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

[Segnosaur]

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.

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. (For example, a bug in Windows Home Server took about half a year to fix back in 2008.) And that's even assuming that the company will want to fix the bug at all... I doubt Microsoft will be putting in much effort to patching Windows 95 regardless of the number of remaining users who might have uncovered bugs. And since its all closed source software, you have no options to "do things yourself".

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.

However, in my opinion most users would not be affected by this problem, as most mainstream distributions are "stable enough", and there are enough workers to fix the few big problems that come up.

 

[Zelenius]

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

I don't think this is the year or there will ever be the "Year of Linux", or the "Summer of Love of Linux" but it does appear that Linux has made significant gains on desktops and laptops, mostly at Windows expense, based on reports:

Key findings from the report include that 79.4 percent of companies are adding more Linux relative to other operating systems in the next five years; more people are reporting that their Linux deployments are migrations from Windows than any other platform, including Unix migrations; 66 percent of users surveyed say that their Linux deployments are brand new "greenfield" deployments; among the early adopters who are operating in cloud environments, 70.3 percent use Linux as their primary platform, while only 18.3 percent use Windows; and 60.2 percent of respondents said they will use Linux for more mission-critical workloads over the next 12 months.

I admit it is difficult to track Linux growth and migration away from Windows, since Linux is free and there are no sales figures for it. Also, many if not most Linux users may own a Windows PC and a Linux PC(which I did for many years before going all Linux) or dual-boot Windows/Linux PCs. Besides this report, many computer professionals I know(in the U.S) tell me that many more people and businesses(some of whom are clients) are using Linux compared to 5 years ago. This may be anecdotal, but it looks like the growth may be significant enough that even Microsoft is a little worried.

50 places that Linux is running that you might not expect

And I stress the growth has been significant, not huge.

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

I think you're right, no argument there about most smartphone users not knowing what OS they are using. But I think a few of them may be interested in switching their PC desktop or laptop to Android if they happen to like it more than Windows and/or they have a strong enough dislike for Microsoft.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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

No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft.

 

[Segnosaur]

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

No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft.

True, but that's largely based on appearances.

The question is, what decision is best for the company.

 

[Donn]

No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft.

What does that even mean? How do you know? Maybe someone should have been fired for buying such?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I don't think this is the year or there will ever be the "Year of Linux", or the "Summer of Love of Linux" but it does appear that Linux has made significant gains on desktops and laptops, mostly at Windows expense, based on reports:

That all seems to be enterprise/server oriented ... not end user desktop usage as your original claim. I didn't feel like signing up to read the pdf ... why they couldn't just link directly to it ... open source , meh

You have a lot of generalizations flying around. But it really all does just sounds like the year of the linux desktop http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/the-year-of-the-linux-desktop-isnt-coming/16022

 

[Segnosaur]

No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft.

What does that even mean? How do you know? Maybe someone should have been fired for buying such?

Its an old saying that used to be "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" (back in the days when IBM was the big computer manufacturer.)

The idea is that companies like IBM and Microsoft are big, stable firms. As such, they are not likely to go out of business, and its assumed that they will better be able to support products they put out. Someone needing a new PC who bought an IBM PC probably felt 'secure' (just as people who buy Microsoft software feel secure.) And if something does go wrong? Well, its not the employee's fault because they picked a stable company.

Compare that to someone who buys their PC from "Joe's Computer Shop" down the block... However, Joe's shop might not be around next year if/when your computer breaks down. Much like some small software company might not be around when it comes time to upgrade your software.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What does that even mean? How do you know? Maybe someone should have been fired for buying such?

http://www.google.com/#q=no+one+ever+got+fired+for+buying+ibm

ETA: I see Segnosaur beat me to the punch.

 

[Donn]

Ah, k. I see. Thanks all.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Its an old saying that used to be "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" (back in the days when IBM was the big computer manufacturer.)

The idea is that companies like IBM and Microsoft are big, stable firms. As such, they are not likely to go out of business, and its assumed that they will better be able to support products they put out. Someone needing a new PC who bought an IBM PC probably felt 'secure' (just as people who buy Microsoft software feel secure.) And if something does go wrong? Well, its not the employee's fault because they picked a stable company.

Compare that to someone who buys their PC from "Joe's Computer Shop" down the block... However, Joe's shop might not be around next year if/when your computer breaks down. Much like some small software company might not be around when it comes time to upgrade your software.

Luckily (though that's debatable) there's Ubuntu.

Not that I think that Ubuntu will wipe the floor with Windows, but at least they are a stable company/foundation that isn't likely to go away next year.

 

[Segnosaur]

Its an old saying that used to be "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" (back in the days when IBM was the big computer manufacturer.)

The idea is that companies like IBM and Microsoft are big, stable firms. As such, they are not likely to go out of business, and its assumed that they will better be able to support products they put out.

Luckily (though that's debatable) there's Ubuntu.

Not that I think that Ubuntu will wipe the floor with Windows, but at least they are a stable company/foundation that isn't likely to go away next year.

Well, I should point out that according to Wikipedia, Ubuntu is 'supported' by a company called Canonical, which only has around 400 employees.

I think Red Hat (with over 3000 employees, much higher annual revenue and a much longer history) is probably a better poster child of "stability". (Not saying its a better distribution, just that the company is more stable.)

Of course, its not really that relevant... even if Canonical and Red Hat went out of business tomorrow, the open-source nature of the products would allow others to provide support.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Well, I should point out that according to Wikipedia, Ubuntu is 'supported' by a company called Canonical, which only has around 400 employees.

I think Red Hat (with over 3000 employees, much higher annual revenue and a much longer history) is probably a better poster child of "stability". (Not saying its a better distribution, just that the company is more stable.)

Of course, its not really that relevant... even if Canonical and Red Hat went out of business tomorrow, the open-source nature of the products would allow others to provide support.

Exactly what happened with Songbird after it terminated Linux support, an also what happened to Several games, such as Warzone 2100.

A fork is always around the corner.

 

[Dessi]

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?

The vast majority of software running today is line-of-business software, firmware, middleware, off-the-shelf apps like games. About 80% of business transactions are processed with COBOL, I've heard figures that COBOL comprises 40% of code in existence. Speaking for myself, I write software which interprets very complex decision trees specific to my company's products, these decision trees help people order products and set up very complex telephony data. Most proprietary software falls into this category: stuff that fills a very specific business purpose. We couldn't opensource our products even if we tried. We also have 10s of 1000s of lines of code used just to run the internal operations of our company, the sorts of things you (the end user who ultimately orders our product) will never see or touch.

On the other hand, open source software shines in the areas where it has broad, cross-cutting appeal to users. An operating system, for example, is useful no matter what industry you're in. Web browsers, web servers, email clients, databases, source control systems, content management systems, image editors, and such are pretty useful no matter who you are, where you are, what industry you're in.

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.

 

[Modified]

Below is data for a piece of software used mainly by first year CS students, about 60% in the US and the rest spread around the world. The chart shows a 30 day moving average of the percentage of downloads for each OS. Unfortunately I can't separate Linux from other UNIX. The drop in UNIX/Linux in the early 2000s is due mainly to university computer labs switching from UNIX to Windows, and to more students working on their own desktops and laptops, which are mostly running Windows. The initial spike in Mac downloads follows the first release of a Mac version (the real spike starts at the beginning of spring semester 2002).

In 2007, use of Linux begins to counteract the drop in UNIX, but it's fairly flat after that and seems to have dropped slightly in the last few years. So among our users at least, Linux use is decreasing slightly.

 

[JJM 777]

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.

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.

 

[Donn]

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're wall street. (Not the most ethical example.) Red Hat and Canonical (only two I know) are offering this kind of business.

Also, it's a Catch-22. Windows got there first because of very dirty play. Now there's a momentum and a mono-culture. Every individual who opts for the mono-culture is another who guarantees it.

Can computers be better and different? We may never know if we keep one company in business (at our cost) and kick all others away.

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.

If I were a business owner with a few hundred employees, all my computers would run Linux. Open Office is the option for all, it has scripting and complex functionality and looks great.
For my own personal use I require nothing more. Open Office or Libre Office does the job.
My graphic design dep would run FROPEN products, they are free and worth every cent saved. To Xenu with Photoshop, it is worthless in serious, hectic and productive graphic design business.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I like open source and Linux, but I don't see it as becoming mainstream because that isn't the point. They are meant for people who like to tinker with their computers. Most people are scared of command line and don't want to compile from source and resolve all the dependencies to install a program that only works half as well.

I love Linux and open source, but it just can't be the "just works" computing that most people need.

 

[El Greco]

Maybe it will not be Linux, maybe it will be some other Google OS. In any case I believe that eventually we will go to a free, open source OS. And an open source Office suite as well that will be better than MS Office.

Of course games, specialized business software etc will always be proprietary, but I don't see why the OS can't be open source. I already know many businesses that only use Linux. Granted, they only need to run very few applications, but if open source picks up then the number of available applications will grow.

Given that -as it has already been evidenced in this thread- many businesses can be very happy for decades with a certain version of a certain software, without any need for upgrades, it will only take one good open source operating system and few good open source productivity applications for many businesses to convert. I already know several that use LemonPos.

 

[Donn]

.. open source and Linux .. are meant for people who like to tinker with their computers.

This is not applicable any more, hasn't been for years.

Most people are scared of command line and don't want to compile from source and resolve all the dependencies to install a program that only works half as well.

Repositories do a damn good job. The Windows world (dunno about Mac) is not any easier.

.. but it just can't be the "just works" computing that most people need.

And that computing is?

Windows is hell. It's not a bad OS. I won't say Linux is magically better somehow, it's just not Nirvana for Newbs like you imply.
It's full of Stuff You Gotta Know. You can't tell me that those computer 'repair' shops on every block and in every smalls ad don't exist! They are there because most people can't figure Windows out either.

Viruses, Malware, Botnets, rootkits, DRM, pirating, junkware, crashes, driver issues, updates from all sides it's a wonder average people get anything done.

I suppose Linux could get as complex if it became mainstream.

 

[NeilC]

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. (For example, a bug in Windows Home Server took about half a year to fix back in 2008.) And that's even assuming that the company will want to fix the bug at all... I doubt Microsoft will be putting in much effort to patching Windows 95 regardless of the number of remaining users who might have uncovered bugs. And since its all closed source software, you have no options to "do things yourself".

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.

However, in my opinion most users would not be affected by this problem, as most mainstream distributions are "stable enough", and there are enough workers to fix the few big problems that come up.

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. I'm all for open source and free s/w where I can get it and when it's as good or better than the privately developed stuff.