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

[Zelenius]

This is why big companies cannot afford to try free software for tasks crucial to the business. If something goes wrong and you lose thousands if not millions of money, nobody is legally or technically responsible, you are alone with your problems. There is no guarantee or repair efforts for anything.

If I were a business owner with a few hundred employees, all my computers would run Windows XP or 7. Open Office is an option for very basic users who don´t need to do anything complex or what looks visually nice. For my own personal use I require Microsoft Office 2003, no other choice will do. My graphic design dep would run Adobe products, they are pricey but worth every cent in productivity. To the devil with Gimp, it is worthless in serious, hectic and productive graphic design business.

I've never had serious problems with Linux or Open Office for my purposes(nothing too complex). It's not for everyone, and people who are used to Adobe and MS Office may have the most problems with the Linux office programs. Do you have any specific examples of where MS Office is so much better compared to Open Office? Or Adobe compared to Gimp?

 

[Zelenius]

When I said I believe freeware/open source will "triumph", I didn't mean that in a few years 99% of all the computers in the world would be running nothing but free software and Microsoft would be out of business.

I'd be willing to call it a "triumph" if general use "fropen"(to borrow Donn's useful neologism)software like operating systems and Open Office among others had around half the market. I can understand very complex business or scientific software remaining proprietary, the OP doesn't really concern them, for the most part.

 

[Fishstick]

I've never had serious problems with Linux or Open Office for my purposes(nothing too complex). It's not for everyone, and people who are used to Adobe and MS Office may have the most problems with the Linux office programs. Do you have any specific examples of where MS Office is so much better compared to Open Office? Or Adobe compared to Gimp?

As far as Photoshop goes, the content-aware filling/cutting by itself is almost worth the cost when doing photography, not to mention the sheer amount of free and paid plugins available for it (and not GIMP).

 

[Lamuella]

it's going to be much like it is today: Those with the patience to use something that can be tweaked every which way will use the open source versions of everything. Those without the patience will go for the ready out of the box version. Those inbetween will get some of the first and some of the second, and you'll have a spectrum of coexistence.

 

[Donn]

What is "tweaking" ?

I think it divides into app spaces. There are human-use apps like spreadsheets, editors of graphics and text, and so on. One on one — you use the app.
These kinds of apps don't require 'tweaking'. You either use Gimp or Inkscape, or you don't. The experience is very much out-of-the-box.

Then there are computer-use apps like web-servers and the code they call. There's code that runs on schedules without any humans around. There's the multitude of code that sets-up and maintains Operating Systems.
These kinds do require tweaking/setup by admins, but that's true on Linux and Windows Server.

Things like email servers are better, I hear, on Microsoft. The sheer level of setup and tweaking (as an admin) on Linux is hellatious. Perhaps it will improve.

So, can we give the whole 'tweaking' thing a rest now?

 

[Lamuella]

from my experience using both proprietary and open source software, I have found that open source software often expects a higher level of competence and grants a higher level of customizability than proprietary software.

I'm sorry you don't like the word "tweaking" but I find it accurate and appropriate.

 

[Donn]

.. open source software often expects a higher level of competence and grants a higher level of customizability

I broke it down into different spaces. Sure, lots of stuff requires competence etc., but is it what normal users would encounter?

When I say normal I mean my first app-space: office apps, design apps, emails clients, web browsers, desktops, file managers, note apps, etc. All of these are no more or less complex than the ones I used to use on Windows.

When you are web designing, handling servers, hacking your network, coding stuff, fixing problems then it steps-up a few levels of tough. I claim it's no different on Mac or Windows.

I'm sorry you don't like the word "tweaking" but I find it accurate and appropriate.

I feel it's a word that keeps Linux down, as if Linux is by nature harder to use than anything else. This is not true.

 

[Lamuella]

at no point in my post did I mention linux. Again, I'm sorry that you dislike the word "tweaking" but my use of it had nothing to do with Linux whatsoever.

At this point the argument is basically your experiences versus my experiences, so there's really nothing to argue about.

 

[Donn]

Lamuella, my apology. I was using 'Linux' wrongly as a blanket for open source software - and assumed you meant Linux too.

My bad.

I still think I have a point re fropen software used as I described by normal users as not being any harder or complex than proprietary versions. (The list in my prev post.)

 

[Daald]

When I said I believe freeware/open source will "triumph", I didn't mean that in a few years 99% of all the computers in the world would be running nothing but free software and Microsoft would be out of business.

I'd be willing to call it a "triumph" if general use "fropen"(to borrow Donn's useful neologism)software like operating systems and Open Office among others had around half the market. I can understand very complex business or scientific software remaining proprietary, the OP doesn't really concern them, for the most part.

I think the applications that have a chance to do that are applications that are maintained by some sort of corporate sponsor who makes money by having said application be free. The thing is that if that becomes profitable then proprietary companies with closed source can copy the model to some degree and do the same thing. So if you measure triumph by 50% market share of originally open/free software then I might agree but would be highly skeptical. If you measure it by originally open/free software making great strides and then forcing paid/closed software to become more open and much cheaper then I think that it will triumph.

 

[Segnosaur]

When things go wrong there you can't just call the developer and complain.
(...)
I'd rather buy it up front and get something that works and is supported.

This is why big companies cannot afford to try free software for tasks crucial to the business. If something goes wrong and you lose thousands if not millions of money, nobody is legally or technically responsible, you are alone with your problems. There is no guarantee or repair efforts for anything.

And as I said before, there is usually no 'guarantee' that your technical problem would be solved if you went with a closed source/purchased solution either. For example, I've seen a microsoft license that states that they're only responsible only up to the "cost of the software" (even if Microsoft knew about any problems before hand.)

And yes, you could supposedly purchase "enhanced support" that might guarantee better service, but how is that any different/better than simply paying a Linux company (like Red Hat) to provide the same sort of troubleshooting for its products? The only difference is that if you go with a closed source system your stuck with whatever support they want to provide. If you go with open-source, you will at least have options.

If I were a business owner with a few hundred employees, all my computers would run Windows XP or 7.

Ummm... if you were a "business owner", wouldn't the type of software you use depend on what exactly your business is? Assuming you'll always go with "Windows" products might be understandable if you were (for example) exchanging documents with customers who used Microsoft documents, but to assume right off the bat that you "must use Microsoft" shows a certain... inflexibility... which would be a mistake.

Open Office is an option for very basic users who don´t need to do anything complex or what looks visually nice. For my own personal use I require Microsoft Office 2003, no other choice will do. My graphic design dep would run Adobe products, they are pricey but worth every cent in productivity. To the devil with Gimp, it is worthless in serious, hectic and productive graphic design business.

Again, I would raise the question whether its a case that something like Open Office can't do the things you need to do, or whether it just has an interface that you are not used to.

 

[Eudaemonic Plague]

I think I installed Inkscape at some point, but since I rarely actually boot up Ubuntu, I don't remember. If I haven't, I will.

I'm really happy you mentioned it though, otherwise it might have taken me a long time to learn about Lasersaurus. Now, I need to make a space big enough for it....heh.

Thanks to my working at a major university, I have access to some incredible deals on software. Windows 7 for around $80, Office for $10 (that price didn't last long), and I forget just what I paid for CS5 Standard, but these were good deals. Still, I do appreciate being able to get good, useful software for free. Especially since I dual-boot Win7 & Ubuntu.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Problems with support of Open Source Software...

Is there any guarantee that going with a "professional" piece of software will be any better?

After all, there have been cases where bugs get reported to Microsoft or other software companies and go unfixed for weeks/months. And that's even assuming that the company will want to fix the bug at all...

On the other hand, at least with Open Source software, you at least have options. With access to the source code you can fix bugs yourself (or higher others to fix them), or wait until others fix the problem themselves.

No guarantees - well there might be depending on your contract. But I've tried a number of open source and private apps for customer management and CRM for my business and the open source model has turn out more troublesome and more expensive. Having to hire someone just to get a simple plugin to work ends up costing more than the whole bit of private company s/w. I'm not claiming this is universally the case, I'm just recounting my experiences.

At least you seem to recognize your personal experience is an anecdote.

Perhaps you are right and the best piece of software was the closed source software you bought. Or perhaps there was some piece of open-source software which could have met your needs, but you just never came across it.

Does seem strange that you'd need someone to "write a plugin" to get software to work. Of course, you might be in just as much trouble in the future if/when Microsoft forces you to upgrade to a newer version of windows, and whatever software you're using doesn't work with the new version.

 

[Wowbagger]

In the vast software ecosystem, I think there will always be room for some foks to use completely open source stuff, some to use proprietary packaged solutions, and some to mix it up in varying degrees in between.
(And, this is regardless of how you happen to define those terms.)

But, the general trend will probably be in the direction of more open source being used into the future, not less. But, this will be most apparent at the platform level: The operating system and APIs, etc. The things that the techies play with the most. Having the freedom of open source will tend to be irresistable to them.

This trend will probably not be as strong at the application level: The tools the "dumb users" actually use. Because they want something that is polished and works well. And, there will always be a market for people willing to pay for that, even if it does shrink a bit.

Open source software won't displace proprietary software "in general", because that "in general" covers a whole universe of software outside of your desktop PC, but definitely I will agree open source software will gain traction in software which has that kind of broad, industry-independent appeal.

The difference between categories of software applies here, as well. Highly specialized software is less relevant to the battle of open source vs. proprietary. That stuff will exist no matter who "wins".

But, which platform those specialized solutions run on (operating system, protocols, APIs, etc.) is where the "battle" described in this thread is taking place. There are very few businesses running their own proprietary operating systems, these days.

 

[psionl0]

Having to hire someone just to get a simple plugin to work ends up costing more than the whole bit of private company s/w.

There's the rub. One can have a lot of fun figuring out how to get a piece of open source software to work but as soon as a business does it, the fun turns into "expense".

The other problem is that you never know how good the piece of OS software is. Some of it is far better than anything the micro$oft crowd could ever come up with but you could just as easily end up with a piece of **** who's author simply lost interest in finishing. ("Hey, you have the source. Do you want to have a go?")

For businesses, it is likely to be more cost effective to purchase well known OSes and software - stuff that you might be able to get someone off the street to operate without having to train (more savings).

 

[Christian Klippel]

This is why big companies cannot afford to try free software for tasks crucial to the business. If something goes wrong and you lose thousands if not millions of money, nobody is legally or technically responsible, you are alone with your problems. There is no guarantee or repair efforts for anything.

Unless you live in a parallel universe, you won't get that kind of security with proprietary software either. Just take the time to actually read the whole license agreements that come with the programs. If things go south, you are always on your own there.

The only exception is when you enter in a special contract with a software vendor which will include such a service, or if you have some company programming the software for you, but then again only if that is in the actual contract. Or if you enter into special service contracts with 3rd party companies.

But then, the exact same is true for OSS as well. I really fail to see a difference here. All the license agreements that i have ever read clearly state that the software vendor is in no way, shape or form responsible for any errors in their programs. It is always up to you to make sure your data is safe etc.

However, with OSS you have at least the chance to fix bugs, add functionality, etc., to the software you use. Either by yourself or by hiring the right programmers.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Donn]

What Chris said.

 

[Zelenius]

But, the general trend will probably be in the direction of more open source being used into the future, not less. But, this will be most apparent at the platform level: The operating system and APIs, etc. The things that the techies play with the most. Having the freedom of open source will tend to be irresistable to them.

You've articulated what I have been thinking better than I could. Obviously, in many cases software developers would prefer open source because it is "irresistible" to them, due to its flexibility. This will help popularize free/OSS operating systems and some applications further, in my opinion.

A little off topic, but lately I have been wondering if quantum computers become the norm(not for many years, if at all), how this would effect the battle between free-OSS and proprietary software.

 

[Zelenius]

Unless you live in a parallel universe, you won't get that kind of security with proprietary software either. Just take the time to actually read the whole license agreements that come with the programs. If things go south, you are always on your own there.

The only exception is when you enter in a special contract with a software vendor which will include such a service, or if you have some company programming the software for you, but then again only if that is in the actual contract. Or if you enter into special service contracts with 3rd party companies.

But then, the exact same is true for OSS as well. I really fail to see a difference here. All the license agreements that i have ever read clearly state that the software vendor is in no way, shape or form responsible for any errors in their programs. It is always up to you to make sure your data is safe etc.

However, with OSS you have at least the chance to fix bugs, add functionality, etc., to the software you use. Either by yourself or by hiring the right programmers.

Greetings,

Chris

As far as I can tell, you're right. Your post kind of bolsters Donn's earlier claim that proprietary software is "woo", and the more democratic, anti-authoritarian fropen source software isn't woo, although I think he was using this as more of a metaphor. The idea that you get special protections from the licensing agreement by using Microsoft's products that you don't get with fropen software is either a "woo" idea or an idea that comes awfully close to it.

Even if not "woo" it is certainly wrong to think that, in many or most cases and so does not give proprietary products an advantage.

 

[Almo]

there will always be a need for a product that can only be made by paying programmers and then charging people for the product.

I don't see high-quality games ever coming from open-source. By high-quality, I mean all-around. An open source game might be fun, but they are rarely (I say rarely because there may be a counter-example) if ever well-polished.