Open Source Myths

Neil Gunton's Web Page ^ | 7/26/2004 | Neil Gunton

[GeorgiaFreeper]

neilgunton.com / open_source_myths /

---

Open Source Myths

Thoughts on some frequently-stated dogma promoted by the Open Source community

Copyright © 2004 by Neil Gunton

Last updated: Mon Jul 26 08:43:56 2004 CDT

---

This document collects some of my thoughts regarding some of the "conventional wisdom" that people seem to take as Gospel Truth about Open Source software (OSS) and software development in general. This is NOT intended to be "anti-OSS", but rather to generate real thought and discussion as opposed to the constant mindless re-iteration of the same old tired dogma. I fully realize that this will be controversial to many and will probably generate much vociferous condemnation of my opinions, but I just think that it needs to be said. This is a bit of a rant, sorry if it's longer than it should be.

---

Contents

1. "If you're not willing to help fix it then you shouldn't complain about it"
2. "Open Source software allows you to get under the hood and fix problems"
3. "All software should be free"
4. "Open Source software is always better than closed, proprietary software"
5. "Scratching the personal itch"
6. "More choice is always better"
7. Conclusion: It's Not So Simple

---

1. "If you're not willing to help fix it then you shouldn't complain about it"

In any discussion about an Open Source project, someone will pipe up with a complaint about it, and someone else will reply that you shouldn't gripe unless you're willing to help pitch in and fix the thing. This is somehow supposed to be the ultimate word, the riposte that has no riposte... but it's just plain silly in real life. Even if we are developers, most of us have real jobs, or at least other projects that we are working on full time. We don't have time to "get under the hood" (see next section) and find out how the Linux kernel works, or work up a patch for Apache, or fix a problem with Perl. However, that doesn't preclude having the right to criticize (politely and tactfully, of course) how something is designed or works. Constructive criticism is and should be a valid part of the community process, and telling people that they don't have any right to gripe unless they contribute code fixes themselves is just unrealistic.

2. "Open Source software allows you to get under the hood and fix problems"

The idea seems to be that Open Source is better than closed source because you can "tinker" with the code. But how many people actually do this? Hardly anybody in real life. In reality, it's generally very, very difficult to fix real bugs in anything but the most trivial Open Source software. I know that I have rarely done it, and I am an experienced developer. Most of the time, what really happens is that you tell the actual programmer about the problem and wait and see if he/she fixes it. Most people do not participate in the development - even for Linux itself, most of the development is done by a very small number of people (in the tens at the most). Maybe you'll poke around a bit in the code, and if it's trivial then you can fix it - but again, this really isn't something your average user is going to do.

3. "All software should be free"

One of the central tenets of the Open Source philosophy (as it seems to be understood by the average person, at any rate) is that all software should be free. This seems a little unrealistic to me, for one glaringly simple reason: Development takes time and effort, and the rest of the world that we all live in is most certainly NOT free. We have to pay for everything else - a place to live, food, clothing, services, you name it. Even artists have a socially-accepted way to make money, and art is possibly one of the closest things to programming. So I fail to see the reasoning behind the suggestion that I should be expected to provide the fruits of my labor to the world for no financial reward. How did that happen? Well, it's easy to see the foundations for it, which are perfectly noble and valid - this all started because some people (RMS et al, for whom I have nothing but respect) wanted to share code with fellow developers, which also has its basis in the longstanding scientific traditions of sharing knowledge. Be assured that I am not making an argument against sharing code or doing anything else that you feel like doing. But what I do object to is the concept that all code can somehow be developed for "free", without there being a price to be paid somewhere. So, what is that price in this case?

I know that I, for one, having over 20 years experience writing software, find myself in the odd position of realizing that if I write something independently, then there is basically not a chance in hell of being able to sell it or make money directly from it. Sure, I can sell "support", but to be honest the idea of answering phones and emails all day really isn't my idea of a fun time. I grew up in the 1980's assuming that I would one day be able to write some really cool software, then *SELL IT*, and make some real money for my trouble. But if I were to do that today, then in all likelihood someone would write an Open Source version of the thing, which sort of takes the wind out of any commercial startup. It's a bittersweet situation, because on the one hand, I am able to build some wonderful software as a result of Open Source, but on the other hand, this comes back to bite me in the butt when I want to write something to be sold for real money. I can understand why the larger software companies are getting very twitchy about Open Source - after all, Linux, Apache, MySQL, PostgreSQL and so on are rapidly becoming mature enough to be real competitors to the major software vendors.

But where is all this going? Ah yes, the famous Commoditization of Software. So all software will be free in the future, simply because it will be dominated by Open Source and free software. But who is going to pay for it all? You can't develop in a vacuum, *somebody* has to pay the developers. It seems to me that the only way to do it is for all the Open Source developers to be working at large companies, with the large companies paying a salary for the developer to work on the Open Source project for some portion of their time. That's fine, I have no problem with that concept, but it's *not* "free". The software is effectively being supported by the charity of corporations. You trade your independence for the security and safety umbrella of The Big Company. Given the behavior of large companies (the bigger they get, the more amoral they seem to get), is this a very solid foundation? And is it very satisfying for the developers? It basically says that software itself cannot itself directly make money independently, but can rather only be a supporting player in some other business. The only way to make money is to give away the software, and charge for support services.

As a developer myself, this prospect is profoundly depressing - as I said earlier, I develop applications just like a carpenter makes tables or an author writes books. But we don't have a situation where we say that all authors have to be employed by large companies in order to be able to make money directly from their literature. Sure, they may go with a large publisher, but the author is basically able to sell books, this is an accepted and normal part of everyday life. People don't expect to get a book for free. And we have many small businesses run by carpenters who charges directly for their work. Why should software be any different? I mean sure, we are all allowed to write "free" software for no money and release it out into the world purely for the feel-good factor and ego boost - but to make this the dominant way of developing anything worthwhile just seems like shooting ourselves in the collective foot.

Some argue that there will always be a market for vertical market software (customized, very specific to a particular business), and this is true, but why can't I write a wonderful new *general* tool and make money from it? Yeah, I know, some will say "Go ahead and try, it's a free world". But you know as well as I do that if I am successful then inevitably some kid in his parents' basement will write his own Open Source version of the thing, for free. We seem determined as a culture to ensure that the only "worthy" software is that developed for free. This may be an understandable reaction to the overarching monopolistic behavior of companies like Microsoft, but perhaps we are overreacting?

Here's the thing: Nothing is ever really, totally "free". There is always a price to be paid, even if that price is simply the breakdown of the marketplace and the ability to make money from your own software, that you developed with your own time and effort. If the culture doesn't support the idea of paying for software (and music, and movies, etc) in some way, then we are basically just denying artists and programmers the right to make money from what they do. There needs to be a balance somewhere between the draconian strategies being pursued by the RIAA, MPAA and other "intellectual property" syndicates. We should be able to make money from our labors, without screwing over the user in the process.

4. "Open Source software is always better than closed, proprietary software"

People rant on and on about how much MS Windows sucks, and it's true, it does in many respects. But it's also true that in many respects, Windows kicks Linux's ass in terms of usability and GUI refinements. It's widely recognized that the Linux desktop is still a work in progress playing catch-up to Microsoft, and people continually wage religious wars on each other's OSS projects.

I think it's true to say that while many Open Source projects are superior to their close-source counterparts (Apache being a prime example), it's also true to say that a closed-source approach to a problem can have some benefits. Some of these benefits include having a more focused direction for the team, given the fact that there is (usually) just one manager and team leader, firmer schedules and deadlines, tighter management, profit incentives, salaries and bonus motivations. While this can also be true for open source projects, the "design by committee" that goes on with community projects often results in a more bloated and less focused product that tries to be all things to all people. Also, sometimes a simple lack of funds on the part of the developer can hamper the development.

5. "Scratching the personal itch"

This is one of the oft-repeated explanations for why programmers develop Open Source software, and it's perfectly true that most of these projects get started because they address a personal need of the developer. But is this a good way in general to do things? For example, this implies that most of the things that get implemented will have direct relevance to developers and programmers. In other words, it's no coincidence that most of the Open Source tools out there are developer tools - compilers and other server utilities. There are Open Source end-user oriented tools, but they have mostly failed to make the same impact as the server-side stuff. The Gimp is surely a fine piece of software, but it has failed to make a dent in PhotoShop's market, even though it's free. The Gnome and KDE projects remain a bit of a mess, and while they are making great strides they remain far behind MS Windows in terms of real usability for the kind of "my grandma" users that Windows caters to. This is to say nothing about all the glaring security vulnerabilities on MS Windows - that's not the point here, and is really a distraction from the real issue, which is that if Open Source mostly scratches a personal itch, then you're going to get mostly software that scratches the itches of programmers, not end-users (unless the end-users happen to be programmers).

A commercial company, on the other hand, can afford to scratch the personal itches of its end-users, because the end-users are the ones paying the bills.

6. "More choice is always better"

One thing that Open Source does is to, well, open up the process of what gets included in the final product. So we have fifteen different editors, several different web browsers, several different desktops, and so on. While this might seem like a Good Thing at first (biodiversity), it could also be argued that eventually trying to reduce the choice somewhat for the end-user would also be beneficial. For example, a new Linux user has to choose between all these different packages (e.g. which desktop) without knowing anything about either choice, or else just admit defeat and click "All", which results in a bloated system. Reducing the choices would reduce the bloat and clutter that seems to be in danger of overtaking the Linux of today - how many CD's are there now in the average distribution?

Choice is good, but a reasonable pre-selection of options is better for people who don't have the time or inclination to make their computer be their life. Most people, after all, would really like their computer to be more like their toaster. It's there, you use it, you're done - move on with the other, more important things in life.

7. Conclusion: It's Not So Simple

Some people will inevitably condemn me for putting down Open Source, disparaging the community process and otherwise encouraging the proprietary, close-source model. I am really doing nothing of the sort. This is just a collection of thoughts reflecting on the process and its consequences, trying to give a little balance and generate more thought. It's just an observation that things aren't so simple as they might appear - the Open Source model has its own pitfalls, and it's just as well to consider them rather than stick our heads in the sand and pretend that we know all the answers.

• Criticism is a valid way of participating in the process; we don't all have time to "fix it ourselves".
• Tinkering with the code is something that hardly anyone actually does, except for the core developers.
• Saying that all software should be free ignores the hidden price - including your own ability to make a living from writing software.
• Closed source software can be just as good, sometimes even better, than Open Source.
• Having a lot of programmers "scratching their personal itch" just ensures that a lot of programmer tools get written.
• Sometimes restricting the choices might not be a bad idea.

Thanks for reading.

-Neil Gunton

July 25th 2004

---

Copyright © 2004 by Neil Gunton

   Mon Jul 26 10:28:03 2004 CDT       Back to top

[Question_Assumptions]

FYI, what I had in mind is this disclaimer at the top of the Linux "COPYING" file before the GPL text, which clarifies Linus Torvalds interpretation of the license. I believe his interpretation differs from Stallman's, thus his rejection of later versions of the GPL.

NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

[ThePythonicCow]

Linus explains at some length this disclaimer, in a Linux Kernel Mailing List (lkml) post, which you can read at: GPL, Richard Stallman, and the Linux kernel.

Yes, he disagrees on many larger issues with Stallman. But the Linus kernel code, copyright by Linus and others, is still bound by, and Linus and other copyright holders so choose it to be bound by, this particular version of the GPL license.

This disclaimer does not diminish or alter that legal binding on bit. It spells out a reasonable legal distinction between what is covered by the kernels copyrights, and what is not. Derived work is covered. Merely normal use isn't.

That Linus and co-authors reject later versions of the GPL doesn't diminish the legal bond of the version they have chosen. Nor would they want it to.

[ThinkDifferent]

I wonder how automobiles would be if car manufacturers followed the open source model. The car is free and all you have to pay for is support / maintenance :)

Of course that would be silly, because cars are composed of expensive materials. Giving them away is necessarily an act of charity, requiring the donor to take a loss. But software consists of bits which are free to copy. If I've determined that I'm not going to make a profit on a program that I've written, it costs me nothing to give it to anyone who wants it.

[Nick Danger]

more Open Source myths

8. "Open Source" is the name of a company that competes with Microsoft

Many discussions of open source software posit the existence of some "open source company" somewhere that ought to do this or ought to do that. But there is no such company. There are a bunch of volunteers working on stuff in their spare time. Sometimes they appoint 'team leaders' to move things along, but no one is standing at a podium waving a baton, deciding what "open source" should do.

9. Since most people are not programmers, not even programmers need the source code.

Most discussions of open source software include the canard that your grandmother is probably not a Java guru, and that therefore having source code available to anyone is worthless. Most people are not car mechanics either, but few would buy a car that not even a mechanic could work on.

10. People who do community volunteer work should be restricted or punished.

Microsoft shills masquerading as reasonable people frequently seize on the statements of one Richard Stallman, a Massachusetts university professor who — surprise — is a far-left kookburger, and who has stated that "all software should be free." This is then described by the Microsoft shill as some generally-held philosophy of the "open source movement," as though everyone working in his den on a patch to PHP is some commie moonbeam.

The term "open source" was in fact coined precisely to distance these efforts from Mr. Stallman and his "free software" philosophy.

But never mind that. The real issue is this: when you're done listening to the guy tell you how the world will go to ruin if people give away the stuff they do in their spare time, ask him what he proposes to do about it. Shall we pass a law that people cannot do volunteer work? Shall we prohibit people from disposing of their own property except at a "fair" price ('fair' to be determined by government)? Every time a parent hands down a piece of furniture to a newly-married son or daughter, some furniture store and some furniture manufacturer lose a sale. Shouldn't we ban that? Every time the Jaycees paint a house for an old lady living alone, some union housepainter gets robbed of a job. Should we ban that, too? If not, then why would we restrict or punish programmers who do volunteer stuff and toss it out there for people to use?

11. Straw man arguments are persuasive and useful.

Microsoft shills posing as reasonable people will often spend their own time, and yours, on stupid things that no one sane ever said anyway, like "Open source software is always better than proprietary software." They do this in an attempt to do something equally stupid, which is to argue that propietary software is always better.

12. People programming in their spare time for fun should work on what you want instead of what they want.

People who start with the assumption that Open Source is a company can criticize the company for not producing anything except what the worker-bees decide they want to do. This is then presented as a "deficiency" of open source software, instead of a gripe from one of Ayn Rand's 'looters' that the producers aren't doing the right things.

Open Source is not a company. It doesn't sell anything. There is no one in charge. It's no different than a bunch of musicians who get together to jam. Enjoy it, or walk away. Complaining that you didn't get to pick the songs is stupid.

13. People want their choices restricted.

As any Microsoft shill will tell you, one of the first complaints that immigrants from communist countries made about America was that there were just too many products on the shelves. "Fifty kinds of shampoo! How am I to choose?" And that was before they saw the cereal aisle. This is painted as a Bad Thing, and it is suggested that having a Committee Of Smart People restrict the public's choices down to a reasonable number is a superior system.

These same guys will then paint themselves as capitalists, and have the nerve to call the open-sourcers communists. Meanwhile, the open source guys don't see anything wrong with tossing 50 kinds of shampoo out there and letting the market decide which ones will continue.

14. Microsoft shills are always obvious

The stereotypical Microsoft shill will tell you to put down your crack pipe and go kiss the butts of your commie foreigner friends, but not all of them are like that.

There is a professional side to the Microsoft PR effort which involves hiring think tanks, lobbying firms, industry research houses, and freeleance writers to wear the Cloak Of Objectivity while spewing a list of talking points provided by the Microsoft PR department.

These are generally recognizeable by applying the following two tests.

1. The article spends time debunking at least two ridiculous straw man arguments, such as insisting that if not stopped soon, volunteer hobbyists will put the entire software industry out of business; or that "everyone mistakenly believes" that open source software is always better than some other stuff.

2. The article contains at least two lines of argument, that if followed to their logical conclusion, would result in a totalitarian police state. Arguing that "free software will destroy us all" is basically arguing for the curtailment of the right of ordinary people to make gifts of their handiwork. No more free sweaters knit by granny; the Pendleton Wool Corporation stomped her good. Similarly, arguing that the public would be better served by having committees of Smart People Wearing Suits pre-screening which items may be offered to the marketplace is basically asking for something like the Soviet Union's old Gosplan, the bureau that decided what would be made and in what quantities.

When a guy who advocates that calls somebody else a leftist, guard your wallet.

[GeorgiaFreeper]

Whoa ... get out the tin foil hats. I think you read a little more into the article than was actually there.

The article contains at least two lines of argument, that if followed to their logical conclusion, would result in a totalitarian police state.

I guess logical to you... Maybe not to everyone else.

The author was not advocating making it illegal / immoral to "give away" your work. As long as the open software crowd stays a small minority of all developers, I do not think it will have a negative effect.

Let me turn the tables on your totalitarian argument. How would you like the government suddenly nationalizing all software licenses and mandating that any and all source code must be made availiable for the public good. All public companies would have 1 month to post their product sources to the internet. Then all of the hackers in their "dens" can improve software to their heart's content. Everyone would be better off, right?

Maybe Bill Gates really is the Antichrist and it is all a plot to control our lives... Those eeevil rich corporations just wanna screw the altruistic s.o.b.'s that want to give away the fruits of their labors. Yeah, that's it. I see the light. Thank you for clearing that up.

[unspun]

"""""
This is NOT intended to be "anti-OSS", but rather to generate real thought and discussion as opposed to the constant mindless re-iteration of the same old tired dogma
"""""

Well put. A place for every software and every software in its place (including putting Microsoft in its place).

[GeorgiaFreeper]

If I've determined that I'm not going to make a profit on a program that I've written, it costs me nothing to give it to anyone who wants it.

I do not have a problem with that type of open source. In fact, I understand and appreciate it.

The type that I do not understand is again the "larger" more time-consuming development that people "would" pay for. I guess it is an ego kick for those who work on it.

I am NOT saying it is wrong or should be banned. Just that it does not make sense. I guess I am wired differently. Maybe for me the "joy" of coding has fled and now it is just "work".

[Nick Danger]

The author was not advocating making it illegal / immoral to "give away" your work.

Oh. So he spent five paragraphs crabbing about "free software" for the hell of it? What was his point then? He seemed to be trying real hard to explain to people all the harm that is being caused to the garment industry by grandmothers knitting sweaters and giving them away. Or maybe it was programmers. I forget. Whichever it was, people who give stuff away for free are a menace. That part I do remember.

Let me turn the tables on your totalitarian argument.

Please do, but next time don't pretend you've done it by positing a different totalitarian government. The alternative to a government that restricts people's ability to make gifts of their handiwork is not a government that seizes everything from everyone. In fact, that's almost the same thing. Consider other, non-totalitarian possibilities. Like just leaving people alone.

Those eeevil rich corporations just wanna screw the altruistic s.o.b.'s that want to give away the fruits of their labors. Yeah, that's it. I see the light. Thank you for clearing that up.

Nothing I said advocated any socialist or leftist policy of any sort whatsoever. Putting words in my mouth to paint me as a leftist moonbeam is uncalled for and lame. See if you can do better next time.

Maybe Bill Gates really is the Antichrist and it is all a plot to control our lives...

Or, maybe he's just a guy spending some of his PR budget on maligning his competitors through hired cutouts. Clinton had James Carville and Sidney Blumenthal; Gates hires lobbying firms and freelance writers. Throw the mud and hope it sticks; it's a time-honored principle. It's not my preferred marketing technique, but it's his company and he can do what he wants.

[GeorgiaFreeper]

What was his point then?

I think his point was to encourage just what we have been doing on this thread - discussing open source software.

It is amusing to see the anti-microsoft sentiment when open source software is discussed. I am neither for or against open source. In fact, I personally am trying to understand the motivation behind the larger-scale projects. I have not progressed to the religion stage, I guess I am just a seeker.

IMHO it is a bad idea for long term revenue for software developers to train the "consumer" to think that software should be free. How many times do you see other trained professionals like physicians, plumbers, electricians, et al. giving away their services on a wholesale fashion? Sure, some in those professions may do charity work from time to time, but they still need to charge fees to pay their bills.

I don't care if you call it a software license fee or a support fee. I just want earn a decent return on the investment in time that I put in to my work. Currently, it's vogue for some companies is to call the software free and charge for support. Its their way of differentiating in the marketplace.

Just remember as one of my favorite SCIFI authors wrote: TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

I don't think you are a pinko commie, otherwise you would not have that great tag line. :)

[sixmil]

Criticism is a valid way of participating in the process; we don't all have time to "fix it ourselves".

Like they say in the military, don't bring me problems without solutions. That's kind of what the dems do, isn't it?

Tinkering with the code is something that hardly anyone actually does, except for the core developers.

I guess I must be an exception to that.

Saying that all software should be free ignores the hidden price - including your own ability to make a living from writing software.

I'm not big on absolutes, but if it isn't profitable, open source is a viable alternative to keep it alive.

Closed source software can be just as good, sometimes even better, than Open Source.

They both have their pluses and minuses.

Having a lot of programmers "scratching their personal itch" just ensures that a lot of programmer tools get written.

I think there is more truth in that statement than the author intended.

Sometimes restricting the choices might not be a bad idea.

Maybe, but is that what is actually going on?

My experience with open source is limited, but it did what I needed it to do for free. I found a couple bugs and came up with fixes fairly quick. I have an instant patch, and if anyone else wants to use it they are free to do so. It's all good from my perspective.

[antiRepublicrat]

I kind of scratch my head at people giving away their work.

It depends on the situation. Have you written an awesome program entirely by yourself that's ready for the real world and functionally complete? Go ahead and sell it. Are you writing a program, but don't have the time, talent or inclination to make it functionally complete? Put it up on SourceForge as OSS and get some other people to help you. You are now compensated for your work through the programming man-hours of others rather than through retail cash.

Linux is only GPL because Linus Torvalds didn't want to bother with what he thought was the dirty work of writing an operating system.

[Nick Danger]

It is amusing to see the anti-microsoft sentiment when open source software is discussed.

Why would that be amusing? Microsoft has spent tens of millions of dollars in the past year sponsoring various sorts of mud-and-FUD attacks in the press and in the courts, in an ill-conceived campaign to bad-mouth individuals who are involved in producing open source software. It's as if Aerosmith took out ads in newspapers to tell everybody that guys who play in garage bands are communists and a threat to the music industry. It's quite bizarre; it borders on thuggery for a $30 billion corporation to turn its PR guns on hobbyists working at home at night.

It is true that Microsoft faces competition from some open source projects, notably linux, but that is because those projects are being promoted by commercial enterprises that have sales forces and marketing budgets. Red Hat, IBM, and now Novell certainly belong on Microsoft's radar as guys who would take sales away from them. OK, those are legitimate targets of Microsoft's wrath. But not the guy coding Mightnight Pizza software. Spending money to call that guy a communist? What the hell is that about? Somebody at Microsoft has a screw loose if he thinks articles like this are doing anything but needlessly making enemies out of people who may well be in the approval chain on software deals where they work. It's one of the dumber things I've ever seen a company do.

IMHO it is a bad idea for long term revenue for software developers to train the "consumer" to think that software should be free.

It's a little late for that, don't you think? For at least the last ten years, Windows has come free with any computer consumers can buy. And IE comes "free" with Windows. As does Media Player. Tens of millions of consumers now think that computers come with a free operating system, web browser, and media player. Considering the enormity of the success that Microsoft has had with its OEM selling motion, I think that any efforts by you to reverse that tide are futile.

Currently, it's vogue for some companies is to call the software free and charge for support. Its their way of differentiating in the marketplace.

What's the difference between that and Dell selling laptops that have Windows pre-loaded on them? They're giving away the software to sell you the laptop. Now comes Microsoft to tell us that people who want to give away software are communist looneytoons. Their chutzpah boggles the mind.

[GeorgiaFreeper]

Why would that be amusing?

It is amusing since you are reacting in a similar fashion to one whose religion is being threatened / disparaged.

What has Microsoft done to you personally to make you feel so threatened and insecure?

It's a little late for that, don't you think? For at least the last ten years, Windows has come free with any computer consumers can buy. And IE comes "free" with Windows. As does Media Player. Tens of millions of consumers now think that computers come with a free operating system, web browser, and media player.

That is a specious statement and is equivalent to postulating the fact tires come free with any car you buy, so people are trained to expect free tires when they want/need a new set. That argument does not wash.

The cost of the operating system is included in the cost of the computer just as the cost of the tires are included in the cost of the vehicle. The same is true of Internet Explorer and Media player. At one time radios were an expensive upgrade to a car. But now, you would have a difficult time finding a car in a dealer show room without one. At one time, an internet browser was a costly add on product (ie, Netscape at $50) but now it is just standard equipment in the operating system. It is not free, just included in the cost of the OS. I feel sure, a couple of cents/dollars is factored in to the cost of every Windows license to pay for Microsoft's development expenses related to IE & media player. Its just not listed as a separate fee.

I am not advocating the fact that open source is evil though it does smell of communism:

com·mu·nism    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (kmy-nzm)
n.

1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
   1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
   2. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

It is admirable the dude at Midnight Pizza software is giving of his time so generously. On the same token, it is not evil for a person to desire to charge for the work that he produces / owns and protect his intellectual capital from others using it without renumeration.

Again TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

[antiRepublicrat]

A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power,

Now does that sound more like the OSS model or the proprietary model?

Let's see: OSS, run by the people and any person who isn't happy with those running a software project can take it in his desired direction (your branch will survive or die on its merits). Microsoft, you take what the authoritarian central power says you need or switch to a different authoritarian provider.

[GeorgiaFreeper]

Actually Item 1 was the closest analogy to oss:

1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

[ThinkDifferent]

Saying that all software should be free ignores the hidden price - including your own ability to make a living from writing software.

Free software helps my career. The vast majority of all code written today is never intended for resale. My company saves money by using Linux, Apache, Java, Perl, and other free software. (Although we do use proprietary software when it makes sense to). As a result, they have more money for hiring more developers and giving me raises.

I certainly don't believe that all software must be free; it should always be up to the creator. But there's little to support the argument that free software makes it harder for developers.

[whd23]

Like they say in the military, don't bring me problems without solutions. That's kind of what the dems do, isn't it?

Finding a bug and reporting to the developers should be encouraged.

I noticed that my co-worker's left brake light was not working when we left work. The next day I made sure to tell him so he wouldn't get a ticket. You're saying I should have bought the replacement bulb, brought in my tools, and fixed it on my lunch break?

[GeorgiaFreeper]

Speaking of the military ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1179661/posts

[Nick Danger]

It is amusing since you are reacting in a similar fashion to one whose religion is being threatened / disparaged.

That is true. I am one who believes that it is possible to make a lot of money in business while conducting one's affairs in an honest, above-board, professional manner.

I think that hiring cut-outs to file media-stunt lawsuits against your competitors is sleazy, thuggish, and contemptible. I think that funding bogus "think tanks" to write hit pieces about individuals who head no company and sell no goods is creepy. I think that using a bogus news site run by a Washington lobbying firm to salt the public dialog with slams on home hobbyists is the act of a sociopath who hits people for fun.

I do not like those behaviors. I think they evince a corporate culture that is seriously twisted and vile. I think that in turn points to a corporate leadership that is fundamentally dishonest, ethically blind, and which has lost sight of what business — indeed life — is really about. My belief is that he who dies with most toys does not win if this is how he came about them.

Call that a religion if you like. I do not believe it is necessary in business to cheat or steal or lie to people. I have never hired thugs to beat up my competitors. I have never used corporate resources to smear private individuals who have no real ability to answer my smears.

What has Microsoft done to you personally to make you feel so threatened and insecure?

They offend my sense of right and wrong. The corporation has the behavioral characteristics of a sociopathic thug. It is absolutely true that such characteristics are highly well-adapted to this world, and succeed in it. Bill Clinton got to be President of the United States. Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. It works. But I don't have to like such people, and I don't. Ronald Reagan got to be President of the United States too. You don't have to be a lying, scheming, sociopathic thug to get ahead in this world. I have seen with my own eyes that a Vietnamese "boat person" can start a donut shop in this country and be a millionaire in ten years. All he has to do is work his buns off, make good donuts, and sell them at a fair price. He doesn't need to hire sleazeballs to sue Winchell's, or hire bogus restaurant reviewers to say that Krispy Kreme's donuts are full of poison.

What kind of guy does stuff like that? You tell me. Gates does this stuff. He thinks it's part of business. I don't.

That is a specious statement and is equivalent to postulating the fact tires come free with any car you buy, so people are trained to expect free tires when they want/need a new set.

You're trying to have this both ways. When Dell or Microsoft do it, it's "bundling," but when Red Hat bundles the software with support, all of a sudden they are "giving away software" and that's somehow weird, unusual, and socialist. You're just throwing spears with unclean hands.

it does smell of communism:

Now we need to decide whether you are ignorant of how open source software is owned and licensed, and made that statement because you don't know any better, or whether you are deliberately trying to mislead your fellow Freepers in the same way that the Microsoft Corporation deliberately tries to mislead people, i.e. by lying about it.

As you noted yourself, communism involves common ownership of property. There is nothing like that in open source software. The bits and pieces are owned and copyrighted by their respective authors, and licensed for use by those authors under some set of terms and conditions.

There is no difference between that arrangement and any other copyrighted and licensed software.

None of it involves common ownership of property.

It has nothing to do with a system of government.

The "communism" thing is basically a dishonest slur promoted by Microsoft and its shills to disparage something that they are afraid of, and insecure about.

dishonesty

dis·hon·es·ty [diss ónn?stee] (plural dis·hon·es·ties) noun
1.deceitful behavior: the use of lies or deceit, or the tendency to be deceitful
2.dishonest deed: a dishonest act or action

It is admirable the dude at Midnight Pizza software is giving of his time so generously. On the same token, it is not evil for a person to desire to charge for the work that he produces / owns and protect his intellectual capital from others using it without renumeration.

These are quite often the same guys, which is what makes this "let's spread slurs about guys who do open source software" so stupid. A few years ago I worked for a company where the CTO was a Microsoft Man. We had Exchange, and SQL Server, and all that stuff. But at night, this guy was a BeOS freak. He would go home and work on little toys that ran under BeOS. He thought this was fun.

What actual threat did BeOS ever pose to Microsoft? I can't imagine. It's like General Motors worrying that Carrol Shelby is going to make some more Cobras. So what? Nevertheless, Microsoft managed to turn this loyal customer into a blood-sworn enemy with some sort of thuggery that they performed on BeOS. I don't know what they did. But the last I heard, this guy was ripping out all the Microsoft stuff and replacing it with linux, Apache, and Postgres.

This idea that there are paid programmers over here, and some camp of commie moonbeams over there, is just stupid. It's the same guys. If you call them communists at night, when they are working on Python or Gnome, they are going to remember that the next day when they are at work, writing technical assessments for the pointy-hairs on the bids that came in for the new system.

[antiRepublicrat]

Actually Item 1 was the closest analogy to oss:

Except for the collective ownership part. Each contributor retains his copyright and can license his code to others under a commercial license if he chooses to do so.