> Editor's Corner
>
> Are the Open Sourcerers Selling You a Bill of Goods?
>
> It's "common knowledge" in some circles that open source software is
> "better" - but is it true? Does software really want to be free? Is
> software created by committee really more secure? Do those who push
> open
> source (or at least some of them) have something besides software to
> sell?
Are Microsoft advocates spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt? It's
common knowledge that editors of your caliber will do anything,
including baiting open source advocates and spreading FUD, to curry
favor with Microsoft.
> I hear it all the time: open source is supposedly more inherently
> secure
> than proprietary commercial software, because it's "peer reviewed."
> That's the magic that the open sourcerers invoke, but they've never
> really explained to my satisfaction how opening up the kernel to any
> and
> everybody can make a program more secure. I can see how it could make
> for more features, but I can't see how it makes for more security.
Well you get to look at the code. Ask any security expert whether they
would trust proprietary, closed source software to protect their
network. Open source make software more secure by exposing it to the
scrutiny of thousands of developers and security experts. Closed
source simply asks us to trust that they know what they're doing. When
was the last time Microsoft let you look at their code? Do you just
trust them to write secure code? After all they have a long history of
writing bug free and secure code. NOT!
> The ironic thing is that many of those same people who tell me that
> open
> source software is more secure are also warning us that we can't rely
> on
> information we find in Wikipedia. Why? Because it's open to any and
> everyone to post articles. It follows the same "peer review" model as
> open source software. So why is being open a bad thing in one case and
> a
> good thing in the other?
The irony is that you would choose this false argument. Anyone can
post to Wikipedia. Anyone can submit patches to the Linux kernel, but
that doesn't guarantee you can get your patch into the code. Have you
ever submitted a patch to the Microsoft kernel, or know anyone who
has? Oh, that's right, it's closed source, so you can't even see the
code. Just Trust Us, we know what's best for you!
> I have nothing against open source software. I just don't buy into the
> "it's better because it's open source" propaganda. I use some open
> source programs, and although they generally don't work as well and
> aren't as user friendly as commercial programs, the price is right. My
> dad always told me that, in general, you get what you pay for, so I
> don't expect as much of something I'm not paying for.
Sure you do. Open Source software isn't going to pay you to spread
FUD. You can be bought, and it doesn't even take much money. I could
go into a long discourse about why proprietary software is of lesser
quality, less user friendly and in general less of a value to the
consumer. But this email isn't going to be printed on you web site,
so why waste my time.
> But open source doesn't always mean it's free, either. Let's take a
> look
> at Linux, for example. Depending on the distribution, prices run the
> gamut from free download to hundreds of dollars. Open source server
> software can be quite expensive. Even when the software doesn't cost
> anything upfront, there may be hidden costs involved in using it.
> Because the free versions don't provide any technical support, there
> are
> plenty of people making money supporting open source products. And if
> your time is worth money (mine certainly is), time spent compiling a
> kernel or writing your own drivers is going to cost you.
Define quite expensive? You want to compare it to Windows server
software? And don't even start on the hidden cost of hardware
upgrades. In general Linux can run quite nicely on the hardware that
the latest iteration of Windows just made obsolete. And support for
Windows is free? I've heard plenty of horror stories about trying to
get support from Microsoft. Windows consultants work for free? One
thing nice about being a Windows consultant is that there is job
security. You know you'll be coming back next month to fix the same
problem you fixed this month, because they never get fixed, just
patched. I've not heard anyone requiring someone to write a driver for
them, unless it was for very specialized hardware. I have read that
almost no new peripherals are supported by Vista, however. Since it's
closed source you don't even get the option to hire someone to write
drivers for you. You just have to wait until someone takes mercy on
you and supplies a driver.
> Of course, some people would prefer to spend $500 in extra time than
> $200 out of their pockets, and that's their choice. But you have to
> admit it's a bit insidious, sort of like the way people who never see
> all that money coming out of their weekly paychecks seem to think the
> government is giving them some sort of gift when they get their tax
> refunds. But as the website for the GNU project (which developed
> licenses for open source software) says, "Free software is a matter of
> liberty, not price."
Some people would rather spread FUD and propaganda than do a little
research and get the facts.
> Now, if you're a programmer type who wants to be able to rewrite the
> program code for your own purposes, open source is a great choice for
> you. But the vast majority of regular computer users just want
> software
> that works and don't want or need access to the source code. I had a
> friend who ranted and raved about Microsoft operating systems for
> years.
> Finally, about a year ago, he decided he'd had enough and he was going
> to run Linux from now on. Within six months, he was back to XP. Why?
> "I
> never realized how easy Windows really is to use until I tried Linux."
If you're part of the vast majority of regular computer users that
just want software that works, you probably should investigate Linux.
You're sure not getting it from Microsoft. I never realized how bad
Windows was until I tried Linux.
> In fact, I have a lot of friends who complain incessantly about how
> bad
> Windows is and talk about what a great idea open source is, but who
> are
> still using Windows. If you ask them why, they tell you it's because
> "Microsoft has a monopoly." Huh? There are dozens of distributions of
> Linux available. Some of them are free. There's nothing stopping those
> folks from wiping Windows right off their hard disks and running open
> source. So why don't they?
Yeah, try buying a computer without Windows installed, and tell me how
much competition there is. I've been running Linux for more than 10
years, you couldn't pay me to run Windows.
> Another thing my dad always told me was that actions speak louder than
> words. I respect the open source advocate who actually uses open
> source
> software. I don't put much credence in the complaints of the Windows
> bashers who keep on using Windows.
And I don't put much credence in a web site and editor that is
beholden to Microsoft. Can we really trust that you are giving us the
straight scoop, or are you simply another Microsoft lackey?
> And if you really believe in "freedom" when it comes to software, how
> about letting those of us who prefer to use Windows do so without
> condemning us for that choice? It doesn't matter to me what software
> anyone else uses. So why are the open sourcerers always trying so hard
> to convert me?
And if you're so convinced that Windows is the best value, then why
waste your time "dissing" Linux? Are you concerned that we might know
something you don't? Why are Windows lackeys always attacking Linux,
is Microsoft afraid consumers might find that there is something
better in the marketplace?
> Does software really want to be free? I guess some of it does and some
> of it doesn't. It's just as silly to expect every software company or
> developer to give their products away as it is to expect Sears to give
> away refrigerators and furniture. Sure, you can go to Craig's List and
> find all sorts of appliances and such that are free for the asking.
> And
> if that's the way you choose to outfit your house, that's fine with
> me.
> But don't look down on me if I choose to pay for my new dishwasher,
> okay?
And it's fine with me if you drank the kool-aid and are blinded by the
shiny new Windows box. Don't look down at me, because you've been
bribed to use and advocate an inferior product. Sometimes you get less
than you pay for.
> At least if my store-bought dishwasher doesn't get my dishes clean or
> my
> paid- for programs don't work the way they're supposed to, I feel
> justified in complaining about it, and maybe I'll even get something
> done about it. If I find myself stuck with a hunk of junk that some
> stranger gave away or my free download hoses my system, what am I
> going
> to do? Ask for my money back?
Yeah, you can complain. When was the last time Microsoft sent you a
fix for something you complained about? How long did it take for
Microsoft to fix the bugs you found? I have gotten features added to
open-source software in 24 hours, just by asking. I've seen bugs fixed
within hours, when people made bug reports. How's that compare with
your experience with Microsoft?
> How about you? Do you buy the idea that being "open" makes software
> more
> secure, or automatically makes it "better" or somehow morally superior
> to closed source software? Have you tried open source operating
> systems?
> Did you come back to Windows or do you still use Windows for some of
> your computers? If so, why? Do you get tired of being looked down on
> because you haven't gone "pure open source?" If you use both open
> source
> and proprietary software, what do you like and dislike about each? Let
> us know at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Open makes all software more secure. Closed guarantees nothing about
security, witness the steady barrage of security warnings about
Microsoft software. Talking about moral superiority has no place in
discussions about computer software. That's a religious construct.
I've been using Linux daily for more than 10 years. Windows lacks the
stability and features I expect from computer software.
This discussion is much like trying to teach a pig to fly. It's a
waste of time, and annoys the pig.
--
Neil Schneider pacneil_at_linuxgeek_dot_net
http://www.paccomp.com
Key fingerprint = 67F0 E493 FCC0 0A8C 769B 8209 32D7 1DB1 8460 C47D
A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is
shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain. - Mark Twain
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
