View Full Version : Write an article on why open source is better than proprietary software

December 6th, 2004, 12:28 AM
NOTE: I copy and pasted this from a discussion on proprietary vs. open source software I posted on another messageboard a few weeks ago

Newbie: Why do people say Linux is better than Windows?

BWF: Well first we have to see what Microsoft is. Microsoft a proprietary software company. Proprierary means that when you make a program you keep it's source code a secret. That means that if you find a bug in Windows you can't fix it because you don't have the source code. But with Linux and some versions of UNIX the source code is readily available so programmers can fix the prolbem. Microsoft says it doesn't release it's source code because it would be used by crackers (the opposite of hackers) to make more efficent viruses. This as most in the open community is an outright lie. Linux and UNIX have been publicly releaseing their source code for many years and their OS's (operating systems) are ALOT less prone to viruses than Windows...

Another reason why it's good to release your source code is so that you can be cofident in knowing the program your useing is working right. When you use a Microsoft program only the people who wrote the program at M$ know how it works. With open source anyone who wants to can know how the program works...

Heres something you probably don't know. Microsoft works with intel to keep selling their products, let me explain. Whenever M$ releases a new version of their OS they make it more resource hogging than their last one (this is why XP runs slower than ME) they say it is because each new os has more programs on it. That is only half of it. They make it that way so Microsoft can keep making new operating systems and intel can keep selling more processors and thus more computers. With Linux & open source they don't force you to upgrade like that...

Heres something I just learned yesterday and it really surpised me. I was wondering why Linux doesn't have and disk defraggers. The reason why it doesn't is this. Lets pretend a program you want to open up is a file. And the program that open up that file is a secretary. The first secretary gets the file cabinet that the file is in the dumps everything allover the floor. She gets the file she wants and just stuffs the rest of the files into random cabinets. That is the Microsoft way. Now you have a second secretary trying out for the same job. She open up the cabinet the file is in. Takes the file out. And closes the drawer. She also notices a few files that are out of place while doing that and she puts them in the right cabinets. That is the UNIX and Linux way. UNIX has been doing that since 1984. That's 20 years. Microsoft still thinks it's better to dump everything on the floor and spend an hour or two running defragger...

Running a program where the source code isn't make public is like driving a car that only the manufacturer knows how to change the oil. What makes you think that an OS that keeps everything it does secret is any better than one that tells you what it's doing? Would you want to live in a country where everything the government does is kepy secret? Or one that works with the people to build a better community?

Microsoft is only half the prolbem. The other half is those whakos in Europe that are trying to give comapnies the right to patent software. Now that may seem like a good idea but lets take a short look on how that works. Lets say they have passes software pantents and I am a programmer making a download manager. Lets say this downoad manager is useing a progress bar. You know that little bar that tells you what percent of your download is complete. Well if software patents are legilised a company could patent the progress bar because it makes more efficent use of the computer moniter. And I would be sued. And they would win. And I would have 2 choices. Take my program off the market. Or pay royalties to that company to keep useing MY PROGRAM...

The Kernal (program that runs UNIX and Linux) is so good that even Mac uses it. At the core of Mac OSX is a modified version of the UNIX kernal.

There is alot more reasons why open source and free software is better than propriatory softwaftware companies. More more info visit http://www.gnu.org/

And those were just the reasons I could think of off the top of my head. The only help I had was from dictionary.com and Morphix live CD, The live CD distro I am currently useing...

December 6th, 2004, 03:19 AM
Its kernel, not kernal.
those whakos in Europe - As opposed to those wackos in the US who already have software patents.
You refer to the microsoft filesystem in your description. You are talking about fat16 or fat32. Ntfs is not like that, It is journaled, too.

You cannot say that Open-sourced software is better than closed source software. It's like saying sushi is better than fish'n'chips. They are completely different, They both service someone's needs, though. The point is to identify your needs and to realise that you have a choice.

Microsoft is not evil. They are a busisness and are making money. This is what a business does. There is nothing wrong with that.

It's not like they sell drugs or kill people.

December 6th, 2004, 05:41 AM
You might also want to take note, some people won't take you seriously when you say M$ instead of MS or Windoze instead of Windows (though I don't think you did the second one). It kinda begs the question of whether your opinion can be trusted if you already show that you're biased against Microsoft, not just biased toward *nix.

And no, I don't think MS is evil, though I think they should have a few restrictions laid on them because of some dubious business practices.