Open Source Vs. Proprietary Software

[Prichina Neboi]

Open source software refers to software where the source code is available and the user is allowed to modify the software in any way the wish, so long as the creator is referenced and the software is not used for monetary gain. Some examples of open source software that most people are probably familiar with are Firefox, GIMP and the Linux kernel. Proprietary software, on the other hand, refers to software where the user is not allowed to alter the program and the source code is not available. Examples of this include Microsoft Word, Adobe Photoshop, iTunes and Microsoft Windows.

My question to Zelda Dungeon is, which model do you prefer? Which would you use if you were to go into software development? Which would you encourage?

Personally, I would encourage the open source model. This is not because I don't like to pay for software, nor am I really good enough at programming to make any significant changes to any programs I use, but I personally feel like a better product can be created with the open source model, as instead of a hired group of engineers working on it, you could basically invite everyone using the product to help develop it. I feel like Firefox is a great example of this. In my opinion it is FAR superior to one of its proprietary and more popular counterparts, Internet Explorer. I also believe that Google Chrome is mostly open source, basically being the Chromium browser with Google branding on top of it. However, I also think that some open source software enthusiasts go a bit too far and basically demonize anything that is proprietary and refuse to use those programs. Linus Torvalds, the creator of the Linux kernel and one of the main contributors to the GNU/Linux set of operating system puts it best for me.

Me, I just don't care about proprietary software. It's not "evil" or "immoral," it just doesn't matter. I think that Open Source can do better, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is by working on Open Source, but it's not a crusade – it's just a superior way of working together and generating code.

It's superior because it's a lot more fun and because it makes cooperation much easier (no silly NDA's or artificial barriers to innovation like in a proprietary setting), and I think Open Source is the right thing to do the same way I believe science is better than alchemy. Like science, Open Source allows people to build on a solid base of previous knowledge, without some silly hiding.

But I don't think you need to think that alchemy is "evil." It's just pointless because you can obviously never do as well in a closed environment as you can with open scientific methods.

 

[Ventus]

I'm not a programmer (I don't even know basic HTML, let alone the other intricate program languages) but I highly recommend Open Source programming. I could use any number of hardware or software examples, but the best example is emulators in my opinion. Look at Sony and Nintendo's PSOne Classics and Virtual Console games, respectively. You'll notice many errors, graphically or otherwise, that obtrude the correct playing a few of those games. And guess what? Sony and Nintendo's emulation chip is terrible because it's proprietary and they do not work on it themselves. Compare that to open source, unofficial emulators who can play almost every single game in the library perfectly, with a little bit of modification here and there. Truth be told, open source programs very often get the work done faster and more efficient than their proprietary cousins. It's because open source style is just easier to use.

 

[(◕‿◕✿)]

I think that Open Source software and software development just makes a lot more sense, and is much more beneficial. With proprietary software you have this silly system that says "you can't have the source code and can't modify this program in such and such way, etc.". Basically it's more like a medieval church hierarchy, and I think that just goes against the nature of software. Software constantly evolves and changes - look at revision and patch cycles, all that sort of thing.

OS software is also better in my opinion because it often encourages derivatives. With a piece of proprietary software, you're more or less stuck with what you got, unless the developer allows plugin development, which is still somewhat limited. OS on the other hand, allows you to take the original, and do whatever you want with it (especially under MIT or BSD style licenses), although GPL for example has certain restrictions on redistributing, although they are nothing compared to proprietary. At any rate, I think opensource is just a much better model. It makes more sense. Like Linus said, opensource is more akin to science in that it allows people to build on previous knowledge and doesn't hide things for arbitrary and often rather trivial reasons. And I think that is simply better.

 

[Batman]

I think that Open Source software and software development just makes a lot more sense, and is much more beneficial. With proprietary software you have this silly system that says "you can't have the source code and can't modify this program in such and such way, etc.". Basically it's more like a medieval church hierarchy, and I think that just goes against the nature of software. Software constantly evolves and changes - look at revision and patch cycles, all that sort of thing.

OS software is also better in my opinion because it often encourages derivatives. With a piece of proprietary software, you're more or less stuck with what you got, unless the developer allows plugin development, which is still somewhat limited. OS on the other hand, allows you to take the original, and do whatever you want with it (especially under MIT or BSD style licenses), although GPL for example has certain restrictions on redistributing, although they are nothing compared to proprietary. At any rate, I think opensource is just a much better model. It makes more sense. Like Linus said, opensource is more akin to science in that it allows people to build on previous knowledge and doesn't hide things for arbitrary and often rather trivial reasons. And I think that is simply better.

I didn't understand a word of this...but it sounded good. :yes: