No Competition Between Open and Closed Source?

techie writes "MadPenguin.org is highlighting the lack of competition between open and closed source applications. The author writes, 'Is there really the level of competition in the open source world that we see in the closed source world? This is something that has been stuck in my mind lately as I have been told so many times by closed source developers that by opening the code you are creating your own competition. Today, I'm here to explore this theory and hopefully prove why it's false.'"

Comments

Apples to Oranges

[Adambomb]

How on earth CAN one compare open source to closed source software in any meaningful way when it comes to competition? Can someone point me at a single Open sourced project that offers the same, or at least equivalent, service as the closed source version? I'm not just talking about technical specifications or functionality of the app itself, but also service, support, AND legal responsibility.

Just because we as informed users are able to make use of equivalent FUNCTIONALITY it does not mean that it is an equivalent good in terms of the commercial world. Can we say that a program where the creating company is liable for the effects of its software on your system is truely equivalent in the business world versus the exact same functionality but "NO RESPONSIBILITY, IN WHOLE OR IN PART.." yadda yadda yadda.

Note that I'm not saying open source is bad, or that closed source is better, merely that the two tend to be completely different when you look at all sides.

Re:Apples to Oranges

[mangu]

Can someone point me at a single Open sourced project that offers the same, or at least equivalent, service as the closed source version?

Sure, take a look here. The first Linux kernel was released in October 1991. If you had any reservations about its shortcomings, you can still get fixes for those today.

Let's compare that to a closed source equivalent. In 1991 I bought a copy of Microsoft Windows 3.0 for $40. It had several bugs and I used their support service to complain. Their answer? Those bugs would be fixed in version 3.1. So I asked, when would they send me my version 3.1? Their answer: I could buy version 3.1 as soon as it came out. No, I said, I didn't want to buy version 3.1, I wanted the bugs in version 3.0, for which I had paid $40, fixed. I wasn't interested in paying $45 more to get the additional features in Windows 3.1, all I wanted was the Windows 3.0 for which I had paid $40 working correctly. Can't be done, was their answer.

Now, let's see again, how exactly do you define "service, support, AND legal responsibility"???

And you know what's the worse of it? Although they have, 16 years ago, disclaimed all responsibility for the bugs in Windows 3.0, its copyright won't expire for several decades... Oh, yeah, *LEGAL* responsibility, indeed!

Right now I'm doing "1"

[mangu]

Unless they've looked at the source and decided "this is an unsalvageable piece of crap" they won't be doing 1, and even if they have, the developers have probably done that too

Not really. I'm currently in the pre-alpha stage of a project to create a racing car simulation. There are two great projects in this area right now, torcs and rars. I've used both and I like them both, I have nothing against them. But I just thought that, first, I would like more emphasis on the physics simulation part that neither of those projects emphasize much, and, second, by starting my own project I would have a much better control on several other parts that I'd like to give more priority, such as network play, for instance.

Maybe nothing will come out of my project, after all I'm doing it in my spare time, but if I do eventually publish it, there will exist a third FOSS car racing simulation out there. OK, it will be more like a sixtieth or so, but most of the other projects are stopped at a rather preliminary stage. Take a quick browse through sourceforge and you'll see that there is no lack of competing pieces of software in the FOSS arena.

Re:No competition between open and closed?

[Tatisimo]

I for one chose GIMP over Photoshop, and am migrating from CorelDRAW to Inkscape. The comercial software hogs up the ram too much, and "calls home" nearly every time it's started to look for updates (which slow down the system when installed). The only thing I need now is Corel cdr format support on inkscape, then I can ditch Corel without sacrificing compatibility with the people I work with. Oh, and as soon as inkscape (or Karbon 14, perhaps) gets usable at a professional level, I can FINALLY ditch M$ Windows XP! Open source is really pwning commercial software that way.

Article == spam link

[gvc]

The linked-to article is web spam. Meaningless gibberish laden with sponsored links. I'm not even convinced that it was written by a human.

Check out the evaluation guidelines for the Web Spam Challenge (final results to be announced tomorrow) and tell me that you would not say the article is spam.

Re:Terrible Article

[Radres]

The same way that 90% of the articles make it to Slashdot: by making broad, controversial claims sure to spark click-through and reader responses which in turn garner more click-through and ad revenue. Most people don't read the articles anyway, so each new article posted is just a chance for people to regurgitate the same old arguments they've already had thousands of times with the same people winning with the same ideas.

Re:How does competition help?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

When OSS teams "reinvent the wheel", they are doing it because the existing wheels don't do something that is required. Yes, sometimes OSS projects sets out to replicate the functionality of a different OSS project - sometimes intentionally, but typically because they are not aware of eachother, but these quickly whither and die or amalgamate. This tends to make OSS far more efficient and is better for the customer. Commercial teams just need to reinvent to get to exactly the same state as their competitors. This means that there is less output for the same amount of effort.

I quote Linux file systems because these are a good demonstration of richness and diversity. The different Linux file systems exist because each have their merits (compression, speed, robustness, flash memory...). Those that don't serve a purpose, and are just "me-too" soon disappear with no more effort being wasted on them. There are far fewer commercial file systems available and many of those are just in-house variants of FAT. In other words, many teams have just built something the same. What a waste of effort.