Open Source Vs. Closed Source

[Codemaster Snake 0]

Open Source vs. Closed SourceOpen Source: What is it?Well it's applies to the software that is freely avaliable to everybody. But, that doesn't mean that you can everytime modify the source code and give the new compiled software the name you wish.There are many Licenses that apply to the open source. You may get GPL, LGPL etc. open source means the software product you are using is available with/without (yeah! that's true some can also charge you!) cost and the source code if you want. This means that you can ask the developer for the source code of the software product. Then according to the licenses you can/cannot modify the provided source code.Some open source software products: * MySQL * XOOPS * agrosoft mail serverClosed Source: What is it?The Closed source is bassically applied to those software that is always available at a price as in case of Windows Operating System or to the shareware products like game demos.Generally the developer creates his own terms and conditions for the software and how it can be used. This license in many cases is knows a EULA (End User License Agreement). You can ask for the source code or cannot modify the work of the developer. If you do that you'll go to jail!Which is Better?This depends. Sometimes open source is better and sometimes closed source is better. Generally people go for closed source because in that case the developer provides you the support and gurantee to the software. which is not provided in the case of open source.Which is more secure?I would say that open source is more secure! Yeah I know this is an open invitation to a hot debate.My point in the favour of open source: That an open source software product is always available with it's source code. And there are millions of progrmmers around the world! if some one finds a bug then he/she can modify the work and release it again. This is why open source software updates sp frequently![[Original work]]

[osknockout 0]

Hmm... this seems like a topic I posted a long time ago - except that you actually took the time to describe what closed/open source means.

Seems you're a little biased on the open source side. I am too,, but let's try to be objective.

 

Three questions:

1) Wouldn't this go better in the debate/ideas section?

2) What do you think of non-commercial licenses or corporate products based on open-source code?

3) What happens to the millions of open source projects that get no one in them? Take a look at sourceforge and see how many projects don't even have a file out.

[shadowx 0]

I think open source is better, the only closed source software i have is my OS which is win xp and the bundled programs that come with it. I dont think I would hardly ever actually buy software, not just because im tight but because i feel closed surce software comes at such a high price most of the time for what is generally beaten by a free alternative. I think the two main reasons for people buying or using closed software are that firstly it usually comes from a big named company that people recognise and therefore feel safe with and secondly it usually, as you said, comes with a guarantee. I also tend to think open source is safer and less buggy because as you said thousands, if not millions of programmers can review the code and edit it for themselves and also send the edits in to the maker so that they can be included in updates etc... Ive heard of a few cases where this has happened with software like Firefox where the bug was found by a user and fixed. I also think that bugs are found quicker and fixed better and quicker with open source. the counter argument is that with the source available to all hackers and such can either find weaknesses in the software and not tell anyone or could in fact edit the software and include malicious code and then redistribute it to others through their website and such. the thing is there are more ethical programmers than unethicals and if a weakness was found by an unethical hacker im sure it will soon be fund and fixed by an ethical programmer. And at the end of the day we all know free software works better than bought software, thats been my experience anyway! None of my free software ive downloaded has ever done me wrong or underperformed against a closed source alternative. This could and should be an interesting topic methinks!EDIT: it seems osknockout beat me to the mark! here are my answers to the proposed questions...1) Wouldn't this go better in the debate/ideas section? Yes.2) What do you think of non-commercial licenses or corporate products based on open-source code?Brilliant in concept but sometimes they under perform when it comes to restrictions on the features. I like the idea of student licences for free because most of the time a student creates something in a closed piece of software at college and then cant use an open product to finish it, so i think thats a brilliant idea, and i do actually use a product under a non-commercial licence and i think its a brilliant thing, second best to fully open source though 3) What happens to the millions of open source projects that get no one in them? Take a look at sourceforge and see how many projects don't even have a file out.They die and no-one really notices in my opinion! if it doesnt have a file then IMHO it shouldnt bother me, and usually doesnt. Its a shame because ive seen some very good projects on sites like that but with not even a demo out.

Edited August 11, 2007 by shadowx (see edit history)

[Codemaster Snake 0]

I would like to answer the third question!You are somewhat right that the millions of projects that start out at sourceforge.net don't go anywhere beyond the first step. But everything is also not accepted by the world! You can't just make everybody love your project. It's upto them whether they like it or not. This is true for closed source also.... there are so many dead commercial products which nobody bothers to even think of. Look around Linux changed the world alot I mus' say. It was started as a research project (UNIX) and Mr. Linus launched it for public. Now almost every web server runs on Linux.

[Tetraca 0]

Here's the thing about it: Open Source programs are released prematurely without rigorous testing from the authors, and so it appears that bugs and holes are patched quicker when it is released - it's opened to an audience with tons of bugs and holes, and then slowly patched as it goes on. Closed source programs made by some companies (but not all) have already been given rigerous testing beforehand so little bugs and holes leak into the final product (Adobe, for example) - it's opened to an audience with few bugs and holes, then patched occasionally or during the next big release. Because of this, there is an illusion that bugs are patched quicker on open source vs. closed source.There are exceptions to this rule, however. The best example would be OpenBSD. It's completely stable, and it doesn't really have to be significantly improved anywhere for what it's supposed to do. But when something goes wrong the team always quickly patches the problem for the next minor release.I personally like most proprietary software over free counterparts. GIMP absolutely fails in user friendliness. I can make better images in Fireworks and it has not even half the fancy filters of GIMP.

[truefusion 3]

Open source can, at most times, be cost effective; that is, free. This is really helpful for college students and those who are low on cash or just can't afford it any longer (whether it's due to rising prices on the distributor's part or on other factors). Open source can be as rigorously tested as much, if not more, as closed source (take certain Linux Distros for example). As mentioned before, many will still take closed source over open source due to the trust they have on the company or because of pre(mis)conceptions by the consumer (that if you pay for it, it must be better!). I personally have found a lot of open-source software to be more convenient, user-friendlier and more useful than certain closed-source software, where at certain times trying to find an equally useful closed-source product was futile. Also, user-friendliness may depend on how willing the person is to learn the product.

Notice from truefusion:

Moving to the Debate section.

[blogmaster 0]

Great Article. I agree that open source is more secure. That is a fact. A good pointer is MS Windows vs Linux. The later is open source and it is known to be more secure than the former. I think this is mainly because of the fact that open source is more flexible in that anyone can apply a patch for security holes found in open source.

[shadowx 0]

I agree with Tetraca that some open software is released early but then others are released on public betas etc... specifically for testing by a massive audience, this helps fix most of the original bugs and when its released as a full distribution the other bugs are soon found. I think the main thing is that with open source the user is more valued in that our comments and feedback is better used to improve the software than with closed source software. And i also agree that the GIMP lacks user-friendliness but at the end of the day its FREE! Id rather have a small inconvenience than a massive price tag any day! Though admittedly i dont do much GFX work.

[Tetraca 0]

Open source can, at most times, be cost effective; that is, free. This is really helpful for college students and those who are low on cash or just can't afford it any longer (whether it's due to rising prices on the distributor's part or on other factors). Open source can be as rigorously tested as much, if not more, as closed source (take certain Linux Distros for example). As mentioned before, many will still take closed source over open source due to the trust they have on the company or because of pre(mis)conceptions by the consumer (that if you pay for it, it must be better!). I personally have found a lot of open-source software to be more convenient, user-friendlier and more useful than certain closed-source software, where at certain times trying to find an equally useful closed-source product was futile. Also, user-friendliness may depend on how willing the person is to learn the product.

Notice from truefusion:

Moving to the Debate section.

Open Source != Free

All Open Source means is that the source is available. It doesn't mean that the application costs nothing. Remember Free Speech, not Free Beer.

[truefusion 3]

Open Source != Free

 

All Open Source means is that the source is available. It doesn't mean that the application costs nothing. Remember Free Speech, not Free Beer.

I believe you misunderstood me. Here, i'll quote myself and add emphasis on parts that will make it appear neutral:

Open source can, at most times, be cost effective; that is, free.

And yes, i do realise that the word "free" has a different definition in the Linux world than in the Windows world. But i think your statement:

Open Source != Free

is misleading, for a lot of open-source software is free in both senses, and it's up to the programmer on which license to choose and whether or not to sell the program.

[arnz 0]

Its up to the programmer on how they want to distribute their program, but on the open v close preference, I'd have to say Open over Close for the reason that you can tinker around and mess around with it, while if you think it may be groundbreaking in a way, it gives you clearance to demonstrate that to potential clients and the like.But yes, close source seems to be a fix and fix untill you get it right and thats it, open source is a program that is released (with some bugs), but leaves things open for improvements, and any useful additions that can be coded into the program.

[Codemaster Snake 0]

Oooohh! It's getting hot everyday :XD:I would say that in a general scenario (that I see from my peosonal point of view) a programmer would release a software as a open source if*) He has a great Idea*) He is not bale to handle the program development all alone may be due to it's complexity!*) He is a rookie and don't create much useful programmes but want others to review them for him..

[rvalkass 5]

Using Linux a lot, I am obviously a big fan of the open source philosophy. In many areas, open source directly competes with closed source software, and is often just as good, if not better. For example, commercial office suites and OpenOffice, commercial recording applications and Audacity. There are, however, a few areas where open source falls dramatically short: Adobe's Photoshop is streets ahead of The GIMP, and the only useful alternative to Adobe Flash I have found, OpenLaszlo, does not have as many features and is quite tricky to use.

 

*) He is a rookie and don't create much useful programmes but want others to review them for him..

Many open source programmers are very experienced, and have often previously worked on commercial projects. The programs may often be small applications, but they are all created for a purpose, and are all useful. Plus, as many cost nothing, you lose nothing if you find it doesn't do what you want it to.

 

One major downside I have seen in large open source projects (such as KDE) is that they tend to get too tied up in democracy and making sure everyone is happy. Often releases stay in beta longer than Google's projects, but they are still useable and infrequently unstable.