Slashdot Mirror
Linux Advocate Suggests Using More Closed-Source Software (techrepublic.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Open Source advocate Jack Wallen is a writer for Linux.com and Tech Republic. He predicts that both Windows and OS X will be Open Source within 5 years, writing that "neither Microsoft nor Apple make serious money from operating systems any longer" (with both companies giving away major OS upgrades), but argues that smaller software companies still see close-sourced code as a profit center. So yesterday Wallen wrote a surprising column urging Linux fans to begin considering closed-source software.
"That doesn't mean, in any way, you are giving up on the idea of freedom. What it means is that the best tool for the job is the one you should be using...be that open, closed, or somewhere in between. Should you close your mind to close sourced tools, you could miss out on some seriously amazing applications. On top of that (and this is something I've harped on for decades), the more you use closed source applications on open source environments, the more will be made available."
I'd be curious to hear how many Slashdot readers agree with Mr. Wallen...
"That doesn't mean, in any way, you are giving up on the idea of freedom. What it means is that the best tool for the job is the one you should be using...be that open, closed, or somewhere in between. Should you close your mind to close sourced tools, you could miss out on some seriously amazing applications. On top of that (and this is something I've harped on for decades), the more you use closed source applications on open source environments, the more will be made available."
I'd be curious to hear how many Slashdot readers agree with Mr. Wallen...
The Mac OS X kernel and many other system components are already open source and available on Apple's developer site. This has been the case for years.
Similarly, Microsoft has started to open source .NET, ASP.NET and related tech as well as their plan to bring SQL Server to Linux. I think at this point a mix of closed and open source is already happening. Even in the Linux world, some people run Oracle or IBM software that is commercial on linux. This isn't a new thing.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
He's wrong on all counts.
- Apple will not be open-sourcing their OS modifications to BSD
- Microsoft will not open-sourcing their OS
- NEITHER OF THOSE POINTS Is relevant to software applications available for LInux
(In other words even if both Apple and Microsoft open-sourced their OSs that has
nothing to do with application availability under Linux)
Finally regardless of all the above, FOSS supporters aren't here to "get more apps".
We want freedom to enjoy our apps as per the freedoms of open source software.
Sure, we COULD have MOARE apps. If they're closed-source or blobs we don't
want them.
Ehud
Tucson AZ
It's hot here, but not as hot as the hell that those who want to adopt closed-source
software on Linux will burn in.
I want more open source stuff, not more free stuff. I don't want more closed source applications on Linux, I want more open ones. Linux moves fast, and any closed source software is a pain in the ass.
There's also that free as in beer but closed source is pretty much synonymous with "we track your every move", because they've got to pay the bills somehow.
Hell, Windows 10 costs money, and it has bloody ads in the start menu. Screw that.
"Use the best tool for the job..." Now remember, we wouldn't have Git if it were't for some stubborn activist who ignored admonishments from high ranking Linux developers which inspired Linus to write it. Git is revolutionary because it is free software. Bitkeeper was just "the best tool for the job." Notice how we have several companies making crazy money from using Git (like GitHub), so there's something in it for the "profit motive" types as well.
For as long as I can remember, the Open Source community has been staunch in their attitude of FOSS only while also screaming bloody murder that FOSS must and will go fully mainstream.
Personally, I have long held that this approach is not productive and is even destructive. This thinking has set the Open Source world back for too long. I have been using Linux and Open Source software since 1996 and have always perceived this as a dogmatic approach. You can't have your cake and it too. A few years ago I used Macs along side Linux. It was a work thing but I used OS X for years. How did I work that? I ran and enjoyed the commercial software on my Mac, however, with X Windows already built in and having a great console as well as Darwin Ports. I was able to still use all of the software I used on Linux. It was a best of both worlds. Open and closed source do not have to be mutually exclusive, as I proved to myself. As it always has been, I am overwhelmingly a Linux user. It used to be I kept a "just in case" Windows box around. With Wine working so very well these days. The Windows box is collecting dust while I go ahead and install closed source Windows software for those areas where Linux lacks. That sort of leveraging works very well for me.
So there you go folks, food for thought.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
What he seems to be missing entirely is that free software isn't about the money, it's about freedom. I admit I've used closed software when it was convenient, even one of the programs he listed, Insync. It seemed like it was a perfect solution but after a while I ran into performance issues and without being able to debug the process to identify the cause, I could only report the bug as best I could which resulted in a "can't reproduce, ticket closed" situation. So now, I have software that works kinda but I cannot fix or even say what needs to be fixed. This is the true cost of closed-source software.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I have seen this argument since the dawn of Linux: Drop what you are doing, join the rest of the world and run Novell/MS-DOS/Windows, because that is what the "cool kids" are using, and where the applications are.
How about no? Desktop Linux is getting to a point where it is viable for day to day work tasks, and gaming is becoming not just a wish, but actually something coming around (slowly but surely). Going back to having to use Windows or a closed source OS will set Linux back by years. The fact that Linux is a decent desktop OS is why MS is deciding to fold and play in the Linux ecosystem. If people and companies go back to "closed source, good, F/OSS bad", I can see MS pivoting again, swinging deals to eradicate Linux in the server rooms in return for cost breaks come true-up time.
As of now, the only two MS products that are a must have in a company are AD and Exchange (and even those are debatable). I'd rather see F/OSS alternatives which might take some work, but can be used, as opposed to having to "surrender" and be forced to vendor lock-in.
The market's up! It's a good time to buy/sell!
The market's down! It's a good time to buy/sell!
The market's crashing! It's a good time to buy/sell!
The market is so fucked you shouldn't buy or sell right now! It's a good time to buy/sell!
So this dumbshit is advocating closed source so we can lock ourselves into proprietary software, hoping that "someday" the owners of the proprietary shit MAY open source it. "Out of the goodness of their hearts."
Dude needs to stop huffing his compressed air cans... He's delusional.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Microsoft and Apple won't open source their operating systems. They rely on DRM and/or spying to make money, and an open source version without that stuff would undermine their profits.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
For closed source software to be the best tool for the job, at least one of the following must be true:
1. The best available open source software doesn't do what I need and can't be readily made to do what I need.
2. The closed source software has sufficient APIs to cleanly integrate in to my environment and does a substantially better job than the best available open source software.
3. I just want a throwaway: something cheap that does the job I need done now without requiring any effort on my part. If I throw it away next year, no big deal.
Anyway, those still fighting the closed source/open source divide have missed the boat. The modern threat to open source software is software as a service. When you don't have possession of the object code either and can't even choose to stay with the version you liked, you well and truly have no freedom.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I'd pick a tool that I can debug over one that i cannot, even if the latter seems superior
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Also important:
4. It should work, and not annoy me to figure out why and how it is broken.
For any competent user that is able to use a debugger the ability to actually figure out what is broken, and save significant amount of time doing so, is something that doesn't work for closed source software. Close source embraces a philosophy that any outsider is not competent and the product is pure magic. The fact that no public bugtrackers exists for close source software magnifies the root cause.
Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
Users can't use debuggers, whether they are competent or not. Only programmers can. Sure, programmers also have software that they use. So then the claim should be any competent programmer that is able to use a debugger... But even then it's wrong. I'm a professional programmer who uses a debugger every day. But I wouldn't dream of wasting my time debugging other people's software that's broken. Throw it away and buy something that isn't broken. It will cost me far less, because my time isn't worthless.