Slashdot Mirror
Evaluating the Harmful Effects of Closed Source Software
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)."
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
Sure, open source is great (I've contributed), but I think too much of either side is wrong. It's unethical to take what's not yours, be it because you don't want other people to rip you off, or for some other reason. So charging for software makes it inconvenient for people who want it. But think about the people who spend hours and hours coding. How do they afford coffee to stay up writing software so open-source freeloaders can consume whatever they feel like? I've contributed to open source, only to have my work resold as someone else's. Look, I'm not against open source, but to make a blanket statement and call all closed source software unethical is absolutely stupid.
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.
What about the harmful effects of software not being developed that meets a businesses needs? If you do not pay for it it doesn't get developed.
People say yeah linux can do everything Windows can do or clueless. Redhat, IBM, and thousands of others donate and develop code for Linux so you can use it on a server at work.
The 100% no non free code linux kernel was 200k in the 1990s and unpractical. Just because it was given away doesn't mean it was free to make. More to the point Windows meets the needs much better than Linux to desktop users because they are willing to pay Microsoft to fine tune and make sure it works right on their pc. You do not have to worry an update will hose your system due to the lack of an ABI or some weird wifi will randomly disconnect (issue with my laptop with linux).
What is so evil about getting paid? If you need shit done you provide value to barter that we call call cash in exchange for their labor. That is capitalism 101 and is the most efficient system.
All this non free software is worth every penny for those who need JIT inventory in Access/SQL Server to the accountant who purchases statistical add on packages for Excel so his employer can pay him. If you do not like it go get a job or write your own solution.
Also someone should get paid handsomely for his or her contribution and there is nothing wrong with that.
http://saveie6.com/
Why is it that I don't seem to have any of the problems others do with Linux? Across my home and business use I have 4 totally different desktops of different ages and capability along with two laptops, again quite different in age and power, yet I have no issues with any of them. They all run debian (or one of it's derivatives).
Why also, do people totally miss the point of FOSS and focus on price rather than freedom of choice? In fact, it is quite legally and acceptably possible to make money out of libre software. Redhat seemdo it very nicely. However, I personally am more interested in the ability of organise my desktop in such a way that maximises my ease of use, and productivity, without some idiot OS telling me that I can't use a mouse click that way. Most Windows users are quite astonished at the way I can stack up and organise active views on various projects.
Take a page from the book of Kickstarter. If people can see exactly how their payment/donation is contributing, they will be in a better position to make the decision for themselves. No one wants to overpay or be ripped off. Transparency in funding should be the next step in modern day open and other projects. The philosophy of developers being confident about their flow of operations speaks volumes about what their work represents.
I remember a website with a simple 'in the red' meter on the homepage. If incoming donations were sufficient to meet current costs, the arrow pointed to the middle. If insufficient. to the left, and if in surplus, to the right. I never saw this arrow at anywhere less to the extreme right. Such a meter could easily be placed in a dialog window or somewhere.
We should do everything we can to allow honesty to be rewarded.
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
Why single out games as "potentially not as harmful"?
Moving from non-free to free is a process. It is a process that does not happen overnight. First get the vendors to compile for Linux. Then, if any feel like it, they can move to Free Software and make money through support like IBM, Oracle, and SAP make the vast majority of their profits on support (the actual sales of their closed source software is a minor component of their profits).
Without getting major companies to start moving their paid, closed source software to Linux first, you/re /never/ going to see Autocad or the like as Free Software on Linux.
Absolutism is counter-productive and turns off the people and companies we need to get on the side of Linux. I'm sorry, but ESR is full of himself and full of shit.
--
BMO - Long time Linux user, and user of Free Software and believer of Free Software as a laudable end goal, but the world is not as neat as ESR thinks it is, can be, or should be.
The microwave example is not that good, either. Many modern microwaves have an insanely complicated user interface, and I wouldn't mind replacing it with a more intuitive one. Not to mention what silly things you could do with a microwave if you could network it.
Because if there's one thing people think of when it comes to FOSS software, it's well designed, intuitive interfaces.
#DeleteChrome
Any attempt at serious discussion of the actual topic will be STRONGLY discouraged.
Please abide by our conditions if you value your karma.
You can open-source the code for engine and sell the data, you can find heaps of examples of this.
Opensource game engines that are cooperatively made with everyone involved making their own game on top of it could save devs a significant amount of money if they can agree on how to spit the work.
While the above post could have been better written, I'd say it does summarize rms pretty well. Wouldn't call him a troll.
Reading ESR's article, what he describes makes sense. The more complex the software, the more bug prone, and that's where the contrast b/w the open source and closed source methodology stands out. The emphasis has been more on having open source OSs, but w/ all those Linux and BSD distros out there, we have a plethora of choices. However, there are far fewer choices when it comes to applications software - how many open source counterparts are there to Adobe apps, tax software like TurboTax, Quickbooks, and so on? It's really the shortage at the user level software applications like this that has held off the acceptance of open source.
I like the examples he gave, and the 5 dimensional spectral axes that he set up based on the reliability harm, the unhackability harm, the agency harm, the lock-in harm and the amnesia harm. That at least establishes a scale on which to put things, rather than an 'open-source good, closed source bad' slogan. The comments section in his thread made interesting reading, w/ the examples of the elevators, the microwaves, the washing machines, the smartphones, and so on.
I spent the best part of 10 years playing with Linux on and off, trying desperately to convert to Linux because I was influenced by such figureheads like Stallman as well as fanboys (Slashdot included) telling me it was better than Windows and I would benefit from the freedom. All I ended up with was tons of wasted time, a lot of substandard software, very few games, a ton of FUD and promises that never came true, and I'm fucking angry of all the time I could have spent just continuing with Windows and enjoying actually USING my computer instead of tinkering forever.
My motive is that I have a huge chip on my shoulder and I don't like seeing people misled by Stallman, the FSF and such folks. And yes, free software is no big deal. People use proprietary software all the time and make plenty of useful things with it. For goodness sake, life doesn't have to be a battle all the time. You can use closed-source software without feeling bad about it.
Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
I just hope Raymond and Stallman also plant their own crops, cook their own food and never eat out.
But food is just like open source. The ingredients are listed on every package in the grocery store, you can grow and cook your own or pay someone else to grow and cook it.
The few "foods" that are like proprietary software is soda with its secret formulas, "fast food" -- and like software, closed source food is usually bad for you.
Free Martian Whores!
If there was no copyright, [copyleft] licenses would be unnecessary.
Case in point: If someone were to take your public domain program, improve it, and distribute the improved version without source code, someone else with a lot of time on his hands could lawfully disassemble it, thoroughly comment it, and distribute the program and its commented disassembly to the public. This already happens less-than-legally.