Free/open Source Vs Proprietary Software
Caboose
title = name(self, handle) Join Date: 2003-02-15 Member: 13597Members, Constellation
title = name(self, handle) Join Date: 2003-02-15 Member: 13597Members, Constellation
in Discussions
There was an interesting flamewar on the gentoo forums on the subject of Free/Open Source Software (F/OSS) vs proprietary software.
If you don't already know about it, here's a wealth of information for you. <a href='http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/' target='_blank'>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/</a>
Anyway, a lot of people (read Linux Users) value the phylosophy behind F/OSS, and even if a better peice of non-F/OSS software exists, they won't use it. I'm like this to an extent, but not as nutjobish as people like <a href='http://www.stallman.org/' target='_blank'>Richard Stallman</a>.
Examples are as big as Windows vs Linux (I use both, but I use Linux more. Windows is for gaming/Photoshop, I've found F/OSS software (or proprietary) for Linux that does enough of the same stuff comparable software that isn't F/OSS does for me.)
Anyway, what do you think? I know most of you are biased (in the sense that you use Windows, MS Office, etc) so try to keep the thought process of the F/OSS is available, why use the proprietary software. Of if there is F/OSS why use it if the proprietary software is obviously better (Flash players for Linux come to mind to me)
If you don't already know about it, here's a wealth of information for you. <a href='http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/' target='_blank'>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/</a>
Anyway, a lot of people (read Linux Users) value the phylosophy behind F/OSS, and even if a better peice of non-F/OSS software exists, they won't use it. I'm like this to an extent, but not as nutjobish as people like <a href='http://www.stallman.org/' target='_blank'>Richard Stallman</a>.
Examples are as big as Windows vs Linux (I use both, but I use Linux more. Windows is for gaming/Photoshop, I've found F/OSS software (or proprietary) for Linux that does enough of the same stuff comparable software that isn't F/OSS does for me.)
Anyway, what do you think? I know most of you are biased (in the sense that you use Windows, MS Office, etc) so try to keep the thought process of the F/OSS is available, why use the proprietary software. Of if there is F/OSS why use it if the proprietary software is obviously better (Flash players for Linux come to mind to me)
Comments
That's why you have windows for gaming, because it's easier to make something that works in windows than it is to make a program that works on everything. I believe in F/OSS in principle and will use it when I can but it's not an important enough issue to me for me to fight for. I'm always open to alternatives but if I find something that works I tend to use it.
No, I use Windows for gaming because most games use Direct X, which is made by Microsoft and not ported to other OS's, making the games unportable. I do have games on Linux, and I play them too. Games like Tribes 2, ET, AA Q3, etc. I could use cedega to play the games in Linux, but that goes to my why use inferior software thing.
I don't have the source code to the HL engine, nor do I have the source code to NS, I can't get either of those either, so it is not Free nor Open source.
OpenOffice.org is Open Source, the Linux kernel is Free, HL is neither.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, ``Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.'' For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why should someone who spent part of their life and which may effectively become their baby (Programmer's will understand this) have to give it away for anyone to mangle, poke and prod at? Open source just copies proprietary products and rarely does it well. A huge problem in open source projects is the GUI. Never ever let a Linux coder design a GUI. Ever.
Of course, that's not to say I haven't open sourced my own projects before :-) But I really don't think there's any reason to "fight for open source" or get all uppity and arrogant about Linux.
AAAAND. As a programmer, I DO NOT like the GPL as it takes away MY rights of what I want to do with something. It's disgusting. If I use a single piece of GPL code or a GPL'd product on my project, I have to release the project under the GPL? I think not.
While I think the GPL can be a bit of a pain, like Jnight has said<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->AAAAND. As a programmer, I DO NOT like the GPL as it takes away MY rights of what I want to do with something. It's disgusting. If I use a single piece of GPL code or a GPL'd product on my project, I have to release the project under the GPL? I think not<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can totally understand that. If you pour your soul into a project, yet use a single piece of GPL related material, you MUST make it completely open.
People who want linux just because its free are liking it for the wrong reasons because its completely and totally easy to get Windows for free. Legally its wrong but who has ever been imprisioned for a large amount of time for software piracy.
Modularize your projects. If part of it is GPL code, modify that to your needs, then re-release it under the GPL. Then sell your frontend to that GPL code.
Say someone released a point in poly function under the GPL and I used that code, not modifying it at all. I would then have to release my entire project under the GPL, even though I just used one function because of the restrictions on the GPL.
Link please <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. Went to gentoo, didn't see the thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Say someone released a point in poly function under the GPL and I used that code, not modifying it at all. I would then have to release my entire project under the GPL, even though I just used one function because of the restrictions on the GPL. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If somebody is releasing a fragment that small, I'd hope they'd pick a more appropriate license--the LGPL is better suited for program fragments, but frankly a single function is better placed under Mozilla IMHO. Personally, I prefer the MIT license because it doesn't attempt to social engineer programming behavior and relies on the OSS movement to persuade rather than bully programmers.
For the record, I have modified OSS sourcecode without built-in distribution clauses and given the resulting work back to the community. I have also created language ports of OSS works and redistributed them as well.
I believe that it's impossible to fully secure a whitebox solution when you need to assume your users can't be trusted (see Quake), but believe that having a large repsitory of open sourcecode is a good thing for ramping up projects quickly and for self-teaching complex problems. Open source is beneficial but not in all situations.
I think the Free Software movement's devaluation of programmers as service personel is impractical from a business standpoint and the idea of supporting software through documentation and support just encourages obtuse and broken software. Free software is good for hobby programming and volunteer efforts, but campaigning for stripping property rights from software programs has little difference from arguing that music piracy should be legal because there isn't any loss of the original copy.
Software functionality has intrinsic value--if it didn't, the Free Software movement wouldn't exist because nobody would want to acquire free software. Items with value produced by an individual should be subject to free market forces and provide the individual who creates them with a means of support. When someone argues that software should never be sold for a fee, they are claiming that something with value should be given out without cost--in spite of the opportunity costs that the act of creation required.
EDIT:
When someone writes F/OSS works to replace proprietary software, they are voluntarily assigning value to their work in non-monetary terms, and I believe this is a good thing since it encourages both groups to improve their work. It ceases to be a good thing when the choice is taken from the individual.
In the <a href='http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-325777.html' target='_blank'>Adobe buys Macromedia</a> thread.