Why Open Source Software/Free Software?

dwheeler writes: "I've just posted a major update of my paper, ``Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS)? Look at the Numbers!'' Many sites give qualitative reasons for using OSS/FS, but this paper emphasizes quantitative measures (such as experiments and market studies) on why using OSS/FS products is, in a number of circumstances, a reasonable or even superior approach. The paper covers market share, reliability, performance, scaleability, security, and total cost of ownership." Bookmark this for the next time your boss asks.

Comments

Open Source is good for whom?

[Sanity]

Here was a post I sent recently to the SiliconValley forum which hosted a debate between some Microsofties and Open Source luminaries which, while slightly off-topic, may be of some interest to readers of this article:

Open Source advocates: A strawman argument?

I think that I see the disconnect here, and it actually lies in the distinction between Open Source, and Free Software. As I see it, the difference is that the motivation behind Free Software, as advocated by Richard Stallman, is to advance humanity as a whole, without concern for commercial viability. The motivation behind Open Source is that a company can benefit commercially from use of an Open Source license. Now, it is clear that there are definite benefits for a company to use Open Source software, however I think a good case can be made as to why it may not be in a company's best interests to create such software, and I suspect that this is the case that underpins Craig's argument.

The question then is - which argument are we having here? I think that it is fair to say that advocates of Open Source tend to shift their position as it suits them - effectively using a strawman argument. Since we are discussing Microsoft's use of a Shared Source license, and Microsoft is, of course, motivated by profit, it seems that at least partially the Open Source advocates, in criticizing Shared Source, are making the weaker case that it is in Microsoft's interests to create Open Source software. It is also clear, however, that most of their justifications for this position are, in fact, justifications for the stronger case that Open Source is in the public interest.

This is a strawman since in arguing with Craig they imply that he is trying to say that Open Source is not in the public interest, and argue against that (which isn't hard). The reality, however, is that Craig is actually thinking in terms of a for-profit corporation's best interest (which is perfectly natural), and then presumably relying on the Ayn Rand philosophy that capitalism will ultimately advance the public interest.

I therefore challenge the participants to make their position clear. Do they feel that:

• It is in a for-profit organisation's interest to create Open Source software
• It is in a for-profit organisation's interest to use Open Source software
• It is not in a for-profit organisation's interest to create Open Source software, but it is in the public interest
• It is not in anyone's interest to create Open Source software

I think that we need to acknowledge that for-profit corporations will do whatever they can, within the law, to advance their own interests, and it is the responsibility of government to protect the public interest.

--

And your Boss will say...

[XBL]

... why should I believe this guy? Anybody can post some stats on a web page and say they are true.

... you explain ...

Sorry, I am too busy at the moment to verify his references. Some of these don't look credible anyway.

(Two weeks later he makes an order for some MS products based off an advertisement from MS, without thinking twice).

Real-world examples? Wither slashdot?

[screwballicus]

Sure, open source works in practice, but will it work in theory?

Um, excuse me but I have some issues with this...

[Chromonkey]

Looking over the "paper" I noted some interesting things on just a quick viewing: 1)under "Performance Date" item 2 "GNU/Linux was the May 2001 performance leader in the TPC-H decision support (database) benchmark (``100Gb'' category)"
Um yes, they did, but they did it on a machine that costs $948966.00. System description It was one of the most expensive machines in the running. The number 2 machine is an Win2k / SQL Server 2000 machine for a third the price. The Top Ten price / performance list is dominated by Windows 2000 / SQL Server 2000. TPC.org
2)The count of web servers in operation is a bit misleading as the source of the information states that "...host addresses of the .edu domain were used..." and if you look at the report there are NO .com domains represented. Well, gee. I wonder why there are so many linux boxes in the report? Just pointing out that statistics represent those that present them.