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...

Comments

free as in libre not as in beer

[cats-paw]

I'm not giving up the idea of freedom, by giving up freedom.

yeah, i don't think that word means what you think it means.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[Spazmania]

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.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[Skinkie]

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.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[dmbasso]

That would actually be the AGPLv3.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[BasilBrush]

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.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[Immerman]

If you regret purchasing them, why keep using them? Clearly you actually still prefer them to the open source alternatives.

Personally I try to steer clear of closed source for core infrastructure stuff - If I don't own my OS, I don't really own my computer, and the dominant closed source OSes are all pretty clear about the fact that I don't own the OS.

For "mission critical" stuff, I insist on open formats. I'll happily use closed source if it's the best tool for the job, and in many cases it's substantially more functional and/or polished than the open source alternatives, but part of being the best tool is not holding my data hostage to my continued product loyalty. Too many programs, open and closed, have been abandoned, eclipsed, or otherwise gone in directions I felt made them no longer the best tool.

For other, non-critical stuff, I don't even insist on that. If I don't care about long term access to my data (calculator history, game saves, etc), or effectively own the software (no activations BS, spying, etc) and am content never getting another upgrade, then I see no reason to worry about whether it's open or closed source. After all, I've had plenty of beloved open-source programs get abandoned as well, and the fact that I or someone else could theoretically adopt them is completely irrelevant - I don't have the time or energy to do so, and apparently nobody else does either.

Re:free as in libre not as in beer

[BasilBrush]

For indie closed source apps, I find the developers to be very responsive to bugs and requests. So the difference then seems to be small scale developers vs big developers. Far more so than closed or open.

Open source Windows in 5 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll believe that when me shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[BasilBrush]

People still use Google's spyware version of Android, rather than the open source version.

But I agree that neither Microsoft nor Apple will open source their OS. There's no benefit to them from doing so. Apple in particular uses Mac OS as a feature to sell their hardware. Letting people use OSX or iOS on any hardware would be completely completely negative for them.

Re:Open source Windows in 5 years?

[Aighearach]

I'll believe that when me shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet.

My shit turns purple whenever I drink fresh beet juice! A nice magenta color. Colors the whole bowl, too. First time it happened I thought I was gonna die, until I woke the rest of the way up and thought about it more carefully. Carrot juice produces a nice light orange color that sticks to the paper. The cheap juicers produce less color than the good "slow masticating" types, which crush the cell walls and release more goodies.

I understand the Japanese have various products to add fresh scent.

I'm quite sure purple sherbet shit is gonna happen first. It might be happening already.

Parts of OS X are already open source

[laffer1]

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.

Re:Parts of OS X are already open source

[laffer1]

You're not wrong, but I think open source developers find ways of making code difficult to use as well. For example, the GNOME project seems to hate non Linux operating systems. Many tools are pushing systemd or wayland integration now.

One can argue that since it's open you can re-implement systemd or write a wayland compositor yourself but this is significant work and it's also a moving target. Just because something is open, doesn't mean it's useful.

We all forget that sometimes.

Fall down and hope to miss the ground

[gavron]

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.

Re:Fall down and hope to miss the ground

[mccalli]

Who's "we"? You might not, but I can tell you I was happy running closed source on Linux. From VMware Server through to binary graphics drivers, I was just fine. Different people may have different aims.

Re:Fall down and hope to miss the ground

[geek]

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.

This is a religion for you............ I think you need to step away and get a glimpse of reality for a while.

Nah, screw that

[vadim_t]

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.

This is not a new argument

[twistedcubic]

"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.

Re:This is not a new argument

[Kjella]

"Use the best tool for the job..." Now remember, we wouldn't have Git if it were't for some stubborn activist

This is the open source walled garden philosophy. As long as we make a major stink about any non-free software and chase them away to keep the sanctity of the garden, sooner or later an open source alternative will appear. If Photoshop came to Office it'd be bad for GIMP. If MS Office came to Linux it'd be bad for LibreOffice. Competition is bad. Choice is bad. If the open source alternatives are shit then you either eat shit or create a better open source solution. And those are the only two options.

The only reason that ended well is that you had Linus to save the day. Again. Otherwise he'd probably just have to go back to using tarballs and shooting his kernel project in the foot because of RMS & friends, his project is a massive success despite all attempts to destroy it because of some ideological rant. The older I get, the more I have the feeling that RMS won the lottery convincing Linus to use the GPL and that GNU/Hurd would have been a total disaster that never saw any real world use.

When some people talk you should think letting proprietary software run on Linux was like letting the snake into the Garden of Eden. So now Steam runs on Linux, bringing with it closed source games and DRM. It still doesn't stop anyone else from continuing to make open source games without DRM. What's wrong with winning on merit and not on ideology? Open source is great when it does the job. Heck, for the price and flexibility I'll put up with a few warts. But when I really need something else, I'd like it to be available. I don't want to be in my own walled garden of open source for my own protection.

Sun Microsystems

[Luthair]

Remember when they were opening up all their software because they had a hardware guy in charge and would make it back in hw? *flushing noise*

Re:As an anti-smoking advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to start smoking, you should smoke a pipe. You'll look like a distinguished gentlemen and it smells a hell of a lot better.

Microsoft doesn't make much money on OS? Eh?

[Kartu]

Seriously?
https://www.microsoft.com/inve...

it was never about money

[Gravis Zero]

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.

Sounds like a fucking realtor...

[Chas]

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.

Re:One sentence says it all..

[fisted]

I'd pick a tool that I can debug over one that i cannot, even if the latter seems superior

Re:Dogma Alert!

[Dadoo]

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.

To be more accurate, you remember OSS software folks being combative, and the reason you remember that is because closed-source software people have fought us every step of the way. We don't have a choice but to be combative, because it's the only way to hold our ground.

Hard to make games, movies, and tax software free

[tepples]

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.

Free software is distinguished by the end user having the right and ability to make and share improvement to the software. It works well for libraries and for applications used by businesses, which can afford to hire someone to improve the software and contribute improvements back upstream. But there still exist several categories of software for which a viable free software business model has not yet been demonstrated. How would high-production-value video games, software for playing rented (as opposed to purchased) movies, and annual updates to tax return preparation software to reflect amended tax codes be developed under a free software model?

Things too sensible to happen

[John Allsup]

1. Port Windows and Mac OS X to run on top of a Linux kernel (and merging the best bits of each) so that all have a shared foundation.
2. Allowing apps for each platform (and you may as well do likewise with Android etc.) to send objects via simple IPC and shared memory (data structures like those you see in clojure, are a good idea here) basically an improvement upon the CLR idea MS has.
3. Open sourcing much of those foundations.
4. Putting ARM cores like those on smartphones onto the GPU, and running most of the GUI on the GPU. This is a throwback to X11, but based around modern GPUs with the pcie backplane being the network.
5. Having the GUI frontend be a separate small OS running on said ARM cores, which both runs the GUI, sound and such, and brings up the main processors, which are then freed up for the general purpose processing tasks they are best at.
6. Moving away from binary code to higher level code (android runtime sort of illustrates this) which can be comipiled either AOT or JIT when loaded onto a system.
7. Using dynamic compilation for both performance and security purposes (this entail rethinking the syscall interface, so that a process can only access the syscalls it needs: something akin to capability security, which can be achieved via the AOT and JIT compilation so that a process is limited in what syscalls it can make: do not allow processes to create executable binary code without explicit permission, and so on. This would make reverse engineering much easier, which is why things probably aren't heading this way, but Free Software would not suffer in the same way. (The thesis on the Synthesis OS, from quite a few years back, is worth a quick perusal.)
8. Do likewise as the coprocessed GUI for sound, and synchronosed sound and graphics, and IO (rather than taxing the main processors with the overhead of USB, having a small ARM core or similar doing this would get us back some of the advantages Firewire traditionally had over USB.
The thing is, small ARM cores (or similar) as we find in mobile phones, raspberry pis and so on, can be cheaply added to e.g. a GPU, and since main processors (intel and amd) are hitting a wall with single core performance, it is sensible to start offloading to coprocessors as we had to do in the old days. But these days a small ARM core together with a specialised processor would be the way to go. Making it ubiquitous would lead to economies of scale (provided patent nightmares don't rear their ugly head as they tend to).
Having done the above, OS architecture would need a bit of chanigng.

Windows won't be open source

[allo]

Just think about it. Does microsoft want a windows version, where things like the win10 installer can be removed easily?

They want to make money with their app store, to copy the apple business model. This needs a tight coupling of app store and operation system, because currently the system works fine with non-appstore programs.

Google can afford an open source android, as most people install the play store as very first thing on their custom rom. Because without appstore you're pretty much fucked when you want to run commercial apps (you may buy and install them, but their drm requires google or amazon appstore).

Microsoft cannot, as all programs already bring their own drm and their own updater programs. An appstore is convenient for programmers, but not required to achieve the things, which an appstore provides. And people are used to find software without store, on mobile platforms most people do not consider other sources, not even installing something as f-droid or the amazon store (which even has a daily offer of one paid app for free).