Closed Source vs. Open Source

Rumor · 2008-07-21 15:18:02

Hey folks,
Probably some of you saw this article. I thought it was worth sharing here.

I am no programmer. If you ask me how Arch Linux works, I am likely to respond "Magic." However, I thought the author's point about application consistency vs. source code politics was quite good.

A snippet:

Regardless of how people feel about the licensing choices of companies like NVIDIA, there are actually a number of closed source applications used with Linux today that for some mysterious reason, no one seems to be bad mouthing despite the fact that the software is quite restrictive with its code availability.

meandean · 2008-07-21 15:53:38

Personally, if I wanted a OS full of proprietary pieces that I have no control over then I have a perfect choice in that regard - windows. And if I want a OS where I have control over any proprietary pieces then I have a perfect choice in that regard - linux. Why someone would argue that linux should welcome proprietary pieces, that including proprietary pieces provides value, or that distros should include non-free by default is beyond me since IMO that removes the control that gnu+linux provides and that control IS the value of gnu+linux/free-software. Others may find value in those things and I have no problem with that but IMO it is better to start free and let users add than it is to include non-free by default.

I don't use any non-free software. I use a linux-libre kernel which does not include a lot of the firmware and so forth. I control what is on my system as well as expect control of my applications so no non-free for me.

But thats just me...

skottish · 2008-07-21 15:58:57

Skype, Flash, nVidia, Lightscribe, Lacie, Broadcom, and partners of Sun (third party stuff in Java), are all closed source vendors I have software from. Of those the Lightscribe stuff and Sun's older Java are the only two things I'm willing to live without. Until there are solutions that fit my needs for the others, they're here to stay. It would be nice if everything could be FOSS, but this will do for now. It really doesn't bother me.

Last edited by skottish (2008-07-21 15:59:27)

dyscoria · 2008-07-21 16:05:53

When I first started using Linux, I quickly ditched everything proprietary like it was the plague and stuck religiously to open source software.

Now i'm not so fussed, though having said that, the only proprietary software I have is the Nvidia graphics driver. I don't see that being open sourced by Nvidia or replaced effectively by Nouveau anytime in the near future so the driver is here to stay (as a sidenote, hopefully they can fix the current problems with KDE4 soon. It's quite annoying!).

catwell · 2008-07-21 16:35:21

FOSS is better, but I don't think the model can work for everything as of now.

There is no equivalent to some applications such as Adobe After Effects for Linux, and I think the only way we could get this is if Adobe ported its own software. That wouldn't be free, not as in free beer nor as in free speech, but many people would be ready to pay for it and taint their system, because it would be better than to be stuck with Windows like now. And I would buy a closed-source Starcraft II for Linux for sure.

They're programs that are run by the user anyway, so if you really fret about what they could do to your privacy you can still make a separate user for them.

Now, the only pieces of proprietary software I have on my laptop right now are LTSA (in fact I don't even know its license, I've found it nowhere, if somebody could tell me...) and my Intel wireless firmware; and I think this kind of software could be free because they're not monsters in terms of LOC or graphics like video games or video editing software.

SiC · 2008-07-21 17:16:44

I believe in the best tool for the job. I love GNU/Linux, and it is my primary OS, however I wouldn't let a misguided desire to stick entirely to free software preventing me from using proprietary software. There are a lot of circumstances where proprietary does make sense, such as drivers and applications. For example, I use both the nVidia and ATI binary drivers in my systems, I wouldn't use the free ones because as yet, they don't provide the functionality of the closed source versions. As and when they do, I might consider it. I also use Derive, Matlab, Minitab, Mathematica, MS Office (can't live without Outlook, it's my employers email provider) and a few other core applications on Linux, often using the excellent Wine to run them with.

But of course, the beauty of using an open environment such as GNU/Linux is that you can do exactly what you want. It's personal choice.

Having said that I play a lot of Games, and for that I have to boot into windows, as lets face it, gaming in Wine is not as seamless as it is in windows.

Barrucadu · 2008-07-21 17:19:08

I admire people with completely open source computers, but I could never manage it. I use Opera, the ATI graphics driver, and probably some more I've forgotten about (but not much more). One thing I do fuss about however, is multimedia formats. All my audio is in OGG format, and my videos only use AVI, MP3 and Xvid (yes, I know Xvid is open) because I have found DVD::Rip to be unstable when converting to OGG, and it doesn't support Theora.

skottish · 2008-07-21 17:24:59

Barrucadu wrote:

... only use AVI, MP3 and Xvid (yes, I know Xvid is open)...

So is AVI.

Barrucadu · 2008-07-21 18:32:31

But MP3 isn't. And I just like OGG.

iBertus · 2008-07-21 18:35:54

I use CUDA for doing Monte Carlo simulations and so, I MUST use the closed-source nvidia driver. I'm even getting ready to buy a couple of 9800GX2 cards just for GPGPU work. Until the open-source driver supports CUDA (which will never happen) I'm stuck.

dyscoria · 2008-07-21 18:39:13

Ahh yes speaking of video encoding, I only use x264 encoded video with OGG audio in a Matroska container.

xd-0 · 2008-07-21 18:45:37

Opensource is better. The thing that differs are the companies behind the software.
If nvidia would opensource their drivers it would be a step forward. I see no negative effect for endusers what so ever.

B-Con · 2008-07-21 19:01:13

Open source models aren't always the most beneficial for companies that produce software -- at least they perceive it that way. At any rate, I most certainly prefer open source software and use it whenever possible. I don't inherently loathe closed source software though, as Linux himself points out Linux is about choice and if some people choose to use closed source software then that's their prerogative. The only closed source software I use in Arch is Skype, and I use it because I have no comparable OSS choice.

Now, also bear in mind that I keep Windows XP around for a few games that I play. I doubt that Steam will agree to moving to open source any time soon, that wouldn't be in their best interest.

Open source isn't a recipe for success, the development team for the project is what truly matters. There is NO absolute statement as to which one is better, the only thing you can measure is which one tends to produce software that you personally prefer. I find open source software to almost always suit my needs. It tends to be more flexible, more customizable, more religiously updated, and more secure. But your mileage may vary.

cyclotomic · 2008-07-21 21:14:04

I perfer everything to be open source, however if the piece of software in question is a driver for a piece of hardware, then I am not so concerned about it. The only time it becomes an issue is when the said driver is a piece of crap and doesn't function properly. Sure, I wish everything was open and free, but at the same time I'm not going to make a huge fuss over a wireless card driver, especially if the driver doesn't have any problems with it. ATI pissed me off for a while with the whole fglrx thing from 2005-2007, but they have changed their tune so thats not as much of an issue anymore. On the application level, I only use free software (games excluded, but the last game pc game I bought was UT2K4 and I don't even own it anymore, and Maple excluded since I need it and it's only 4$ from the school I go to). I wish I could go 100% open source, but at this point in time it would be a major inconvenience to do so.

venky80 · 2008-07-21 21:46:13

look at KDE 4.1 performance on latest nVidia cards ...it is pure crap, nvidia is a piece of shit now.
I will not but it again, for a long time I thought it was KDE 4.1 issue

cyclotomic · 2008-07-22 00:52:13

venky80 wrote:

look at KDE 4.1 performance on latest nVidia cards ...it is pure crap, nvidia is a piece of shit now.
I will not but it again, for a long time I thought it was KDE 4.1 issue

That's unfortunate, I thought Nvidia was still releasing quality linux drivers...

Acecero · 2008-07-22 02:25:36

I would just go with whatever works best for me, if the open source alternative works better then any of the proprietary software in existence, I defiantly choose the open source software, no doubt on the first hand, on the other hand if the open source software doesn't live up to the proprietary standards of today's software then I would choose the closed source one. It's silly imo to limit yourself to just the open source world and rather why not get the best out of both open source and closed source worlds. I believe doing that is being more "open" sourced.

B-Con wrote:

... as Linux himself points out Linux is about choice...

You mean "Linus" right?

Misfit138 · 2008-07-22 02:35:16

I use whatever works.
I consistently and freely contribute all that I can to Arch. I have no problem at all using any kind of software that is easily available and free of charge.
Receive free, give free.

freakcode · 2008-07-22 03:07:30

Opensource software achieved a lot for now. You can have a full operating system stack, userland utilites and some more, all open source, and most of time for free too. It's a rich ecosystem were end users and companies share code alike, and that way software can only improve. This model works amazingly well for creating developer tools, libraries and common utilities and applications that a large number of people can use, and therefore, contribute back (see Linux kernel, FreeBSD kernel, GNU tools, Firefox, Openoffice, and so on...).

But, I think opensource isn't the model that works for everything. High specialized software - as some hardware drivers, games, professional multimedia content editors - are some example of software that doesn't cut any imediate benefit going opensource. It's development is a very specialized task that depends, on greater or lesser extent, from other vendors and technologies that are closed or patented, demand a lot of research and are not "commodities" like a text editor or photo album, and therefore, are very expensive.

So, software licensing shouldn't be a religious thing, neither something you should judge only from an end-user point. Both models (open and closed source) are valid, depending on what software you're doing and were you want it to reach. And, there's no "evil" model.

Last edited by freakcode (2008-07-22 03:21:05)

moljac024 · 2008-07-22 09:48:11

freakcode wrote:

Opensource software achieved a lot for now. You can have a full operating system stack, userland utilites and some more, all open source, and most of time for free too. It's a rich ecosystem were end users and companies share code alike, and that way software can only improve. This model works amazingly well for creating developer tools, libraries and common utilities and applications that a large number of people can use, and therefore, contribute back (see Linux kernel, FreeBSD kernel, GNU tools, Firefox, Openoffice, and so on...).
But, I think opensource isn't the model that works for everything. High specialized software - as some hardware drivers, games, professional multimedia content editors - are some example of software that doesn't cut any imediate benefit going opensource. It's development is a very specialized task that depends, on greater or lesser extent, from other vendors and technologies that are closed or patented, demand a lot of research and are not "commodities" like a text editor or photo album, and therefore, are very expensive.
So, software licensing shouldn't be a religious thing, neither something you should judge only from an end-user point. Both models (open and closed source) are valid, depending on what software you're doing and were you want it to reach. And, there's no "evil" model.

I concur.

KimTjik · 2008-07-22 10:32:30

This is one of the trickier issues, and even more so when the most essential piece of software, the kernel itself, isn't completely 100 % open-source. Ideal would be if everything could be open-source, since I believe that the overall quality of reliability would increase. Still I understand that some companies just don't see how they could benefit from going open-source. Probably a first necessary step is to overhaul the US patent system completely and then review the status and environment for software development. When it comes to licenses I agree with Linus that it should be decided by the developer, so while still being pro GPL I'm not pro-that-everything-necessarily-has-to-be-GPL. The BSD, Apache or other licenses could well be better in some cases.

Personally I view my Desktop system as a creature different from let's say a server. On the Desktop I compromise a lot, hence being less idealistic and use proprietary software, even though it's always my second option. But media formats do play a crucial role when I buy some other gadgets, thus trying to limit the need for proprietary solutions. For other more serious business I tend to stay 100 % open-source, since I view that as superior for security.

I agree with freakcode that "software licensing shouldn't be a religious thing", as long as we don't become complacent and indifferent, because that's a lot worse than being a over the top zealous for open-source. I think we have a duty to send favourable and unfavourable feedback to developers of both soft- and hardware, IT-services providers and so on, to let them know that we favour open-source solutions and that there's a market for it.

Last edited by KimTjik (2008-07-22 10:34:04)

Themaister · 2008-07-22 21:49:12

In Linux, I prefer open source as they are usually more user-friendly and customizable, but I don't religiously follow it if the properitary alternative suits my needs better.

nVidia driver and flash are the first things that come to mind.

meandean · 2008-07-24 16:54:26

KimTjik wrote:

This is one of the trickier issues, and even more so when the most essential piece of software, the kernel itself, isn't completely 100 % open-source.

Good point! That is why I usually use a linux-libre kernel - remove some junk in the trunk

Then again I do like to have 3d acceleration and mesa/gl/glut/dri involves some scary copyright/licensing issues as well.

Zerathidune · 2008-08-11 05:00:31

I recently got a new laptop. built it from barebones, and made sure it didn't require any non-free drivers, even firmware. Intel graphics, Atheros wifi. That said, I do run some non-free software on this machine:

flash - kinda can't do a lot of stuff without it.
jdk/jre - although from what I've heard Sun is planning on finally coming through with their promise of GPLing this in the coming months.

and actually, though my wireless card is supported by free software, it requires a 2.6.27 kernel, which isn't yet a stable release, so I'm using madwifi as a holdover. plan to switch to ath5k when I can.

I dont like running non free software. And you will never catch me writing it, for any reason.

I'm 20 years old. I think you will find it very difficult to convince people of my generation that we should avoid non-free software even if it means abstaining from an activity entirely. you may be able to convince us that free is better, that one should always preffer free software, and I am convinced of all this.

However, I grew up in a world of non-free software. the first computer my family had was a 486 running windows 3.1. GNU started in the early to mid 80's, so the free software movement is older than I am, but for the sake of argument let's say that all usable software at the time was non free (I doubt this is so, but for all I knew at the time it was) and to use a computer you had to use a proprietary operating system. I really think even with that proprietary OS, my life was richer for being able to use a computer. It doesn't make sense to me to say, I can't do that with free software, so even though I would really benifit a lot from being able to do it, I won't.

Still, I would prefer it if I could do everything with free software, and I really don't like what the article suggests. I don't think we need to be complacent with this situation where we need a small amount of non-free software to do what we want. I think we need to write free software to do it. radeonhd has DRI support in git now. by the time I need to buy another graphics card, I won't be stuck with intel if I want to actually use it. The author is so defeatist, and it makes me a little sick.

iphitus · 2008-08-11 10:09:20

KimTjik wrote:

This is one of the trickier issues, and even more so when the most essential piece of software, the kernel itself, isn't completely 100 % open-source.

I'll nitpick with you there. The Linux kernel is 100% open source. Third party drivers like nvidia are not included with the kernel and are totally optional.

I frequently use non-free software. Generally, X-Plane, MSFS and a whole pile of games. There's also many closed apps I run and purchase for my pocket pc.

I see computers as tools. There's no point wanking about licenses if it gets in the way of doing what you need or want to use the computer for. I do believe in freedom of use of a computer, though I do respect those who decide to distribute their software as closed source. That's part of that freedom of usage.

I pity anyone who sits and goes "I wish I could use this or do that... but it's closed source so I won't"

Zerathidune wrote:

I'm 20 years old. I think you will find it very difficult to convince people of my generation that we should avoid non-free software even if it means abstaining from an activity entirely. you may be able to convince us that free is better, that one should always preffer free software, and I am convinced of all this.

Seems you're not even convinced. You use admit to using multiple pieces of closed source yourself instead of forgoeing those activities or finding a workaround.

And yeah. you won't be convincing me (I'm 20 in just under 2 weeks)

James

Last edited by iphitus (2008-08-11 10:28:53)

Arch Linux

#1 2008-07-21 15:18:02

Closed Source vs. Open Source

#2 2008-07-21 15:53:38

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#3 2008-07-21 15:58:57

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#4 2008-07-21 16:05:53

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#5 2008-07-21 16:35:21

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#6 2008-07-21 17:16:44

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#7 2008-07-21 17:19:08

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#8 2008-07-21 17:24:59

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#9 2008-07-21 18:32:31

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#10 2008-07-21 18:35:54

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#11 2008-07-21 18:39:13

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#12 2008-07-21 18:45:37

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#13 2008-07-21 19:01:13

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#14 2008-07-21 21:14:04

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#15 2008-07-21 21:46:13

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#16 2008-07-22 00:52:13

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#17 2008-07-22 02:25:36

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#18 2008-07-22 02:35:16

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#19 2008-07-22 03:07:30

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#20 2008-07-22 09:48:11

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#21 2008-07-22 10:32:30

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#22 2008-07-22 21:49:12

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#23 2008-07-24 16:54:26

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#24 2008-08-11 05:00:31

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#25 2008-08-11 10:09:20

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

Board footer