Open-Source vs. Closed Source Software

[Riverwolf]

So, I'm currently working on an article where I'll argue in favor of open sourced/free software, but I thought I'd bring the subject up here so I can see what you guys think of the concept, and if you disagree, why.

For those who don't know, open source/free software is a form of software distribution wherein the source code is available for viewing, tweaking, and redistribution by anyone. Don't let the name "free software" fool you; it's not referring to "free" as in "no price", but as in liberty. The mantra is "free speech, not free beer." Open source/free software can be charged for.

The way the redistribution works is with copyleft licensing. This helps prevent software redistribution that could potentially harm the original distributor or the software by making sure the original license goes wherever the software goes. The most well-known copyleft license is the GNU General Public License.

This is different from most software which is closed source/nonfree. That means you can't look at the source code, and thus can't redistribute it. This means pretty much everything from Microsoft.

Some examples of popular Open Source/Free Software:

Linux/GNU Linux-based Operating systems (Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Debian, Fedorah, Gentoo, Arch-Linux, etc.)
Open Office (An open source alternative to Microsoft Office, another popular alternative is LibreOffice)
VLC Media Player
Mozilla Firefox
Mozilla Thunderbird (an email client)
Most games made by ID Software (Doom, Quake, etc.)
GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program: a free alternative to Adobe Photoshop)

Some examples of closed source/nonfree software:

Microsoft Windows
Microsoft Office
Microsoft Outlook
Microsoft Internet Explorer
Adobe Flash
Adobe Photoshop
Apple Quicktime (Admittedly I'm not sure about this one, because the MAC OSX Operating System, as well as other Apple Products like Safari, are what's called "Shared source", where you sign up for a developer membership and can look at the source code, make fixes, and submit those to Apple. As far as I know, you still can't redistribute it.)
Pretty much 99% of all video/computer games ever made.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm very much a supporter of open source. It is not the ill expression of paternalism that closed source is. It does not deny the buyer the responsibility nor the power over what it buys. It just plain makes more sense.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The real problem is patent law.
It creates a series of blocks to the chain of new ideas and developments.
A patent is ownership of one of those chain links.
The problem is that the next logical link may be owned by someone else...so progress is stymied until those particular patents have expired.
Patents should only be granted on final products. not the concepts behind them.

I use a number of programs that came out of the work of the mathematician Helmut Dersh, to create Panoramic images....PTAssembler, PTGui, and PTLens all have been based on his original open source Pano tools.

However these "Blocks work two ways as Open source, creative commons, block the use of these Ideas to commercial developers. Photoshop for instance has had to come up with workarounds for its panoramic merging features that are very second best and almost completely un-customisable in use. Gimp has a problem of not coming up with a way of providing adjustment layers that do not infringe Adobe code.

A further problem is the Habit in the USA of granting Patents to people for Old but unpatented ideas that are in common use. These patents are used to black mail existing users into paying royalties. The UK government is looking into banning this.

My brother was the first scientist to come up with the idea of using a transistor as a high speed switch, when he was working on a measuring problem in perception. He did not patent the process .. but published it... Had he not done so many common technologies would have been blocked by those patents including computers.

In the past the Scientific world did not patent the results of their research they published it in journals for free use.

 

[Riverwolf]

The real problem is patent law.
It creates a series of blocks to the chain of new ideas and developments.
A patent is ownership of one of those chain links.
The problem is that the next logical link may be owned by someone else...so progress is stymied until those particular patents have expired.
Patents should only be granted on final products. not the concepts behind them.

I use a number of programs that came out of the work of the mathematician Helmut Dersh, to create Panoramic images....PTAssembler, PTGui, and PTLens all have been based on his original open source Pano tools.

However these "Blocks work two ways as Open source, creative commons, block the use of these Ideas to commercial developers. Photoshop for instance has had to come up with workarounds for its panoramic merging features that are very second best and almost completely customisable in use.
A further problem is the Habit in the USA of granting Patents to people for Old but unpatented ideas that are in common use. These patents are used to black mail existing users into paying royalties.

That should frankly be illegal.

 

[Aquitaine]

In the past the Scientific world did not patent the results of their research they published it in journals for free use.

Makes total sense. This idea of patenting technological developments seems rather backwards.

 

[Zanuku]

Makes total sense. This idea of patenting technological developments seems rather backwards.

Money.

Anyway, whenever I use minor open source codes I end up rewriting them because they're not efficient

 

[Revoltingest]

Open & closed source software each has its advantages & disadvantages. Want to control a product for security & commercial reasons? Closed source is best. Want to put something out there which can be developed by the masses? Then open source can be great.

 

[Zanuku]

Thank god the internet is open source eh?

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, I'm currently working on an article where I'll argue in favor of open sourced/free software, but I thought I'd bring the subject up here so I can see what you guys think of the concept, and if you disagree, why.

Open source would remove some of the technical advantages currently available to companies which created new products. A company that came out with a completely new open source product would be at a disadvantage for several reasons.

First its new products would be easy to copy.

Secondly the company would have to rely upon the participation of third party developers in order to stay competitive, because other projects having copied its own code would already be doing so.

Third, the company would not be able to manage customer expectations as easily. It could not, for example, charge much for small improvements. To call something a 'New product' would require completely new code.

Fourth it could not hope to resell its code at a later time.

Fifth open sourcing its code would give the impression that its programs weren't very good, because open source programs aren't as professional and polished as closed source programs. This is because open source contributors don't have the same drives and constraints as companies with a bottom line.

 

[freethinker44]

First its new products would be easy to copy.

That's the point of open source.

Secondly the company would have to rely upon the participation of third party developers in order to stay competitive, because other projects having copied its own code would already be doing so.

Third party developers thrive with open source technology. And the technology has no problem competing with commercial technology because the third party developers are anyone and everyone in the entire world who can code. Also, open source software is updated/upgraded much more frequently than closed source, and in some cases you are getting a new/improved product every six months.

Third, the company would not be able to manage customer expectations as easily. It could not, for example, charge much for small improvements. To call something a 'New product' would require completely new code.

With open source technology, customers handle customer expectations. If you don't like the way something is, change it. Or search online for someone else who changed it and use their source.

Fourth it could not hope to resell its code at a later time.

Fifth open sourcing its code would give the impression that its programs weren't very good, because open source programs aren't as professional and polished as closed source programs. This is because open source contributors don't have the same drives and constraints as companies with a bottom line.

One word: Linux.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Open source would remove some of the technical advantages currently available to companies which created new products. A company that came out with a completely new open source product would be at a disadvantage for several reasons.

First its new products would be easy to copy.

Secondly the company would have to rely upon the participation of third party developers in order to stay competitive, because other projects having copied its own code would already be doing so.

Third, the company would not be able to manage customer expectations as easily. It could not, for example, charge much for small improvements. To call something a 'New product' would require completely new code.

Fourth it could not hope to resell its code at a later time.

Fifth open sourcing its code would give the impression that its programs weren't very good, because open source programs aren't as professional and polished as closed source programs. This is because open source contributors don't have the same drives and constraints as companies with a bottom line.

The product would still be copyright. The code behind them not so, any more than words or math is protected.
It would also mean they could develop new products more quickly and easily, as they would not be blocked by patented code used elsewhere.

PTAssembler which I use, started as a GUI for Dursh's code. the Gui could be charged for, the code not so. I am still able to upgrade to the lates verson on the back of that first payment. It is now a million miles from the abilities of that first offering. It has always been far better and advanced than the much more expensive Adobe Photoshop offering.

There is nothing wrong with involving third parties
I can not imagine why a company should want to charge for small improvements.

The open source coded proghrammes I have mentioned are better than any of the closed ones that are available.

Programs like Open office started life as Closed company owned code (oracle) and has been offered free to open developers. The latest version is excellent and used by millions of users.

Many open source coders are employed writing code in other fields and do this free coding out of interest.
The lack of company restraints or the need to protect the work is a major advantage not a constraint.

 

[philbo]

Open source would remove some of the technical advantages currently available to companies which created new products. A company that came out with a completely new open source product would be at a disadvantage for several reasons.

There's not many companies (which have a duty to provide a return to shareholders) that create new open source products.

There are a lot of individual techies (myself included) who have created/contributed to open source projects - in my case, I didn't think that what I was working on on my own had enough value to be worth forming a company and selling, so I passed it on to a friend who'd done a load more open source stuff & he put it on sourceforge. I've added functionality to existing open source programs - I don't think I'm unique in this - because it was something I wanted to be able to do but the functionality wasn't there. On its own, it wasn't really enough value to charge for (and from a coding point of view was simple - it took longer to set up the environment than it did to write).

I quite like this model - it doesn't necessarily produce better or worse code than closed software as is often argued.

One area I think ought to go down the open source route for transparency's sake is electoral/voting software: at the moment, there are a few companies who have a black box that at the end of the day gives a result. Even if it does do exactly what it's supposed to, it's not possible to prove without doing an audit of the source.. and there starts a rant I'm not really wanting to begin right now

 

[Brickjectivity]

That's the point of open source.

Yes, but how does it benefit companies and particularly entrepreneurs? I've seen a lot of discontinued open source projects out there. It just goes to show that slapping 'Open source' on something doesn't guarantee that anyone will help you develop it. At the end of the day, you've got to pay someone to code.

Third party developers thrive with open source technology. And the technology has no problem competing with commercial technology because the third party developers are anyone and everyone in the entire world who can code. Also, open source software is updated/upgraded much more frequently than closed source, and in some cases you are getting a new/improved product every six months.

For certain types of projects open source developers excel. Open source developers have trouble agreeing about how things should be done, however. Look at the Gnome project, for example. Should it be this way or should it be that way?

With open source technology, customers handle customer expectations. If you don't like the way something is, change it. Or search online for someone else who changed it and use their source.

Managing customer expectations is a part of doing business even if your business is partially open source. Citrix for instance offers open source Xen servers, but where is the source code for Citrix mainframes? Who owns the development groups for Linux based software and who contributes to Linux kernels the most? IBM, Microsoft, HP, etc. Microsoft is a large and successful company mostly because it is good at managing customer expectations. I don't like that. I don't like Steve Ballmer taking credit for the personal PC revolution. I don't like that Microsoft interferes with anyone who actually wants to learn how to operate their own computer or to use it for more than entertainment. Microsoft is a success, however. Apple Computer is a success, too and for the same reasons. Even companies that use open source are often only partially open.

One word: Linux.

Two words: Backstabber Corel.
Ubunto is 'Open source' but not truly 'Free' is it? Debian & Fedora are open source, but what is the first thing a new Debian or Fedora user does? They immediately add non-free packages such as Adobe Flash, install Wine to run non-linux bases closed-source software and install Steam to play closed-source video games. Speaking of Adobe, its open source competitor The GIMP is a truly awesome product; but its still trying to catch up and imitate after more then 10 years of open source contributions.

 

[freethinker44]

Look at the Gnome project, for example. Should it be this way or should it be that way?

It should be both ways. And it can be both ways. That's one of the great things about open source.

Managing customer expectations is a part of doing business even if your business is partially open source. Citrix for instance offers open source Xen servers, but where is the source code for Citrix mainframes? Who owns the development groups for Linux based software and who contributes to Linux kernels the most? IBM, Microsoft, HP, etc. Microsoft is a large and successful company mostly because it is good at managing customer expectations. I don't like that. I don't like Steve Ballmer taking credit for the personal PC revolution. I don't like that Microsoft interferes with anyone who actually wants to learn how to operate their own computer or to use it for more than entertainment. Microsoft is a success, however. Apple Computer is a success, too and for the same reasons. Even companies that use open source are often only partially open.

Two words: Backstabber Corel.
Ubunto is 'Open source' but not truly 'Free' is it? Debian & Fedora are open source, but what is the first thing a new Debian or Fedora user does? They immediately add non-free packages such as Adobe Flash, install Wine to run non-linux bases closed-source software and install Steam to play closed-source video games. Speaking of Adobe, its open source competitor The GIMP is a truly awesome product; but its still trying to catch up and imitate after more then 10 years of open source contributions.

It should probably be noted that open source and freeware aren't necessarily synonymous. They are related, and usually go hand-in-hand, but they don't have to. Something can be open source without being free and something can be free without being open source.

Linux really is the ultimate testimony for open source technology.

Inferior software? Nope, the best version of a particular program is as good as if not
-better than commercial software.
Less secure? Nope, Linux is more secure than Windows, and Apple is just Apple so
-they automatically lose.
No support? I've never had a problem in Linux that someone else didn't already solve.
-If you can Google it, you can get support for it.

In fact, the only limitations I have found from using Linux and all of the open source software that you can get for it, either comes from my own ignorance or it's limitations built in to commercial software that I am trying to run.

 

[LuisDantas]

Different market niches and marketing philosophies.

The Open Source movement, at its root, simply does not care to compete with the same concerns that sustain the standard closed-source software industry.

It is meant for different purposes and different results, with a different market niche. One that is more-or-less destined to grow, simply because it attends to needs that are largely unaddressed by closed source software. We are being slow in acknowledging that reality, but we will nonetheless.

 

[Brickjectivity]

PTAssembler which I use, started as a GUI for Dursh's code. the Gui could be charged for, the code not so. I am still able to upgrade to the lates verson on the back of that first payment. It is now a million miles from the abilities of that first offering. It has always been far better and advanced than the much more expensive Adobe Photoshop offering.

Sounds like a good deal for you though not for Adobe.

There is nothing wrong with involving third parties
I can not imagine why a company should want to charge for small improvements.

It is because people will pay for small improvements: to get virus protection or to keep their files compatible with others. MS Word is one example. Word used to upgrade, and newer versions of Word would create documents with a new file format which older Word versions could not read. Customers would then pay to buy the same software again in order to stay compatible. If Word had been an open source project the company (MS) would not have had enough leverage on its customers to do this. Open source does not always benefit a company's bottom line in other words.

The open source coded proghrammes I have mentioned are better than any of the closed ones that are available.

That is terrific, and I can see how that might benefit your business -- your bottom line. From the point of view of a business that wants to sell software it might not sound so great.

Programs like Open office started life as Closed company owned code (oracle) and has been offered free to open developers. The latest version is excellent and used by millions of users.

Oracle is a troubled soul looking to undercut its competitors. Open Office is a strike against MS Office. I don't know if Oracle believes in open source philosophy if it ever did, and it no longer helps to develop Open Office. It does use open source developers to help with its Virtualbox software (which is excellent software), but it is also suing Google for imitating its own open-source Java language (ironic). Oracle's support for open source is one-directional, questionable.

Many open source coders are employed writing code in other fields and do this free coding out of interest.
The lack of company restraints or the need to protect the work is a major advantage not a constraint.

Yes. Open source is all about freedom and community + making the world better. It is not, however, always a good way to make money.

 

[Aquitaine]

It should be both ways. And it can be both ways. That's one of the great things about open source.



It should probably be noted that open source and freeware aren't necessarily synonymous. They are related, and usually go hand-in-hand, but they don't have to. Something can be open source without being free and something can be free without being open source.

Linux really is the ultimate testimony for open source technology.

Inferior software? Nope, the best version of a particular program is as good as if not
-better than commercial software.
Less secure? Nope, Linux is more secure than Windows, and Apple is just Apple so
-they automatically lose.
No support? I've never had a problem in Linux that someone else didn't already solve.
-If you can Google it, you can get support for it.

In fact, the only limitations I have found from using Linux and all of the open source software that you can get for it, either comes from my own ignorance or it's limitations built in to commercial software that I am trying to run.

I've heard a lot about Linux, and I'm contemplating switching to it. Only problem is that I don't think I'm computer literate enough to properly use and understand it. :/

Also, so in your opinion Apple systems are less secure, may I ask why?

 

[Brickjectivity]

There's not many companies (which have a duty to provide a return to shareholders) that create new open source products.

There are a lot of individual techies (myself included) who have created/contributed to open source projects - in my case, I didn't think that what I was working on on my own had enough value to be worth forming a company and selling, so I passed it on to a friend who'd done a load more open source stuff & he put it on sourceforge. I've added functionality to existing open source programs - I don't think I'm unique in this - because it was something I wanted to be able to do but the functionality wasn't there. On its own, it wasn't really enough value to charge for (and from a coding point of view was simple - it took longer to set up the environment than it did to write).

I quite like this model - it doesn't necessarily produce better or worse code than closed software as is often argued.

Thank you very much for contributing. I think open source continues to be a real game-changer. It has saved us a lot of trouble, helping the internet to function, helping to break apart software monopolies and providing a way for new people to learn how to program. I'm glad for example that C++ is an open standard, that GNU has a nice OS standard for geeks to use. If the big companies had their way computer geeks would be paying for the privilege of writing computer code. Coding is a right if you ask me. Seems like long ago I wrote a few programs. I'm currently (slowly) learning how to compile programs in an open source environment though I'm not a 'Programmer'.

One area I think ought to go down the open source route for transparency's sake is electoral/voting software: at the moment, there are a few companies who have a black box that at the end of the day gives a result. Even if it does do exactly what it's supposed to, it's not possible to prove without doing an audit of the source.. and there starts a rant I'm not really wanting to begin right now

That is a great idea.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Some examples of popular Open Source/Free Software:

Linux/GNU Linux-based Operating systems (Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Debian, Fedorah, Gentoo, Arch-Linux, etc.)
Open Office (An open source alternative to Microsoft Office, another popular alternative is LibreOffice)
VLC Media Player
Mozilla Firefox
Mozilla Thunderbird (an email client)
Most games made by ID Software (Doom, Quake, etc.)
GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program: a free alternative to Adobe Photoshop)

Is it just me, or shouldn't Android be added to the list? I mean, it's among the most widely used open-source software and was developed by Google (who will end up ruling the world at some point). It's the only serious contender to the (closed-source) Apple smartphone/tablet products' operating systems, and thus also a potential contender to Microsoft as more and more things done by computers and laptops are done via smartphones and tablets. Maybe it's just that I dislike iCult and various iCult products so much, but look what happened when iCult smartphones tried to use there own navigation systems instead of one based on Google maps (which Android smartphones are equipped with). I recall a lot of angry customers. Also, while I don't think Kindle always used the Android platform, the Nook has and Kindle now does. Sony, Samsung, Toshiba, LG, & Motorola all develop products which use the Android platform.

Also, because I'm a researcher, I just have to point out that R is open source and completely free with an entire programming community behind it while MATLAB, SAS, SPSS, Maple, etc., are not only really, really, expensive, but require license renewing.

 

[philbo]

Thank you very much for contributing.

It's a very minor contribution

..I've been writing commercial code for 25 years, and spent a few weeks/months adding to what's open source.

That is a great idea.

To be honest, I think it's the only way voting software in a democracy ought to work: the last thing you want to happen is closed source & flaky* code to be deployed in an election campaign where the owner of the company has ties to one of the parties in the election.

*the flakiness is important: although you can audit the source code, if a last-minute patch is required, as did prove to be the case, that patch hasn't been through the audit process, it's rushed out without time for such niceties. The winner of such an election has no motive to to a post-result audit, an the loser has no power to force it.