Up until a few years ago consumers had limited choices in the software they used. They could either learn to be a computer programmer, or they could buy proprietary software. Proprietary software is basically a program made by a company for sale to customers. The product cannot be altered in any way, be distributed or sold according to copyright laws, and carries the developing company’s name. In short, consumers were held on a very short leash by software companies – giving rise to mega-corporations like Microsoft, Apple, and many others.
Along comes Open Source
In a nutshell – these are programs created by mostly independent programmers, and are released to the public for free. Since the code for these open source programs aren’t copyrighted, anyone can use and/or alter them. They can also redistribute the programs and code without fear of lawsuits. Most of the larger applications are an effort by hundreds of programmers. Each different function of the program is created and added to code by different people. Open Office for example has a forum for independent programmers to submit code for upgrading existing applications or to add new ones.
So begins the war
So begins the war between Open Source and proprietary software, and each side has its’ zealots. Independent programming and anti-establishment users will swear that open source programs are better than anything else. Proprietary software companies (and those who use their products almost religiously) swear that their approach is the better of the two.
Open source critics have some valid arguments
Those free programs have no real customer support, the code isn’t usually tested extensively before being released, and there is no responsibility on the part of the programmer or programmers to correct any problems which arise. The reality is that even Open Source isn’t truly free. Many “free” programs have proprietary applications like the Google Toolbar embedded within them. This “service” pays the programmer or programmers every time someone installs the toolbar along with the program.
On the reverse, proprietary software critics also have excellent points
Proprietary programs are usually rushed into production, are over-priced, and more often than not are full of bugs (errors in the code which cause problems running the applications). For example, take the last two incarnations of Microsoft Windows. Both Windows XP and Vista were rushed into release. Both had glitches and bugs, especially bad in the first year of release, and caused frequent system crashes. Both were cost prohibitive, but since they stopped any real support of previous versions (and the drivers for those versions) people were forced to buy them if they wanted to keep up with new developments.
Which one is better?
So the real argument between open source and proprietary is: Which one is better? Both sides will scream that their way is better. The real truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Until a true Open Source operating system (with full driver support) comes along, people will be forced to buy proprietary ones if they want support, drivers, and a variety of programs. Unfortunately, until there comes a way for the programmers of Open Source to make a living from those programs and especially operating systems they will be limited.
Related Post:
External Link:
Post new comment