Having some question about closed-source and open-source

[rEbyTer]

I'm doing some research right now about what people would like to use: open-source or closed-source , aiming at Linux vs. Windows and the future of Microsoft Corporation and a open-source community.

Also you could read this (http://www.michaelhorowitz.com/Linux.vs.Windows.html) article to see what i'm saying.

As I can see the future of linux is bright for some 'hard' reasons like: ability to run as LiveCD, preinstaled software, the support, the freedom to change like you want, also the limit of posibilites are given by YOU, not by the OS(like windows), is very cheap or free, very secured, you can run it on a lowend computer very good and this is amazing.

And think about it, if you dislike it you can make it in your way.

Nowadays linux is spreading fast all over the places and this is good but the problem is that there are people that don't have time to learn a new OS, or don't want to, so they will never run linux on their home computer.

For the future computer industry we can do a thing and this is to learn our childs about benefits of free software and using it. For example i showed to my cousin which is six years old Ubuntu and now he is really enjoying it. Think about it he is just a child and he sayd that is more user friendly than his previews OS version (WinXP).

I was amazed by his answer....

So please post something which has the subject of this thread. I want to write an article about benefits of free software.

Thank you for your contribution.

[tamoneya]

i think the biggest thing is the low cost laptop/PC argument. With prices of hardware dropping everyday you can get $200 worth of hardware that works great. Then you can either install linux which is free or install windows for ~$150. The cost of the OS is just becoming to much with respect to the cost of the hardware in my opinion.

[mb_webguy]

I like the idea that there's a greater degree of accountability with open-source software.

A person developing proprietary software for a company is anonymous as far as the end-user is concerned, and may get paid the same salary regardless of the quality of code produced. Sure, if he exceeds a certain arbitrary limit of errors per source lines of code, he may be in risk of losing his job, but he has no other real personal incentive to write solid code. That is, he has incentive to not produce bad software, but not to produce good software.

On the other hand, a person developing open-source software for a project of any significant size (which, by necessity, requires a certain degree of organization) puts his reputation on the line with every line of code he writes. Pride and all of the benefits of a good reputation provide a positive incentive to write solid code.

On top of that, the people who develop open-source software usually do so initially for themselves, rather than for some anonymous user. Video editing software is created by people who know something about video editing, rather than some software developer hired for his programming skills rather than a knowledge of video editing. While this sometimes means that the user interface of open-source software isn't necessarily very intuitive (since the person who wrote the software knows how it's supposed to work, and doesn't need to figure out the interface), it means that the functionality is better than if it were written by someone with a less-than-perfect understanding of what the program is supposed to do. Because open-source software is developed by a community of knowledgable enthusiasts, development of software is continuous, and, for the more popular projects, occasionally faster than its commercial counterpart.

And yes, there's the fact that it's free of charge, which is nice. Commercial software can be prohibitively expensive, sometimes costing as much or more than the hardware it runs on. Why would someone who simply wants to write a paper and make a presentation for a school project pay $400 to $700 (USD) for Microsoft Office? They can buy a computer at Wal-mart for half as much! This is especially true in developing countries. People in rural areas of Africa and China wouldn't bother buying a computer and entering the Information Age if they had to pay that much for the software to run on it. But with free-as-in-beer open-source software, such people can afford to be a part of the world community through the Internet.

[rEbyTer]

Thank all of you for your replies.

mb_webguy , your answer is great, now I can understand how open-source works internally. Yes what you sayd is very true especially this:

Video editing software is created by people who know something about video editing, rather than some software developer hired for his programming skills rather than a knowledge of video editing..

But I have new questions...

At my school teachers , classmates are asking me why the hell I don't use MS WinXP Yes nobody uses Vista :( which in my opinion is MUCH better than XP which has NO eyecandy at all...) and Microsoft office and winrar and OTHER SOURCE OF CLOSED SOURCE ... They're all using pirated software and I can't do anything... I want to make them to use&believe benefits of free software but I don't know how.... :( Linux is MUCH user friendly and EASY than Windows and the support IS GREAT. And this free of charge..
What I can answer when my teachers&classmates asking me why i dont use MS Windows,Ms Office,Ms Ms Ms ..... ????? This is peacing me of.. :(

Some classmates told me that a new software is buyed for let say 1-2months and then is pirated .. like a expired software. :( This is really peacing me OFF and i don't know what to answer.

Other situation like this 'storyed' are welcome.

Please help me writing this article, All of you will receive thanks, and copyright notices on bottom of my page!!!

[perce]

What I can answer when my teachers&classmates asking me why i dont use MS Windows,Ms Office,Ms Ms Ms ..... ????? This is peacing me of.. :(


You have many choices here: you can tell them that you put what the hell you want in your computer and it's none of their business to question about it (impolite answer), or you can tell them you take law seriously and don't want to pirate software, you can explain them that free software is more geared to the interests of customers, and point them here for the definition of free software http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software and here http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2007/fall/antifeatures/ free and here http://badvista.fsf.org/blog/don-t-give-microsoft-the-remote-control for real life examples (expect bad reactions because people don't like freedom) or simply answer "because it's cooler" and spin compiz's cube.

[Lexicon101]

try compiz and (relatively) easy to use themes for eye candy.
openoffice.org for office, and one of many choices for archive handling. (including gzip and such alternatives to the .rar format. Many are better at compressing certain things.)
Mostly anything you can do in Windows, you can do quicker and more reliably on linux...
(imho)

[Keyper7]

The short answer (if they're just asking for the sake of it):

Just say that Linux fits your personal needs and tastes better than Windows. It's a matter of opinion. You don't use Linux because you are superior, smarter or more honest. You use it because you tried both Windows and Linux and honestly concluded that Linux is better for you. For other people, Windows might be better for perfectly valid reasons. Simply put: respect their choices and ask them to respect yours.

The long answer (if they honestly want to know more about F/OSS):

Just give straight, in-your-face practical advantages of F/OSS. The average user is not convinced by ideologies, morals or even laws. He's convinced by aspects that actually improve his experience and make things easier and more pleasant.

For a good example of why open source is good, you can mention the repositories. Most Windows users must've faced the situation where an arrogant third-party installer wanted to put files in "C:/CompanyName/ProgramName" instead of the usual "C:/Program Files/Program Name" like it should. Ubuntu's repositories contain software packaged and patched by Ubuntu members, ensuring that all of them integrate nicely with Ubuntu both in technical terms (where it puts the files) and more subjective terms (appearance and interface style). This is only possible because the source code is there, available for modification.

For a good example of why freedom is good, you can give any example of a software that started as a fork of other and mention that such software wouldn't exist if the original one didn't have a license that allows modifying and redistributing. Flock (http://flock.com/) is a web browser specialized in social networking, very useful for people who use Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Flickr, Blogger, Gmail, Yahoo Mail, etc. Flock is based on Firefox and only exists because Mozilla allows Firefox to be modified and redistributed.

[rEbyTer]

Your answers were really helpful for me, now i know that i'll hipnotize everyuone with my answers :). Thank you.

One question unaswered:
Some classmates told me that a new software is buyed for let say 1-2months and then is pirated .. like a expired software. This is really peacing me OFF and i don't know what to answer.

[Delever]

How does one know that pirated software does not report their IP addresses back to company? And you know, if you have the IP address, you can get to location quite easily. Tell them that.

Personally I can no longer stand those windows installers, which suggest every possible claptrap toolbar, helper, whatever during instalation. Every company seems to create their own "updater", "system tray agent" which slows down overall performance.

No matter what you do, windows installation (if it is used) will become slower after few months (ok, i know what to do to avoid that, but it is pain in the..). Many users try system cleaners then, which usually clean too much and break something.

Viruses? Hah.

Pirated windows has it all.

[rEbyTer]

Thank you again. Your posts are really helpfull, awesome answers.

[Master Chief]

Open Source is all about freedom (liberty) and giving people a choice.

It's about creative (sometimes up to innovative) dedicated, altruistic people who spent every bit of their free time writing the software we need. This either because it wasn't there, wasn't doing the things we needed, only available for mainframes or it was simply too expensive for us.

It's also about sharing your ideas and knowledge with others, and this normally without making any money out of it (unlike many of todays corporate developers).

The real and original Open Source movement was started by (academic) hackers (and I mean real hackers here) long before 1998 by people who collaborated, worked togetter to develop the (Unix) tools and programs they needed, by getting input from others (these people, like me, shared their knowledge with others).

Software is like the air we breath in; It's free and should always be free. Not a single corporation or government should ever have a say about it! Just like air, software can't be touched but it is something we just can't live without.

I never really thought about the why and all that, but Open Source touches so many souls that I don't regret it. Not a single day!

/me Open Source developer since 1985

[rEbyTer]

Software is like the air we breath in; It's free and should always be free. Not a single corporation or government should ever have a say about it! Just like air, software can't be touched but it is something we just can't live without and yet touches so many souls!

Really nice :D !

[Chame_Wizard]

Ironic that BSD is the 1st OSS ever(Inventing TCP/IP):tongue::redface:

[mb_webguy]

Some classmates told me that a new software is buyed for let say 1-2months and then is pirated .. like a expired software. :( This is really peacing me OFF and [B]i don't know what to answerAsk them what they do when/if they need support. Who do they turn to when their illegally-obtained program crashes? What do they do if a serious security hole is discovered in the application, and requires an update, but such updates can't be installed on their patched and cracked software? How do they know that these patched and cracked applications don't contain viruses and trojans in the first place?

And ask them why they would bother going to the trouble and risk of obtaining illegal, potentially harmful, unsupported pirated software, when they can obtain software that does the exact same thing legally, fully supported, and completely free of charge?