Slashdot Mirror
Why Use Free/Open Source Software?
An Anonymous Coward writes "I came across Why Use Open Source / Free Software? at Linux Today. As the author says in his intro:
"This paper provides quantitative data that, in many cases, using Open Source / Free Source software is a reasonable or even superior approach to using their proprietary competition according to various measures."
Good to see stuff we've known / suspected for some time backed up by real data...."
It matters that the concept has been adopted by people who know what they are doing. The ellusive 'desktop market' may or may not follow suit, but that doesn't really have to be an issue. A community composed primarily of competent members can survive without the masses. (Do i sound like a linux elitist? Bah. I appreciate efforts like Lycoris to bring FS to the general public, but I realize that their success or failure won't affect me or my computing future.)
On the first read, it looks like most (not all) of his points boil down to IIS sucks compared to Apache and Windows NT sucks compared to Linux. However, these pieces of software taken by themselves do not really say anything about the quality of Open Source versus Proprietary software in general.
One could easily write an article on the poor quality of Open Source software compared to proprietary software if the comparison was Oracle vs. mySQL, Apple's OS X GUI vs. GNOME/KDE, Photoshop vs. GIMP, MSFT Office vs. OpenOffice, etc.
Basically statistics and anecdotes can be used to prop up either side of the argument if one so chose.
However, the article does do one thing well for dispelling anti-OSS FUD by providing a clear, high visibility example of where Open Source Software competes very well with proprietary software. Thus FUD like, "OSS can never be of high enough quality to compete with proprietary software" ready for primetime although dying can now be completely killed by pointing such FUDsters and their victims to that article.
That's actually a good question; if I hadn't allready commented, I'd mod you up for it.
MS et al actually gain from someone pirating their software rather than using OSS. Many people I know of priated MS Word, and if they didn't learn it this way and get used to it this way, they'd probably be using OpenOffice or whatever was cheapest for the jobs.
The fact is, software piracy only "hurts" the comercial software industry in the way that me walking into a store and not buying anything "hurts" the store. Counting non-certain purchasers as "lost sales" is a logical fallicy that's propagated to grant powers of asinine enforcement, and outrageous legal fees.
Isn't the fact it's free reason enough to use it. Being a poor university student, who earns a measly $11 AUS (or $6 US) an hour for answering phones for Pizza Hut I don't exactly have much money to splurge on software. So if need a tool to get the job done I will try to find a free alternative. Sure I could pirate software but that doesn't gel to well with my conscience. Which reminds me, I think it's time I started personally thanking free/open source coders for what they provide.
aus.music.scrapbook
Piracy actually helps proprietry software. For that reason I wish it wasn't possible.
When people pirate software they help that product establish a monopoly. More people install it, the firmer entrenched it becomes. Imagine the next version of windows being impossible to pirate through some subscription service. How many people around the world would there be who would:
a) continue to use the older versions indefinately
b) convert to an open source alternative because they can't afford the new product
If people always paid for new versions of Microsoft products (or any other company) I think the product would eventually fail, or certainly never hold a monopoly - or make computers available to the elite few.
This paragraph was in the "security" section of the referenced article, but it should also have been pounded on in the TCO section...
> Virus infection has been a major cost to users of Microsoft Windows. The LoveLetter virus alone is
> estimated to have cost $960 million in direct costs and $7.7 billion in lost productivity, and the
> anti-virus software industry sales total nearly $1 billion annually.
1) You don't pay for antivirus software for linux (what viruses ?)
2) You don't pay for your IT people to deploy it.
3) You don't pay support contracts for continuing updates.
4) And of course, you don't lose productivity due to downtime.
I'm not denying that linux *SERVERS* can be cracked, especially WU-ftpd (bleagh). But end users opening email does *NOT* cause the same problems as Outlook. We don't have major worries every time we open an email (Yes, there was a buffer overflow in an old version of Pine). Any distro that enabled backtick expansion and allowed auto-execution of email scripts would be laughed out the door. But Windows Scripting Host continues to exist.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
...supporting (through action) Open Source via the BSD and "Shared Source"
Has Microsoft supported BSD by contributing any code or resources? I've heard they incorporate the BSD TCP/IP stack but to the best of my knowledge, that's the extent of their 'support.' 'Support' might not be the right word. 'Use' maybe.
'Shared source' is perhaps better termed 'viewed source' because the word 'shared' implies that the sharee gets the same benefits (but perhaps only a smaller proportion) as the sharer. Viewers get the right to view but they do not get any benefits beyond this in the sense that a BSD or GPL'd licence allots to them. Certainly they do not get to profit directly from this code, just from the knowlege derived from viewing it.
From these two points Microsoft appears to oppose licences like the GPL only because they do not receive any direct benefit themselves.
I have no problem with them using or even making money off of BSD code, for that is what it is intended to do. For them to ridicule other licences under the guise of the caring about the economic well-being of society is deceptive, and overly selfish.
Btw, please tell me if they do contribute code or resources to a BSD project that's code they use (in which case one cannot fairly say the above.)
-B
I'm seeing some highly modded posts saying "this is OSS fud!"
I think that's true, although fud is a strong term. It's OSS marketing, and marketing is ugly. I know most people here are tech types and don't have the stomach for it, but it's a necessary evil. This same type of resource has existed for commercial software vendor interest for years, and all we say is "well that's to be expected".
I was happy to see this page, and I hope more of this papers are written in the future.
Now when I go up against those guys who seem to have a Microsoft default answer to every IT question that comes up, I have some documents to show the boss.
We're not all techs. You can't argue to a suit using the same logic that would make you popular on slashdot. And I bet I'm not saying anything you haven't figured out yourself.
I think the more, well written, scientific papers that the OSS community produces on specific topics, then the better for adoption of OSS.
Microsoft and others have billion dollar marketing budgets, what does OSS have?
http://splint.org - write safer C code.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
Becuase of course
http://Lenny.com
4 great justice!