Re: University Professor Tries to Hammer Ubuntu
[*] Restricted choice - In virtually every area of software there are dozens if not hundreds choices for different commercial packages, but rarely are there more than one or two, if any, open source options.
Just search the repositories and you will see that there is very often more than one implementation of a particular program. One of the criticisms of F/Loss is that there is too much choice and that the community will often chose to create a new project instead of starting from existing code...
That's one of the strengths of F/Loss, you get more choice. Much more choice...
[*] Poor integration with Microsoft - Open source products tend to be created by people who do not want to work with other platforms like dot net, so as a result their products are poorly integrated with Microsoft products such as Windows, do not use Microsoft features well, and fail to take maximum advantage of the Windows environment.
F/Loss is as interoperable with proprietary technologies as theose technologies will allow. There is a .net implementation called Mono. Usually, if there is no interoperability with an existing proprietary application, it's because it's a closed format or otherwise un-implementable without proper specs or standardizations. It's Microsoft's fault.
[*] Poor vertical integration - Open source products tend to be written by people who buy into the "software tools" idea of UNIX whereby one puts together an ultimate application by stringing together smaller applications like pearls on a string.
That statement is contradictory. The Unix model allows for much better vertical integration and scalability than creating a monolythic and inflexible application.
[*] Poor interactive capabilities – there aren’t any or few open source packages with an interactive user interface as good as "average good" interactive packages in Windows. Packages like Adobe PhotoShop, Visual Studio, Microsoft Word and others have GUIs of extraordinary breadth and depth, all accomplished with care and attention to hundreds of thousands of details of the user interaction.
Ubuntu's desktop is by far a lot easier and functional than Windows. Internet explorer cannot compete with firefox in terms of usability. The list goes on.
[*] Difficult to use - Open source packages tend to be written by engineers for other engineers and for many of them it is accepted that ordinary function will involve creation of configuration files, writing scripts, or actually editing the source code and recompiling.
Simply not true. Ever use Ubuntu?
[*] Higher cost of installation - Commercial vendors are forced by intense competition to configure their products for easy installation. Open source tends to have much higher installation costs because a much greater degree of expertise usually is required for installation.
Again, just simply not true. You actually get more choice when you use a F/Loss application since many different companies are ususally available to support it for you. This is not so with a proprietary app which is only supported by one company.
[*] Higher cost of operation - Open source products tend to require a much higher degree of technical expertise to operate and maintain, so they end up costing more.
It depends. By and large, F/Loss can save you a lot of money. Like all things, it depends on your needs.
[*] Higher cost of technical support - Open source costs more to support because the software is typically self-supporting.
I simply don't understand that statement. But the fact is that many companies will offer support for the same software, so that drives the price down.
[*] Lack of capabilities / features - Open software packages tend to have far fewer features and capabilities than commercial equivalents.
F/Loss *is* commercial software. There are lots of examples where F/Loss is chosen because there is no proprietary software that is as flexible as a prorietary alternative. Why do you think Google, Yahoo, Ebay, Amazon.com run on F/Loss?
[*] Poor customer response - A well-run commercial software company will immediately turn around customer requests for enhancements. With open source, if you don't do it yourself you are at the mercy of a disjoint community of developers.
Even a well-run proprietary software company cannot please everybody. And the moment a company runs into financial trouble, the first thing that goes is software development. This is not so in F/Loss. You are not at the mercy of the financial state of one company. The F/Loss community can keep a project alive long after the original author has gone on to do with things. The F/Loss community around a project can add features at any time.
[*] Lack of innovation / codification of obsolete architectures - The glacially slow pace of development within open source movements and the design by committee, consensus process tends to assure that obsolete architectures get implemented within open source.
I can barely keep up with the six-month release schedule of Ubuntu. Both Microsoft and Mac have been delivering their new releases late. Go figure.
[*] Exposure to Intellectual Property theft issues - If you buy an open source product you have no assurance whatsoever that you are not buying intellectual property that has been stolen from its rightful owners, or has been created illegally by people who are violating a nondisclosure contract.
The same goes for proprietary software. In fact, since those companies have deeper pockets, they are a bigger target.
[*] Greater exposure to security problems - If your adversary knows your source code and your mechanism they have a big leg up on compromising your system.
No so. Security through obscurity has been proven to be a poor model. WHy do you think you don't need an antivirus on Ubuntu but you do for Windows?
[*] No warranty - If you use open source you are on your own. There is no single company backing the product.
Not one single fortune-five-hundred company would have any trouble finding paid support for any F/Loss program. There is no single company to offer this support, there are thousands of companies. That's how it works. You pay those companies to keep your machines running just like you pay the companies that keep the proprietary software running on your machines.
You just don't have to pay for a software license.
[*] Fraudulent status as 'open' source - If one actually looks at where some of the 'free' open source was developed, one finds that it is not really open source but is the result of an enormous investment of funds, quite often by a poorly-managed public agency. The GIS example would be GRASS, which was developed at immense cost by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Bull. Sure most of the code is written by people who are paid to do so. So what? If it's under a free-libre license, what'S the problem?
I lost a "z". Anyone seen it around here?
Bookmarks