NationStates Jolt Archive

Wikipedia defines Open Source as, "...a set of principles and practices on how to write software, the most important of which is that the source code is openly available. ...additional meaning to the term: one should not only get the source code but also have the right to use it. If the latter is denied the license is categorized as a shared source license."

Open source is a concept which has been eminent in the computing industry since its birth in the 50's and 60's. While proprietary source may dominate our desktop computers, Open Source represents the controlling function in many other markets (I.E. servers, etc.) It consistently finds its own niche in the computer market, competing against, and often beating proprietary source software.

So, I ask you- what is your view on Open Source and its ethos? Why?

I support Open Source and I find (especially in video games) that the community can come up with better stuff than the developers of the game ever could've dreamed of.

I am against open source because it reinforces the free-love hippy lifestyle. But mostly I am against it because Wilgrove is for it.

I know very little about computers.

But I find Ubuntu, my open source operating system to be faster, more stable, more user friendly, less vulnerable to viruses, and easier to update than any Windows operating system.

And it's free.

I also support the freedom of information. And so I like the fact that these people are willing to open up their code to the world. The fact that it creates a better product than proprietary software is awfully cool.

So, I ask you- what is your view on Open Source and its ethos? Why?


In every proprietary software license I've ever seen, there has always been a line about how the software is provided as is, without any or warranty or other guarantee of fitness for any particular use or purpose; any damage that occurs during use of the software is not the fault of the author.

This attitude has always struck me as intensely unethical. The authors of the software expect me to part with my money, time, and labor making the software work, but said authors get to disavow any responsibility whatsoever. I've been screwed more than once by defective proprietary software and retailers who refuse to refund my money because "they aren't responsible" and "the software has been opened."

Mind you, the exact same disclaimer exists in the license of every piece of Free/Open Source Software I've ever used. The difference, however, is that Free/Open Source Software doesn't insult my intelligence by expecting me to pay for defective software. The market of Free/Open Source Software is also extraordinarily competitive compared to the proprietary "market," which is dominated by a few large corporations. This means that my costs in time and labor making Free/Open Source Software work are also much reduced; if a particular piece of Free/Open Source Software doesn't work, there are at least several alternatives literally a mouse-click away, ready to take its place.

But there is only one Windows. There is only one MacOS.

The decentralized ownership and control of source code in Free/Open Source Software is key. If a particular Free/Open Source Software project fails to make with a reliable product, anyone can take the source code, start their own project, and do better.

But proprietary software and data storage formats hold end users hostage; if the company doesn't want to spend the effort to fix problems or add new features, or if it abandons the software you rely on entirely, you're essentially up the creek without a paddle. Of course, the drive to constantly resell the same software under the guise of "upgrades" reduces the incentive to remove bugs or add new features. If companies released reliable and fully-featured software from the get go, there would be no reason to "upgrade." Instead, they release broken half-assed software, and constantly recharge for the next only slightly less broken and half-assed "version."

In this manner, Free/Open Source Software represents a competitive free market meritocracy. The proprietary "market" represents a centralized and exploitative oligarchy based on the half-baked notion of "intellectual property."

I know which option I prefer.

The fact that it creates a better product than proprietary software is awfully cool.

Witness the power of the Libre Market.

When do propriety source programs get fixes? Either when the owners would lose money if they didn't, or when they make money by doing so.

When do open source programs get fixes? When the community hears about the problem and figures out how to fix it.

When do propriety source programs get fixes? Either when the owners would lose money if they didn't, or when they make money by doing so.

When do open source programs get fixes? When the community hears about the problem and figures out how to fix it.

Thats one of the best bits of Open Source- community development. back in the early 70's when Unix hit the consumer market, it was sold at a reduced price and sans support due to a ruling by the Truman administration limiting AT&T's capabilities in many markets. As such, Unix was instead not patched and supported by AT&T (the original producer) but instead by the end user community, who traded patches, bug fixes, and updates to help each other.

I know very little about computers.

But I find Ubuntu, my open source operating system to be faster, more stable, more user friendly, less vulnerable to viruses, and easier to update than any Windows operating system.

And it's free.

I also support the freedom of information. And so I like the fact that these people are willing to open up their code to the world. The fact that it creates a better product than proprietary software is awfully cool.

Props to a fellow Ubuntu user. I run both Ubuntu and Windows (Windows XP on a two year old machine, and Ubunutu loaded onto a machine so old it came installed with Windows 3.0). Though I use Windows for most of my work (seeing as the Ubuntu machine has the processing speed of a snail due to its age), I prefer the interface of Ubuntu and the programs it utulizes.

I'm fully in support of open source, BUT I do however not agree with the argument of it having less viruses/vulnerabilities in the OS sense, of Windows vs Linux. Windows has hundreds, even thousands of KNOWN exploits that have been patched or exploited in the past, Linux has hundreds if not thousands of possible exploits as well, just due to the user base it is more profitable for virus creators to attack the more widely used OS.

Windows has hundreds, even thousands of KNOWN exploits that have been patched or exploited in the past, Linux has hundreds if not thousands of possible exploits as well, just due to the user base it is more profitable for virus creators to attack the more widely used OS.

The fact that *nix operating systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%2Anix) (Free/Open Source and proprietary alike) are inherently secure through their proper implementation of file permissions/access control and the multiuser environment, while such design in Windows is horribly broken at best, helps too.

If such software designers are foolish enough to provide me with various applications free of charge, then I will gladly support their artless mindset.

I'm fully in support of open source, BUT I do however not agree with the argument of it having less viruses/vulnerabilities in the OS sense, of Windows vs Linux. Windows has hundreds, even thousands of KNOWN exploits that have been patched or exploited in the past, Linux has hundreds if not thousands of possible exploits as well, just due to the user base it is more profitable for virus creators to attack the more widely used OS.

But, see, thats the reason for said argument. Yes, Linux has thousands of possible exploits, but the user market is so small (according to the market share group, Linux makes up .63% of desktop OS's*) that there's no feasibility. The same thing is true of Apple's products. Although the iGroupies will tell you that macs are invincible against viruses, its actually just that their market share is so low (7%, once again thanks to market share*). As Apple's share of the desktop market increases, I predict more and more viruses will pop up. in summation, yes, there are holes in Linux, but thats true of almost every system.

The fact that Unix operating systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%2Anix) (Free/Open Source and proprietary alike) are inherently secure through their proper implementation of file permissions/access control and the multiuser environment, while such design in Windows is horribly broken at best, helps too.

In fact, TLO makes a damn good point. Open source systems are often of a better quality security wise over windows, because more work has been put into making them better software. The code behind Windows is clunky at best, and often much easier to exploit.

*source:http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8

I'm fully in support of open source, BUT I do however not agree with the argument of it having less viruses/vulnerabilities in the OS sense, of Windows vs Linux. Windows has hundreds, even thousands of KNOWN exploits that have been patched or exploited in the past, Linux has hundreds if not thousands of possible exploits as well, just due to the user base it is more profitable for virus creators to attack the more widely used OS.
Many routers that protect networks from outside intruders run Linux. Many servers that are constantly online on good connections including this forum run LAMP (Linux, Apache, Mysql, Php). Those servers are attractive targets if you want to hijack a website, get a password database, store child porn on someone else's hardware or do bandwidth intense stuff like sending spam or executing DDOS attacks. So there is plenty of profit from compromising one of those 4 open source products and servers do get compromised sometimes.

I think Unix based systems including closed source ones really are more secure than Windows due to their design even if Windows Vista greatly annoyed users by improving security somewhat. The open source ones have an additional advantage of getting security related bugs discovered and fixed faster. But I think the biggest reason that they are so secure is that the administrators of servers are usually professionals. A clueless home user can get compromised regardless of how secure their OS is. If they don't share a folder with write permission and no password, download a funny program without knowing it's a torjan, open email attachments or leave their wireless network unencrypted then there is always some other mistake they can make.

I chose the tacos option because all of the other options ended with because and I didn't like that because I didn't want to post the reasons behind my post.

Damnit, guess I did it anyway.

Well, I like open source because they're usually free. Like, VLC. It's an awesome video player that can play any format pretty high quality and it's free and open source. Kick ass.

Open source.
Cube-Assualt Cube
Cube 2-Sauerbraten
I love those games.

I'm fully in support of open source, BUT I do however not agree with the argument of it having less viruses/vulnerabilities in the OS sense, of Windows vs Linux. Windows has hundreds, even thousands of KNOWN exploits that have been patched or exploited in the past, Linux has hundreds if not thousands of possible exploits as well, just due to the user base it is more profitable for virus creators to attack the more widely used OS.

Open source has the advantage of having more people trying to fix their problems. Namely everyone who is using the programs who knows enough to try and fix them. Even if I knew how to fix some kind of possible exploit in windows I wouldn't be able to even try. If I did I'd be treated just like the guy who tried to abuse the exploit.

For any of you unfamiliar with open source, here's (http://www.teknobites.com/2007/07/19/20-open-source-windows-apps-for-you/) a useful list of applications to start you off.

You're all silly. There's no such thing as open source, because the inventors and developers have no monetary incentive for making it.

*giggle*

I support open source.

I found the software produced to be of high quality and in larger systems, to integrate beautifully.

I support Open Source and I find (especially in video games) that the community can come up with better stuff than the developers of the game ever could've dreamed of.

Totally nth-ed. Example: the original Transport Tycoon Deluxe, TTD-Patch and OpenTTD.

Also, I think that, more than programs, formats and communication protocols should be open-source. Go XML!

open sourcing, copylefting, public domaining, was the whole reason for there being an internet, before bizassdroidism got ahold of it and screwed it all up.

=^^=
.../\...

I support Free Software, not "Open Source", because I support freedom. The 4 freedoms of Free Software (freedom to use the software as you wish, freedom to understand and change it, freedom to give it, and freedom to share modified versions) are fundamental freedoms, from an ethical pov. People should be the masters of their computers, not the company making the software.

Then, I also support Free Software because it's more efficient. Peer review is the only way to make progress in science, and so is it in computer science. And sharing/cooperation is much more efficient than everyone rewriting the software. Once again cooperation trumps over competition :)

I'm not a hippy who has Open Source software just because the hands of dirty corporations isn't in there anywhere. I support the Open Source movement, because it works. The community comes out with some great stuff, and many minds makes light work, and all that.

However, I basically just adopt whatever software fits my purpose and does its job well. For example, I use Microsoft Windows for computer gaming simply because it's easier and works well. However, for almost everything else I use Open Source software - not because it's Open Source, but because it's better. My favourite OS is Ubuntu, my favourite office suite is OpenOffice.org, I prefer Evolution to Outlook, etc. But I use Adobe Photoshop rather than the GIMP, and not just because of its unfortunate name but because Photoshop is better for my needs.

You're all silly. There's no such thing as open source, because the inventors and developers have no monetary incentive for making it.

*giggle*

I know, you're probably trying to make a point about your hippy beliefs in other areas ( ;) ), but did you know that most of the important open source projects are mainly developed by companies that ARE in it for the profit? Of course, they don't sell the program, they sell support instead, or in the case of Firefox, make advertising deals with companies like Google.

Edit:
I should probably answer the OP as well. There are many reasons to like open source (and Free Software), but my main one is that using it gives me a saner and more honest experience. Windows is a battlefield where you can't trust anyone, where software companies battle each other and the user for the user's attention and money. In open source, there is almost none of that. Software that you can trust is ready to be installed with a single command (or a few clicks with the mouse), that can be used straight away with no restrictions, nothing crippled on purpose until you pay, no EULAs, no advertising, no bullshit, and it doesn't litter your desktop, menus and systray with 14 "helpful" icons. Just a clean, calm desktop that does what you tell it to do and nothing else. And I love it.

I know, you're probably trying to make a point about your hippy beliefs in other areas ( ;) ), but did you know that most of the important open source projects are mainly developed by companies that ARE in it for the profit? Of course, they don't sell the program, they sell support instead, or in the case of Firefox, make advertising deals with companies like Google.

Financial backing from corporations does help (at a cost), but you should remember that most of the foundations of Free Software didn't involve any corporate funding. The Linux kernel, most of the parts of the GNU project (gcc, the libc, Emacs, ...), and many critical network services like Apache were done without corporation help. Even the desktops, KDE and Gnome, were done mostly without corporate help (Trolltech did Qt for KDE, and Ximian wrote part of Gnome, but that's only parts of the projects).

Commercial software can't hope to compete with the best open source stuff. Essentially the market are the developers. However if you look at sourceforge there are a lot of projects that just never get anywhere because the downside of open source can be a lack of project management - rather than one direction people merrily go off in their own direction so you never end up with a stable bit of software. However the upside is that it can probably produce really massive software projects more succesfully than anything that is project managed - there will just be a lot of failures as well.

Well, I'm running debian, and currently hacking a little with the source code for my window manager, so I think it's fairly safe to say that I'm completely opposed to it.

If you do not want to read techtalk, go to http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net , otherwise continue to read below:

I'm in complete support of Opensource because with it, _I_ own the computer, I use and not a company, who wrote the software for it. I changed an insane amount of startup-scripts on my craptop (a slooooooooooow laptop with a double-digit amount of MHz), I installed lots of things from other distroj while removing other things from the damn small linux, I put on it because they annoyed me (I replaced the entire X for the purpose to get 800x600x8 instead of 640x480x4). why? Because it is my box and I can do it if I damn well please!

One of the reasons, why the laptop was given away was, that no M$-OS could be installed on it. After weeks, I found out why: the floppy-drive refused to read superformatted disks and that was the only way, MS chose to distribute its software at this time. The first Linux I installed on that exact computer came on floppies as well, but it let me choose whether I want superformatted disks or not (it was muLinux, if you are interested). The FreeDOS, I installed allowed me to install it via floppies as well because some good soul made boot-flooppies in addition to the CD-Images, which were the default.

So -- this is all about floppies? Of course not, that was just an example. I use Gentoo at home because Gentoo takes the idea that the user owns the box and not the box the user to an extreme. Yes, you need to write your own /etc/fstab, yes, it allows you very easily to screw up your system, but whatever happens, it is you, who screws up, not some higher power at MS or at Apple or at SGI. I had to uninstall everything KDE-related at one point and to reinstall it because I screwed up installing KDE coherently (I mixed atomic and meta-packages :oops:), but that was ODF and eventually it worked again.

I know, you're probably trying to make a point about your hippy beliefs in other areas ( ;) ), but did you know that most of the important open source projects are mainly developed by companies that ARE in it for the profit? Of course, they don't sell the program, they sell support instead, or in the case of Firefox, make advertising deals with companies like Google.I've heard something like this, yes, but nonetheless, as was mentioned by Kilobugya, open source was originally done for not-for-profit reasons.

Edit:
I should probably answer the OP as well. There are many reasons to like open source (and Free Software), but my main one is that using it gives me a saner and more honest experience. Windows is a battlefield where you can't trust anyone, where software companies battle each other and the user for the user's attention and money. In open source, there is almost none of that. Software that you can trust is ready to be installed with a single command (or a few clicks with the mouse), that can be used straight away with no restrictions, nothing crippled on purpose until you pay, no EULAs, no advertising, no bullshit, and it doesn't litter your desktop, menus and systray with 14 "helpful" icons. Just a clean, calm desktop that does what you tell it to do and nothing else. And I love it.Can anything be learned from this that applies to other areas?

You're all silly. There's no such thing as open source, because the inventors and developers have no monetary incentive for making it.

*giggle*
Then I guess they found some other incentive. Imagine that, not everything people do is driven by profit (don't tell your economics profs that).

I support Open Source and I find (especially in video games) that the community can come up with better stuff than the developers of the game ever could've dreamed of.

Which games? I've never found open-source to be worthwhile for video games. Software development, server software, operating systems, instant messengers, and so on - yeah, it works - but games? Nothing worth it I've seen.

I'm fully in support of open source, BUT I do however not agree with the argument of it having less viruses/vulnerabilities in the OS sense, of Windows vs Linux. Windows has hundreds, even thousands of KNOWN exploits that have been patched or exploited in the past, Linux has hundreds if not thousands of possible exploits as well, just due to the user base it is more profitable for virus creators to attack the more widely used OS.
So what you're telling me is that it would be more profitable to crack my mom's WinXP box than Google? asked the cocky Slackware user.

I am against open source because it reinforces the free-love hippy lifestyle.I support the free-love doggy style.

## votes option 1 :D

I support the free-love doggy style.

## votes option 1 :D

:D

Which games? I've never found open-source to be worthwhile for video games. Software development, server software, operating systems, instant messengers, and so on - yeah, it works - but games? Nothing worth it I've seen.

Some say that there's a difference in culture between programmers and artists, that there's an army of programmers that will gladly work for free while artists won't lift a finger without getting paid. This is supposed to explain why there are so many good open source programs, but so few good open source games.

But what about the thousands upon thousands of mods for commercial games? They may not be open source, but they are free, and those that work on them weren't paid anything; not for the code, not for the textures, not for the models and not for the music. What this tells me is that it's very much possible to have good open source games. What is lacking is a good and, more importantly, very popular base to build on, but we're not going to get an open source such any time soon.

The difference between programmers and artists to me seems to be that only programmers are willing to start an ambitious project from scratch, and it's this that needs to be solved somehow.

I am reading this page in Mozilla Firefox.

Some say that there's a difference in culture between programmers and artists, that there's an army of programmers that will gladly work for free while artists won't lift a finger without getting paid. This is supposed to explain why there are so many good open source programs, but so few good open source games.

But what about the thousands upon thousands of mods for commercial games? They may not be open source, but they are free, and those that work on them weren't paid anything; not for the code, not for the textures, not for the models and not for the music. What this tells me is that it's very much possible to have good open source games. What is lacking is a good and, more importantly, very popular base to build on, but we're not going to get an open source such any time soon.

The difference between programmers and artists to me seems to be that only programmers are willing to start an ambitious project from scratch, and it's this that needs to be solved somehow.I think it has much to with the fact that the programmers don't want to put in the effort into making a full on game engine, when all the talented graphics artists are on the Windows side making mods for WoW. Even the existing opens source games tend not to be visually stunning.

Plus, recent trends are that good visuals make up for poor game play, while the opposite just isn't true. I think that games are in something of a catch-22 situation, on the open source side.

Ah Loves It :D

(Posting on Ubuntu 7.10 running firefox)

I think the only two pieces of proprietary software I am running are the nVidea graphics driver and Skype. Everything else is FOSS. (Although I do have a small XP partition used exclusively for playing Command and Conquer 3 and Bioshock!)

Why Ubuntu? Runs much faster, and much prettier than XP or Vista. Compiz fusion FTW!!

Which games? I've never found open-source to be worthwhile for video games.

Games are highly subjective, it's hard to tell which one is "good". But there are many great Free Software games, like Freeciv or Battle for Wesnoth if you like strategy games. I mostly play strategy games, so I don't know in other fields, but I heard about some. IMHO, a game doesn't the latest 3d engine and the shinest effects to be great - those even tend to come at the cost of gameplay.

Good for some things, not so good for others. It depends. The vast majority of open source software is shit; but then, so's the vast majority of proprietary software.