Benefits of proprietary software?

[bjb.butler]

Hello all.

For school, I wrote an essay on Free and Open Source Software. Now, for our next paper, we have to write an opposing view point. I plan on writing about the benefits and advantages of Proprietary software, but I am finding it hard to locate any credible sources (internet, book, or otherwise). Do you guys know of any sources that explain/defend the use and production of closed software?

Thanks,
bj

[Tomosaur]

I guess it depends on the point if view you're aiming for. There are no real 'greater good' benefits for propietary software imo, only benefits for those who develop and profit from such software.

[I-75]

The only thing I can see where such software might have a benefit is special non mainstream applications such as the medical or construction field where there is not much interest in developing freeware alternatives.

In such cases closed proprietary software is needed for specific specialized programs.

In other cases like Windows, everything like DVD, flash and MP3 codecs is supported legally and works "out of the box". I believe Vista also supports Blu-ray.

However even with Windows, there is no guarantee that a driver thats needed will be included with the OS.

I found out that Ubuntu and Linux Mint has much better driver support in the OS than Windows XP Home has.

If one wanted Windows, I would suggest getting a computer with Windows on it as the drivers for the wireless and other components are already on the computer and no need to hunt down drivers.

[bodhi.zazen]

Please use google :twisted:

http://www.google.com/search?q=propriatry+software+advantages&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[damis648]

Please use google :twisted:

http://www.google.com/search?q=propriatry+software+advantages&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

You spelled proprietary wrong. :popcorn:

The only thing I can think of is that is is more profitable, because people feel more confident buying it.

[Bölvaður]

I recall Bill Gates talking trash about programmers and urging them to not share code. You can try find his letters or articles somewhere.

Also note that with "normal" copyright you have absolute power over your creation which can be used and abused by companies, which can be beneficial for that company.

You can also view software as any other creation, like a film. Hollywood is not open for GPLing their films and they have definitely written something about it.

[az]

The only thing I can see where such software might have a benefit is special non mainstream applications such as the medical or construction field where there is not much interest in developing freeware alternatives.

In such cases closed proprietary software is needed for specific specialized programs.

In other cases like Windows, everything like DVD, flash and MP3 codecs is supported legally and works "out of the box". I believe Vista also supports Blu-ray.



I completely disagree. First of all free/libre is not the same as freeware. A company which sells a device *is* interested in getting software written for it for free. Why wouldn't they be? Does that mean that the software has to be unsupported? Not at all. The license or development model has no impact on the quality of the final product.

There is - and never will be - any case where software is required to be proprietary. It may be the state of affairs that proprietary software can do a better job than the free/libre alternatives (if there are any) but that doesn't mean that it *has* to be that way. Just because there isn't doesn't mean that there can't.

As for codecs, they are legally obtainable for GNU/Linux. http://shop.canonical.com/product_info.php?products_id=244

They are even free/libre - you just have to pay for them because of the patents.

Now, if you want and argument for proprietary software, you need to look at intellectual property.

See this:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

In a nutshell, if you want to have a monopoly over a software idea, patent it and then extort your clients with the patent. Does your software need to be proprietary to do this? No. But it makes your life easier if this is your business model. Proprietary software is not a software business, it's an intellectual property business. You spent more on lawyers than on developers but you tend to make more money.



I recall Bill Gates talking trash about programmers and urging them to not share code. You can try find his letters or articles somewhere.

Also note that with "normal" copyright you have absolute power over your creation which can be used and abused by companies, which can be beneficial for that company.

You can also view software as any other creation, like a film. Hollywood is not open for GPLing their films and they have definitely written something about it.

For an interesting work on copyright, read Free Culture, by Lawrence lessig.
http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

Maybe that will give you some ideas for your essay.

[I-75]

We took our cat to the vets for a check up awhile back. I noticed he was using a laptop. I asked him what OS he was using he said XP Pro. He went on to say that he could only use XP with a specific program that he was using and that Vista would never run on it.

I mentioned I use Linux as well as XP. He said he heard about Linux but as far he knows some the specialized applications used in his field will run only on Windows. I see his point.

So when specialized programs when used in specialized fields have open source equivalents, then threads like this will go away. I am not advocating using closed source proprietary software. Sometimes it is the only game in town, and if it is needed it is the benefit to the end user...if they can afford to pay for it.

I am still waiting for a Linux version of Replay A/V (free or otherwise) . Audacity doesn't cut it.

[happysmileman]

Just make the point about how it's easier to profit from (I'm not saying it's impossible to profit from OSS but it's harder) and works much better for very specialised software.

I think you've come to the wrong place to get this advice though, since many people here will probably rather fill this thread with their defence of OSS rather than answering OP's question

For example (Best example so far, not singling anyone out):

There is - and never will be - any case where software is required to be proprietary.
While that may be true, the OP is required to make a point for his homework, he won't get marks for making the exact opposite point (which he's already done in another essay)

[DarKnyht]

Hello all.

For school, I wrote an essay on Free and Open Source Software. Now, for our next paper, we have to write an opposing view point. I plan on writing about the benefits and advantages of Proprietary software, but I am finding it hard to locate any credible sources (internet, book, or otherwise). Do you guys know of any sources that explain/defend the use and production of closed software?

Thanks,
bj

There are a few advantages (that will be argued against here, but valid just the same). Remember these are broad generalizations, and I know there are exceptions to this.

First, Proprietary software "should" come out of the box as a complete package, a version 1.0, 2.0, etc. In the closed sourced world, you generally don't get an alpha, beta, or otherwise incomplete program. Now, that software may be buggy but it is considered a final product. With open source, while some projects are maintained, it generally is a mixed bag on quality. More on that later.

Second, Proprietary software generally has a much more polished interface and design than open source. Most companies put a lot of time and effort into the look and feel of their product, because the product that is easiest to use generally the one that sells. Open-source software again can be a mixed bag on this. There are some beautiful Open-Source projects and there are others that look like they were designed and thought out by a four year-old.

Third, Proprietary software addresses things that open-source normally will not bother with. If you need a highly specialized application that only a small user base is going to use, good luck finding an open sourced version. Open-Source Software generally follows a philosophy of mob-rule, which is to say developers work only on what interests them. Proprietary Software makers work on things because they see profit from it.

Fourth, Proprietary software generally doesn't fork in the middle of something. This is a good and bad thing. It is good because there is an overlord (the company) that pushes the development in a single direction and ensuring that everyone is working towards the same goal It is sometimes bad because that sometimes results in everyone moving in the wrong direction (Office 2007, Vista, Word Perfect).

Fifth, Documentation for Proprietary software is generally well done. This is simply for the same reasons as #2. Open Source can be a mix bag.

Sixth, you generally never get the answer, "If you don't like it, just take the code and fix it." from some jerk when you have a problem with your program. They may tell you it isn't a possibility with what you have, but they generally have a much friendlier attitude than some Open-Source Elitists you can come across online.

Seventh, Open Source can just leave you with a half complete project because the developer ran out of time, or just stopped caring. With Proprietary software you would never had known that software existed, but because it was open-sourced you are stuck wanting more and most likely never going to get it.

Finally, Proprietary software generally means that you don't have to worry about running into a legal minefield. Unfortunately, our society is semi-retarded about copyright and patent laws. This has created a system that you have sometimes pay to play by the rules. This of course spits in the face of the most extreme open-source advocates, and creates a situation where yes there are some things that you just cannot do with Open-Source software alone. (I don't like this fact, but I am learning to live with it. Thank you Canonical for selling codecs and DVD Software because I don't like breaking the law, even when they are stupid).

Anyways, just my two cents.

[az]

Just make the point about how it's easier to profit from (I'm not saying it's impossible to profit from OSS but it's harder) and works much better for very specialised software.

That's a weak argument. Unless you are a very very small business or a very very large business, putting out a piece of software is challenging. The proprietary business model is very competitive.

For the most part, profiting from proprietary software is more a question of legal tactics than software development.

If you want to focus on the positives of this method, the proprietary model leverages IP law which (can) give you a monopoly over a piece of software.



I think you've come to the wrong place to get this advice though, since many people here will probably rather fill this thread with their defence of OSS rather than answering OP's question

For example (Best example so far, not singling anyone out):

While that may be true, the OP is required to make a point for his homework, he won't get marks for making the exact opposite point (which he's already done in another essay)

The OP's question is specific to proprietary software. You have to be very careful that you are arguing the right point if you want to defend proprietary software. The argument made in favor of proprietary software (see below) is based on something that is not specific to proprietary software and therefore not relevant.

I'm not trying to be a radical zealot - just pointing out weaknesses in the argument.


We took our cat to the vets for a check up awhile back. I noticed he was using a laptop. I asked him what OS he was using he said XP Pro. He went on to say that he could only use XP with a specific program that he was using and that Vista would never run on it.

I mentioned I use Linux as well as XP. He said he heard about Linux but as far he knows some the specialized applications used in his field will run only on Windows. I see his point.

That is not relevant. You are making just as much of an argument to avoid Vista as to use XP. As well, there are many arguments to use some software *because* of the free licensing. For example, a web hosting provider will use free software because they can deploy as many instances of a web server as they want without paying licensing fees for each install. So that's your very same argument used to support free/libre software.



So when specialized programs when used in specialized fields have open source equivalents, then threads like this will go away. I am not advocating using closed source proprietary software. Sometimes it is the only game in town, and if it is needed it is the benefit to the end user...if they can afford to pay for it.


Yes, but it's that way because nobody has written that particular app. It's not that way for the sake of the software being proprietary.


There are a few advantages (that will be argued against here, but valid just the same). Remember these are broad generalizations, and I know there are exceptions to this.

First, Proprietary software "should" come out of the box as a complete package, a version 1.0, 2.0, etc. In the closed sourced world, you generally don't get an alpha, beta, or otherwise incomplete program. Now, that software may be buggy but it is considered a final product. With open source, while some projects are maintained, it generally is a mixed bag on quality. More on that later.

Second, Proprietary software generally has a much more polished interface and design than open source. Most companies put a lot of time and effort into the look and feel of their product, because the product that is easiest to use generally the one that sells. Open-source software again can be a mixed bag on this. There are some beautiful Open-Source projects and there are others that look like they were designed and thought out by a four year-old.

Third, Proprietary software addresses things that open-source normally will not bother with. If you need a highly specialized application that only a small user base is going to use, good luck finding an open sourced version. Open-Source Software generally follows a philosophy of mob-rule, which is to say developers work only on what interests them. Proprietary Software makers work on things because they see profit from it.

Fourth, Proprietary software generally doesn't fork in the middle of something. This is a good and bad thing. It is good because there is an overlord (the company) that pushes the development in a single direction and ensuring that everyone is working towards the same goal It is sometimes bad because that sometimes results in everyone moving in the wrong direction (Office 2007, Vista, Word Perfect).

Fifth, Documentation for Proprietary software is generally well done. This is simply for the same reasons as #2. Open Source can be a mix bag.

Sixth, you generally never get the answer, "If you don't like it, just take the code and fix it." from some jerk when you have a problem with your program. They may tell you it isn't a possibility with what you have, but they generally have a much friendlier attitude than some Open-Source Elitists you can come across online.

Seventh, Open Source can just leave you with a half complete project because the developer ran out of time, or just stopped caring. With Proprietary software you would never had known that software existed, but because it was open-sourced you are stuck wanting more and most likely never going to get it.

Finally, Proprietary software generally means that you don't have to worry about running into a legal minefield. Unfortunately, our society is semi-retarded about copyright and patent laws. This has created a system that you have sometimes pay to play by the rules. This of course spits in the face of the most extreme open-source advocates, and creates a situation where yes there are some things that you just cannot do with Open-Source software alone. (I don't like this fact, but I am learning to live with it. Thank you Canonical for selling codecs and DVD Software because I don't like breaking the law, even when they are stupid).

Anyways, just my two cents.

Again, I'm sorry but there are not good arguments there.

At a hospital in which I worked recently, four software licenses for a data management program were purchased. They cost 15 thousand dollars each. For 60 grand, we got BETA software that was not stable (had recently been upgraded from 16-bit to 32-bit in 2004!), Ugly (used Microsoft windows early user interface so most of the scroll bars didn'T work properly in windows XP), poorly maintained (One developer in another country worked on it a half-day per week) with many of our requests for changes/improvements being ignored. There was no written documentation, but the sales rep spent a lot of time working out the kinks with us.
Here is the product (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:WSyV3iS-aTcJ:www.soringroup-usa.com/images/linkfiles/products/Sorin_DMS_Slick.pdf+sorin+DMS+data+management&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=ca&client=firefox-a)

Now, if a certain software product contained a trade secret that had to be kep under wraps, that would be a good argument to use proprietary software. But that's not the case, here.

[Swarms]

az, why don't you help the OP instead?
I am convinced that you do not agree, but that is a different topic and is not up for discussion here.

[Dragonbite]

Actually, what is your definition of proprietary software?

Adobe releases a binary for Flash so that is proprietary yet works for Linux. Nvidia and ATI do the same thing with their drivers.

So Proprietary does not mean it is going to cost you anything, it just means they own the code.

In the case of Nvidia and ATI, by providing proprietary drivers they are able to ensure the end user's experience is enhanced by the tools and features included in their (physical) graphics card while protecting those secrets from competitors copying it line-for-line. Additionally, it helps to make sure the card is working within acceptable variances so as to not
damage the card (which can mean a returned product and a disgruntled customer)
damage the rest of the system (which leads to worse than a damanged card and a worse than just disgruntled customer)


Adobe is able to maintain tighter control over their Flash system by controlling the binary allowing them to build and add onto the technology. This also helps to ensure that control over the Flash technology isn't taken from their hands by an open source alternative. One way to watch the difference is to watch Adobe Flash verses Mono's Moonlight project (which runs Microsoft Silverlight).

[az]

az, why don't you help the OP instead?
I am convinced that you do not agree, but that is a different topic and is not up for discussion here.

I thought I was helping. My points so far are that the arguments should focus on IP law, Monopolies and products that have a mechanism of action that require them to be kept secret.

I think by trying to make any of the other arguments that were mentioned here will result in a poor essay since those arguments do not apply exclusively to proprietary software.

[CrazyArcher]

As it has already been mentioned, some software categories don't exist in a FOSS version. There are no decent free programs able to compete with products like SolidWorks (CAD) or SAP R/3 (ERP), not to mention highly-specialized applications with even narrower application.
Also, sometimes the proprietary alternatives just offer better functionality and work better (Office2007).
Another example - distributed computing projects, like Folding@Home, which distribute closed-source clients for security reasons.

[geoken]

Yes, but it's that way because nobody has written that particular app. It's not that way for the sake of the software being proprietary.


You're basically getting into a chicken and egg argument.

Why has no-one written that particular app? Many would argue that the difficulty in monetizing an Open Source app is the prime reason. The more specific/specialized an app becomes the higher the price needs to be to pay for a given amount of development time (since the price is idealistically development hours[in dollars]/customers).

I have many small, yet highly specialized apps I bought for a small fee. I've followed these apps from their inception and am fully aware of the fact that the apps development would cease the second the author thought their would be no monetary reward at the end of the long tunnel.

[Dragonbite]

Proprietary <> Costs Money

Most of the time it is used as a means to make money for the product, but not always directly.

Proprietary as a business product model is more similar to the physical business model of years ago where you make something, you sell or trade it and get something else which you need (like a chair for a slab of meat or eggs).

In the beginning, when computers were new and expensive (more expensive than today) and there wasn't such a large second-hand market, people were more familiar with the proprietary business model and financial gain became the primary motivator.

Thus, in the beginning, software was made proprietary out of familiarity of the business model and for financial gain.

Since that time the open source concept has been formed, business models to benefit from open source has been developed and the benefits of open source have been discovered.

Also at this time the cost and availability of computer devices has saturated many locations that it has become more of an appliance than anything else. Similar to how TVs started out as a gathering focal point for friends and families, and how everybody in the neighborhood would gather in one of the few houses that had it to watch and now just about every home has a TV.

[Skripka]

Again, I'm sorry but there are not good arguments there.

At a hospital in which I worked recently, four software licenses for a data management program were purchased. They cost 15 thousand dollars each. For 60 grand, we got BETA software that was not stable (had recently been upgraded from 16-bit to 32-bit in 2004!), Ugly (used Microsoft windows early user interface so most of the scroll bars didn'T work properly in windows XP), poorly maintained (One developer in another country worked on it a half-day per week) with many of our requests for changes/improvements being ignored. There was no written documentation, but the sales rep spent a lot of time working out the kinks with us.
Here is the product (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:WSyV3iS-aTcJ:www.soringroup-usa.com/images/linkfiles/products/Sorin_DMS_Slick.pdf+sorin+DMS+data+management&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=ca&client=firefox-a)

Now, if a certain software product contained a trade secret that had to be kep under wraps, that would be a good argument to use proprietary software. But that's not the case, here.


Well Az,

In my profession folks either use Finale or Sibelius notation software. Both of which run a few hundred bucks. There is NO FOSS that does the job to a professional standard--Sibelius and Finale have thier quirks, but there is no other software, FOSS or otherwise that stands up to either. Rosegarden exists--but it does not do things to a standard needed and demanded in my field,

How about another commercial professional program? Photoshop let us say. It costs several undred $$$, and is the industry standard photo/image editor. GIMP, despite all the years of development, has difficulty comparing-mainly due to it's painful to use screen-space-wasting interface (which fortunately is finally getting a facelift with 2.6.1 or so).



Commercial software, like FOSS is a mixed bag-sometimes things run well or don't, sometimes they have good documentation or don't. I miss the days of old when all software came with a thick paper manual that explained every little hidden capability of the software and how to adjust it. I prefer FOSS any day of the week, but where things need to work and or be perfect to a professional standard-your odds of getting what you're after are higher in commercial/propietary application software, most of the time.

[DeadSuperHero]

I think the true benefit from Proprietary Software is that it simply gets more restrictive all the time, thus throwing the best frustrated developers from proprietary world over to us.

FOSS has competitions between different teams, but our biggest opponent really is Proprietary Software itself. Therefore, this competition itself is a benefit to us.

[DarKnyht]

Again, I'm sorry but there are not good arguments there.

At a hospital in which I worked recently, four software licenses for a data management program were purchased. They cost 15 thousand dollars each. For 60 grand, we got BETA software that was not stable (had recently been upgraded from 16-bit to 32-bit in 2004!), Ugly (used Microsoft windows early user interface so most of the scroll bars didn'T work properly in windows XP), poorly maintained (One developer in another country worked on it a half-day per week) with many of our requests for changes/improvements being ignored. There was no written documentation, but the sales rep spent a lot of time working out the kinks with us.
Here is the product (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:WSyV3iS-aTcJ:www.soringroup-usa.com/images/linkfiles/products/Sorin_DMS_Slick.pdf+sorin+DMS+data+management&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=ca&client=firefox-a)

Now, if a certain software product contained a trade secret that had to be kep under wraps, that would be a good argument to use proprietary software. But that's not the case, here.

Well since I was using a very broad brush to paint my picture, you are right they miss the mark with your single example. I am referring to the best of proprietary software as requested by the OP, you are still pointing out the flaws of the worse of it.

After looking at the link you posted, it looks like your $60,000 purchase was done by a single person trying to make a quick buck off of desperate people before a real solution is created. I would also question the judgment of someone that made the decision to purchase Beta software like this. I would have run when I saw the "Data ManageMent SySteM" title on the web page, it reeks of unprofessional quality.

In the world of proprietary software, this program should and probably will die when the developer can no longer meet the demands of their customers. One of two things will happen, they will improve to keep their job or someone will come along and do the job better taking away their customers. The ugly side of that is that a lot of foolish and desperate people will be burned along the way.

[SunnyRabbiera]

To me there are no benefits, most proprietary software developers do what they want when they want and if someone objects to heck with them.
You dont see this in open source, if you want to fork something you can, if you dont like how something works you have the right to recode.
Closed source development also seems slower then open source, without outside input closed source maintains itself very little and advancement is practically non existent.
Open source for me is the playground with the kids all playing ball and having fun, closed source is the little brat in the corner who doesnt want to even be on the playground who has no fun at all.
There is one exception to the rule though in the form of Opera, Opera seems to listen to its customers and pay attention to bugs when people cry out when something doesnt work right.

[DarKnyht]

To me there are no benefits, most proprietary software developers do what they want when they want and if someone objects to heck with them.
You dont see this in open source, if you want to fork something you can, if you dont like how something works you have the right to recode.
Closed source development also seems slower then open source, without outside input closed source maintains itself very little and advancement is practically non existent.
Open source for me is the playground with the kids all playing ball and having fun, closed source is the little brat in the corner who doesnt want to even be on the playground who has no fun at all.
There is one exception to the rule though in the form of Opera, Opera seems to listen to its customers and pay attention to bugs when people cry out when something doesnt work right.

But again, this is missing the point of the Original Question. He knows the benefits of Open Source, now he has to argue against them. I am not saying I agree entirely with what I am saying, it is just the arguments that can and is made.

To use myself as an example:

I buy and used closed source software because they fit my needs best, even if their are open-source alternatives (Flash, Moneydance). When I use Open-Source, it is generally for the same reason, it best fits my needs.

I buy them because they are the only legal way to do what I want to do (LinDVD). I don't believe in breaking the law, even stupid ones, and I am willing to put my money behind my beliefs.

I also lack the understanding of my various hardware to configure it properly, and I definitely don't have the money to keep replacing the things I would inevitably destroy learning. So I would rather pay to get the access or allow someone else more daring to take the risk.

Most important of all, I am willing to pay for software because I am simply too lazy to learn to code to write or fix software to do what I want. My time is valuable to me, I would rather spend it with my daughter than sit in front of a computer coding (or learning to do so). She doesn't get to see me enough as it is. In simpler terms, time saved is worth more to me than the money I spend.

These reasons are also more or less why I don't grow my own food, build my own car, sew my own clothes, or any other the millions of other things I could do myself to save money.

[phrostbyte]

Use this to argue for nonfree software:
http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html

You can think of this article as the Microsoft manifesto.

Basically Bill Gates is the polar opposite of RMS in every way. Except maybe both Bill Gates and RMS lack any fashion sense.

[koenn]

There are intrinsic, inherent advantages to proprietary software. At least, none that I can think of, and I don't see any mentioned in this thread (although I only scanned it and may have missed something here and there).

I mean, a specific application under a proprietary license may have some concrete advantage over a similar FLOSS program (easier to use, available in shops in shiny plastic wrapper, better looking interface, not a beta, ... whatever), but it may or might also have the same advantages over another program under a proprietary license. So the advantages are not intrinsic to the "proprietary" aspect.

I think that's also the point that az is making.

On the other hand, free software has distinctive advantages that are inherent to the availability of the source - the fact that you can reuse existing code and thus boost productivity, or the fact that you tailor an existing application to your needs (or have it tailored for you, if you prefer). Those are not attributes of specific FLOSS programs, they apply to all of FLOSS.

I fail to see advantages of the same order in proprietary software.

Maybe the "oposing view" of the OP should be about "disadvantages if FLOSS" rather than advantages of proprietary software.

[Rocket2DMn]

One resource I've always found that researchers overlook is people! If you know a software developer or somebody associated directly with selling or developing proprietary software, you should consider asking them what some of the benefits are. I think it would be a little naive to believe that there aren't any benefits to using proprietary software. Just a short list that immediately comes to mind:

special purpose
customer support throughout the product's life cycle
regular updates/upgrades/sercurity fixes
compatibility (backwards and concurrent)

These are very important in the business world since not everybody can afford to become experts in a product and often need phone support, or perhaps some software is just so advanced that it isn't possible to master it without having a guru to help. Also, there is no guarantee on most FOSS that development will continue or that fixes will be released. It may seem typical, but just think about all the dead FOSS programs out there.

Compatibility can go hand in hand with familiarity - sometimes just knowing how to use a product is good enough and worth the price rather than having to learn something knew, esp. for users who aren't very good using computers to begin with. People and companies also just want things to work with previous versions, file formats, or with other software that they use alongside any specific piece.

Special purpose software can be something designed for a very specific purpose, or to run on very specific hardware, neither of which FOSS programmers would want to spend time developing for.

So please, don't be disillusioned into believing that there aren't advantages to proprietary software.

[koenn]

...think it would be a little naive to believe that there aren't any benefits to using proprietary software

So please, don't be disillusioned into believing that there aren't advantages to proprietary software.

Well, ...
For, starters, I'd say there's a difference between "advantages of proprietary software" and "advantages of using proprietary software". But maybe that's just me.

Then for your list:
1. do you have an example of a special purpuse where a proprietary license would offer an advantage over an open source license/free software license ?
And why would it be impossible to order this "special purpose program" and ask that the source coude + the typical 4 freedoms be transferred to you as the customer ?

2.like, it's impossible to organize support for open source software ? How come ? and then what are RedHat, Oracle, Canonical, Novel, ... offering if not support contracts for OS software ?

3. I see, so you say it's typical for floss software not to get updates, upgrades, security fixes ... ?
Or, if you desperately need support for a no longer developed program: hire a programmer and ask him to upgrade, update and fix your program. You have the sources already ...
Now try the same thing with a proprietary, binary use only program you bought from a small firm that's gone out of business.

4. Compatibility - yes, with older versions of the same program or other programs by the same vendor. How does that offer an advantage over adherence to published, open standards and availibility of the source code that implements these standards + the right to modify code if need be, eg to fix compatibility issues ?

[Rocket2DMn]

Well, ...
For, starters, I'd say there's a difference between "advantages of proprietary software" and "advantages of using proprietary software". But maybe that's just me.
That is certainly something for the OP to consider when writing his/her paper. Do they want to talk about using, developing, or both?


Then for your list:
1. do you have an example of a special purpuse where a proprietary license would offer an advantage over an open source license/free software license ?
And why would it be impossible to order this "special purpose program" and ask that the source coude + the typical 4 freedoms be transferred to you as the customer ?

That is really a handful of questions in one. First, proprietary license is not necessarily the opposite of an open source license. For example, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is released under a variety of licenses, though it includes open source software, its licenses are not all open source or GPL. An example of a special purpose would be for a product that requires very specific software, perhaps that needs to be built from the ground up. This is often the case with small embedded devices with hardware developed specifically for it - examples could be electronic toys, software for hardware like speaker systems or your television, or even your microwave and toaster oven. Anything that has a microchip has software to go with it, and somebody has to write that software.

I never said it was impossible to order this "special purpose program" without the source code, you can certainly request the code for the final product. Doesn't mean you're going to get it (this just depends on your contract with the developer). The developer may refuse to hand over the code, perhaps because it could decrease the likelihood of doing future business (like maintenance), or perhaps they have their own proprietary parts of the software that they don't want to surrender, like if they built a piece of software out of smaller pieces that they developed and use in other products. This is true for small devices and full sized computer systems.


2.like, it's impossible to organize support for open source software ? How come ? and then what are RedHat, Oracle, Canonical, Novel, ... offering if not support contracts for OS software ?

No, you can certainly provide paid support for free software. However, remember that not all those examples are released under free software licenses either. RedHat, Novell, and Oracle don't release all their products under such licenses. OS software is only a very specific form of software.


3. I see, so you say it's typical for floss software not to get updates, upgrades, security fixes ... ? Or, if you desperately need support for a no longer developed program: hire a programmer and ask him to upgrade, update and fix your program. You have the sources already ...
Now try the same thing with a proprietary, binary use only program you bought from a small firm that's gone out of business.

That was not my intention, I merely meant to point out that there are many, many projects released under open source licenses that somebody may find interesting or want developed further, but that project is no longer supported or developed. Perhaps because there wasn't interest in the product, or the developer(s) just got sick of it. Be careful with that second question - you can't necessarily take FOSS, change it, then turn around and sell it (like paying a programmer to fix it). There are legal hurdles to jump there. Now you say you bought it from a small firm that has gone out of business - then it's not free anymore, is it? That being said, it doesn't mean that once you own the code that you can't release it under a free and open source license - this is actually becoming a (rather sweet) trend.


4. Compatibility - yes, with older versions of the same program or other programs by the same vendor. How does that offer an advantage over adherence to published, open standards and availibility of thee source code that implements these standards + the right to modify code if need by, eg to fix compatibility issues ?

There are many companies that rely on REALLY old software and file formats. There is software out there that is easily 30 or more years old that is still being used, and it needs to be supported by somebody. I'm not saying that open standards aren't awesome, but not everybody uses them - companies can easily become dependent on certain pieces of software, and it could cost them extremely large amounts of time and money to try and make a switch, which can cause pain and suffering with no guarantee of full success. Some software is written in languages that are barely used anymore, FORTRAN programmers can get paid big bucks to maintain ancient pieces of software, why should they do it for free? Just because it isn't advantageous to you doesn't mean that it isn't for somebody.

----

Also, don't overlook the power of familiarity like I mentioned earlier. Not only is it good for users who aren't very computer literate or just don't want to spend the time to learn (time is money), if companies make switches, they have to train their employees in how to use the new software, so that can as expensive as buying proprietary licenses.

Don't get me wrong, I obviously love FOSS or I wouldn't be here, I just want people to keep an open mind. Just because something isn't free doesn't mean it isn't worth the cost - our economy is driven by the exchanging of money for products and services, and software is just another type of product.

[jimi_hendrix]

someone makes money...this leads to that someone expanding his buisness which leads to more employment

[koenn]

someone makes money...this leads to that someone expanding his buisness which leads to more employment
Look at Novell, Oracle, Redhat, ... and then please explain how what you say constitutes an inherent advantage or benefit of proprietary software as opesed to open source / free software.

[koenn]

Rocket2Dm,

You make some good points about both proprietary and OS/Free software. However, what I'm getting at is the intrinsic differences between proprietary as opposed to free software. Free as in beer that is, price isn't the issue here. As a matter of fact, I don't consider 'available for free' as an advantage of free software in the context of this discussion, because it isn't in intrinsic quality of free software, merely a side effect and a matter of custom or cirumstances.

What I'm getting at are intrinsic advantages or disadvantages. As in: not the advantages of FF or the disadvantages of IE, or the benefits in using photoshop as oposed to using GIMP, but advantages that apply to proprietary software as a whole (but don't apply to FLOSS in the same or to a greater extend). And like I said, I can't think of any. That doesn't mean there aren't any, just that i can't think of any.

Let's consider your examples and see if I have to change my mind :


First, proprietary license is not necessarily the opposite of an open source license
The OP is about having to write an oposing view to an earlier work about free and open source software, and he picked "advantages of proprietary software". So this discussion is about proprietary vs open/free. Also, I don't see how proprietary license is not necessarily the opposite of an open source license - at least if you read 'open source' in the normal, accepted sense. There are proprietary software licenses that allow some form of restricted, heavily regulated access to source code, but these are normally not considerd "open source" licenses.

re 1.
Yes, it depends on the deal you make with the vendor, and his willingness to enter into such agreement, etc., but the actual question is : how, in what way, and in which circumstances,would I, the customer, benefit more from acquiring a restricted right to use a certain binary executable then from acquiring the same program under a license that grants me virtually unlimited use of that pogram and its source code ?

re 2.
As you say, those companies provide support for both their free/open source producs as for their not-so-free or downright proprietary licensed
products. So how is "sopport" a distinctive advantage or benefit of prprietary software then ? (Or of free software, for that matter, although I could argue that for support on free software, you don't even depend on the vendor : a competent programmer can read the source and can most likely provide the required support for the application compiled from it)

re 3.
I think you missed the point.
Firstly, I don't understand why or how a decent OS license (like those endorsed by FSF or OSI) would forbid me take the source of a dead OS project and develop it further, or, giving my lack of programming skills, hire someone to do that for me - especially if it was a program that I acquired legally, with source code, and a license explicitely granting me the right to modify the program to my needs, or even just for the fun of it.

You misunderstood my counter example. Imagine I bought a program in the 1980, and I'm still using it. The firm that sold it has been out of business for over 15 years. If this was an open source program, I could still have it developped further, although not by the original author. If this is a binary excutable, no source, and a license that allows use but forbids any form of thinkering, tweaking, modification, ... ; I'm stuck with A unsUpprted program without updates, upgrades or security fixes, and possibly a nightmare migration path, and all because a) no source code, b) the license forbids anything that might lead to a sollution.
I fail to see how this constitutes an advantage of proprietary software.

re 4. You've made my point : old software, old and proprietary file formats, ... these are dead treaps in the long run.
My sollution is : choose to migrate to open standards / open software, to avoid the same trouble in the future
your sollution is apparently : rely on the vendor that provided you with those dead trapsto begin with to keep you in the clear by providing backward compatibility for as long as he sees fit (or as long as its beneficial to his bottom line).
You really think that approach is better ? Who's naive here ?


OK, there are practical issues to overcome. Migration issues, conversions, tell me about it. again, these are not inherent qualities, just circumstances.
Basically, what your saying is : the advantage of the proprietary software is that if you already have it, it's easier to stick with it.
Not very convincing, and you could also say "one of the advantages of OS is that, when you have it, it's easy to stick with it", so I don't think it really counts.
This also goes for your argument of familiarity, I think

In your FORTRAN example you talk of free as in beer, indicating you confuse between free software and software available for free (free beer, free speech, you know ...). Always a bad idea, and off topic in this case.
OK, the fortran programmer benefits from maintaining obsolete fortran code. If it was a program your company was using, but the program happend to be an old piece of open source software, would you not still pay that programmer to maintain it ? So, again, no real benefit or advantage for either model, and therefor irrelevant.


So, again, keeping an open mind and what not, I still fail to see any inherent advantages of proprietary software.


Off topic : As a mod, you should realize that we're probably answering a homework question, aren't we ? :)

[bodhi.zazen]

Off topic : As a mod, you should realize that we're probably answering a homework question, aren't we ? :)

Actually, I considered that when I first saw the thread. I think this thread is more a flame war then anything that can be used in home work.

[DarKnyht]

Off topic : As a mod, you should realize that we're probably answering a homework question, aren't we ? :)

While we are providing quite a few arguments, I somehow doubt that any of us would count as a valid reference in a research paper. If anything we pointed him in a direction to take, but he will still need to do the homework of getting articles from professionals to back them up.

I find these sort of discussions fascinating because I see both (proprietary and open-source) as serving purposes in the development of software.

[Rocket2DMn]

Well, this is getting all nice and academic, and frankly I don't have the energy to say much more than I've already stated. I won't even bother jumping more into discussions about software licenses, it's just too much of a hassle and anybody here who thinks they have a complete understanding of them, including myself, is clearly delusional (or gets PAID to know that kind of stuff!).

Just to wrap up - the OP's questions were about the advantages of proprietary software, he is already written his paper on FOSS. Clearly, FOSS is typically better for most consumers, especially home users, since it is free, the source code is available for modification later (by the original developer or somebody else), and it serves its stated purpose. Proprietary software is good for vendors and for companies who need somebody to support their software, which can often be extremely large in size, and they need it guaranteed over X amount of time, which also means the original developer stays in business. Without business being created, people having jobs, then everybody is at a loss - this is basic economics - software is a product and consumers want it. Proprietary software is also good for customers who are stuck with old software and need to maintain compatibility with old formats, software, and co-existing software.

More than enough has been said, so having made my points, I withdraw from this conversation. If you have some small, very specific details you want to discuss briefly, I might entertain them. Otherwise, cheers!

[az]

You're basically getting into a chicken and egg argument.

Why has no-one written that particular app? Many would argue that the difficulty in monetizing an Open Source app is the prime reason.

I agree. Authors of free/libre software look upon the software completely differently than proprietary software developers. I think that's an important point. People write software for different reasons. It's a neutral point when discussing the benefits of proprietary software.

Now, if you want to treat your software as a product, then it's easier to do that using proprietary software since you can use IP law to your advantage, but I mentioned that in my first response to this thread!

Again, that's a completely different concept than saying "the proprietary version of program X is better than any free alternative so that's a benefit to proprietary software". That sort of argument would not serve the purpose of the essay in question.



Well Az,
There is NO FOSS that does the job to a professional standard--Sibelius and Finale have thier quirks, but there is no other software, FOSS or otherwise that stands up to either.

You can't argue that it's better simply because it's proprietary. Because the same can be said of some free/libre software.




Commercial software, like FOSS is a mixed bag-sometimes things run well or don't, sometimes they have good documentation or don't. I miss the days of old when all software came with a thick paper manual that explained every little hidden capability of the software and how to adjust it. I prefer FOSS any day of the week, but where things need to work and or be perfect to a professional standard-your odds of getting what you're after are higher in commercial/propietary application software, most of the time.

For the sake of clarity for the OP's essay, free/libre and proprietary are opposites but "commercial" software can be either free/libre or proprietary. "Commercial" software in general is better polished, documented and presented than gratis software but it can be either proprietary or free/libre.


One resource I've always found that researchers overlook is people! If you know a software developer or somebody associated directly with selling or developing proprietary software, you should consider asking them what some of the benefits are. I think it would be a little naive to believe that there aren't any benefits to using proprietary software. Just a short list that immediately comes to mind:

special purpose
customer support throughout the product's life cycle
regular updates/upgrades/sercurity fixes
compatibility (backwards and concurrent)

These are very important in the business world since not everybody can afford to become experts in a product and often need phone support, or perhaps some software is just so advanced that it isn't possible to master it without having a guru to help. ....

Again, you refer to commercial software which can be either proprietary or free/libre.



someone makes money...this leads to that someone expanding his buisness which leads to more employment

[az]

Proprietary software is good for vendors and for companies who need somebody to support their software, which can often be extremely large in size, and they need it guaranteed over X amount of time, which also means the original developer stays in business. Without business being created, people having jobs, then everybody is at a loss - this is basic economics - software is a product and consumers want it. Proprietary software is also good for customers who are stuck with old software and need to maintain compatibility with old formats, software, and co-existing software.

... If you have some small, very specific details you want to discuss briefly, I might entertain them. Otherwise, cheers!

The business model for F/Loss *is* support and services. You can't tell me than any one fortune-500 company would have any trouble finding a company to support a migration to f/loss. SO making that argument as a benefit to proprietary software is false.

Now your other point about vendor lock-in is excellent. That is a tactic that you cannot pull off by publishing F/Loss. Perhaps that's an easier way to look at the points in this essay; a disadvantage for the consumer can be an advantage to the developer/publisher.

[jimi_hendrix]

Look at Novell, Oracle, Redhat, ... and then please explain how what you say constitutes an inherent advantage or benefit of proprietary software as opesed to open source / free software.

the only benefit is that it creates jobs and cash flow