OSS has better economics than proprietary software
…according to a recent EU study. And from its perspective, i.e. that of a multinational organisation aiming towards technological independence, low cost and high-quality software for specific tasks, I agree. Now, all that’s left is for the Commission put its money where its mouth is and really sponsor (and promote) Open Source software. No, I mean really.
On the other hand, and just for the sake of conversation if you like, what about: 1, 2.
Your second link was empty for some strange reason. I didn’t read the whole article, but I find it a waste of time: The idea of open source software and the advantages of the model have nothing to do with the state of desktop linux, for which I’ve written several times [1][2][3] and which I find lacking in countless ways in my humble opinion. This — however — does not mean that for a large number of applications and uses, for millions of people and equally numerous environments, Open Source software provides a superior solution, not just ethically, not just practically, but also economically over proprietary solutions.
As I was writing the comment, in the ‘preview’ I could only see the “2″ without showing the link. The “1″ was not shown at all.
“I didn’t read the whole article, but I find it a waste of time”
As you wish. However your readers could similarly consider your [1][2][3] links a waste of time. ;-)
“Open Source software provides a superior solution, not just ethically, not just practically, but also economically over proprietary solutions.”
I respect your opinion. However, the ‘ethically’ part is probably wrong. As far as ‘practically’ goes I think my links give an idea of whether this is true or not. As far as ‘economically’ goes I do not have an opinion at this time.
You mean the one (and only) link that we actually got (if you wish you can provide the second one too?) which referred to a comment of yours (which I read) on an article that had to do with Ubuntu 6.10 from a not-so-knowledgeable user. And as I wrote before: I cannot exactly see how this has to do anything with or diminishes the value of Open Source as an idea/methodology or how the experiences of a new user with any kind of software are of any importance when we’re talking about supporting an idea and development methodology from a international organisation. Your analogy resembles that of judging proprietary software as a whole because you cannot manage to print a page properly in Microsoft Word. Don’t you find this absurd?
Now, whether Open Source software is ethically superior to proprietary is a huge subject which I consider absolutely relevant to the article, especially when we are referring to the supporting arguments by an international organisation such as the European Union. I do not understand how you found this ‘flawed’, however I believe that you’ve probably misunderstood the point. In addition, I am trying to comprehend how you can claim that the moral dimension is ‘flawed’ when you’re arguing that the experience of a new user is ‘relevant’ and an ‘important’ example as a means to compare the value of Open Source software. Perhaps you didn’t get the point of the article and/or the report?
Finally, the economics are — largely — what this report is about and what I intended to focus upon.
“not-so-knowledgeable user”
This mentality is the mistake that (at least some) open source fans make. They judge others by their own standards. They look at the product and not the user.
As far as the ethics go, all I have to say is that ethics is ‘in the eye of the beholder’.
Now let me refer you to some of my posts on Open Source [1].
Thanks for the link.
I believe you still fail to grasp the essence of this report. This is not about ‘ease of use’, ‘desktop software’, ‘usability’, ‘ergonomics’ etc. I found your mentality comment somewhat demagogic and I find this completely out-of-place here. If you looked — you didn’t have to read them thoroughly if you don’t find them relevant — at my articles that I referred you to earlier and if you have been following my writings here or my comments in other blogs it should be clear to you that I give the highest importance to humans and not the machines.
Now going back to the post. Formally, if you prefer: Open Source != Desktop Linux. You may have associated the two terms, because that’s what you care about, or that you know about — as is the case with most non-technical people following Open Source; yet Open Source is — beyond a theoretical approach to software development, an ideology and a series of methods employed in collaborative development — present in a series of amazingly varied application domains that have very little to do with ’simple users’ or ‘usability’, concepts that you keep coming back to in your previous comments.
I had read the Economist article that you’re referring to at your blog back when it came out. Besides the gross mistakes that the article contains with regards to the way the community works, the completely baseless comparisons with the commercial approach to software, but also the generalisations as far as contributions etc. — I wouldn’t expect anything better from Economist anyway, ‘pretense is their middle name’ — I believe that Open Source is no panacea (i.e. I would probably be in favour of a hybrid market) and I agree that Open Source is not necessarily a model necessarily applicable to every and any market, industry or activity. Nevertheless, I do not think that we have found a model that is, really: capitalism and the competitive model also lacks in so many areas. But I digress… :)
“I found your mentality comment somewhat demagogic and I find this completely out-of-place here”
I’m sorry if you found my comment demagogic. That wasn’t my intention.
I believe there is a contradiction in terms when you’re claiming that this is not about ‘usability’ etc. and that you’re always giving the highest importance to humans (as opposed to machines).
In any case, the whole matter, my personal view is that of a user, the user-friendliness etc.; the point of view that xpan is describing in his blog. In other words, I’m responding to the question: “Why is the average user using Windows and not Linux?” Now considering Open Source as an ideology is something else… :-)
There’s no contradiction here. Since I think that you’re still confusing the concepts at hand, I will try to clear my points up for you. Here we go!
Now the fact that the EU is going to sponsor the use and development of Open Source software does not only cover to what you think Open Source is, but the wider approach to software development, the ideology, the community, no matter what the application is. Either way, you cannot — according to your own statements — just a methodology this way. Under your criteria, Windows have been evolving for about 20 years, whereas Gnome and KDE have only been out for 10 and — still — in many areas they are far ahead of Windows and Mac OS X. This, on its own, I believe should be enough to convince you about the quality of Open Source softweare, not as individual examples, but as a methodology.
Ok, I really hope it’s clearer now (after so many repetitions). Thanks for the comments!
Ok, now I see what you mean. Thanks for the clear explanations.