Asa Jay's weblog

I currently receive an email newsletter called WinXP news, which is also available on their web site. Vol. 7, #16 – Apr 17, 2007 – Issue #273 talks about Open Source and asks the question if one is really better than the other. I just had to respond to this in several ways, here are some of my thoughts.
When talking about Open Source, the author states:
“If I find myself stuck with a hunk of junk that some stranger gave away or my free
download hoses my system, what am I going to do? Ask for my money back?”

. . . and I say. . .

Try doing that with Windows, or any other proprietary Windows Software product. You’ll get the same answer, “sorry.” When was the last time you read (really took the couple hours it takes) to read a EULA? There are no warranties that protect you or your data. At best, you might get an acknowledgment from the proprietary vendor that they know of the bug, and might fix it, or might not. With Open Source, chances are less than five minutes with Google, and 10 minutes on some forums and you’ll find others who has suffered the same fate and have already fixed it. In each case there is no way to get your money back. So what was the author’s point?

Later, the author asks the question:
“Do you buy the idea that being “open” makes software more secure, or automatically makes it “better” or somehow morally superior to closed source software?”

. . . and I say. . .

In the author’s own editorial, they never even approached real answers of security. The only thing they got into was how a proprietary kernel (MS) is closed source so no one can figure it out, while an open source kernel is open so everyone can peek, poke and monkey with it. Nobody can draw conclusions of security with such generalities. As for the MS kernel being more secure, BAH! When programs like most of Symantec’s products actually MODIFY the kernel, what kind of security is that? I’m in week number two of a WinXP rebuild because a Norton product failed it’s install in the middle of modifying the kernel. Talk about being screwed and having no warranties!

Next the author asks:
“Have you tried open source operating systems? Did you come back to Windows or do you still use Windows for some of your computers?”

. . . to which I reply. . . Yes, I have tried both Open Source operating systems and open source applications. There are good and there are bad. I think there are features of Open Source OS’s that are far superior to MS, I can’t really say there is any one feature of an MS OS that turns me on, in fact, the only reason I really use Windows at this point, is because there are some proprietary apps that I use that are only available for windows. And here is the real crux of the issue.

I’ve had more difficulties with Windows and programs built for Windows, than I have had with Open Source apps. Unfortunately, there really is no substitute for some closed source apps and it requires I maintain two different operating systems in order to work. And that’s OKAY. MS gets better as they go along. XP was a vast improvement once SP2 was out and they got a bunch of bugs worked out. I still get crashes of the entire OS when some errant program makes a bad call, or some stupid trusted third party vendor (read Symantec) modifies the kernel and takes the system down. With an Open Source OS, the app crashes, but the system stays up.

If I have a problem with a proprietary app, I can usually find a knowledge base somewhere to help, otherwise I have to pay a support person to answer even the simplest of questions. With Open Source, I can pretty much do the same thing, search vast knowledge bases, leave messages, get answers, but I never have to pay a support person on the phone for a simple answer. I may be made to feel dumb sometimes for not knowing, but I -do- get the answer I need.

In the end, there really isn’t anything wrong with using Microsoft products, in fact, I only use MS mice because nobody else makes a computer mouse I like. The way I see it now, the market is beginning to equalize and sort itself out. Open Source has matured a lot, and there are more and more vendors who are writing apps in support of alternative operating systems. Competition is good, it’s been good for MS because it’s forced them to listen to the customer again and this will simply make them better.

I don’t claim Open Source OS’s are -really- more secure than Windows. They -are- more secure at this point only due to the fact the market share is low, and no self-respecting cracker is going to write stuff against it. Once market share increases, the insecurity will increase, so to me, security is a nice argument but in the end it has no teeth.

Morally superior? I don’t think so. If I can get a program for free, great! If it doesn’t work, I delete it, and I’m not out any money. This is why I seriously enjoy demo version of applications. This gives me an opportunity to check out an app before I pay out the nose for it. I -do- buy software, I just like to make sure it works first. I -don’t- like software that requires me to buy it first, only to find out it has fewer features than the open source alternative. That’s when I get a bit upset.

Luckily, I have a circle of friends who are like-minded. We all enjoy open source and use it quite a lot. However, all of us still use Windows, and we know the reasons why, because our work or our play requires it, and it’s no big deal.

What Open Source -has- done, which to me is the largest benefit of all, is that it has given us choices again. In a nutshell, the argument has moved from Ford versus Chevy, from CPM versus DOS, from vi versus emacs, to Closed Source versus Open Source. There will be winners on both sides, people will make choices based on their favorites; everyone gets their work done and everyone is happy.

Asa Jay

This entry was posted on Monday, April 16th, 2007 at 13:15 and is filed under Computers, General, Software. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.