Why Open Source?

[Ly^nX]

This post is in response to the "Live free or...not" article linked from LNO. I thought it was an interesting story, and it made me think a lot about what open source really means--not only for myself but also for the rest of the world.

We all know that quite a few people outside of the open source community (and some involved with it) have a difficult time grasping the concept of free software. And if they have never done any programming, then that makes the idea even more difficult to comprehend. So, I began to think about how to express the ideas behind open and closed software in an analogy that most anyone can relate to...and the analogy I came up with seems startling (to me, at least) and makes proprietary software appear incredibly stiffling.


Here it is:

What is code?

Code is functional art. A programmer's coding style and elegance can be as beautiful as a renaissance painting hung in a museum. To developers source code can be very aesthetically appealing, and to those who don't understand the language it can still look cool http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif

Code is functional because it produces output, a product which is usually the direct result of user input. In addition to regarding source code as beautiful, the output of one's program can be equally gorgeous--be it in concept or execution. The combination of these two elements--functionality & beauty--make source code a very unique art.


What is closed source (proprietary) software?

Closed source software is like going to an art museum, paying $100 to get in, and then entering into a room to experience the feeling you get from looking at Monet's water lillies, but without ever actually seeing the paintings. In other words, you get to enjoy the experience of Monet's collection but without ever viewing the actual work! And of course, this experience can only be had for a small fee http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif


What is open source software?

Open source software is like how art museums are currently set up worldwide. Most are free, but some charge a small fee. In either case you can go inside and see all the art that you want. In this scenario you see the source of your experience. You observe the painting or sculpture that creates the current feelings and/or ideas inside of you. You can scrutinize the source of that experience. You are allowed to analyze how the artist created the work, what their style is, etc. For the very inspired, one may choose to copy and manipulate the art, to create new art out of existing art solely for the sake of improvement, and to share that work with others.


Now I ask anyone who has read this to ask themselves what the world would be like if art were not free. If the above closed source setup were in existance for fine art, movies, music, etc. Would people be happy? Would people fight to free art just as people fight now for free software? I definately think so.

Sorry for such a long post, but this has been brewing inside me for the past 24 hours and I had to get it out somehow. I hope this makes sense to all of you LNO heads!

Peace...

--
Loyola University Chicago CS grad student
Devote Linux user, Java developer in training.

"Code is art, and art should be free to the masses!"

[nanode]

Well said.

Pardon my expression, but how do I *sell* that idea to my boss? http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif

As artists (coders) we can certainly appreciate this aspect of our craft, but to managers and accountants our art is part of an equation called revenue.

Say for example, that art and music were NOT free, and anyone who experienced it, had to pay $$$. If there were companies and that had been earning money from that scenario, they won't be likely to change.

I hope I'm not too cynical, but we need to further quantify the business benefits of "Free Software" before it will gain global acceptance.

[Mutiny]

I am with you on the art aspect of programming but NOTHING is really free.

Those free museums are paid for at some level. Yes, we all took economics in school but I had to bring it up.

There will always be commercial software just like there will always be prostitution. If you do ANYTHING of value, someone will pay for it.

Imagine that the world was totally open source by choice, not by law. Someone would get a better idea for a program and decide that if they charged for it and hid the source that they could devote more time to their "art". The commercialization would begin again. People love money like a drug. Investors would join in and we are back to square one.

I don't think that most reasonable people are against commercial software. They don't boycot Adobe or id. What they are truly against is Microsoft, because of the horrible way they have handled success and the heavy handed tactics Bill Gates used to achieve what every other businessman in the world attemps to do.

John

[Sterling]

Mutiny - First, its free as in speech, not free as in beer. A critical distinction, that. Secondly, people would not make software proprietary if there was no advantage to doing so or if having the software "open" was more advantagous. The current proprietary software environment is partially a result of software companies taking advantage of holes in copyright law and ignorant legislators and judges.

------------------
-Sterling
-This post made with the Lizard! (http://www.mozilla.org)

[Ly^nX]

Thanks for the replies!

I think you are both right...perhaps the business benefits of free software do need to be more justified. And yes, nothing is truly free. I don't really have a problem with people and/or companies charging $$ for their apps--they put the time into developing it, it is their product to do with it what they will. However, I (and other open source heads) beg those people to keep the code open! Not just because code is art, but because it helps fuel a new way of social organization.

Some may say an open source world is an ideal--like a utopia--that gets ruined by capitalism, consumerism, etc. And to an extent this is true, and that is what is so scary. The internet/computer world is a new frontier in which humans are capable of setting up new rules to live by...we don't have to maintain the virtual world in the same way we do the real world. We all know this, obviously, in a sense that is what the open source movement is all about...setting up a friendlier, more community-oriented sector in which anyone in the world can share their ideas and help work towards a common goal. I think that this is one of the main business benefits of free software.

Anyone with a little knowledge of science knows that the larger the subject base is in scientific research the more accurate, more reliable, and the more robust one's conclusions will be when drawn from that data. The same goes for software development ...and any sort of development for that matter, it just happens to be easier with digital material that can travel through a wire. If you have millions of people all over the world, all with different backgrounds and different ideas, working on one project (in this case Linux OS / open source software) the product will inevitably be more stable, more reliable, more secure, etc. than anything that a single organization of people all under the same corporate policies could produce. Its just scientific logic.

I don't know...the above seems so painfully obvious to me that I don't understand why more people/companies don't embrace the concept of free software. Plus you have such a huge resource for tech support and so much of the software is cost-free. I think the big thing holding free software/OSes back is that they tend to be much more technically oriented than anything in the Windows world, and your average joe is scared--or just not interested--in learning that. Then there are the defragmentation and post-modern aspects of free software which also make the concept difficult to make mainstream, but that is another issue.

What do you guys think? I'm just a student, I haven't even really been in the "business world" yet so I can only speak from the outside...

-Chris

[Mutiny]

I'm not doing this just to argue, so please don't flame...I just want to give my take on things. I'm not a M$ troll, I am constantly trying every OS under the sun, looking for the one that suits me best. I think I found it, but since Be has no apps I am still searching.

I always hear of the superiority of open source community built software but I fail to see the results. If there is direct monetary incentive with decent management, the software seems to work better and actually be available in a decent amount of development time, IMHO. Notice the feature list of Linux? Why is Firewire still not available (stable, not a pre-alpha quality patch) when MacOS and Windows have had it for years? USB is still new to Linux.

Why is there no Dreamweaver type open source program? Why does the Gimp crash so often for me (on any platform) and Photoshop and Aura are so stable? Why is it so hard to play an MPG file with good sync and no skipping on a freaking 600Mhz Linux box with a Voodoo3?!?! A P133 can do that with Windows and a 1MB SVGA card!

Back to the free as in speach issue, how would Adobe benefit from opening Photoshop? Sure bugs might get fixed, but competitors get to see all their tricks. Do they combat that by dissassembling every competitors product and go over the source for rip offs? Why buy from them when you can get a knowlegable friend to compile it for you?

As an example of this, how exactly is Netscape gaining market share with the Mozilla project? They are really far behind in both releases and features, while closed source Explorer is way out front and is the best browser on any platform IMHO.

I don't understand how it is possible to be successful with free as in speech without being free as in beer. For that matter, I don't see how you can have a business with free stuff in the first place. It makes no sense!

I would gladly pay for Windows, closed source and all if it worked correctly. I am willing to pay for good software. I could care less if I get the source if it is not bug ridden and has the features I paid for. Most people only use the source when it is the only way to install the program anyway! Given a choice of a packaged installer or source most people will go with the installer.

I suspect that less than 1% of the people on this board have ever found a bug and fixed it. Sure, we all recompile sometimes, but have you ever fixed a bug on your own and submitted it back into the source tree? I didn't think so.

Like it or not, software is a business and most of us are only consumers. We can have free software that is a few years behind or we can pay for closed and be current. I don't see having both at the same time.

Please correct me, I am depressing myself. I want to believe but facts keep getting in my way.

John

[Sterling]

Mutiny - I'll respond point by point:


Linux and *BSD tend to be a couple of months behind in hardware support for a couple of reasons. Companies don't always co-operate and provide all the information needed for a driver. Many write drivers for Windows or MacOS themselves, but leave Linux/BSD drivers to be written by volunteer developers in their spare time. As for features, measuring software by the number of features it has is like measuring a car by the number of blinking lights on it. If it blows up halfway down the road, which turns out to be a better deal?


What versions of The GIMP did you have crash on you? Did you file a bug report? Give the developers any kind of information? I use Debian 2.2 as my main operating system, and I've not once had the GIMP crash.


As for free as in speech but not beer - I refer you to Red Hat Linux. Or any of the other commercial distros. As you say, you're willing to pay for good software.


Yes, most people may go with the installer, and few may look at the source, but that's beside the point. The source is available for those of us who know how to read it, and I've learned a lot from reading the source for various programs.


Personally, I'd rather have software that's Free, stable, well-written and slightly out of date than whatever the latest version of Windows is that Microsoft has decided is done because it needs some more cash.


------------------
-Sterling
-This post made with the Lizard! (http://www.mozilla.org)

[This message has been edited by Sterling (edited 16 December 2000).]

[Ly^nX]

The concept of open source is as much an ideal as the concepts of democracy or communism. You can strive for it, and it will be obtained in some sort of sense, but not in as pure of a form as one had originally hoped for. You are right, John, there are obviously closed source apps that are much better in performance than their open source counterparts (if any even exist), but the way I see it, that is not the point.

The open source movement wants to encompass all software engineers and companies. And the true potential of open source probably won't be reached until something like that happens. Adobe may be able to hire some of the best developers because they have $$, but what if those programmers and Adobe were open source. What if all big binary-touting corps were open? Then the software community as a whole would--in my mind, without a doubt--advance. Yes, perhaps little would be contributed from the general public to an open source Photoshop project. Maybe just a few bug fixes, but maybe not...maybe we'd be surprised. Furthermore, maybe not that many people would look at the "open Photoshop" source code, but the point is that the option is there for anyone to act on if they choose to do so. And that is what freedom is all about--options. I may never exercise my right to free speech in the sense that I never actively demonstrate against something, but I would be pretty pissed if someone tried to take that right away from me.

Is freedom of code as intrinsic of a right as freedom of speech? That is a tough question to answer, and I tend to shy away from saying "yes." But the idea is good in both concept and nature, and it is something that could create a profound difference. Therefore, it is worth fighting for.

On a last note I have to say I agree with Sterling on his various points. Companies like Red Hat and even IBM are good examples of how to make business profitable in an open source atomosphere. Yes, maybe an open company won't make as much loot as M$, but does anyone really need to make that much money?!? Furthermore, it makes sense that the open source community is currently somewhat held back on things like Firewire and USB...like Sterling said a lot of it has to do with the fact that hardware manufacturers don't make the drivers for *NIX's. What is remarkable is that the technology does eventually come to platforms like Linux from developers who use their own free time to write the drivers and contribute them to the community.

[Sterling]

The other thing about the theoretical open Photoshop is this: if you need something that Photoshop doesn't quite support, or want to add a small new feature for your own work, or whatever, you can. (At least, under an ideal license) You can alter behavior or functionality to suit the way you like to work. You aren't limited by some focus group's idea of an ideal interface, but you still get all the functionality Adobe's worked hard to create.

I do, however, think that people or companies who write good software should be paid for their efforts. That's one reason why I bought one of the Debian boxed sets.

------------------
-Sterling
-This post made with the Lizard! (http://www.mozilla.org)

[Beowulf_Ghost]

Open-source is a concept with little substance. It assumes that everyone can write good code.

Example;
My dad is pretty good with AutoCAD, and Corel Draw. Their are several feature he'd like to see implemented in both those applications. But he only knows how to program CNC machines (he's a machinist). So an open-source AutoCAD or Corel Draw wouldn't mean that much to him. Not unless he could also find an AutoCAD user, that knows C or C++, and is willing to devote his time to develope that feature, for free.

Closed-source provides a focus, and management to keep it focused. Open-source is a free-for-all that produces mixed results. You may get the perfect desktop environment, or you may end up with 39 WM's.

Open-souce is developer centric. They cater to people that can write good code, and enjoy doing it in their free time. Closed-source is more comsumer oriented. They (in most cases) strive to produce what the consumers are willing to pay big bucks for. Open-source projects strive to get rave reviews on Slashdot.

[iDxMan]

Originally posted by Beowulf_Ghost:
Open-souce is developer centric. They cater to people that can write good code, and enjoy doing it in their free time. Closed-source is more comsumer oriented. They (in most cases) strive to produce what the consumers are willing to pay big bucks for. Open-source projects strive to get rave reviews on Slashdot.

Then again, who here wants to be in the flock of bent-over consumers paying the "big bucks" for a POS?

Hey! I want a to wizbang itself, then fall over in 42 seconds.

Yes, a bit heavy on the sarcasm, but not everyone wants to be told what [i]is good software to use. Just because its for "xyz" platform and is officially 'eeeh zeee' to use doesn't go far in my book.

Case in point:

I can't tell you how many damn times people mess up their excel spreadsheet using a "feature". By the time they remove a thumb and 'fix' the problem, I could have written a handful of perl hacks to flip/chop/summarize/etc their data how they needed it, and then some. Wait a second, I save their *** everyday doing just that.

Topic?: Oh yes.


I do, however, think that people or companies who write good software should be paid for their
efforts. That's one reason why I bought one of the Debian boxed sets.


Good point Sterling. I've downloaded and burned numerous distros just to try out, but I do like to support their efforts and spend some cash on the boxed set.


.. I had another point, but I've gone insane and must go poke myself in the eye .. (You know -- prepare for work)

-r

[Beowulf_Ghost]

iDxMan;
Typical, clueless Slashdot'er response. "You have to pay money! It's a POS! People can screw things up with it!"

Yah, and people don't screw up there hard drives by installing Linux in an improper way. This BBS is full of people that screwed up something in Linux. Any one can screw up anything if they don't know what they are doing. Hell, you could screw up an Excel spreadsheet by highlighting everything and deleting it. Does that make Excel a POS? Because a clueless user can screw things up. Sounds like you have a problem with the users, and not spreadsheet.

A show of hands; How many people think AutoCAD is a piece of ****?

I may argue the $2000+ for AutoCAD 2000 is a high price, and my dad won't pay that much for it. But he uses AutoCAD on a daily basis. And me and my dad have both gotten the $200 worth out of Corel Draw 8. I would rather pay the $200 for Corel Draw 10, and get those features now, rather then dowloading GIMP and having to implement them myself. The first thing I want to do when I get a new graohics program is to use it, not hack it.

But not all software is worth the high prive tag. I don't think you are get your $400 worth in MS Office Small Business. Maybe, but I doubt it. I don't notice that much improvement over Office 97. The paper clip looked a little slicker, and you could make "sparkly" text (even though you can't print sparkly text). But I doubt that those features are worth a $200 upgrade fee.

Microsoft has to be the worst at buzz-word whoring.

[iDxMan]

Originally posted by Beowulf_Ghost:
iDxMan;
Typical, clueless Slashdot'er response. "You have to pay money! It's a POS! People can screw things up with it!"



Oh please. The point is that if you do pay money for a software product, then you better make sure its worth it. There are too many POS programs that aren't worth the price tag.

On the other hand, if I've demoed a product and deem it worth the price tag, my dollar, and believe it is going to help me to "X", then sure -- I'll be happy to purchase. Needless to say I don't waste money on something that sucks, or that I could create myself.



Any one can screw up anything if they don't know what they are doing. Hell, you could screw up an Excel spreadsheet by highlighting everything and deleting it. Does that make Excel a POS? Because a clueless user can screw things up. Sounds like you have a problem with the users, and not spreadsheet.



Its a combo of both. Besides, even if you know what you're doing, Excel can be weird at times.



A show of hands; How many people think AutoCAD is a piece of ****?

Microsoft has to be the worst at buzz-word whoring.

Again, see my first statement. True, $2000 is a stiff price, but if it makes you money in the long run the price might not be that bad.

Unfortunately we can't speak in general terms on either side. Not all software is a POS, but not all software is worth anything much less worth the high tag it has.

-r

[Sterling]

BG - Yes, but generally, when you screw up something in Linux, YOU screw it up. You did something wrong, and there's something definable you can do to fix it. Most windows problems my family and friends run into either mysteriously disappear after numerous reboots and endless clicking through things in Control Panel that should fix it. Or one has to re-install. The objection isn't that people CAN screw things up with it, its that IT screws things up. Not all proprietary software is like this, but most is NOT worth its price tag.

I've screwed this Debian system up at least ten times since I installed it. Every time, I was able to track down what I did and fix it - even the time I accidentally trashed LILO. (Boot disks are good!) There were even a few minor mistakes I made around install time due to ignorance that I just fixed about a week ago. One can probably do far more damage with Linux, in fact, but things generally don't go randomly wrong.

(Yes, there are still kernel and userland program problems, but those get fixed with relative speed - look at the jump from XFree 4.0.1 to 4.0.2)

No, not everyone may be a coder. But everyone does benefit from having code open. So what if your dad can't add the feature himself? Its possible someone else has added it already, or he'll find a programmer who thinks "hey, that'd be neat! Lets see what I can do..." Or he finds a collection of people in the same situation who are large enough to get a couple of programmers to put it together but far too small to attract attention from Proprietary Company X.

And, FYI, I'd be willing to pay much more for GPL or BSD licensed software (or any software with a license that allowed me to tinker with it and distribute my changes) than I would for closed-source software. Open Source (Free) doesn't mean "no commercial development" or "no one gets paid anything".

Slashdot has to be the worst thing ever to happen to Open Source. There are far too many trolls and flamers there, most of whom get modded far up by other trolls and flamers, and spout pseudo-open-source-Microsoft-bashing garbage without any background or solid reasons or logic. Which then gives people the ability to handwave anyone criticizing proprietary software by calling them a "slashdotter". iDxMan was giving a real-world example of something he's had to do as a consequence of bad proprietary software.

Oh, and I agree with you about Microsoft. http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/wink.gif I certify them to be 100% buzzword compliant.

------------------
-Sterling
-This post made with the Lizard! (http://www.mozilla.org)


[This message has been edited by Sterling (edited 20 December 2000).]
[ I wish this BBS had a preview feature. http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/frown.gif Oh, well - Sterling ]

[This message has been edited by Sterling (edited 20 December 2000).]

[fernandodb]

Open source isn't about monkey, but has a lot of economical impact.

The ralation Open Source < - > Arts isn't clear for me, I prefer to see OpenSource as science.

When Newton discovered the law of universal gravity it didn't make averyone esle to float in space or pay a royalty, that knowledge was OpenSource. Newton it self got paid for his effort but didn't make up an empire of 100.000.000.000 $. No one doubts that Newton's work was far more important than any programmers of programing company, then why we have to pay more to them that we paid to Newton?

Open Source isn't something the end user have to access directly. If you need a building you are not suppose to read "Buildings HOWTO" you go to a technician and him will make the building for you, and get paid for it. The building is yours and any picture of the building is the property of the photograf, and you may enter in the building by a window if you choose to, or ask another technician to make up a new entrance etc... In the CloseSource format the building is a propertie of the tecnician, you can no enter by a window, any picture is a piracy, you can't ask others to change it and of course if anyone see your building and try to make another that looks like similar will be inprisioned.

In OpenSource the author keeps the intelectual property but not the right to charge for his job ethernaly. Patents are the new way to dominate the world. We can't have slave persons but we do have slave ideas. Patents are needed. As a father owns his child but no father can inprision his child just because it will make him rich. There must be a limit to patents that right now are abusive.

Fernando. ferdeblaNOSPAM@teleline.es

[rayh]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ly^nX:
~snip****

Here it is:

What is code?

Code is functional art. A programmer's coding style and elegance can be as beautiful as a renaissance painting hung in a museum. To developers source code can be very aesthetically appealing, and to those who don't understand the language it can still look cool http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif
~snip:

Yeah right: fsck-off weenie ... code is like a hammer & I got ta drive the nail ... if the nail is an FFT, then the beauty/art is in the transform itself, not the incidental alpha_numeric strings that "remember" it. Like Lovecraft said " ... the song, not the singer of the song."

[Sterling]

Rayh - Only half-true. One does have to understand the code to appreciate it, but the algorithm isn't everything. I can have the best algorithm in the world, and the code will still be ugly if my implimentation of it sucks. Or if the code's an unreadable mess of garbage.

Oh, and please refrain from name-calling. It just makes people less inclined to consider your point-of-view, and makes you come off as if you're flaming as opposed to producing rational points for consideration.

------------------
-Sterling
-This post made with the Lizard! (http://www.mozilla.org)