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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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?