

remember that free in open source means the source... authors are still allowed to charge for open source software...

its nice that ubuntu does not charge for their product, but it is well within their right to do so... Stallman might have picked at bad word when he chose to call it 'free software' his definition of free was as in liberly, not as in beer.

[sloggerkhan]

I don't believe in software patents. It's like a physicist patenting a formula and then charging every engineer who has to use it for designing something.
I also wary of closed source, as you never know what sort of malviolent intent it could be hiding.

Don't care if you sell programs, though.

However, once things are Open Source, and there are no Software Patents, it all might as well be free....cause everyone could make similar programs for free and do it legally.

[Henry Rayker]

I don't hate M$ for being closed source...I hate M$ for charging me for a product that just (barely) works...and when it breaks, I have no way of really fixing it, except for submitting an error report and praying that they do something about it...if I had the choice of a car I'm never allowed to perform my own maintenance on and walking EVERYWHERE, I'd walk; If I'm not allowed to take care of my OS to the best of my abilities, then I'll find something that better suits my needs.

My qualms with Apple are more along the lines of hardware maintenance...if my mobo goes out, I'd rather pick my replacement, thank you...I really don't like the way their OS and hardware are almost inseparable...The bottom line is: if you want the OSX experience, you're going to pay too much for your hardware.

As far as software patents go, some of them are reasonable and fair, but others aren't. It's one thing to patent the exact layout of your system (GUI recognition is probably as strong, in the software domain as using a logo or brand name in other sectors)...it's another to try to patent placing a menu button in the bottom left of the screen...

The problem, I think, with software is that it is both an art as well as a logical sequence of statements; art is easy to copyright because it requires some creativity whereas patent and copyright laws prevent a person from, say, trying to stake claims on walking upright. Current copyright and patent laws look at code as being more art than it actually is, whereas the major opponents to the code patents look at it as being completely logic.

[Artemis3]

The reason proprietary software is bad is because its a black box, that ties you to a vendor, and you can't fix it or adapt it to your needs or share it with your neighbours.

It's not just having access to the source, you need the four freedoms or its no good:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

If you add a proprietary program, your system stops being reliable. Its that simple. You can't audit it; you don't know if the black box doesn't have a time bomb, or if its sending data somewhere. It is insecure and always tries to control you and gives you no warranty of anything in case of losing your data. You have to beg the vendor to fix problems, and once said vendor becomes dominant, he can always send you to hell; as he knows you have no choice but to go back to him, on his terms...

On a technical aspect, free software tends to be better because of its developing model. You might want to read the famous paper: The Cathedral and the Bazaar (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/)

You should also study history a little. Why is it that there are not many alternatives to Microsoft? Have there never been attempts to compete? Of course. But commercial products can be forced out of the market, their companies bought or made go bankrupt; etc, etc.

In the case of Ubuntu, its clear the use of proprietary software should always be left as a last resort; and never forced upon. That is the spirit of this distro, and that is the reason many people protested the proposal to default some binary drivers that were not needed. Luckily it seems Beryl and friends are immature enough they decided to postpone this issue. As for Launchpad and vBulletin, they are optional to use.

It is quite insulting to talk about "brainwashing", simply because people can have a different opinion and conviction about something; and are willing to practice it and not just preach about it. Nobody is forcing you or anyone to do anything, we simply tell people about the freedom of Free Software and why its philosophy makes the difference.

[Artemis3]

remember that free in open source means the source... authors are still allowed to charge for open source software...

its nice that ubuntu does not charge for their product, but it is well within their right to do so... Stallman might have picked at bad word when he chose to call it 'free software' his definition of free was as in liberly, not as in beer.

Its not really a bad word, its mainly a problem with the english language. In spanish and many other languages this remains clear. I have seen english speakers use "gratis" and "libre" to avoid the ambiguity, these are simply the spanish counterparts of free, but one is about not paying, the other about liberty... Open source is no good, you can have access to the code without freedom... (eg: NDAs, no permission to redistribute, modify, publish, etc).

[aysiu]

Yes, many people understand the virtues of open source and FOSS.

FOSS being a good thing doesn't necessarily mean that proprietary software or closed source software is evil.

I think that was the main point of the original post. Not ideal is not the same as evil.

[euchrid]

It seems to me many linux adopters quickly become brainwashed into thinking anything closed is the devil. It is my opinion, that OS developers have every right to keep their software closed. To make a profit this is the best route. No one tries to tell musicians that they should let everyone take their music and distribute and change it how they please, no one says that new inventions should be open to copying and reproducing.

I absolutely do not agree with this. First of all, I do not think Linux 'adopters' get 'brainwashed', and least of all into thinking that closed source is 'the devil' - many people 'come' to Linux because they were already sick of their proprietary software, and most do not seem to care about closed source software, because Linux covers most needs. I doubt many Linux users would be concerned whether the software was closed or open, as long as it worked.

Furthermore, I am a musician, and, when I get my first album finished (soon), will be happy to give my music away, and let people distribute and change it how they please. What is more, I think that is how music should be distributed. In Western music, there are only twelve notes, repeated up the octaves within human hearing range. There are a huge, but finite number of ways of arranging those notes. How can someone 'own' a sequence of notes? Or words? And why should they? Because they got there first? Shouldn't financial (and other) awards for music be based on merit and ability and audience enjoyment rather than pushiness and arrogance (which are the usual qualities of anyone who 'makes it big' in the music business)? Why should Led Zeppelin be able to get away with ripping off whole Memphis Minnie and Willie Dixon songs, (ultimately paying up relatively small sums from their huge fortunes) - but a student in a bedsit sampling 2 seconds of Led Zeppelin for a dance track can be taken to court and put in prison because he was unable to pay the royalties? It is a system filled with flaws.

It is the system of ownership that causes so many problems. Apple's use of sweatshops and Microsoft's ability to sell 'crappy software' at a high price are only possible because of the continuing greed and selfishness of businesses (at least, most of them).

There are many alternative avenues to explore rather than making money and 'owning things'. For example, community-driven work, where you work for the benefit of each other in a small community. You can still 'own stuff', but you can also share it. The recent rise in communes and folk music and community schemes shows how this kind of idea is catching on.

Open Source software allows people with no or very little money to run a computer. Not everyone can afford to run a Mac - and in our disposable societies, systems like Linux allow people to re-use old computers in a way that Windows and Apple will never want to allow.


I wish the best to Ubuntu Studio, but what it comes down to is the lack of hardware support for USB interfaces, mixers, etc... This is not linux's fault but as an end user, it greatly affects me.

You can't just plug anything into a Mac, either, though; you have to check that anything you buy will work with the machine. With Linux, you have to do a little more research beforehand, but I find that preferable to being led to believe that something will work when it won't, or when it is no longer supported. In Linux, you have infinitely more flexibility - but you need to have, or to learn, a lot more patience in order to benefit from it.


My point is that I think people should use linux if they think it is superior, not because they think Operating Systems are exempt from the protection that being closed offers them.

I don't remember hearing anyone say that they chose Linux because it is exempt from the protection closed source offers them. I assume by 'protection', you mean it 'works' with commercial hardware and other software?

I think people should use Linux for whatever reason they choose: perhaps because they think it is superior, or because it is free - but for me the most important reason is that it is community driven. This is a unique thing in our commercially driven, business-run world; and it is fantastic that groups of people from across the world can get together and works for years, (largely) unpaid, on something they believe in, and then for that product to be used by groups of people across the world who contribute to its development.

To me, that is what makes Open Source work where closed source doesn't, and as a musician, being part of a community is far more encouraging than working in a virtual cubicle. From an end-user's point of view, in Open Source, you tell them what you want, and they listen; with closed source, they tell you what you want and they don't listen. I think the difficult part to get used to, as a 'customer'/user, is that you have to put the work in to get something out.

[Adamant1988]

It seems to me many linux adopters quickly become brainwashed into thinking anything closed is the devil. It is my opinion, that OS developers have every right to keep their software closed. To make a profit this is the best route. No one tries to tell musicians that they should let everyone take their music and distribute and change it how they please, no one says that new inventions should be open to copying and reproducing. Why should OS's be open? I run linux because I got tired of Windows crashing and could not afford a mac. Now I am planning to save for a mac and make another switch. Linux, Ubuntu especially, is great and works for a lot of people. But as far as using the top tier programs in graphic and sound design it is worthless. I wish the best to Ubuntu Studio, but what it comes down to is the lack of hardware support for USB interfaces, mixers, etc... This is not linux's fault but as an end user, it greatly affects me.


My point is that I think people should use linux if they think it is superior, not because they think Operating Systems are exempt from the protection that being closed offers them. I have read many other people's views on open source software and this is the conclusion I have come to. I always respect others opinions, so please respect mine. Id just like to hear what you have to say about this

Well, I'll agree with you on many points. But, to make a profit there are lots of great options. For instance: I'll give you this operating system free, and provide a great set of services for $$$. Open-Source software offers the potential to open up a lot of great innovative service oriented products. open source is great, and so is proprietary design. Typically you'll see proprietary design is much more cleverly designed, more features, more "professional" in quality. Musicians could give their music away and some great new way of making money from music would arise. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that options exist even in opensource.

You're also right on the brainwashing of the FOSS community. Zealots and extremists are bad for everyone. unfortunately, as long as people put RMS on a pedestal, and live by the "free-libre" doctrine, you'll have that.

[koenn]

It is my opinion, that OS developers have every right to keep their software closed. To make a profit this is the best route
You got that one right : "closed" software is one of the easier routes to making a profit. It's not necessarily the best route to good (or better) software. The OSS movement claims that open source development is a better way to good software than "closed source".

One other thing to consider - not mentioned so far in this thread- is how well a particular piece of software colloborates or 'interfaces' with other software. Proprietary development tends to interface very badly with anything else - except maybe software from the same vendor. Whicj means that the next program you need, you probably have no choice than to return to that vendor. And so on. great for the vendor (more profit, more market share), nut so goed for you if you'd rather use some other program bet there's no whay you can get it to work with data from that "closed" piece of software you happened to buy. It's called vendor lock-in and is also a bvery good route ... to profit.

OSS development adheres to open standards anbd open interfaces so it suffers much less from these lock-in scenarios. And if all else fails, you could hire a programmer to rewrite the parts that stand in the way of two programs collaborating the way you want them to. Sounds OK by me - more so than the vendor lock-in scenario's so common in "closed" software.

[macogw]

Go read Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig. He came up with Creative Commons, so well, yes, there are people saying that artists should freely take inspiration and build upon each other's ideas. Besides, most of the money comes from live performances, not recordings. The recording income goes to the labels, not much to the artists. I would think people would always be willing to pay for that. Live music is much better than recorded music. There's a lot of energy going back and forth between crowd and musician and a level of excitement involved in getting to see your favourite artist perform just a few feet from you.

And yeah, I don't say crap about MS and Apple because of them being closed source, just cuz I don't like their products. MS does make the best wireless keyboard I've found though (it's only a little squishy, I'd still like a totally non-squishy one though). I don't like the security risks involved in Windows, and I don't like the UI on OS X or iPods. Yeah, they supposedly have the best UIs ever, right? eehhh Not for me. I like to move the mouse as little as possible. Having all of the menus on a Mac be at the top instead of with the program, means moving the mouse more often than pleasant. The locations of the back and forward buttons on web browsers bother me for that reason. It's also why I do most everything with keyboard commands. I don't even like moving to the tab bar on Firefox to switch between them. Macs require moving long distances (all the way to the top of the screen, even if the program you're working with is at the bottom--if you have a large screen this is more noticeable). Oh, and the click-wheel on iPods confuse me. I scroll vertically, not circularly. My mp3 players have only been the vertical-scroll kind (Philips GoGear and Creative Zen) because of that.

[DrainBead]

It seems to me many linux adopters quickly become brainwashed into thinking anything closed is the devil. It is my opinion, that OS developers have every right to keep their software closed. To make a profit this is the best route. No one tries to tell musicians that they should let everyone take their music and distribute and change it how they please, no one says that new inventions should be open to copying and reproducing. Why should OS's be open? I run linux because I got tired of Windows crashing and could not afford a mac. Now I am planning to save for a mac and make another switch. Linux, Ubuntu especially, is great and works for a lot of people. But as far as using the top tier programs in graphic and sound design it is worthless. I wish the best to Ubuntu Studio, but what it comes down to is the lack of hardware support for USB interfaces, mixers, etc... This is not linux's fault but as an end user, it greatly affects me.


My point is that I think people should use linux if they think it is superior, not because they think Operating Systems are exempt from the protection that being closed offers them. I have read many other people's views on open source software and this is the conclusion I have come to. I always respect others opinions, so please respect mine. Id just like to hear what you have to say about this

Use the best tool for the job, you wouldn't use a hammer instead of a screwdriver so don't use Linux where Windows or OSX is a better choice.

I prefer FOSS because i am a programmer and can make sense of the logs and the error messages or by reviewing the code, for me that is invaluable, so for me, FOSS works by being FOSS.

One thing that many people are forgetting though is filing bug reports and feature requests, it's a very important part of being part of the FOSS community, programmers cannot guess what problems might arise for some people or what features people want.

[BrokeBody]

Closed software is not evil, but it's like you have a car, but you may not open the hood, or you go to jail or whatever. :)

[deanlinkous]

Linux is not a 100% windows replacement and if you want a "better" windows then talk to microsoft, try osX, wait for vista+1. Trying to make linux a "better" windows will never work because you are playing a game where microsoft and others are truly the "players", linux is in a different playground.

When I chose my wife it was because of the attributes I truly valued. I was happy to give up a few of the "features" in exchange for what I considered truly important. I always thought I could not live without those features. I later realized that the attributes I valued did not come in great quantities (or any in some cases) with the females that had those GREAT features. I realized what was important to me.

Maybe I am just a passionate person with bad analogies? I dont know!

Oh and these linux companies know you cannot beat microsoft at the "better" windows game. They just want to sell you the idea that they can. It is a market and so a product needs to be provided for that market. I am not bashing any company by saying this - only stating how I see it. I do not even hold any animosity about it but I do want to point it out..... take it or leave it.

Seriously, if I did not believe in ONLY free(dom) software I would not waste a minute of my frickin time on linux. I would proably use windows2000 - still my favorite windows OS!