Beyond the Open-Source Hype (Foreign Policy)

Posted May 29, 2006 18:27 UTC (Mon) by cantsin (guest, #4420) [Link]

The author simple seems to say that Free Software is no magic bullet for solving problems with software security and reliability, which is a fair assessment - or did I miss something in the article?

Posted May 29, 2006 19:10 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

This is recycled Microsoft talking points, using the "yes, but" model. Yes, dozens of groups have adapted Free Software to use their local languages in places where Microsoft has failed to offer localized versions, but Microsoft does localize for significant markets of their choice. Yes, thousands of have added features and fixed bugs that affected them, but Microsoft does add features and (sometimes even) fix bugs. Yes, most people say important Free Software products are less buggy and more secure, but some people say they're not sure. Yes, Free Software fosters local software development skills, but developing an infrastructure to support that costs money presumably better spent sending it to Microsoft.

Posted May 29, 2006 21:57 UTC (Mon) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link]

> Both open source and proprietary software allow you to change the behavior
> of a software program in significant ways without touching the program's
> source code.

Ah, so adaptions that are not possible in the binary program are not "significant ways" of adapting the software.

> The truth is that software authors, whether they work for a large software
> firm or no one at all, want users to adapt their product to specific
> locations and needs.

Except, of course, when those "specific needs" conflict with the goals of the program author, or of parties they've made deals with before the user gets the program.

Posted May 30, 2006 2:56 UTC (Tue) by hal9000 (guest, #27639) [Link]

Software libraries.

That's one case when you want your "users" to be able to adapt your code far beyond the provided API. Those "users" might even send back their adaptations to you for comment and possible inclusion. Open Source empowers the community (or software ecosystem) by providing extendable and reusable source code.

Posted May 30, 2006 7:48 UTC (Tue) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]

However, it is misleading to say that open source empowers people in ways proprietary software does not.

Wrong. And they fail to support this ridicolous assertion.

Both open source and proprietary software allow you to change the behavior of a software program in significant ways without touching the program's source code.

True. But besides the point. Saying that there are things that are similar (i.e. both types of programs typically come with user-changable preferences) in no way supports the assertion that there are no significant differences.

This is a lot like claiming there are no significant differences between an aircraft-carrier and a canoe, because both can be repainted by the owner in a color of his choise.

• Fact: All the customisation-options you have with proprietary software are also there for open source software.
• Fact: There are things you cannot practically and legally change in proprietary software, which *can* be done with open source software.

They would have to argue that these things are not "significant" for their claim to be true. They make no attempt to do so, and they'd wouldn't succeed if they did. It's pretty obvious to anyone that thinks about it that being able to change a program (and not just its configuration) is a "significant" empowerment.

Posted May 30, 2006 10:30 UTC (Tue) by MathFox (guest, #6104) [Link]

A Google search finds one Caroline Benner at Washington University (resume).

Caroline Benner previously worked as policy researcher for Microsoft’s Geopolitical Policy and Strategy Group

This helps to understand the worldview of the author...