Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Evaluating the Harmful Effects of Closed Source Software

Posted by Soulskill on from the probably-causes-cancer dept.

New submitter Drinking Bleach writes "Eric Raymond, coiner of the term 'open source' and co-founder of the Open Source Initiative, writes in detail about how to evaluate the effects of running any particular piece of closed source software and details the possible harms of doing so. Ranking limited firmware as the least kind of harm to full operating systems as potentially the greatest harms, he details his reasoning for all of them. Likewise, Richard Stallman, founder of GNU and the Free Software Foundation, writes about a much more limited scope, Nonfree DRM'd games on GNU/Linux, in which he takes the firm stance that non-free software is unethical in all cases but concedes that running non-free games on a free operating system is much more desirable than running them on a non-free operating system itself (such as Microsoft Windows or Apple Mac OS X)."

7 of 490 comments (clear)

  1. on the other side of the coin by Osgeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Having XFCE and ubuntu earlier today granted me with some artifacts tween the gimp and firefox which built up until the screen was complete garbage, and its been a number of years, possibally since windows 98 days since I have seen that on the MS side

    Windows may suck for a long list of reasons, but for some odd reason, will millions of brilliant nerds working for a goal, more shit gets screwed up on OSS systems, more frequently. Personally I went from a windows only mindset in the mid to late 90's to a linux only mindset in the 2000's, just to end up dreading having to boot linux in the 2010's

    1. Re:on the other side of the coin by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I say the following as someone who is a huge fan of Linux and who has used it as my primary OS for at least five years, and as a secondary OS for well over a decade.

      People do have problems with Linux you know.

      Those who do, don't bitch about it on Slashdot

      Well, actually sometimes they try, until a hundred screaming open-source fans shout them down. Followed by a bunch of downmodding, so you can't even see those with complaints, only the Linux cheering.

      Slashdot is a great place. Most people here are pretty devoted to open-source, which I think is a great thing. However, a significant percentage also feel the need to denigrate any person who comes along and says anything bad about their experience with open-source.

      Every OS has its problems. I have no idea what caused the OP's problem, but I have had enough experience with random Linux crap (and bad hardware, for that matter) not to discount this experience immediately as apocryphal or as some sort of Microsoft shill making crap up.

      If you actually believe in open-source, listen to the problems and take them seriously. If you don't want to help solve them, just shut the hell up. Denying that anyone ever has any problem in Linux is just hopelessly naive.

  2. Elitist nonsense for the most part by MrMickS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whilst I can see the points being made, and understand them, there is little difference between closed and open source from an ordinary end-user point of view. If they are unable to examine, update, modify, and build the software themselves there is no real difference between open source or closed source software. To the contrary closed source is likely to better serve their particular needs as the closed source vendor has to persuade them to spend money on it.

    --
    You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
  3. Re:How exactly do I support myself as a developer? by ldobehardcore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cory Doctorow considers closed source setups unethical because it gives the devs the ability to hide any function they want from the user. If the user can't see what's running, how can they defend themselves from spying, censorship and propaganda? If a user can't be allowed to view and control what runs on his hardware, he can't be sjre he has any other digital rights either regarding his hardware. And that contradicts the very definition of ownership of property

    --
    Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
  4. Re:How exactly do I support myself as a developer? by perryizgr8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    then the user is most welcome to write his own s/w. this whole argument is shit. do you think about who's gonna spy on you when you talk on the phone, when you watch tv, when you drive your on-star car?? accept it, you can't have total control over stuff that you didn't make yourself. and you can't make everything yourself.

    --
    Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  5. Re:How exactly do I support myself as a developer? by neonsignal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stallman writes "If we don't want to live in a jungle, we must change our attitudes. We must start sending the message that a good citizen is one who cooperates when appropriate, not one who is successful at taking from others. I hope that the free software movement will contribute to this: at least in one area, we will replace the jungle with a more efficient system which encourages and runs on voluntary cooperation."

    Doesn't seem too fixated to me, just keeping his actions as a change agent to a manageable subset of all the things in society that need improvement.

  6. Re:How exactly do I support myself as a developer? by martin-boundary · · Score: 5, Insightful

    this whole argument is shit.

    Or maybe YOUR response is shit?

    then the user is most welcome to write his own s/w.

    Not if the OS doesn't LET HIM. That's what the bootloader fight is about.

    do you think about who's gonna spy on you when you talk on the phone,

    Of course. That's why there are laws AGAINST PHONETAPPING, because some people thought about that before you were born. I guess you didn't know that?

    when you watch tv,

    There are default rules about privacy here too. That's why you need to VOLUNTEER to be monitored by Nielsen ratings, for example.

    accept it, you can't have total control over stuff that you didn't make yourself. and you can't make everything yourself.

    How about YOU ACCEPT it and leave the rest of us to figure out how to save our privacy in the future?

    Total control isn't even remotely the issue. What is the issue is freedom. Freedom to do what we like, freedom from being spied upon, and freedom from being forced to accept the economic slavery that we are being pushed into.

    It's not difficult. Companies are welcome to do whatever they like so long as they DON'T break our freedoms. Each time they do, we'll just have to complain about it, figure out what it means, and keep talking about it until we find a way to smack them so they stop.