Free Software

[The Fat Controller]

I'm looking for a discussion about free software and related issues. In this context I mean 'free' as in the freedom to reuse and change the program, rather than being able to get it for nothing. Here's one definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

I contend the success of free/open source projects is attributable to a relationship it has with the anarchistic concept of free association, where hierarchy or authority are more or less nonexistent, or at least not an emergent property of the software development process.

It's my view that an open-source/free model for software development is almost always better for the end-user than proprietary closed-source one, mainly for the reasons expounded in this quote here:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Sourced (third one down, the big one).

 

I contend the success of free/open source projects is attributable to a relationship it has with the anarchistic concept of free association, where hierarchy or authority are more or less nonexistent, or at least not an emergent property of the software development process.

It's my view that an open-source/free model for software development is almost always better for the end-user than proprietary closed-source one, mainly for the reasons expounded in this quote here:

Many open source projects also fail. (Incidentally, I am working on one for work right now.) Have you got statistics to show that free as in freedom projects are more successful than closed as in closed source?

My assessment of the issue, from a B.IT (Software Design) standpoint: Aesthetically, open source projects are often much more pleasing to other developers, and to certain types of business. Business-wise, and end-user wise, however, people like complete ready-to-ship feature rich packages (particularly binaries). They don't like to mess around with anything "yicky" in computers, and who can blame them -- it's a highly technical subject.

If you ask an end user -- be they commercial or noncommercial -- to "compile their operating system for their architecture", or "modify the parts that suit your business" they won't have a clue. The division of labour is such that complete finished products are more likely to be traded (and are also more valuable) than incomplete or open ended products.

Incidentally, managed servers use a lot of open source software. It is an interesting observation that the server needs "management" when it is open source, but most companies are fine to go with in-house admin for a windows box.

That said, as a developer, I am fond of both approaches. I always use closed source for core business logic and trade secrets, however, because that is my bread and butter -- why would I share that?


I think Richard Stallman's big error is expecting that people want open source projects (he mistakes the world for himself). Some developers want open source projects; Most ordinary people hate technical stuff to do with computers, and want pretty much as little to do with the insides of them as possible. As to multiple companies supporting a single product; it happens sometimes in both open and closed source fields. Open source is typically so tacky that people don't actually expect support -- at least in my experience.

 

[FireZ]

In the article you linked us to with the big paragraph, it stated that Companies like Microsoft and Apple had "Monopolies" on the software they sell. How would you say they are supposed to try to stop illegal copying and things like this? They are in the business for profit, not to make everyone happy by getting free copys.

But, when there is a choice between proprietary software products, yes, there is monopoly. Because if the users chooses this proprietary software package, he then falls into this monopoly for support, but if he chooses this proprietary product, he falls into this monopoly for support, so it's a choice between monopolies.

Possibly so, but if I buy a product from Microsoft I'm not going to go to Apple for help because they didn't make the product.

And the only way to escape from monopoly is to escape from proprietary software, and that is what the free software movement is all about. We want you to escape and our work is to help you escape. We hope you will escape to the free world. The free world is the new continent in cyberspace that we have built so we can live here in freedom. It's impossible to live in freedom in the old world of cyberspace, where every program has its feudal lord that bullies and mistreats the users.

He uses the word "escape" as if something is harming him.

Also please explain exactly how users who choose to purchase a piece of software are being mistreated?

So, to live in freedom we have to build a new continent. Because this is a virtual continent, it has room for everyone, and there are no immigration restrictions. And because there were never indigenous peoples in cyberspace, there is also no issue of taking away their land. So everyone is welcome in the free world, come to the free world, live with us in freedom. The free software movement aims for the liberation of cyberspace and everyone in it.

Sounds like he just wants the entire software market to completely go dead.

 

[The Fat Controller]

Many open source projects also fail. (Incidentally, I am working on one for work right now.) Have you got statistics to show that free as in freedom projects are more successful than closed as in closed source?

I don't have the statistics to back up a point I didn't make. How would success be measured?

Aesthetically, open source projects are often much more pleasing to other developers, and to certain types of business. Business-wise, and end-user wise, however, people like complete ready-to-ship feature rich packages (particularly binaries). They don't like to mess around with anything "yicky" in computers, and who can blame them -- it's a highly technical subject.

It's obviously more than an aesthetic issue.

Acquiring and installing notable free applications isn't any more hassle than proprietary ones. Feature richness isn't an issue for a normal desktop user either, at least not in my experience.

If you ask an end user -- be they commercial or noncommercial -- to "compile their operating system for their architecture", or "modify the parts that suit your business" they won't have a clue. The division of labour is such that complete finished products are more likely to be traded (and are also more valuable) than incomplete or open ended products.

Open source projects usually provide binaries, at least once the program is usable. It's a non-issue - you can get a copy of Debian ready made for your System/390.
Anybody has the opportunity to build a binary - or port a piece of software to a system - and then share it with everyone. I remember being annoyed when I learned the latest version of ePSXe (a playstation emulator) had not been released for Linux. If it hadn't been closed source, I'm sure somebody would have got it running right away.

Incidentally, managed servers use a lot of open source software. It is an interesting observation that the server needs "management" when it is open source, but most companies are fine to go with in-house admin for a windows box.

Well, there are some obvious reasons for the difference. I expect free server management software is often written with advanced users in mind. After all, people who want nothing to do with the insides of computers probably don't run servers.
Then an absence of a marketing department to whip the developers into making a beginner-friendly package generally leads to a lack of wizards, polished GUIs and so forth.

That said, as a developer, I am fond of both approaches. I always use closed source for core business logic and trade secrets, however, because that is my bread and butter -- why would I share that?

I think Richard Stallman's big error is expecting that people want open source projects (he mistakes the world for himself). Some developers want open source projects;

You don't have to.

I enjoy coding because it's a creative and intellectual activity, and don't mind sharing what I make. Similar to chess, bread and butter isn't the motivating factor. For people with the same mindset, the GPL is a good idea. Sharing knowledge lets developers make better programs.

Most ordinary people hate technical stuff to do with computers, and want pretty much as little to do with the insides of them as possible. As to multiple companies supporting a single product; it happens sometimes in both open and closed source fields.

I haven't used any free software that continually nags users to help develop it. I can't see why novice users would be put off by software like Firefox or whatever.

Open source is typically so tacky that people don't actually expect support -- at least in my experience.

Can you share these experiences of tackiness, or are they trade secrets?

Support is provided by the community. A Google search describing my problem always renders results, because lots of people have had the same problem before and had their questions answered. Major Linux distributions have forums that are full of helpful people.

Red Hat makes a hefty chunk of revenue from technical support. Bug databases maintained by various Linux distributions are visible. Last time I checked this wasn't the case with Windows. Marketing teams don't like to admit that software has bugs.

 

Support is provided by the community. A Google search describing my problem always renders results, because lots of people have had the same problem before and had their questions answered. Major Linux distributions have forums that are full of helpful people.

Which is ok for amateur stuff, but when your business is losing money due to lack of support for a particular product, and it'll cost you $100,000 to change to another product, and as much to hire someone to fix the issue, you can easily become just as cornered as the aforementioned closed-source product lockins.

Red Hat makes a hefty chunk of revenue from technical support. Bug databases maintained by various Linux distributions are visible. Last time I checked this wasn't the case with Windows. Marketing teams don't like to admit that software has bugs.

I'll definitely give you that one. Much respect for Red hat.