Will free/open source software eventually triumph over proprietary software?

[Zelenius]

With the desktop PC getting replaced by tablets, and smart-phones, one thing has become abundantly clear - the near absence of Microsoft Windows in this exploding sector. Even Apple is losing ground in the tablet market, mostly to Android(a form of Linux) tablets. Android is already on over 50% of smartphones.

Linux/Unix have long dominated the server market, and now Linux is even making significant inroads in the desktop PC market, where Microsoft used to enjoy a nearly unchallenged monopoly. All signs suggest Linux and free/open source software are growing, mostly at the expense of Microsoft, but will free/open source become the norm? And will this be better for business, consumers and even programmers?

My belief is that it will eventually triumph, but there will always be a place for proprietary software. Regardless, it appears Microsoft is having some very serious problems that will only get worse as technology advances and free software becomes more dominant. Consumers with Linux-based smartphones or tablets who still use Windows desktop PCs may be more inclined to switch their desktops to Linux, in my opinion.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Although I don't think that Linux will out-compete Windows, I do agree that, when someone uses Linux on some appliance, and likes it, then the chances of them adopting Linux on other appliances is very high.

Then again, that's pretty much self-evident, and almost tautological.

 

[El Greco]

Let's hope so. In any case, my next phone will have Android even if it means that some software I use won't be ported there. Enough with stupid restrictions.

 

[Weak Kitten]

Linux/Unix doesn't have a snowball's chance until their user community stops treating newbies and those who aren't tech savvy like dirt. The feeling that those who can't program their own code line aren't worth talking to pervades that community and turns away anyone who just sees the PC as just a tool to get their work done.

Add to that the lack of compatibility, the massive susceptibility to viruses once it became popular, and the whimsical schedule for patches and you have a recipe for an operating system that will never really get off the ground.

If it did succeed then I wish it well, but until it overcomes some of its basic problems I see it as little more than a favored toy of the tech elite.

 

[commandlinegamer]

It's the apps, stupid.

Even more evident these days, with Apple iPhone/iPad App store and similar ventures.

Most users probably don't care about the OS as long as it's a stable platform - Windows, OS X, iOS, GNU/Linux all pretty much fit the bill now (security issues are a different matter, in my view).

The only thing that matters are the programs people want to run (in some cases this may involve only a web browser).

 

[TheL8Elvis]

With the desktop PC getting replaced by tablets, and smart-phones, one thing has become abundantly clear - the near absence of Microsoft Windows in this exploding sector.

I don't think people are replacing desktop PC's. They are replacing *second* desktop PC's or laptops. I don't think many people have gone to tablet/smartphone as their primary computer.

It might also be interesting to note the number of windows-licensed PC's sold versus the number of tablets and smartphones last year.

Even Apple is losing ground in the tablet market, mostly to Android(a form of Linux) tablets. Android is already on over 50% of smartphones.

Of course Apple is losing share. It's very difficult to stay at 100% forever

Linux/Unix have long dominated the server market, and now Linux is even making significant inroads in the desktop PC market,

Oh, I see, THIS year is the year of the linux desktop ? I don't think linux is making any significant inroads.

where Microsoft used to enjoy a nearly unchallenged monopoly. All signs suggest Linux and free/open source software are growing, mostly at the expense of Microsoft, but will free/open source become the norm? And will this be better for business, consumers and even programmers?

My belief is that it will eventually triumph, but there will always be a place for proprietary software. Regardless, it appears Microsoft is having some very serious problems that will only get worse as technology advances and free software becomes more dominant. Consumers with Linux-based smartphones or tablets who still use Windows desktop PCs may be more inclined to switch their desktops to Linux, in my opinion.

I don't think most android smartphone users have a clue what android or linux is, and would have zero desire to switch, IMHO.

 

[JJM 777]

Consumers with Linux-based smartphones or tablets who still use Windows desktop PCs may be more inclined to switch their desktops to Linux, in my opinion.

I don´t see any connection here. Most people don´t even know what the OS of their phone is.

The bottom line is that Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, Adobe PhotoShop etc. work way more nicely than any other similar software. Ideologically I am 99% for the open source movement, but my sincere attempts to use and appreciate Linux operating systems, Open Office, or Gimp image editor have miserably failed. They are just crap, total crap, compared to the same products of leading software companies such as Microsoft and Adobe.

Somehow the Linux movement has been stuck for a decade in releasing new crappy and buggy OS versions and office software, thought to be equal to new Windows versions and MS office software. Instead of rushing to publish a totally crap plagiate of every new version published by leading commercial companies, they should stop to perfect just one version so that it functions nicely and flawlessly. It looks like they never will do that, they will keep publishing new buggy rubbish until eternity collects us all off from here.

Online cloud software might be the next big thing, for example the office suites offered by Google online. But they are not open source stuff, they are simply a new marketing channel for commercial software.

 

[Donn]

The bottom line is that Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, Adobe PhotoShop etc. work way more nicely than any other similar software.

For you. For me, I like what Linux offers. Gimp's not so bad. Inkscape is killer. Open Office does what I need it to.

I don't think an Internet team of part-time coders can do what a billion dollar company of full-time coders can do. Do I like the underdog? Hell yes.

I always think of fropen (free+open, my word) software as science. It's open, testable, democratic and all that. I think of proprietary software as woo. It's hidden, you take it on authority and tradition.

Dunno how far that metaphor stretches, but it speaks to me. That and the fact that I never could afford Adobe or Office. I don't need to pirate anymore, I have alternatives. I am thankful for that.

 

[Daald]

As a computer guy I love Linux and what it stands for. The rub is I can't stand to use it. I don't see it as well done in its totality. There are very nice features in it though.

As to your question....I do no think so. Those programmers need day jobs. Working for free on your OS and flipping burgers at night is not why they went to school. I think that the generic things (OS components etc) and applications that derive income from ancillary services will take a significant chunk of the market but there will always be a need for a product that can only be made by paying programmers and then charging people for the product.

 

[Zelenius]

Linux/Unix doesn't have a snowball's chance until their user community stops treating newbies and those who aren't tech savvy like dirt.

This hasn't been my experience. Sure there are nasty people in every group, including Linux users, but I've gotten a lot of help from the various Linux forums I frequently use.

 

[Donn]

Linux/Unix doesn't have a snowball's chance until their user community stops treating newbies and those who aren't tech savvy like dirt.

I have seen very decent behaviour on the Ubuntu/Kubuntu mailing lists, blogs and forums. They really go out of their way to help newbies. I have not, in the ten years I have been on Linux, once encountered a person such as you describe.

Add to that the lack of compatibility

With what? I can use all my hardware and I can open the various documents that come my way. I have yet to suffer an inconvenience. (Not to say I never will.)

the massive susceptibility to viruses once it became popular

I tend to agree (but not with the hyperbole) that to fool a user to run arbitrary code is easy as pie on Linux. Same problems any OS has.

I disagree with the importance attached to 'root' — an infection in my /home directory will hurt me plenty, that's where I live all the time.
(Still, this is not an argument against Linux.)

and the whimsical schedule for patches and you have a recipe for an operating system that will never really get off the ground.

Not sure what 'whimsical schedule for patches' means. New code is constantly released and almost invisibly easy to apply. You can update all your apps (OS and all) from one place.

Still, compatibility backwards is a hassle. I think Windows 8 is going to start hurting the same way, with Metro and all. I do find that I have to upgrade my OS (reinstall mostly) every year or two in order to stay current. It's a little demanding and worse the older I get.

Is the Windows/Mac world any better? My pal seems to be re-installing his Vista then Win7 every month. He never stops complaining.

I could save him so much time and frustration. He decries Linux. No no. Windows is so much more efficient. He gets so much done. He needs it.

Meh.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The code in proprietory software often consists of a good deal of open-source code. As time goes by, I'd be willing to bet more and more of it will be open source. What you will pay for will be the 10% of code that tells the other 90% of the code what to do and when.

From this point of view, the question doesn't make much sense.

 

[NeilC]

As a business owner, my experience with open source is mixed. The problem is support. When things go wrong there you can't just call the developer and complain. You're stuck with forums, paying 3rd parties and the like. I've tried my hardest to use vTiger CRM but it goes wrong and getting it fixed is difficult and/or expensive. I'm come to the conclusion I'd rather buy it up front and get something that works and is supported.

 

[epepke]

There are two possible answers, both of which I think are right: 1) It already has, and 2) it never will.

Even if you just use Microsoft, a substantial portion of that is open source, albeit packaged in a proprietary framework. So it already has.

Almost nobody uses Android or even Linux except by paying someone for it, pre-packages on the cell phone or by a distribution. It also has proprietary drivers. So, it hasn't.

It never will, because, while I think that networks of open source developers can do anything technical, including innovate, the one thing they cannot do is ram a system down everybody's throat. This is something that is sometimes necessary. There have been excellent solutions in the open source and research communities that could, potentially, revolutionize computing like you wouldn't believe. They haven't, and they won't, unless somebody with a wad of cash and a business plan takes interest.

 

[Donn]

ETA: Response to NeilC
I have never been in a position where, as a paid customer of software, I call for support. I hear it's so-so, like all the jokes about help lines.

I hope when you purchase yours that it pans out and you get the kind of support you expect. Watch out for the bias of investment, where you excuse horrible code and horrible support because it cost you.

In the open-source realm, as a suggestion, it might be better to sponsor a project and even hire a programmer/expert to maintain it for you.

 

[Donn]

They haven't, and they won't, unless somebody with a wad of cash and a business plan takes interest.

Mark Shuttleworth of Canonical (Ubuntu) may fit that bill. It can be argued that it has not helped. Thus far it shows a curve of rapid improvement and polish but with sharp dips of bold (some say suicidal) experimentation.

 

[Segnosaur]

The bottom line is that Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, Adobe PhotoShop etc. work way more nicely than any other similar software.

Keep in mind that in some cases, it may not be that Windows/Office/Photoshop work better than their alternatives. It may be that its just different than what people are used to.

If you get used to an application working/acting a certain way, you will have problems when confronted by a different piece of software that does the same things just as well, but with different layouts, etc.

Of course, this doesn't mean that I expect open source software to take over... I figure we'll be using Microsoft Word/Photoshop/etc. for some time to come. Just that the idea that Open Source "Doesn't work as well" might not always be right.

Somehow the Linux movement has been stuck for a decade in releasing new crappy and buggy OS versions and office software, thought to be equal to new Windows versions and MS office software. Instead of rushing to publish a totally crap plagiate of every new version published by leading commercial companies, they should stop to perfect just one version so that it functions nicely and flawlessly. It looks like they never will do that, they will keep publishing new buggy rubbish until eternity collects us all off from here.

Its the nature of Open Source. Because Open Source software has no "master control" (like Microsoft does) no one can control when a "release" is done, and everything is out in the open.

Of course, Microsoft also releases buggy software with version after version... they just call them 'patches'.

 

[epepke]

Mark Shuttleworth of Canonical (Ubuntu) may fit that bill. It can be argued that it has not helped. Thus far it shows a curve of rapid improvement and polish but with sharp dips of bold (some say suicidal) experimentation.

It seems to me that it is a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

 

[Segnosaur]

As to your question....I do no think so. Those programmers need day jobs. Working for free on your OS and flipping burgers at night is not why they went to school. I think that the generic things (OS components etc) and applications that derive income from ancillary services will take a significant chunk of the market but there will always be a need for a product that can only be made by paying programmers and then charging people for the product.

Keep in mind that "open source" software does not mean that the programmers have to support themselves "flipping burgers" at night. It is quite possible for profitable companies to employ programmers to make changes to open source software, and then release the changes back to the open source community. (It may do so as a way to make custom distributions that they can sell support for.)

 

[Daald]

Keep in mind that "open source" software does not mean that the programmers have to support themselves "flipping burgers" at night. It is quite possible for profitable companies to employ programmers to make changes to open source software, and then release the changes back to the open source community. (It may do so as a way to make custom distributions that they can sell support for.)

I know that. The case I was responding to is if it will ALL go open source and I am saying that it can't. The programmers need a way to finance their living and flipping burgers while writing free software is not a solution. Whatever form that financing takes it will at times put constrains as to what is released, hence some code will always be closed.