Let's discuss a topic that is at the forefront of current IT debate: Is open source software the direction we should be moving in?
For those not in the know, "open source" is software that has made its source code available for public perusual. An example of this would be the Linux Operating Sytem. "Closed Source" refers to software without publicly-released source code; companies using this form of licensing keeps the code in-house. An example of this would be any version of the Windows Operating System.
Both of these forms have their advantages and disadvantages. For open source, the advantages are 1) the software is openly available, so anyone could locate and fix bugs, and submit those to the software vendor, 2) software using this license is generally free, and 3) popular products generally have a very large support community of users. Disadvantages include 1) freely available source code make products easier to hack, 2) code can be ripped off and used in commercial products, and 3) since the developers do not make much money, they may limit releases or never incorporate bug fixes into a separate release.
For closed source, advantages include 1) hackers have to work to find flaws and bugs in the system, as the code is not publicly available, 2) code stays in-house, and therefore cannot be easily incorporated into other products by malicious coders, 3) generally very well-documented programs and a database of help information. Some disadvantages include 1) products are generally commercial, 2) general public has limited ability to help develop the software, 3) generally don't maintain a support forum for users.
There are, of course, other advantages and disadvantages to both - this is merely what I could think of off the top of my head.
So...which source system do you think we should adhere to? Should we forge ahead with more open source projects or stay with closed-source? Personally, I like the open-source format, and follow it wherever I can.
Open Source - Boon or Bust?
Open Source - Boon or Bust?
If there is limited money in marketing open source software it is not likely to go very far. Everyone has to make a buck...even if the reward is reducing Bill Gates fortune by a million or so.
The security risk is a definate concern. Can't figure out what is so fun about bombing computers when it mostly affects the everyday worker who struggled to save enough money to buy one.
The security risk is a definate concern. Can't figure out what is so fun about bombing computers when it mostly affects the everyday worker who struggled to save enough money to buy one.
-
LottomagicZ4941
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 12:00 pm
Open Source - Boon or Bust?
Isn't Microsoft saying Lynix violates over 100 pattents.
Intrestingly Bill Gates has sold off what seem to be big chunks of MSFT to me but perhaps to him it is just chump change.
Can't complain to much as I can play Helix for free if I disable my firewall.
__________________
Lotto
http://www.flalottomagic.net/cgi-local/ ... elcome-344
Magic
Intrestingly Bill Gates has sold off what seem to be big chunks of MSFT to me but perhaps to him it is just chump change.
Can't complain to much as I can play Helix for free if I disable my firewall.
__________________
Lotto
http://www.flalottomagic.net/cgi-local/ ... elcome-344
Magic
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Open Source - Boon or Bust?
Fyrehawke wrote: Both of these forms have their advantages and disadvantages. For open source, the advantages are:
Fyrehawke wrote: 1) the software is openly available, so anyone could locate and fix bugs, and submit those to the software vendor
This can sometimes be a slow process....
Fyrehawke wrote: 2) software using this license is generally free, and
Direct support may cost, though.
Fyrehawke wrote: 3) popular products generally have a very large support community of users.
Who are often much more help than the Technical Support available through many vendors.
Fyrehawke wrote: Disadvantages include
Fyrehawke wrote: 1) freely available source code make products easier to hack,
You mention Linux. Comapre the number of Linux cracks[1] to those of, say, Windows. Part of the strength of Open Source is the exposure the code gets.
Fyrehawke wrote: 2) code can be ripped off and used in commercial products, and
Er, no. The fact that it's "Open Source" doe not mean that.
Fyrehawke wrote: 3) since the developers do not make much money, they may limit releases or never incorporate bug fixes into a separate release.
These limits don't just affect Open Source stuff though!!!!
Fyrehawke wrote: For closed source, advantages include
Fyrehawke wrote: 1) hackers have to work to find flaws and bugs in the system, as the code is not publicly available,
Like many microsoft products... the most hacked/cracked that there are... admittedly part of this is due to the large usage worldwide.
Fyrehawke wrote: 2) code stays in-house, and therefore cannot be easily incorporated into other products by malicious coders,
Or integrated with easily by small firms.
Fyrehawke wrote: 3) generally very well-documented programs and a database of help information.
Hmm. I have had experience with several large products wher a) the documentation is frustratingly crappy, b) the so-called "help database" is very frustratingly crappy.
Fyrehawke wrote: Some disadvantages include 1) products are generally commercial,
But "valid"..
Fyrehawke wrote: 2) general public has limited ability to help develop the software,
or even integrate it with their own or other vendors' software...
Fyrehawke wrote: 3) generally don't maintain a support forum for users.
There's a *lot* of stuff on the 'net - admittedly not all vendor supported. ook at the M$ newsgroups, which are awasg with M$ MVPs, or are they MCPs (a glorified "certification"...
Fyrehawke wrote: So...which source system do you think we should adhere to? Should we forge ahead with more open source projects or stay with closed-source? Personally, I like the open-source format, and follow it wherever I can.
Open Source is great where possible. The ubiquitous nature of M$ means it's the default choice for most people/firms. This is being entrenched in schools, etc., which are turning out people who know nothing but M$ software, and if they can't do it in the way they've always done, have not the breadth of klnowledge to do their jobs!
N.B. Open Source has attracted the attentions of some *big* vendors - how about CA, who you may have heard of, and their OSource release of their database product Ingres? That's quite startling. CA will of course keep making money through support, though. The release of Ingres *free* may increase this some-time rival to Oracle's sales into the "traditional" OSource markets. It will be an interesting subject to monitor, to see what the effect of "OSourcing" a previously paid-for product is.
[1] I'm using the terminology of "Crack, cracker" a malicious activity; "Hack, hacker" an expert in (whatever) who is not necessarily a cracker. This is usage that is technically corrrect, but incorrectly used by the "media" and hence large sections of the population (cf. "virus", "worm").
Fyrehawke wrote: 1) the software is openly available, so anyone could locate and fix bugs, and submit those to the software vendor
This can sometimes be a slow process....
Fyrehawke wrote: 2) software using this license is generally free, and
Direct support may cost, though.
Fyrehawke wrote: 3) popular products generally have a very large support community of users.
Who are often much more help than the Technical Support available through many vendors.
Fyrehawke wrote: Disadvantages include
Fyrehawke wrote: 1) freely available source code make products easier to hack,
You mention Linux. Comapre the number of Linux cracks[1] to those of, say, Windows. Part of the strength of Open Source is the exposure the code gets.
Fyrehawke wrote: 2) code can be ripped off and used in commercial products, and
Er, no. The fact that it's "Open Source" doe not mean that.
Fyrehawke wrote: 3) since the developers do not make much money, they may limit releases or never incorporate bug fixes into a separate release.
These limits don't just affect Open Source stuff though!!!!
Fyrehawke wrote: For closed source, advantages include
Fyrehawke wrote: 1) hackers have to work to find flaws and bugs in the system, as the code is not publicly available,
Like many microsoft products... the most hacked/cracked that there are... admittedly part of this is due to the large usage worldwide.
Fyrehawke wrote: 2) code stays in-house, and therefore cannot be easily incorporated into other products by malicious coders,
Or integrated with easily by small firms.
Fyrehawke wrote: 3) generally very well-documented programs and a database of help information.
Hmm. I have had experience with several large products wher a) the documentation is frustratingly crappy, b) the so-called "help database" is very frustratingly crappy.
Fyrehawke wrote: Some disadvantages include 1) products are generally commercial,
But "valid"..
Fyrehawke wrote: 2) general public has limited ability to help develop the software,
or even integrate it with their own or other vendors' software...
Fyrehawke wrote: 3) generally don't maintain a support forum for users.
There's a *lot* of stuff on the 'net - admittedly not all vendor supported. ook at the M$ newsgroups, which are awasg with M$ MVPs, or are they MCPs (a glorified "certification"...
Fyrehawke wrote: So...which source system do you think we should adhere to? Should we forge ahead with more open source projects or stay with closed-source? Personally, I like the open-source format, and follow it wherever I can.
Open Source is great where possible. The ubiquitous nature of M$ means it's the default choice for most people/firms. This is being entrenched in schools, etc., which are turning out people who know nothing but M$ software, and if they can't do it in the way they've always done, have not the breadth of klnowledge to do their jobs!
N.B. Open Source has attracted the attentions of some *big* vendors - how about CA, who you may have heard of, and their OSource release of their database product Ingres? That's quite startling. CA will of course keep making money through support, though. The release of Ingres *free* may increase this some-time rival to Oracle's sales into the "traditional" OSource markets. It will be an interesting subject to monitor, to see what the effect of "OSourcing" a previously paid-for product is.
[1] I'm using the terminology of "Crack, cracker" a malicious activity; "Hack, hacker" an expert in (whatever) who is not necessarily a cracker. This is usage that is technically corrrect, but incorrectly used by the "media" and hence large sections of the population (cf. "virus", "worm").
Open Source - Boon or Bust?
http://www.biosmagazine.co.uk/press-release.php?id=3766
http://www.newsforge.com/
China seems to be buying in to linux in a big way, can;t see them wanting ms windows. France and germany have their own linux companies and are both likely to try and encourage them, Microsoft is a monopoly that is trying to compete by stifling competition rather than make better products, compoanies that do that eventually lose out. As to security have a look at what the homeland security department have to say about it-can't remember the link or I would post it. I'm kind of stucj with windows because companies because some software i use is only compatable with windows, but I use star office in preference and mozilla firefox is so much better than ie.
http://www.newsforge.com/
China seems to be buying in to linux in a big way, can;t see them wanting ms windows. France and germany have their own linux companies and are both likely to try and encourage them, Microsoft is a monopoly that is trying to compete by stifling competition rather than make better products, compoanies that do that eventually lose out. As to security have a look at what the homeland security department have to say about it-can't remember the link or I would post it. I'm kind of stucj with windows because companies because some software i use is only compatable with windows, but I use star office in preference and mozilla firefox is so much better than ie.
Open Source - Boon or Bust?
LottomagicZ4941 wrote:
Intrestingly Bill Gates has sold off what seem to be big chunks of MSFT to me but perhaps to him it is just chump change
He sold it to YOU? You must really have lotto magic!
Intrestingly Bill Gates has sold off what seem to be big chunks of MSFT to me but perhaps to him it is just chump change
He sold it to YOU? You must really have lotto magic!
Open Source - Boon or Bust?
I've been fooling around with mandrake linux and suse. I need to buy a server and will probably go for suse mainly because I know where I can get the technical support I need plus it seems the more commercially viable of the distributions around. I use a computer for work I don't really have the time to turn myself in to an expert and I need to get it fixed that day oif anything goes wrong.
I'll use linux rather than windows firstly because of the cost but mainly the security aspect. I have to register under the data protection act and have a legal responsibility to keep data secure. I don't dislike windows per se but I think mocrosofts business tactics leave a lot to be desired and are not in the interests of the consumer, monopolies are bad news no matter where they are.
I reckon sooner or later microsoft will start losing out its survival of the fittest and they have stopped adapting
The range of software available in open source is amazing and people don' know what they are missing. I don't play games, sad as it may seem it is the office packages that interest me out of necessity.
I'll use linux rather than windows firstly because of the cost but mainly the security aspect. I have to register under the data protection act and have a legal responsibility to keep data secure. I don't dislike windows per se but I think mocrosofts business tactics leave a lot to be desired and are not in the interests of the consumer, monopolies are bad news no matter where they are.
I reckon sooner or later microsoft will start losing out its survival of the fittest and they have stopped adapting
The range of software available in open source is amazing and people don' know what they are missing. I don't play games, sad as it may seem it is the office packages that interest me out of necessity.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Open Source - Boon or Bust?
gmc wrote: I've been fooling around with mandrake linux and suse. I need to buy a server and will probably go for suse mainly because I know where I can get the technical support I need plus it seems the more commercially viable of the distributions around.
Not Red Hat, then?
gmc wrote: I have to register under the data protection act and have a legal responsibility to keep data secure.
You're a data handler? What, approxinately, do you do? You don't have to answer!
gmc wrote: I reckon sooner or later microsoft will start losing out its survival of the fittest and they have stopped adapting.
Not much lasts for ever in the computing game...
Not Red Hat, then?
gmc wrote: I have to register under the data protection act and have a legal responsibility to keep data secure.
You're a data handler? What, approxinately, do you do? You don't have to answer!
gmc wrote: I reckon sooner or later microsoft will start losing out its survival of the fittest and they have stopped adapting.
Not much lasts for ever in the computing game...
Open Source - Boon or Bust?
posted by bill sikes
Not Red Hat, then?
Mandrake was the irst one i tried and the help forums is one of the least patronising, suse appeals as I need one that i can stick with and master plus I have a contact locally that can help me with my system. Red hat i have never tried, i must admit the european ones are a bit more appealing just because they are european.
A large part of the appeal is that if i want to I can go into linux in depth and build up from scratch. In reality i lack the inclination. Microsoft niggles because if i could buy a computer without the operating system they would be a lot cheaper. Why should i buy a computer with office on it if i have my own copy already? Take £300 or so of the price instead.
Not Red Hat, then?
Mandrake was the irst one i tried and the help forums is one of the least patronising, suse appeals as I need one that i can stick with and master plus I have a contact locally that can help me with my system. Red hat i have never tried, i must admit the european ones are a bit more appealing just because they are european.
A large part of the appeal is that if i want to I can go into linux in depth and build up from scratch. In reality i lack the inclination. Microsoft niggles because if i could buy a computer without the operating system they would be a lot cheaper. Why should i buy a computer with office on it if i have my own copy already? Take £300 or so of the price instead.
Open Source - Boon or Bust?
posted by jinn
I highly doubt you pay full shelf price for a bundled OS.
So do I. More to the point I object to the lack of choice, nowadays the expense in a computer is the software not the hardware, I would rather buy a basic system and put on what I want-that is what I have done with my pc. I also need a laptop, try buying one without windows at least in the UK. Then again i have a funny way of looking at things.
I highly doubt you pay full shelf price for a bundled OS.
So do I. More to the point I object to the lack of choice, nowadays the expense in a computer is the software not the hardware, I would rather buy a basic system and put on what I want-that is what I have done with my pc. I also need a laptop, try buying one without windows at least in the UK. Then again i have a funny way of looking at things.