Slashdot Mirror
Opposing Open Source?
Carl Nasal asks: "For a college class I'm taking, I have to write a research paper. I chose a topic of how open source software affects businesses, focusing on the use of Linux. While doing searches, I have actually found it hard to find opposing views of open source software. Mainly, what I'm looking for, are opinions, articles, looks, and evidence about the drawbacks of using open source software in business. They can either be online or offline, but preferably from reliable sources. (In other words, I'd rather not just have someone's homepage that loves Microsoft and hates Linux.)" The more constructive criticism we get about the drawbacks of Open Source, the better we can address and fix them.
There have been plenty of posts on there about why x company feels the need to not open source drivers.
In fact, there was even one from Intel.
Technical support staff could is a big reason many companies aren't switching over to linux or other OSS alternatives. Companies with IT departments trained in MS software but unfamiliar with linux leave the company needing to retrain or replace their IT dept. to perform the switch over.
I guess you've read Eric S. Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar. You might be interested in also reading A Second Look at the Cathedral and the Bazaar. It's not directly open source criticism, and doesn't focus on business usage of free software, but it's a good read nonetheless.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
Kidding aside... Softpanorama has lots of papers, links to papers about open source.
I detail some of the flaws I see with open source software in my paper The Wall Street Performer Protocol.
Some examples:
And that's just a few of the more recent posts to his log. Don't get me wrong, Dave is a very thoughtful, articulate guy who's no Microsoft parrot -- he and his company, UserLand Software, were one of the authors of the SOAP specification that is proving so critical for future interoperability. He's just got a keen intelligence and is fond of applying it, which means he'll often come up with a different angle on things than you might expect. Go search his site and I bet you'll find, if not the answer you seek, at least some interesting questions.
-- Jason Lefkowitz
Read my blog.
For some criticism see Nikolai Bezroukov, Open Source Software Development as a Special Type of Academic Research (Critique of Vulgar Raymondism), FIRST MONDAY, Oct. 1999 at http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_10/bezrouk ov
Abstract: Eric Raymond's bazaar model provides a too simplistic view of the open source software (OSS) development process. This paper tries to explore links between open source software development and academic research as a better paradigm for OSS development. Open source software development should better be viewed as a special case of academic research. Viewing OSS this way probably can lead to a better understanding of open source phenomena.
Much more relevant are anecdotes from the field, which I will hope you will find here.
I am a systems administrator at a small software company in the valley. Although our product runs on a variety of Free and non-Free systems, many of our developers are working on a very proprietary system and using little or no free software. My infrastructure, by contrast, is almost entirely Free. The drawback is not in the performance or feature set of the software I am using to provide services - in fact everyone is extremely happy with it. The drawback, rather, is in constantly having to fight to use good quality Free software in an environment where the mindshare belongs almost entirely to Brand X. As an example, it gets old very quickly explaining to people why we shouldn't be using Exchange Server to handle our mail, especially when our current Free Software mail server has been doing its job perfectly well.
I don't know how relevant this is, but perhaps you will find it interesting. Good luck.
Not too many companies have successfully sued Microsoft when things go wrong either.
Currently it seems like only programmers are willing to donate their time to the open source software effort
This not true. Saying so takes away from the hard work being done by many volunteers to make Linux more user-friendly.
KDE Usability,
GNOME Usability.
Apple is an interesting example of a company which has an open-source foundation (Darwin) but is keeping certain parts of its MacOSX code closed-source (the higher level stuff, including the window server and GUI apps).
... right now, nobody else has features like these that are integrated so tightly together.
... but I also think that as the years go by more and more of the system including these apps may in fact be made open-source by Apple, once it makes business sense to do so. But right now, at this point in time, it would seem a bit foolish to me if they gave away all that source code for free - like "giving away the family jewels" to borrow the old phrase.
I may get flamed for this, but I think Apple gains clear and obvious benefit by keeping certain parts of its code to itself. Things like the unprecedented capabilities of the PDF-based windowserver, the ease-of-use of apps like iTunes and iDVD for CD and DVD burning, the integration of digital photography and DV editing
Windows XP clearly wants to get in on the action, and has gotten close to some of the smaller stuff like digital photography, but overall, from someone who's really used both, it really isn't even close.
Since nobody else has the technology, you can only get these features (and the killer apps being derived from them) on a Mac, so therefore to get them, you need to buy Mac hardware and get the bundled software. And that's where the money comes from.
In instances like these, it's not only smart of Apple to go closed-source to protect its unique technological advances, in many respects it could be downright foolish for them as the "underdog" (successfully turning a profit while competing with Microsoft and Dell/Compaq/etc, no less) to release their source code while they have a technically unrivaled product that is making good money.
I know that this argument can go both ways, and it could be argued that the higher levels of OSX need to be open-sourced as well
So that's one possible argument against a very specific application of OSS.
Yes, if Windows breaks, you're at Microsoft's mercy to fix it too, but many companies feel a lot more comfortable relying on a big company than on a few guys who program for fun.
I just want to be careful here and point out that this common perception is in fact a misperception.
Look at some of the most important opensource projects out there - GNU/Linux, Apache, Samba, Sendmail, Mozilla/Netscape, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Star Office - these aren't projects that a mere few hackers tinker with in their spare time. One way or another, they're pretty much all supported with corporate dollars. And they all have a rich market of support available - support you can purchase from reputible companies (RedHat, for instance).
FUD is the only fuel that keeps this misperception alive.
The following article talks about the supposed disadvantages of open source and makes an odd link between OS and Ralph Nader--as if it were some conspiracy. This is the most in-depth anti-OS piece I've ready. It's also quite amusing.
--
Scott Brady
NT5 was due in 1998. Lots of great features were planned. Many companies bought into this plan and waited for the great upgrade.
It finally came in Feb 2000 as Win2k.
NT5 was supposed to integrate the stable NT kernel with the flexibility of Windows 95, resulting in a single OS for home and corporate use. Later, Microsoft said that feature would not make it into NT5. Instead we got a set of fixes for Win95, called Win98. A second set of fixes was called Win98SE. Then instead of the single combined OS (NT5), we got WinME and several flavors of Win2k.
In late 2001, we will finally get the combined OS that was promised in 1998, with most of the promised features. In the meantime, Microsoft released three other operating systems (not including WinCE), none of which had all the promised features. Along the way, costs have gone up and vendor lock-in is running rampant.
There are reasons to use MS software, but the ability to depend on their announced release dates is not one of them.
I fear most of his arguments are due to listening to RMS too much (I have great respect for genius, just a problem with his views in public). They don't reflect Open Source, more the FSF saying "all software must be mandated/forced open".
But, the valid case against Open Source is (realize I _AM_ a proponent, it's just good to know the negatives):
Suppose I tried to sell a customer a desktop Linux operating system and distribution.
The first consumer question is: is it compatible with MS applications?
The answer is "of course not". While Linux has many "Office" applications, compatibility with a proprietary protocol or format is a moving target, compatibility can't ever be guaranteed by anyone, and any competition is always one step behind, because MS changes their proprietary "standards" at will. As long as consumer's demand proprietary standards, their can be no real standards nor competition.
(It's very tough, but not insurmountable to overcome proprietary standards.)
Then, the consumer asks: I want to watch my DVD's... can Linux do that?
The answer is "yes... but it's illegal". No distribution can install the necessary DeCSS code, or the folks who sell the distribution would be charged with a criminal offense under the DMCA. Only those companies approved by the MPAA can legally sell the software for watching DVD's, and they aren't allowing any Open Source projects to do it. But you can go off shore (France) to get DVD viewing programs; but realize that software is illegal to possess in the states. Note that you bought or rented the DVD legally -- they're just trying to control the applications that allow you to watch it. The legislators decided that they couldn't stop those illegally distributing copyrighted material, so they wrote laws that make it criminal to write programs that compete with programs that handle copyrighted material.
When Open Source gets beyond proprietary standards, laws benefiting those with the proprietary lock-in kick in to help maintain monopolies and proprietary standards.
So, the customer asks: you mean to be compatible with Windows I have to use illegal "hacker" software.
The answer is, in the states, "yes".
As long as the answer is "yes", no Open Source distribution can be a legitimate contender for the desktop.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!