On Jul 25, 2007, at 6:01 AM, wo8l@aol.com wrote:
The idea of opening up software to any and all comers is a little
scary.?
Sure, it may scare some people, it involves the writer/owner allowing
the customer/user to have some control in the features, understanding
and repair of the software (rather like most all other consumer goods
we buy, we can look at them, dissassemble them if we like, fix them?)
Closed source, however, involves full control retained by the
writers/manufacturers. As a user, you depend fully on them for all
features, fixes and updates. Not always a bad thing, not always a good
thing.
Note that (at least a few years back) - surveys indicated that business
network downtime insurance was LESS when a company used Linux (open
source!) and cost more when using Microsoft servers and software.
Linux, open source, provided the more reliable solution! Microsoft
has been working hard to catch up to that sort of reliability A very
interesting situation.
First, in today's digital communications world, if?a company doesn't
own and control the software, then what do you own?? A box with a
bunch of electronic parts in it, I'd say.
This, actually, has nothing to do with closed source by itself. You
can certainly open the source and keep copyright and patent rights
intact. In fact, patents are open source by law! You HAVE TO publish
your innovation in order to receive a patent. Of course, copyright is
easily circumvented by other writers if the source is out there, but
many of us respect the rights of others, we just want to know how to
understand it or fix it if the writers are too busy or too lazy to fix
it! (OR if they want to make me buy a whole new piece of software to
"fix" the bugs left in the last version!)
Second, if you have open software, warranty and repair issues get very
sticky.? You'd almost need a policy that when somebody modifies the
software on their own, the warranty is void.? In terms of out of
warranty
"Almost" need this? All warranties I've ever seen include this. It is
completely standard and is fair, of course. Why would it be otherwise?
repairs, there would be cases when it would be too much trouble to
return the product to optimum condition.
Third, and most important, people overestimate their knowledge and
ability with software and that leads to trouble very quickly.? I work
as a contractor in computer type jobs.? The world is full of people
who think they know what they're doing when they really don't,
including me.? I commonly ask the question "why in the world did you
do THAT?"
Well, that certainly is a good point. You point to the main feature of
closed source - the user is NOT responsible and has NO control or power
when the software is broken or a feature does not work, the owner of
the software is the only one who can touch it (or refuse to touch it).
That's OK for those who want things that way, but for those who like to
be responsible and learn about things, fix things, look at how they
work (like most hams I know???), open source makes a lot more sense.
Open software is nice in theory but it can lead to real problems.
Oh, heck, its nice in reality for much longer than most closed source
companies have existed. It leads to different benefits and risks than
closed source, but it focuses on the user's interest in the software
rather than the writer's control of the software. That is a different
set of problems :-)
Clark
WA3JPG
|