Closed Source vs. Open Source

KimTjik · 2008-08-11 11:08:29

iphitus wrote:

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.

OK, but what would then be a better description of the current state of the default kernel? An even more problematic word in a discussion like this is "free", because that could be interpreted even more broadly. I suspect that you by choosing the word "nitpicking" suggest there's no more than a difference in nuances, or am I mistaken?

Zerathidune · 2008-08-11 13:34:29

iphitus wrote:

Seems you're not even convinced.

Not of the idea that one should avoid non-free software at all costs, no, If the statement was ambiguous, I meant that I was convinced of the latter two pieces. Given two pieces of equally or very nearly equally technically sound software, I will tend to use one that is free rather than non-free. But given an option between non-free software, but with somewhat reasonable terms & policies, and NO software, or unusable software, I will generally use the software I can get, unless I can reasonably write my own.

This was essentially my point. I doubt there's anyone our age who grew up in a world of proprietary software who believes so strongly in the ideals of free software, that they will refuse to take part in an activity rather than use non-free software. I might do this if the license of the software is *particularly* unreasonable, but otherwise I'll use proprietary software when I have to.

Lord Illidan · 2008-08-11 14:48:50

I am also in the almost 20 crowd 8 months

My point of view is that if a closed source application is much better than an opensource application for my needs, I will definitely use it instead. Nvidia is one such example. The nv and nouveau drivers don't even compare.

soloport · 2008-08-11 16:10:01

Try computing without these proprietary sources of software:
* uP micro-code -- loaded into the processor on power up
* Embedded Controller code -- detects power / reset button changes, accepts keyboard / mouse input and provides other ACPI events
* USB chip micro-code -- e.g. Cypress EZ-USB, loaded on power-up
* BIOS -- go ahead and give OpenBIOS a try: brick! "Doh!" brick! "Doh!" brick! "Doh!" ;-)
* VHDL -- compiled and programmed into FPGA chips, the "glue" logic on every motherboard

It's no wonder many of us who use and believe in "open source" and "Free" software have little difficulty embracing other proprietary firmware-like software. Still abstaining from that proprietary video, WiFI, or other driver? Why? How far from the hardware are these from, say, any of the above examples?

(In response to, "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." ;-) )

Last edited by soloport (2008-08-11 16:13:21)

Lord Illidan · 2008-08-11 17:05:42

Also, if I pay for hardware, I want to use it to the maximum of its capabilities...What's the use of using a driver that's half-baked, buggy, and is, quite frankly, useless for anything beyond 2D work, and some 2D work might also be too hard for it. Sure, it's opensource. So what? Ok, I can contribute back to it, and see the code, but do I want to? Do I have the necessary capabilities? No I don't. Why should I use it? Some kind of badge? I'm sacrificing convenience, quality, and practicality for freedom.

SiC · 2008-08-11 22:15:50

Lord Illidan wrote:

Also, if I pay for hardware, I want to use it to the maximum of its capabilities...What's the use of using a driver that's half-baked, buggy, and is, quite frankly, useless for anything beyond 2D work, and some 2D work might also be too hard for it. Sure, it's opensource. So what? Ok, I can contribute back to it, and see the code, but do I want to? Do I have the necessary capabilities? No I don't. Why should I use it? Some kind of badge? I'm sacrificing convenience, quality, and practicality for freedom.

I wouldn't say sacrificing, that implies that you are losing the freedom to do so by using this software. Thankfully the ecosystem upon which GNU/Linux is founded means that people will always have the choice to use whatever they want, free, or not.

k2t0f12d · 2008-08-12 02:58:59

soloport wrote:

Try computing without these proprietary sources of software:
* uP micro-code -- loaded into the processor on power up
* Embedded Controller code -- detects power / reset button changes, accepts keyboard / mouse input and provides other ACPI events
* USB chip micro-code -- e.g. Cypress EZ-USB, loaded on power-up
* BIOS -- go ahead and give OpenBIOS a try: brick! "Doh!" brick! "Doh!" brick! "Doh!" ;-)
* VHDL -- compiled and programmed into FPGA chips, the "glue" logic on every motherboard
It's no wonder many of us who use and believe in "open source" and "Free" software have little difficulty embracing other proprietary firmware-like software. Still abstaining from that proprietary video, WiFI, or other driver? Why? How far from the hardware are these from, say, any of the above examples?

The answer to that is simple. Any program loaded into the device through a software process like the Linux kernel must also convey the ability to use, study, modify, and redistribtute exact copies of modified or unmodified versions to be considered free software. Even hardware designs are unchangable programs, but that is not a software freedom problem. In the future we will see the line between hardware and software become more blurry, just as the ability for the user to load a custom BIOS demonstrates. Previously the BIOS was considered part of the hardware, and so long as it wasn't something the user could load it wasn't a software freedom problem. Now that it is possible, we are adapting to the technology and producing a free software BIOS. These things aren't easy to do and not everyone will be able to pick them up and use them immediately; however, that is not a good reason to criticize the value of freedom.

z0phi3l · 2008-08-12 16:51:08

cyclotomic wrote:

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...

They still do, there is a compatibility issue with KDE 4.1 that needs resoolved, but for someone to claim the driver is garbage is a horrible overgeneralization

molom · 2008-08-27 07:15:21

I personally believe that using non-free software isn't a bad thing, why would you try to keep everything 'free', it generally leads to problems. A perfect example is the gnewsense, thats the kind of rubbish you generally get when trying to be so radical and 'only' use free software. I prefer 'free' software, but when it comes to using equivalents that are 'free' that don't run as well, why bother.

If you end up soooo radical with this FOSS movement, you end up using an analog heater instead of an electrical one because it has propriety firmware in it, you don't use the elevator because it also has some 'non-free' software installed and you don't use the internet because your modem or router because it also has propriety software.

Stallman is a person who is one of the biggest supporters of free software and this is what spills of his mouth:
'Teaching children to use a proprietary (non-free) system such as Windows does not make the world a better place, because it puts them under the power of the system's developer — perhaps permanently. You might as well introduce the children to an addictive drug. If the XO turns out to be a platform for spreading the use of proprietary software, its overall effect on the world will be negative.'

I simply use FOSS if it is available and it suits my needs. If I had to use AutoCAD and couldn't in Linux (including WINE), I'm not going to drop Windows when it makes my life easier.
Just my opinion, don't get offended

Cheers,
molom

Last edited by molom (2008-08-27 07:25:43)

freakcode · 2008-08-28 22:23:16

I particularly use Linux, Firefox, GVim, Gimp, Gnome and associated applications because I think it works great. It also costs me nothing, which is a plus.

Being free software / open-source is not a reason for me to adopt it per se, but the added value that results from choosing those licenses:
- the software won't come with stupid use restrictions or EULAs that threats me as potential criminal;
- the software is, in theory, not tied to a particular vendor;
- the software can be improved freely and steadily;
- the software tends to be more transparent in what it does to my data;
- the software is designed around "shareability" and open formats ideas;
- great communities of users that share ideas and help each other;

Those are, in my opinion, the advantages of FOSS, specially for a desktop user. Not some magical reason that makes FOSS automatically better (smashing majority of closed-source applications, in particular the ones with more specialized use cases like CAD or Movie authoring, already kicks ass in face of open-source ones - that's a fact), even less some notion that FOSS is a crusade against Microsoft, as various newcomers, unfortunelly, seems to perceive.

Refer also to this post: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 69#p395969

Last edited by freakcode (2008-08-28 22:57:31)

Arch Linux

#26 2008-08-11 11:08:29

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#27 2008-08-11 13:34:29

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#28 2008-08-11 14:48:50

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#29 2008-08-11 16:10:01

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#30 2008-08-11 17:05:42

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#31 2008-08-11 22:15:50

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#32 2008-08-12 02:58:59

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#33 2008-08-12 16:51:08

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#34 2008-08-27 07:15:21

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

#35 2008-08-28 22:23:16

Re: Closed Source vs. Open Source

Board footer