Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Can Open Source and Commercial Software Coexist?

Posted by Cliff on from the SIGGRAPH-really-wants-to-know dept.

morrison asks: "In recent years, the Open-Source movement has increased dramatically. Harnessing the power of thousands of developers and testers has proven successful, to varying degrees, in developing operating systems, graphics applications, and web tools, including Linux, POV-Ray, Blender, Gimp, and Apache. In a SIGGRAPH 2005 discussion panel, the questions will be raised as to whether the open-source model is relevant and useful to the graphics community. Does the model of proprietary application research, development, and usage serve the industry better? Or will commercial facilities continue to primarily choose off-the-shelf solutions? Can all models work together? As a large portion of the Slashdot and Open Source community will be at SIGGRAPH, I'd really like to hear some moderated arguments beforehand before stepping up to the microphone."

5 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. Coexistence by s20451 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As I am typing this post on a Windows machine running Firefox (not to mention Cygwin, Openoffice, and a few others), I think that answers the question right there.

    And as for graphics specifically, I'd love to run GIMP on Windows, if it weren't such a pain in the ass to install.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
  2. Look Around by Ridgelift · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Can Open Source and Commercial Software Coexist?
    Can libraries and bookstores continue to coexist?
    --
    Ruby on Rails Screencast
  3. They MUST Co-Exist by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can Open Source and Commercial Software Coexist?

    Yes. If they allow each other to. There are a lot of areas where Open Source fails to deliver, particularly in the areas of comprehensive solutions. Using an on-topic example, PhotoShop still has several killer features that GIMP doesn't. InDesign provides a far easier to use typesetting environment than Tex. Many users still wish they could have MS Office on Linux despite the amount of functionality in OpenOffice and KOffice. Game Creators expect to be compensated for the blood, sweat, tears, and massive overtime they put into their games.

    The truth is that the two MUST co-exist if we want to get anywhere. The problem today is that they are not allowed to co-exist. Most distros today use a packaging system that pulls from a central repository. While this has many advantages for the usability of OSS, it sucks for commercial software. There's no *good* way of delivering commercial software to a Linux system. (I know, I've tried.)

    These OSes are closed systems where no new software can be introduced without the blessing of the distro maintainers. That's not only not good, it goes against the very ideals of an open computer! A computer is a device that allows you to provide instructions on how to complete a task. While the door is open for "approved" OSS software and personal C++ development, where's the door for commercial software?

    I've heard a lot of arguments that packaging systems can be fixed to allow for commercial repositories. Unfortunately, no one has actually explained how this would work. And as I've pointed out, the math says it's can't work. Having 2^P (where P is the number of packages available) as the possible number of software combinations (any of which can interfere with each other) is not a good situation to be in!

    Linux (the community) NEEDS commercial software. But if it wants to attract it, it needs to be in a position to spark another Shareware revolution like the one seen after Windows 95. Make it easy for users to use their system. Make it so they can visit VersionTracker or Tucows and try everything under the sun! Give the users back control of their computers! Viva la Software!

    --
    Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  4. One argument I've heard by Infonaut · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I frequently debate a good friend of mine who owns a small software company. I tell him that Open Source software does not mean the end of proprietary commercial software. In fact, I think it ultimately might make more specialized and sophisticated commercial software practical because purchasers who use Open Source have to pay less for the basic underpinnings of their computing environment and therefore have more money to spend on narrow but highly customized applications.

    His argument against Open Source isn't about the capabilities of Open Source software itself. Rather, he believes that Open Source software leads corporations and consumers to undervalue the value of software. If Open Source software is being given away freely, he argues, people will feel that software is a commodity rather than a specialized product that requires a lot of hard work and brainpower to properly develop. If the software becomes devalued, he feels, the industry as a whole will continue to slide rapidly toward commodity status.

    I disagree with him on this point, primarily because I feel that computer programming is no longer the technological high ground that it once was. While it shouldn't be devalued, it is no longer reasonable to assume that software companies can command the immense profits that made Microsoft a monopoly. If anything, it seems to me that competition from Open Source will help push commercial software to innovate.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  5. Commercial != Proprietary by 4im · · Score: 5, Insightful

    C'mon guys, with everybody here raving about Free Software, you should know that the opposite of Free Software is not commercial software, but proprietary software!

    There's commercial free software around, and there's free (as in beer) and open (as in source available) proprietary software around.