Open Source Vs Proprietary Softwares Comparative Studay

[Anne Tan 0]

I have recently moved to live in Europe, and I notice a great trend picking up in the subject of open source systems. it seems to be all about open source systems these days.I am currently implementing a student/course administration system, and... to be honest, these open source systems seem to be giving proprietary systems a run for their money.I'm wondering what you people out there think about open source vs proprietary systems.

[wutske 0]

I wouldn't only limit it to open source, but I'd also include freeware (because there are a lot of closed source freeware programs that realy rock). For about 2-3 years I've been using nothing but freeware (except for windows) and it works as well as non-freeware programs. I am aware of the limit of freeware, eg. The GIMP can't give the same features and support that Photoshop CS3 gives, but I don't expect it for a €0 program . So, for companies and professionals, Open Source isn't always the best option (another example: OpenOffice.org is a great office packet, but everybody else uses Office Word and no matter how hard they try, the import and export of office documents will never be perfect).

[Dalv87 0]

Eventually open-source might dominate a few areas, Dell gives the option to ship computers with Ubuntu now (which they started doing just a few months after I got my computer from them, why couldn't they have done it a little bit earlier :| ), Firefox might eventually become more popular than IE, and so on. The more people that use it, the fewer issues there will be (like the importing and exporting).

[WeaponX 0]

I'm in the neutral zone when it comes to software. I have seen advantages on both paid and freeware programs, so I choose whichever I find to be more useful. As in the Office example given above. I'm more used to Microsoft Office, so can never adjust to using OpenOffice.Open source has been getting a bigger audience and time goes on, but it looks like Windoze will still prevail dominantly over any other operating systems for a very long time.Dell released their computers (I think only 3 models) earlier this month and it seems like the average savings is around $100 or so. They probably didn't do this earlier because of some contract agreements with Microsoft and maybe because Vista cost a heck lot more

[unimatrix 0]

It depends. Blender 3D does a lot of things for free, but I can't the selection of high qualities models for sale that I can for say lightwave. If I have a client that needs, say a particular car, for project, it's still cheaper and easier to buy the model for Lightwave, set up the scene and render than to hire someone in Blender to make a high quality model with textures. However, for my personal projects, blender is nice because it's free, has a fast rendering engine, and if I need more power it's $20 for a month of unlimited rendering at Respower's 1100CPU renderfarm. I use the GIMP a well as Photoshop CS1. But the major applications that there are no good OSS solutions for are Final Cut and Shake. Now there are other none free, and cheaper, alternatives that are worth a look (as an example FXhome's collection). I play Freeciv and vegastrike, which are both open source, along with Beyond the Red Line because I like turn based games and space-sims that no one seems to make commerically anymore. So I use whatever the best tool for the job.

[PhilosophiX 0]

That's a great and interesting topic you've started Anne. I have to say there are indeed a lot of great open source solutions out there for education such as Moodle, which is a free version of Black Board, and it works great. So I think if they continue to improve like this then Open Source has a very bright future, there is just one cloud on the horizon, and unsurprisingly it's coming from Microsoft.

 

I think one thing that people readily overlook when they begin discussing open source is freedom. I switched from Windows to Linux at christmas, and I've never looked back. The main reason I switched was because I read Microsoft's technical specification of Windows Vista. It is a hideous document which paints a Microsoft future in between George Orwell's 1984 and Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.

 

By using Microsoft Vista and Microsoft Office, you are agreeing that you don't own any of what you've purchased - you just have permission to use it through their license. Further to this, they stipulate that they can change their license at any point. This is dangerous, what if at some point they decide to change the license so that they charge a monthly rent for using their products? Don't tell me they wouldn't, if they could get away with it they would. So once you are using Vista you become locked in to their platform, and that is where Micrsoft are being the most devious. They have set up the "Trusted Computing" group to see to it that "Trusted Computing" chips are put inside computers. Trusted Computing, sounds great doesn't it? But what it means is that you no longer are able to decide what software to run on your computer, because only software that has been "certificated" by the software company paying money to the "Trusted Computing Group", will actually run on such a chipped machine. So you see, they already decided what to trust and what not to trust, and they already decided not to trust you.. the user. This system isn't some far future totalarian vision... it's happening now... some manufacturers are already putting these chips inside of machines, where they will lie in wait for the day they are turned on - no doubt once Microsoft et al have generated enough support.

 

You can see the problem the fee creates for open source... having to pay a fee for it to work would stifle innovation. Once you have such a chip in your computer, open source won't work, unless the developers have all pitched together to pay a fee to the Trusted Computing Group. Microsoft always did say they hated Open Source, and Linux... well now they are working away at getting rid of it altogether - and if successful, while there is no way they can ever get rid of open source, they will fragment the Computer Industry further, so that if you want to run open source, you have to specifically buy a Linux capable PC (one without the chip). A Vista PC with the chip activated won't run Linux or any other open source, unless they have been approved. Is that not censorship? Well to me it is.

 

Once you are locked in to Vista and the Trusted computing chip (TC), what next? Oh it gets better - they can stop your copy of Windows or Office or any other software within the system from working if they wish to do so. Why would they do such a thing? Perhaps someone somewhere tried to crack a copy of Vista, and it just happens they used a Key that is the same as your legally purchased copy... they would revoke the license key. Your copy of office would stop working. Nor would you have any recourse, how could you prove that you didn't give someone a copy? Microsoft are growing ever paranoid. Even better, under this system, every file you've ever written using Micrsoft Office would be unopenable in any other copy of Micrsoft Office, or any other application.

 

That's why I switched.. there are many more terrible examples of things possible under Vista that are terrifying, but I limit it to this - the core reason I changed to Open Source. I'm a writer and the prospect of giving Microsoft such power over everything I've ever written - every source file - every novel and story, every photograph from my digital camera showing my travels and people I know, all the digitized things I keep in my computer. Giving them the power to remove it all at a whim. I couldn't take the thought of if it... and I changed to Linux.

 

So you see, when you compare open source to proprietary systems, there are not just issues of cost, but issues of freedom as well.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

"It's coming and parts of it is here" - Quoting a Bungie employee on Halo 3. However, I apply this quote on the opensource movement's success. It's a trend indeed, but it will take a long time before it's the norm across the border. Opensource software still doesn't have the full support of the people across the world. That's even if it's Mozilla Firefox (which is the most successful at the moment). Firefox only has about 15% of the market share. Internet Explorer has about 75%. The rest are smaller browsers like Opera and Safari.I support almost all open source software, but that doesn't mean I don't use proprietary software. You always use them when playing a game for instance.xboxrulz

[Sten 0]

i personally love expensive adobe stuff! adobe software is really cool! i wish i could like take my computer to adobe and just ask them to fill it up (with their software) they should make an OS with all their software (although it would cost a fortune)but i still like some open source and freeware programs, the best open source program would be paint.net, thats like the only one i use! and i use some other freeware!

[FirefoxRocks 0]

First, I would like to quote on this:

 

By using Microsoft Vista and Microsoft Office, you are agreeing that you don't own any of what you've purchased - you just have permission to use it through their license. Further to this, they stipulate that they can change their license at any point. This is dangerous, what if at some point they decide to change the license so that they charge a monthly rent for using their products? Don't tell me they wouldn't, if they could get away with it they would. So once you are using Vista you become locked in to their platform, and that is where Micrsoft are being the most devious. They have set up the "Trusted Computing" group to see to it that "Trusted Computing" chips are put inside computers. Trusted Computing, sounds great doesn't it? But what it means is that you no longer are able to decide what software to run on your computer, because only software that has been "certificated" by the software company paying money to the "Trusted Computing Group", will actually run on such a chipped machine. So you see, they already decided what to trust and what not to trust, and they already decided not to trust you.. the user. This system isn't some far future totalarian vision... it's happening now... some manufacturers are already putting these chips inside of machines, where they will lie in wait for the day they are turned on - no doubt once Microsoft et al have generated enough support.

Please don't give Microsoft any ideas.

 

Now for my opinion:

 

I personally like open-source software better. Here are a few comparisons:

 

OpenOffice.org versus Microsoft Office. I like to say that Microsoft Office is definitely much more powerful than OpenOffice.org, but some people can't afford such a huge package. At least they are release different, cheaper packages, the Student edition is just fine for me. OpenOffice.org can save in the .doc file format, which is the utmost importance when sharing files with the family (as they prefer Microsoft Office, although OpenOffice.org can do if I don't have it installed yet), and transferring files to and from school, where their computers use Microsoft Office also. So I cannot absolutely ditch Microsoft Office for OpenOffice.org, but I would like to say that if everyone that I worked with uses OpenOffice.org, there wouldn't be a need to utilize Microsoft Office, as I do not require their "powerful, advanced features".

 

Mozilla-based (SeaMonkey, Netscape, Firefox) versus Internet Explorer. I definitely have to say GO MOZILLA!!! This is because not only do they have better security and ease of use in their software, but also that it is more extensible than Internet Explorer (extensions vs. ActiveX addons). Internet Explorer renders pages rather slowly I would say. Now that every browser has tabbed browsing, there isn't much to compare there. But you need to use Internet Explorer at certain times. Some examples are Microsoft Update, and also when you get to the odd IE-only site (http://zone.msn.com/en-us/home to name one). :P

 

The GIMP versus Adobe Photoshop. I have never used Adobe Photoshop before so I honestly cannot make a good comparison there. I would say that The GIMP meets my needs just fine. I am not going pay $600 US or whatever just to do some occasional graphics editing. If only there were more tutorials for the GIMP, that would make it popular and better.

 

GAIM versus. Windows Live Messenger, Yahoo! Messenger, etc. This is a tricky decision. I personally like Windows Live Messenger better because it has its own features for IM, and that it looks better If GAIM improves to support many of the WLM features then I may like it better. Also, Yahoo! and Windows Live messenger can communicate with each other now, but only for typing and nudging. It needs to get better.

 

ClamWin versus other anti-virus software. I think that ClamWin is good for scanning and stuff but not for real-time use. For real-time use, I prefer AVG Free or Windows Live OneCare, but I'm willing to try others if need be.

 

And now for the biggie:

 

Ubuntu Linux versus Windows XP Home Edition. I like both. Windows XP is more compatible with programs and games and stuff, compared to using WINE on Ubuntu. Ubuntu is very high-maintenance, and requires an above average skill level of Linux knowledge in order to keep it working properly with the updates. I have had to reformat the Linux partition many, many times whenever I updated. I do not recommend Ubuntu for new users, even though it is "Linux for human beings". I may like Ubuntu if I had technical support for it, like when bundled with Dell computers. I like the games that are included with Ubuntu, and it is easy to use if it works properly. For the majority of users though, I'd stick with Windows and use layers of security software.

 

To wrap it all up, I would say that open source has its ups and downs. Closed source freeware also has its benefits, such as Opera Internet Browser. It's all up to your computer expertise, the systems you work on, and most importantly, the people you work with.

[dserban 0]

... and that is where Micrsoft are being the most devious. They have set up the "Trusted Computing" group to see to it that "Trusted Computing" chips are put inside computers. ......
... some manufacturers are already putting these chips inside of machines, where they will lie in wait for the day they are turned on - no doubt once Microsoft et al have generated enough support.

I'm wondering if there is a way - like a hardware test - to determine whether you have such a Fritz chip in your recently purchased computer.

[develCuy 0]

JOKINGIn my opinion, the problem with Open Source and "Proprietary Software" is based in: trust.If you can't trust in your self, the competition, your wife, etc. You have a problem of "trust". By the way, if you are open to trust in yourself, share your good work, and live to do things well done, there is no problem.There is many power on hidden things, the catholic church hides key information, but the have to keep the power. Is similar with the software. The Bill(vil:infamous) Gates(gay) needs more and more money, like mac pato. Then he have to hide the code, because he have to keep the secret of the worst OS in the human history.SERIOUSLYSomethings must be hidden, good secrets keeps our lives peaceful. But of course, there are some good efforts that are able to be improved with collaboration. This is the time of Team Work, individual heroes are kids fantasy.Blessings!

[PhilosophiX 0]

I have no idea about that one. You could ask your manufacturer. Alternatively, if it's a brand new computer, the manual will have a complete specification listing somewhere. I know that most laptops are already coming with them, so if its a laptop you bought then there's an even greater chance you already have one. If it's a PC, probably not so much. Some new Intel chips have the frizz chip built into them. All I can suggest is checking out the against TCPA website, since they appear to have a hardware list, although I don't know how comprehensive it is: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

The thing I find most offensive about this initiative, is the fact that a computer with such a chip is no longer a Turing Machine. I suppose I better explain that one. Alan Turing was the man who practically invented modern day computers. He envisaged a computing platform which became known as the 'Turing Machine'. A Turing machine is a computer that is programmed to do something. And it can become any other Turing Machine by reprogramming it. So IBM PC is a Turing Machine, because it can emulate any other machine by changing the software. With these stupid chips, the PC can't emulate any other machine - because the users can no longer decide what software they want to install on it - only approved software will run.

Another good reason why this sucks... if you're a small programming company, before you can start making money by selling your product - you have to sell so many units to make back the money you've just paid to Microsoft to certify your software. (I say Microsoft, because they started the Trusted Computing Group, and regardless of whoever else jumps on board we best not forget that). So talk about monopoly, now Microsoft would get a share of money for every program ever written. They say it's to stop spyware, and adware... who are they trying to kid... the spyware and adware companies are all massive and wealthy and can more than easily afford the certification. What will suffer, will be innovation... all the amazing freeware you get at the moment would be dead in the water.

I guess that grinding noise you can hear is my gnashing of teeth.....