Open source software is now taking over the proprietary marketplace - and has no plans on leaving!
As defined in opensource.org, "Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in." Open source provides access to the source code, which is the instructions that tell a computer to do certain things. Historically, proprietary software was free and anyone could contribute and share the code, although now " the source code is locked away. Only a select few may see it and change it" (Cathedral model" Raymond, 1999).
Open source software was first introduced by Richard Stallman in 1984 when he founded the Free Software Foundation, and launched the GNU project, aiming to produce a free operating system which would be compatible with the proprietary Unix system. Along with designing new rules for the licensing of this software, Stallman announced that anyone has permission to run the software, copy it, modify it and distribute the versions.
"By contrast, commercial, proprietary software is produced by a selected group of developers with a much more narrow range of expertise. Their primary motivation is their salary" (Barr, 2007). The most common example of proprietary software is Microsoft Windows, in where guidelines are set and contributions are only made by the developers. This process can be seen as a tedious one as the ability to explore multiple solutions and errors is limited.
For example, an employee at Microsoft Windows gets no incentives to makes technology compatible with its open source competitor. On the contrary, any open source alternative to an existing proprietary software standard has to be compatible with the existing standard, and it has to be possible to use this opensource technology in a network constituted of proprietary technologies. "This is typically the case for Linux and most examples of open-source technologies: as for Linux, it is even now possible to emulate Windows on a Linux machine. As a consequence, it is easier to adopt locally a compatible open-source technology rather than a non compatible proprietary technology, for a similar level of local adoption" (Open Source vs. Proprietary Software, 2007).
Whether Open Source or Proprietary there are both advantages and disadvantages with both software. However, the basics of open source are determined by the openness of sources and contributions of all people, and the basics of proprietary is the reliability of developers and their skills.
I believe, as an important consumer of today, that both these software are an essential part of our society today.
References
http://www.matthewbarr.co.uk/opensource.htm
http://www.opensource.org/
http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/dalle2.pdf
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Megan, you have nailed the topic thoroughly and you have strong references to back up your blog. It’s interesting to see how open source has been expanding into the public. As you may have discussed already, there are both good and bad to Proprietary and Open Source.
Many agree that Open Source is better because it is more flexible, the people from open source are creating tools of what the user desire. This demonstrates why open source is more efficient. You can also see a pattern on the subject of Open Source and Proprietary, where you can state that Proprietary is Web 1.0 and Open Source is Web 2.0. One being static and the other being flexible.
However don’t you feel that, every Open Source will generally become Proprietary? As it slowly becomes popular, it will enhance them into a Proprietary production. I have written a blog about the positives and negatives about Open Source vs Proprietary. In the blog I discussed a situation on why Open Source is more efficient then proprietary, this Is when open source has frequent updates and fixes which are free, in comparison with a proprietary software, it is less likely to receive any fixes and even if they offer any, you are required to pay for the update. Another situation is what if the company has suddenly closed down and at the same time people have bought the software already and now will no longer receive any updates or patches.
How do you see this? Possibly try expanding your reasons rather concluding it’s good and bad. What are your personal opinions towards the both? And which one do you prefer in future? Take for example mine; I have strongly agreed that Open Source is more proficient which is why I prefer Open Source.
Post a Comment