The Penguin Ping.
Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!
Got root?
Posted on 10/10/2002 5:01:44 AM PDT by ShadowAce
This paper provides quantitative data that, in many cases, using open source software / free software is a reasonable or even superior approach to using their proprietary competition according to various measures. This paper examines market share, reliability, performance, scalability, security, and total cost of ownership. It also has sections on non-quantitative issues, unnecessary fears, usage reports, other sites providing related information, and ends with some conclusions. You can view this paper at http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html (HTML format). Palm PDA users can view it in Plucker format(you will also need Plucker to read it). Old archived copies are also available.
Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS) has risen to great prominence. Briefly, OSS/FS programs are programs whose licenses give users the freedom to run the program for any purpose, to study and modify the program, and to freely redistribute copies of either the original or modified program (without having to pay royalties to previous developers).
This goal of this paper is to show that you should consider using OSS/FS when you're looking for software, based on quantitative measures. Some sites provide a few anecdotes on why you should use OSS/FS, but for many that's not enough information to justify using OSS/FS. Instead, this paper emphasizes quantitative measures (such as experiments and market studies) on why using OSS/FS products is, in a number of circumstances, a reasonable or even superior approach. I should note that while I find much to like about OSS/FS, I'm not a rabid advocate; I use both proprietary and OSS/FS products myself. Vendors of proprietary products often work hard to find numbers to support their claims; this page provides a useful antidote of hard figures to aid in comparing proprietary products to OSS/FS.
Note that this paper's goal is not to show that all OSS/FS is better than all proprietary software. Certainly, there are many who believe this is true from ethical, moral, or social grounds. However, no numbers could prove such broad statements. Instead, I'll simply compare commonly-used OSS/FS software with commonly-used proprietary software, to show that at least in certain situations and by certain measures, some OSS/FS software is at least as good or better than its proprietary competition. Of course, some OSS/FS software is technically poor, just as some proprietary software is technically poor, and even very good software may not fit your specific needs. But although most people understand the need to compare proprietary products before using them, many people fail to even consider OSS/FS products. This paper is intended to explain why acquirers should consider OSS/FS alternatives.
I'll emphasize the GNU/Linux operating system (which some abbreviate as "Linux") and the Apache web server, since these are some of the most visible OSS/FS projects. I'll also primarily compare OSS/FS software to Microsoft's products (such as Windows and IIS), since Windows has a significant market share and Microsoft is one of proprietary software's strongest proponents. I'll mention Unix systems in passing as well, though the situation with Unix is more complex; many Unix systems include a number of OSS/FS components or software primarily derived from OSS/FS components. Thus, comparing proprietary Unix systems to OSS/FS systems (when examined as entire systems) is often not as clear-cut. I use the term "Unix-like" to mean systems intentionally similar to Unix; both Unix and GNU/Linux are "Unix-like" systems. The most recent Apple Macintosh operating system (MacOS OS X) presents the same kind of complications; older versions of MacOS were entirely proprietary, but Apple's operating system has been redesigned so that it's now based on a Unix system with a substantial contribution from OSS/FS programs. Indeed, Apple is now openly encouraging collaboration with OSS/FS developers. I include data over a series of years, not just the past year; I believe that all relevant data should be considered when making a decision, instead of arbitrarily ignoring older data, and the older data shows that OSS/FS has a history of many positive traits.
You can get a more detailed explanation of the terms "open source software" and "Free Software", as well as related information, from my list of Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS) references at http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_refs.html. Note that those who use the term "open source software" tend to emphasize technical advantages of such software (such as better reliability and security), while those who use the term "Free Software" tend to emphasize freedom from control by another and/or ethical issues. The opposite of OSS/FS is "closed" or "proprietary" software. Software for which the source code that can be viewed, but cannot modified and redistributed without further limitation (e.g., "source viewable" or "open box" software, including "shared source" and "community" licenses), are not considered here since they don't meet the previously-given definition of OSS/FS. Note that many OSS/FS programs are commercial programs, so don't make the mistake of calling OSS/FS software "non-commercial." Almost no OSS/FS programs are in the "public domain" (which has a specific legal meaning), so avoid that term as well. Other alternative terms for OSS/FS software include "libre software" (where libre means free as in freedom), free/libre and open source software (FLOSS), open source / Free Software (OS/FS), open-source software (indeed, "open-source" is often used as a general adjective), "freed software," and even "public service software" (since often these software projects are designed to serve the public at large).
Below is data discussing market share, reliability, performance, scalability, security, and total cost of ownership. I close with a brief discussion of non-quantitative issues, unnecessary fears, usage reports, other sites providing related information, and conclusions.
(Excerpt) Read more at dwheeler.com ...
Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!
Got root?
Bush2000:
Oh BS! Total popycock. Microsoft is cool! yada yada yada...blah blah blah...
Preempting the Linux basher. :-)
I was curious what was meant by the "ethical" reasons. It sounds so pretentious... So I followed the provided link to: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html On this page, the GNU explanation can be found at "A primer on the ethics of 'Intellectual property'", at the provided link: http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/copying_primer.html
I'll quote directly...
Copyright and Patent laws are unethical because they can be used to abridge the [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information.
Here's some more...
The abridgement of the [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information (as defined in USC 17) is unethical for three main reasons, all taken in conjunction with each other:
* Arbitrary copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information generally does not cause harm to anyone. When someone makes a copy of a certain piece of information that is published, there is no information lost. The person from which the information is copied (say an author or an inventor) retains the information in exactly the same state. What has happened is that two copies of the same piece of published information arise. What is done with the second copy does not affect what is done with the first copy, ceterus paribus.
No harm? What about lost income from stealing software? I wrote it, I should be compensated if I so desire.
* Abridgement of the [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information generally causes harm to the progress of the sciences and the arts. One instance is in the case of software. Suppose I publish a program that does rational drug design (makes it easier to find drugs for diseases) and is generally found useful by individuals all over. Suppose you're able to modify the program and make it even more better at rational drug design and distribute it. I can, under current Copyright and Patent law, for whatever reasons I wish, control you and prevent you from doing this even though your modification would be beneficial to everyone. This causes a lot of harm to people, even though the modification itself does not cause harm to me.
Nope. If I write a proprietary medical program which helps cure cancer, it hurts mankind if others can steal it from me . If I wasn't going to get paid, then I would not have written the program. That doesn't help mankind.
* Abridgement of the [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information also abridges your freedom of speech, expression, and your freedom to think freely. As in the above situation, suppose I publish a program for drug design, and claim all "intellectual property rights" associated with the creation. You can't even begin to do research (legally) on the program without licensing it from me, i.e., your freedom to even think about what the program does and improve its workings is abridged. Further, you're forbidden from repeating the program (and its improvements) to someone else. In other words, you're forbidden from telling people what your thoughts are, even if they are so uncreative as to be identical to what you've heard or seen before. What this ultimately boils down to is that your freedom to obtain knowledge, store and process that knowledge, and spread that knowledge as you see fit, is abridged. Thus people are constantly forced to re-invent the wheel rather than copy and use or modify existing information.
No such constraints exist in real life. I can't think of a single piece of software in existence which doesn't have at least one competitor. So this "monopolized information" theory doesn't hold.
On a previous thread, I heard many OSS proponents say that they are involved in both OSS and closed-source projects. Well, it doesn't sound like that fits into this guy's idea of "ethical".
ShadowAce, I'm glad that you posted the article. I'm sure you know that I'm not an OSS basher. But, if software was a religion, I go to a different church than the GNU guys. To say the least, it's enlightening to surf the gnu.org site and see what the GNU guys really stand for.
As with most things in life, the devil is in the details.. some of which you conveniently fail to mention.
These articles give other people's philosophical opinions in support of free software, or related issues, and don't speak for the GNU project -- but we more or less agree with them.
If I write a proprietary medical program which helps cure cancer, it hurts mankind if others can steal it from me . If I wasn't going to get paid, then I would not have written the program.
So you, in your selfishness, would deprive mankind of a cancer cure simply because you won't get your price. And not every cancer patient in the world is going to be able to pay what you ask anyway. No volunteer spirit here. "If I don't get paid, I'm taking my ball and going home. Screw you." Ethical?
This is a nice attempt at guilt by association. Ethical or not?
And just how does it help mankind if 70% of all cancer patients die because they can't afford access to your software? If you want to argue natural selection here I might agree on many points, but I doubt that's what you're arguing here. If the government nationalized a copy for itself to use to treat said patients then it wouldn't cost you a dime. The government gave you the right to sue and prosecute people who copy your software, it has no obligation to respect the copyright it gave you.
TechJunkYard, I looked on the linked philosophy page for "ethics". That was the article that I found. GNU put the link there, and they did say "we more or less agree with them." I'm not trying to distort, or put words in their mouths. They endorsed this guy's philosophy.
The quotes you use are written by someone advocating Free Music as a context, not Free Software.
I'm against music stealing too. I support the intellectual property rights of musicians, authors, etc. But the author used a software example in his article, so I used it.
So you, in your selfishness, would deprive mankind of a cancer cure simply because you won't get your price.
You've summarized my feelings quite well. Yes. I would get my price. I paid for the R&D. I should reap the benefits. Would I deprive mankind of the cure? Of course not. But I would seek the point where the supply and demand curves intersect... I'd get a good price.
Your argument sounds a lot like... "To each according to his needs... from each according to his ability to produce." Now where have I heard that before? As dirty as it seems sometimes, capitalism is the most ethical system of production and distribution that I've ever seen.
I'm glad that the examples used are medical. The US has the most expensive drugs in the world, but our drugs are also the most effective in the world. All the great advances come from US drug companies. Why? Because, if all of their R&D pays off, then they get rich. It's that simple.
Look at the socialist European drug companies... The best they can add to society is the morning-after abortion pill.
Let's apply this argument to Microsoft software. Oh yeah, it doesn't apply... It seems that Microsoft manages to charge a price for their software, and yet no one seems to be deprived of the "benefits" of their software. Here's the proof: They are a convicted monopoly.
Charging market prices for intellectual property is not unethical. If people had to give their intellectual property away for free, then it wouldn't be long before we were intellectually bankrupt. Everyone would just stay at home and watch Jerry Springer.
Have you ever donated a pint to the Red Cross? Or do you insist on getting paid there too?
GNU software is crap. Stallman is an idiot and a hypocrite. And yes, I do have a personal grudge against him.
Only in Stallman's diseased brain is "Linux" an abbreviation. "GNU/Linux" is Stallman's unbridled ego trying to take over the work someone else did that he could not. For all his ranting about the GPL and FSF copyright assignment, read the source code of the Herd kernel. Yes, that's right, it's copyright to CMU. Hypocrite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.