Why do you really want it to be open?

[bogdan_5844]

Ubuntu linux user for a year and 3 months.
The title isn't reffering in any way to the OS.
It's reffering to the applications.Why do you really want everything to be open?

I think that,from a newbie perspective,if it works,it's okay.
You see,that's why IMHO Linux doesn't have so many users: New users want native popular apps to be available,but they have to compromise.I don't want to say that the fellas doing free open-source apps aren't good,I'm just saying that,from the user's point of view,a software app from a large company(I.E. EA Games,Palm,Nokia,<insert company name here>) it's of a greater quality.

I think that Linux won't get the love that it deserves until the users stop whining about not being open,and start using that damn app.It works,and it's better than nothing.

I do know the benefits of an application being open source,and maybe I don't really know that well the GNU GPL,but as far as I know,the source of the program must be available for free to any,and that my friends,that's what drives the publishers mad.They want to make money by selling games,in order to make other cool games.
Start supporting them,and maybe you will see (proprietary) well-supported Linux applications flourishing in no-time.

Please,consider my advice ;-)

[PmDematagoda]

This thread has been moved to the Community Cafe.

[steveneddy]

I don't think I understand.

Are you saying that open applications are in some way better than closed sourced applications?

If so, why?

Some of the same folks that develop closed sourced apps develop open sourced apps as well.

I believe that the open sourced model is much better as the community developing said app in the open world has the resources of many thousands or developers compared to only developers in the tens, or less, to maybe in the hundreds.

**************************

Linux may not have as many users because MS has a huge marketing budget compared to word of mouth for Linux.

Just because MS is the most used OS on the planet does not mean that it is the better solution to all problems.

Linux is not for everyone right now, and may never be, but it could be.

Most people are just used to the "Windows way of doing things".

Most people can barely use a Windows PC anyway, much less be open minded enough to make a change to the ways that they do things that they barely know how do to in the first place.

New Linux users will come from the younger generation that will grow up on Linux in school and around the house, using a PC that Mom or Dad installed Linux on and use daily.

The more we get Linux to be used in schools by younger users, the faster Linux will enter the main stream.

[smartboyathome]

Ubuntu linux user for a year and 3 months.
The title isn't reffering in any way to the OS.
It's reffering to the applications.Why do you really want everything to be open?

I think that,from a newbie perspective,if it works,it's okay.
You see,that's why IMHO Linux doesn't have so many users: New users want native popular apps to be available,but they have to compromise.I don't want to say that the fellas doing free open-source apps aren't good,I'm just saying that,from the user's point of view,a software app from a large company(I.E. EA Games,Palm,Nokia,<insert company name here>) it's of a greater quality.

I think that Linux won't get the love that it deserves until the users stop whining about not being open,and start using that damn app.It works,and it's better than nothing.

I do know the benefits of an application being open source,and maybe I don't really know that well the GNU GPL,but as far as I know,the source of the program must be available for free to any,and that my friends,that's what drives the publishers mad.They want to make money by selling games,in order to make other cool games.
Start supporting them,and maybe you will see (proprietary) well-supported Linux applications flourishing in no-time.

Please,consider my advice ;-)

First off, there are quite a few programs which are just as good (or even better) than their proprietary counterparts, but there are others that fail in the face of them. Vendors don't have to choose to release their programs as open source in order to use them on Linux. I, for one, would be glad to have proprietary applications available for Linux, because it gives people that many more options. Already, companies like ID Software and Google are porting their proprietary programs to Linux.

[FrozenFox]

Take this comment as spirited, not hostile:

I don't think you understand as you say you do. The open source community won't really consider such a thing, because its goal is not mass consumerism. Its goal is a high quality, free (libre) and sometimes free (beer) os in which every piece is fixable, extend-able, trustable, and timeless because of sources. Lots of people using it is good, but not anywhere near as important as its ideals it tries to accomplish. Why should we accept core closed-source (mostly corporate that you are referring to) garbage from companies who only seek to turn a profit by often exploiting the machines of the people who paid them? It only leads to massive adware, security bugs that never seem to get fixed, and holes we cannot find or fix until it's already much too late. Why in the world would you willingly trade privacy (hi, spyware) and software freedom for compatibility and convenience? It's irresponsible. No, Linux is NOT windows. The advice you seek to give will turn it into such, which runs counter to why people use Linux in the first place! If it ever comes to that, people will be turning to BSD, who will then have another group calling out for compatibility as Linux becomes ruined. Then at that point, hello, Solaris! I don't think the community has said Linux != Windows enough. If you really want everything compatible instead of running alternatives and demanding high quality, don't use Linux. Stay with windows, and trust the people who've given you more than plenty of reasons not to. It's a matter of freedom and sanity versus convenience.

Don't take this to mean that I never use closed source software (ie think all closed source is bad software) or I'm a total zealot. I use closed source software in some rare trusted cases, but it should NOT be the norm to accept it for linux, particularly on core system software. I also must echo the fact that someone else spoke of, that you don't have to open your sources on linux, it's just highly recommended and makes it easier to make it work globally if you do. I also completely disagree with your comments on sofware. I've found actually that easy to attain software on linux is of significantly higher quality in general than the company-backed nonsense (AND hard to attain no-nonsense software) you speak of I used on windows over the 10 years I've used windows. This is because people are not perfect, and more people working on a project often leads to better results than a handful of people doing it who wont show anyone HOW they are doing it (or a large company who exploits your machine and ignorance for ad revenue, which linux geeks make up for on here by seeing the source). For instance, my tv tuner program that the company i bought it from gave me is total trash, and I couldn't find a reasonable windows alternative. Crashing, poor video quality, scarcely trustable installation routines.. then comes Linux, and TVTime makes the card actually perform as it is supposed to and is far more convenient with its features. MythTV? Even freaking better, free tivo-tude. My very non-technical parents were even quite impressed at the quality of easily accessible applications, because they are so used to having to hunt around for something decent or go out and buy it. The same thing happened with a good non-techie friend of mine, he was so impressed by open source software I gave to him and tired of spyware problems on windows he asked me to help him dual boot his machine with linux and xp (xp containing lots of free open source software). He was so impressed by open office and not having to deal with the problems he had with his current office suite (such as forced document formats), for instance, that he had me replace it the first day I spoke to him. It's such a time-waster to search for good, stable software on windows that is free of spyware/malware or suspicious activity. I still use XP dual booted, but only for some few apps/games I know are trustworthy but not running in WINE or open sourced yet. Despite such not working, I am absolutely NOT in favor of Linux giving way to using lots of closed source nonsense just to make such work. I can take personal responsibility to just get over it and use something else, wait, boot to xp, or not use it at all. Giving big media what they want (DRM anyone?) because it's easily available is not the way to go and most certainly does not make for better software!

Do you remember that "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime" stuff you learned as a kid? Well, open source software can be described on the same terms. What would you trust more and find more useful -- something you caught yourself and could repeat (alternatively, something you watched someone catch and prepare) or something someone out of nowhere just gave or sold you? I'd choose the former every single time it's feasible because it's the best way.

To conclude, I will add to a somewhat cheesy but imho valid statement: Linux overall is by the people and for the people. It aims to create an alternative, not a clone. If it wanted to be a clone, it would be begging to inherit the same problems windows has that draws people to linux to begin with and then will cease to be a viable alternative. If you really want a linux-like system compatible with everything you like, stay with windows and use all of the free open source software you can there. Don't ask "us" to bring your stuff here at the expense of quality and trust.

[gn2]

I'm just saying that,from the user's point of view,a software app from a large company(I.E. EA Games,Palm,Nokia,<insert company name here>) it's of a greater quality.

Most of the open-source replacement applications that I have used since starting using Linux are of far better quality than the closed source applications that I used in Windows.

I do not believe that just because an application is sold by a big company that it is going to be of a higher standard, in fact the reverse is often the case.

[keykero]

It doesn't have to be open. Most of the apps used by everyone everywhere, even in the most professional of situations, are usually closed-source proprietary apps.

I don't see why anyone would argue that every app has to be open.

Professional apps (for example, Final Cut Pro) take teams of engineers, programmers and testers to develop and improve upon.

People who perpetually argue "being able to see the source code" as a benefit usually have never contributed even one line of code to anything.

[phrostbyte]

Open source is a better development model pragmatically speaking. Basically Ubuntu would not be possible without open source. The amount of capital needed to make a proprietary OS is staggering (in the billions) and nobody except Microsoft can compete in this way.

People don't seem to realize the amount of work that goes into making a system like Ubuntu or Windows. It's thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of years of programming. You literally need an army of programmers. So open source allows the entire world (6+ billion people) to have a chance at it. So it develops fast.

[koenn]

why do you want it to be open ?
From an end user perspective (programmers may have other motivations) :

Imagine you have a small business, and you're using a bookkeeping/accountancy application with proprietary data model and proprietary database engine, no access what-so-ever to the applecation source, etc etc.
You bought that app 12 years ago so you have 12 years worth of financial records in it.
The small company you bought it from back then consisted of a programmer and a secretary, and has gone out of business 8 years back.
Your program ran just fine on MS-DOS and win 98, and now runs resonably well on XP (with some workarounds by your computer-savvy nephew). You'll be getting Vista soon and you have serious doubt that this app will still run. Also, over the past 8 years, legislation about bookkeeping, taxes, etc, has changed and you program needs to reflect that. You need toget yourself a new application, but you still need access to your old financial data.

If the application in question implemented open standards, you stand a chance of retreiving your data and have them converted to a new app. If the program,was open source, you'd be able to hire a programmer to study it and possibly upgrade it or to figure out a way to access the data.

As it is, you're screwed.

That (and similar scenario's), IMO, is an excellent non-ideological reason to demand open standards, open formats and open source.


You also make the implicit assumption that open source is by definition amateur work and 2nd choice quality. Even if we assume that only professionals in a centrally managed corporate development setting can produce top grade software, there's nothing that prevents the company from publishing the source code. They would, however, have to reconsider their business model - but in the ever changing IT landscape, they'd have to do that every now and again anyway.
You also seem to assume that open source software is by definition gratis. It's not. It's perfectly allowed and possible to charge money for open source software - it's just harder to prevent people from acquiring free copies if they know where to get and how to compile source code.
Most businesses will prefer some form of guarantee and service with their sofware so the chances they go roll their own are slim.
The home users/gamers market migh be more difficult in this respect, but then, it's up to the softwrae distibutors / game venders to be a bit creative.

[phrostbyte]

Lets not forget the idelogical reasons too. I happen to agree with most of the ideological aspects.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html

RMS argues that proprietary software makes people anti-social. I happened to agree with him. I don't think for instance Ubuntu Forums would be possible if Ubuntu was closed source. The open nature of Ubuntu I think encourages others to help others. Very few people like to feel like they cheated someone, so they want to give back to the community that helped them.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/your-freedom-needs-free-software.html

If you have time at least read some of his essays. RMS is very eloquent when it comes to things like this.

[argie]

Why, you ask? Well, the answer is simple. I use a 64-bit system, for some reason software vendors are less likely to have a 64-bit binary. Inexplicably, nearly all open source software has a 64-bit binary. Therefore I like software to be open source.

Now, there are a lot of better reasons, but ideological arguments aren't accepted these days, you have to go for the practical, and it doesn't get any more practical than that.

[saulgoode]

The title isn't reffering in any way to the OS.
It's reffering to the applications.Why do you really want everything to be open?

Because I want my computer to be a computer, not a toaster.

If, in order to have my computer play a commercial DVD, my computer's OS has to prevent me from doing things which are entirely legal to do (such as copying the movie to harddrive, compressing it to a different format, streaming it to another computer on my home network, making an archival copy of it, etc) then I would just as soon not use my computer for watching commercial DVDs. I would be sacrificing all of the advantages that using a DVD on my computer has over watching it on a standalone player.

Likewise, if in order to play a game on my computer, that game has to take control of my system and prevent me from performing other computing tasks at the same time (this done to prevent me from circumventing the copy protections) then I'd rather not use my computer for playing games. I did not spend hundreds of dollars on my system so that a gamemaker can, based on the assumption that I am some kind of criminal, prevent me from using it. I would rather buy a dedicated machine for that and allow my computer to be a computer.

If we are talking about computing applications which behave properly within the constraints of my operating system and respect my rights to use them in a legal manner (without some misguided presumption that I am a criminal) then I would not be overly opposed to purchasing such a program. However, I would need to have confidence that the program and the data files it produces would still be functional and accessible for the duration of time which I need to use (which might be several years).

I have been burned too often (once even with a made-for-Linux app) by companies going out of business or being bought out by a competitor (whose only reason for doing so was to eliminate the competition) to be that interested in such an arrangement. The only commercial application of which I am aware that has seen such long-term support for its customers is Photoshop (though there may be others) and I really don't have much use for PS at the moment.

[muellthos]

The only thing which is missing is support for some strange types of hardware, like linmodems ( I think Linuxant is the wrong way), ISDN PCMCIA cards and so on. But when Linux enters mainstream, companies will be eager to get their devices supported. Meanwhile we should set up Petitions to the hardware makers.

Thomas

[az]

I think that,from a newbie perspective,if it works,it's okay.
You see,that's why IMHO Linux doesn't have so many users

Actually, it's a chicken and egg situation. Once the marketshare reaches something like 10 per cent, hardware vendors really take notice and the adoption rate goes straight up.



I think that Linux won't get the love that it deserves until the users stop whining about not being open,and start using that damn app.It works,and it's better than nothing.

If FLOSS users did that, we wouldn't be here today. Software freedom is not about having an alternative to one program just for the sake of having another program. It's about allowing the users to run software without giving up their rights.

It just so happens that that has a very powerful pragmatic side in that developers can share code and build on each other's work.



I do know the benefits of an application being open source,and maybe I don't really know that well the GNU GPL,but as far as I know,the source of the program must be available for free to any,and that my friends,that's what drives the publishers mad.They want to make money by selling games,in order to make other cool games.


Games only account for a very small amount of software.

And who cares what proprietary software publishers think? It's the proprietary software publishing market that takes away your freedom to use your computer in the first place.

Software is good or bad irrespective of what model under which it was developed. If there was no proprietary software market, computers would still be used as they are today, perhaps better. The need for good software is not driven by how much you can sell the software for, but how much someone is willing to pay for it. That means that there is value in paying people to write software.

Nine out of ten software developers in the world do not work for a project that is box-packaged and sold in stores.



People who perpetually argue "being able to see the source code" as a benefit usually have never contributed even one line of code to anything.

So what? That's like saying you should not want to live in a democracy unless you want to run for government. There are many more benefits in having the code being available than just simply adding to it.

[tuebinger]

Why do I want it to be open source?

I think that's the way to go. I don't want to fork over $$ every time a new version of a certain program comes out. It seems like every little piece of software in the Wndows and Mac worlds comes with a price tag; so you're paying $20 here, $40 there.(And in the software world, you don't always get what you pay for)

This business model isn't sustainable. You're paying for lines of code that will be outdated in two years or less . That's such a poor investment. I think historians will point out the folly of this... millions of people forking over millions of $$ every couple of years just to keep their systems up to date, and ensuring the software company CEOs enjoy extravagant salaries and lifestyles.

So for me it's financial, but also philosphical and practical. I really do think it's the better way to go.

[red_Marvin]

I want systems, protocols and science to be open and shared because I think it benefits mankind at large.

[suibhne]

Well these kind of questions make me mad - but I'll swallow it and try to be sensible

There is no requirement that you cant charge for software under the GNU GPL - i refer you to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

as for why 'Open' (really libre)? i refer you to this:

http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html

[lyceum]

I just think FOSS is a better business model. You may not make billions, but what are the REAL chances of doing that? FOSS puts the users and developers together and both can get what they want and need.

[julian67]

I want the software open so I can share it with a clear conscience. It's possible to get "freeware" for Windows but unless it's also open source then who knows what it contains? I don't want to share stuff that might contain malicious code, might not update nicely, might have vulnerabilities which will never be revealed or fixed, only exploited, might break if the user updates/upgrades the OS and so on. You don't have to use free software for long to be astonished at the pace of development (read improvement). On my own systems I want free software only (as far as possible while i have an ATI card) so i can update cleanly from keysigned trusted repositories. I also like the fact that I can easily submit bugs and feature requests. I don't think i ever had any contact with anyone from MS but using free software I find I've been chatting with people doing bug fixes, people who write applications, packagers, even distro maintainers. It's incredibly open socially as well as technically. This is perhaps more true with smaller distros than Ubuntu simply due the scale of the project but it's all still possible. You can go from being just another user to being someone who helps others out right through to contributing with documentation and even contributing code, according to your abilities and inclination. (I have zero programming knowledge so I'll mostly stick to helping other users). That to me is something amazing. The free software licenses are the building blocks of the various communities. Now have a look at the world of proprietary software where people are generally looking at what they can get instead of what they can give. That means the people selling the software don't treat you respectfully (read the WMP or iTunes EULA) and the people consuming the software are trying every trick to crack activations, run keygens, break copy protections, break the licensing etc. I'm glad I'm out of that scene.

[macogw]

In part, security. If they've something to hide, I'm not sure I should trust them.

The other part...there's a chance I can fix it if it breaks. I mean, I haven't really done that much, but seeing the code makes it easier to debug and add features and things. It doesn't matter so much to people who can't code, but if you're a programmer it's nice.

[wiscados]

People who perpetually argue "being able to see the source code" as a benefit usually have never contributed even one line of code to anything.

I'm not a journalist, I don't exercise my freedom of press, but does that mean that I don't benefit from the freedom of press?