Is open source a feature? | The Coffeehouse

Shiv
Life is beautiful :)

sometime back i read a book in which there were explainations on various databases such as SQL server,MySQL,Oracle etc. When explaining about MySQL the author listed it being open source as one of its feature.

What do u think guys? do u consider open source as a feature?

IRenderable
Pi

shooby wrote:
For Microsoft, its a way to steal code and ideas without worrying about another lawsuit, and being as most people with brains have or acquire morals after some measure of success and quit Microsoft on ethical grounds, its gets them talented people, albeit only until they figure out its feeding the monopoly monster

I love you too

xx00

shooby

Proof of any stolen code? The BSD network stack was replaced long ago and it wasn't stolen because the BSD license says you can do it.

If I had 2 equal products I would choose the open source one because I could fix it if it was broken (Providing I knew how) and for learning how to use it if there was something undocumented, especially for APIs.

@Cybermagellan: How is it a fad? Its older then commercial software.

DoomBringer
Doom!

shooby wrote:
For Microsoft, its a way to steal code and ideas without worrying about another lawsuit, and being as most people with brains have or acquire morals after some measure of success and quit Microsoft on ethical grounds, its gets them talented people, albeit only until they figure out its feeding the monopoly monster

I love you too

xx00

shooby

Source? I mean, if you're going to make the claim, you'd better be able to back it up.

Maurits
AKA Matthew van Eerde

shooby: -1 Flamebait

sakisp
C/C++ and a cup of coffee...

Not always, although source access is very usefull, sometimes "open source" just means amateurish, poor and buggy code.

Yggdrasil
Pour me a cab, 'cause I can't drink no more.

sakisp wrote:
Not always, although source access is very usefull, sometimes "open source" just means amateurish, poor and buggy code.

That's not the question, though. The question was whether open-sourceness, in itself, is a feature.
If you had two equivalent software package, both equal in terms of features, stability and quality - would you prefer the open-source one? What will you be willing to give up in exchange for it, if anything?

Yggdrasil
Pour me a cab, 'cause I can't drink no more.

Yggdrasil wrote:
That's not the question, though. The question was whether open-sourceness, in itself, is a feature.

To answer to the point - for me it IS a feature. Not necessarily the whole open-source/GPL/whatever deal, but having read-access to the code is often very beneficial, especially when dealing with API or library code you need to interact with. Reflector and other disassembly utilities are a godsend with some of the more poorly-documented areas of the .NET Framework, for instance. Having the source saves a lot of guesswork.

martin_lovick
vi all the way!

i think open source is more of a philosophy rather than a feature

Maurits
AKA Matthew van Eerde

Shiv wrote:
do u consider open source as a feature?

Open source is a feature if-and-only-if the additional* "white hats" collectively outperform the "black hats."

I think they do, so I consider open source to be a feature.

* Where "additional" means "not counting the people who wrote the thing"

Shiv
Life is beautiful :)

Seems most of u agree in one way or the other that it can be considered as a feature.Yes source helps learning and knowing the workings of the product But isn't a feature something that is special about a product or that makes doing something simpler compared to others. considering the same example i gave above is source a feature to the database administrators?

this seems to divert to what can/can't be considered a feature but i think its still relevant to the topic.

Cybermagellan
Live for nothing, or die for everything

martin_lovick wrote:
i think open source is more of a philosophy rather than a feature

I think Open Source is more of a fad than anything...I honestly believe it'll get where maybe Firefox, Thunderbird, etc will be exploited by something, can't be repaired, and it'll be something that would have been protected by closed source principles. People will complain...everyone will say we told you so, and then the Internet will explode with "OMG LOLZ EYE TOD J00z"

AndyC

Open Source is a feature in much the same way as the free pen you get from life insurance companies. It might seem handy but its a pretty poor thing to base your purchase on.

andur

No, it adds nothing to the product. If say notepad were open sourced today, it would still do exactly the same thing, thus its not a feature.

Personally, I'd agree with Balmer and call it a cancer, but... that's going to stir up trouble isn't it?¿?

TimP

For me it's a feature. I can remember two instances where access to source code has allowed me to do things I couldn't have done with a closed source program.

One open source program I use often has an integrated web server with CGI functions hard coded into the server. Generally they don't need to be changed so it's not an issue. I wanted to expose data from the program as XML to be used in another program. I was able to learn all I needed to know from looking at the source code, then add my function and recompile the code. It was later added to the official code base.

Another app I use is used interactively through the command line and I needed a way to automate it. I was able to make changes to the code so it would run on a server completely automated.

These are relatively small examples, but in both cases I found myself thanking the open source nature of the projects which allowed me to tweak them the way I needed and in turn, help other people who may need similar functionality down the road.

DoomBringer
Doom!

It is a feature in that you have generally unfettered access to the code. How useful that feature is varies tremendously.

bikini
(bloop)

It's an attribute. Smiley

Cybermagellan
Live for nothing, or die for everything

IRenderable wrote:

@Cybermagellan: How is it a fad? Its older then commercial software.

It's basically for elitest. I mean honestly how many "normal" home users care about Open Source vs. Closed Source? Most just care that it works, or in the instance of Firefox believe all the "hype" that people set up about it.

IRenderable
Pi

Cybermagellan wrote:
IRenderable wrote:
@Cybermagellan: How is it a fad? Its older then commercial software.

It's basically for elitest. I mean honestly how many "normal" home users care about Open Source vs. Closed Source? Most just care that it works, or in the instance of Firefox believe all the "hype" that people set up about it.

Agreed. But I am willing to bet that the open source development model will be around for a long time because it HAS been around for a long time already.

sbc
GW R/Me

Cybermagellan wrote:

I think Open Source is more of a fad than anything...I honestly believe it'll get where maybe Firefox, Thunderbird, etc will be exploited by something, can't be repaired, and it'll be something that would have been protected by closed source principles. People will complain...everyone will say we told you so, and then the Internet will explode with "OMG LOLZ EYE TOD J00z"

What possible expoilt would there be that couldn't be fixed? If a programmer added an exploit to a product, then they may never work again (i.e. get a new job) - blogs would talk about how they betrayed the trust of people and end up ruining the reputation of the software in question (which would result in less adoptation and the exploit never being an issue).

Cybermagellan wrote:
IRenderable wrote:
@Cybermagellan: How is it a fad? Its older then commercial software.

It's basically for elitest. I mean honestly how many "normal" home users care about Open Source vs. Closed Source? Most just care that it works, or in the instance of Firefox believe all the "hype" that people set up about it.

So proprietary is not elitist then? Proprietary means the company does not trust its customers and think only it can fix the problems (as users who could fix a problem if it was open source can't when it is closed).

Most users don't care if a product is open or closed. But if there were two indentical applications, the open source one would be the successful one. Although marketing is often the determiner of success.

You should base your product choice on quality and budget, not if it is open source or not.

Do you hate open source? I guess so as you wouldn't call it a fad, elitist and has poor principles (or rather closed source has better ones).

Cybermagellan
Live for nothing, or die for everything

sbc wrote:

So proprietary is not elitist then? Proprietary means the company does not trust its customers and think only it can fix the problems (as users who could fix a problem if it was open source can't when it is closed).

Most users don't care if a product is open or closed. But if there were two indentical applications, the open source one would be the successful one. Although marketing is often the determiner of success.

You should base your product choice on quality and budget, not if it is open source or not.

Do you hate open source? I guess so as you wouldn't call it a fad, elitist and has poor principles (or rather closed source has better ones).

The question is, is Open Source a feature. I stated that it was elitist because of the fact why should anyone on this planet (or others) really change Browsers/E-Mail Clients/OS's if they are happy with what they have. Now if you look at it how many Grandmas are out there running Linux (Maybe a few), How many running OSX (Perhaps a few more), How many running Windows (OK, the rest).

Now what seperates the OSX and the Windows users from Linux users? Knowledge of the OS...and a few other things...but your typical OSX and Windows users aren't going to go to Linux unless They know what they want. If they care that much to abandon what they've known for something they've just learnt about...then I consider themselves elitist...they are taking the time to LEARN, and KNOW, and CARE about what THEY WANT.

Now take for example Firefox. Why do you think they do nothing but pretty much attack Windows time and time again boasting that Firefox is Open Source and that It's more secure, it's more this, it's more that? Because OSX has Safari, what are you going to compare Firefox to in Safari as far as benefits? Why should a OSX user leave Safari for Firefox, or Camino for that matter? Safari (If I remember) isn't Open Source. Pretty much the only people who will use Firefox on a Mac are people who LEARNED what it was, KNOW what it does, and CARE about what THEY WANT. Not the average user.

As far as Windows, well I have an answer to that...Netscape 8. Not Open Source, uses Firefox AND IE, and just as secure. Who uses it? The average user. Who doesn't? Two sets of people the normal users (Who are happy running IE), and the PowerUsers ->Elitist who use a different browser, they LEARNED what it was, KNOW what it does, and CARE about what THEY WANT.

You're right...most NORMAL (Standard terminology) could care less if something is Open or Closed source. And really where do you place yourself on the scales against other users? I say it's a fad because as time goes on people wont care about Open or Closed source...(Hopefully)...they'll care about

"... quality and budget, not if it is open source or not."

If IE7 or 8 comes along and has 0 exploits, meets all web standards (Even the stupid ACID2 test) and does all the things that Firefox does...where do you think that'll put Firefox? Closed source will win due to "... quality and budget".

Eventually (Hopefully even in Microsoft) quality will be more important than quantity.

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

sbc wrote:

So proprietary is not elitist then? Proprietary means the company does not trust its customers and think only it can fix the problems (as users who could fix a problem if it was open source can't when it is closed).

Most users don't care if a product is open or closed. But if there were two indentical applications, the open source one would be the successful one. Although marketing is often the determiner of success.

You should base your product choice on quality and budget, not if it is open source or not.

Do you hate open source? I guess so as you wouldn't call it a fad, elitist and has poor principles (or rather closed source has better ones).

What an interesting twist on "proprietary". You're sounding awfully rabid there, and I would hope you were exaggerating to make a point, however looking at your "you hate open source" comment I rather doubt it.

I would love to see you try to justify "the open source one would be the successful one" when you admit that most users don't care if a product is open or closed source. If the majority doesn't care, then why would open source win?

From a business perspective, and lets face it that is what's important, open source pushes itself as "You're not locked into a single vendor's decisions", "You can change things yourself" and sometimes (although not always) "It's free".

Setting aside the problems with the GPL that businesses worry over (and they do, I'd been at places where they would not use nAnt over concerns around the GPL) the only selling point out of the 3 I listed that's actually completely true is "It's free".

Avoiding lock in? Rubbish. As soon as you commit to a technology in a great way, be it open or closed you're locked in to a great extent. How is PHP being open source avoiding lock in once you've decided to move all your web sites to it? Perhaps it refers to the fact that the code will always be there for you? Which segues nicely into "You can change things yourself". What utter nonsense for 99.95% of all users, be they business or personal. What's more the technical people know it's nonsense, but it still gets pushed and used. How many businesses out there have the staff with the skills or ability to make a change to MySQL to enable it to better fit their workflow? The same problem exists with the "Many eyes mean less bugs". How many people have the ability to review code? Out of those that do, how many people actually *do* it?

Of course as soon as you voice this a jihad is declared, slashdot descends on your web site and you get people like beer simply embarrassing what should be a successful movement, for an example take a look at Andrew Brown

If only it would market itself on truth, instead of bad assumptions and "we're not Microsoft". FireFox does a decent job of this, although the "It's secure" claim made by some is not accurate, but then they can't be held to task for the actions of fans, can they?

sbc
GW R/Me

Netscape (all versions combined) actually has a much smaller share than Firefox (or can you find me stats where this is not true?). Plus it is essentially dead now. It is quite inconsistent as well, and could be confusing for users (some things that work in 'Mozilla mode' work differently in 'IE mode' - context menu, dialog boxes etc). Some complaints against Firefox are actually against individuals, not the browser itself.

To me IE7 has to offer more than standards, tabs and more security. I want it to have the extensibility that Firefox has (without resorting to ActiveX or .NET). In IE you can't disable certain javascript actions (move windows, disable context menu modification etc), manage cookies does not exist (have to resort to Windows Explorer), no way to specify default actions for various file types (within the browser), favourites manager could be a lot better too. I would be disappointed if that did not change in IE 7 - out of the box, not dependant on third party extensions.

Where is AdBlock for IE, ForecastIE, All-In-One Gestures etc. The variety of extensions for Firefox seems to be more than that for IE (and if there are equivalents of all the extensions then they are not easy to find, and even when found perhaps are not even free). It doesn't even have anywhere near the share that IE has. Imagine if it did?

Again, there is no Microsoft hosted site where users can add, review and download extensions and themes. Plus any extensions you do find are installed for everyone who uses the computer.

I have not used Safari at all, so wouldn't know if it was better or not.

The problem is, most people stick with what is on their computer, so we can not genuinely know if IE is superior or not. Take out the browser completely and give users a choice, then you will know which is the best. Using a different browser is not exactly hard, as they all work in pretty much the same way. Learning curve is minimal.

sbc
GW R/Me

blowdart wrote:
sbc wrote:
So proprietary is not elitist then? Proprietary means the company does not trust its customers and think only it can fix the problems (as users who could fix a problem if it was open source can't when it is closed).

Most users don't care if a product is open or closed. But if there were two indentical applications, the open source one would be the successful one. Although marketing is often the determiner of success.

You should base your product choice on quality and budget, not if it is open source or not.

Do you hate open source? I guess so as you wouldn't call it a fad, elitist and has poor principles (or rather closed source has better ones).

What an interesting twist on "proprietary". You're sounding awfully rabid there, and I would hope you were exaggerating to make a point, however looking at your "you hate open source" comment I rather doubt it.

I would love to see you try to justify "the open source one would be the successful one" when you admit that most users don't care if a product is open or closed source. If the majority doesn't care, then why would open source win?

From a business perspective, and lets face it that is what's important, open source pushes itself as "You're not locked into a single vendor's decisions", "You can change things yourself" and sometimes (although not always) "It's free".

Setting aside the problems with the GPL that businesses worry over (and they do, I'd been at places where they would not use nAnt over concerns around the GPL) the only selling point out of the 3 I listed that's actually completely true is "It's free".

Avoiding lock in? Rubbish. As soon as you commit to a technology in a great way, be it open or closed you're locked in to a great extent. How is PHP being open source avoiding lock in once you've decided to move all your web sites to it? Perhaps it refers to the fact that the code will always be there for you? Which segues nicely into "You can change things yourself". What utter nonsense for 99.95% of all users, be they business or personal. What's more the technical people know it's nonsense, but it still gets pushed and used. How many businesses out there have the staff with the skills or ability to make a change to MySQL to enable it to better fit their workflow? The same problem exists with the "Many eyes mean less bugs". How many people have the ability to review code? Out of those that do, how many people actually *do* it?

Of course as soon as you voice this a jihad is declared, slashdot descends on your web site and you get people like beer simply embarrassing what should be a successful movement, for an example take a look at Andrew Brown

If only it would market itself on truth, instead of bad assumptions and "we're not Microsoft". FireFox does a decent job of this, although the "It's secure" claim made by some is not accurate, but then they can't be held to task for the actions of fans, can they?

Well the open source one may be a success as the developers have the same skills as the proprietary (remember the applications are basically the same, and the other team has to think about profits more). Plus any user that has the skills may decide to help out (regardless of location or language), and even become a member of the team in the future - which won't happen with the other unless they had access to the source and knew the developers.

All vendors are guilty of trying to lock people in. The difference with open source, is you different vendors can support it (e.g. like adding features (more API's for example) to the core program, even if they have to create a new project). Someone could take Firefox and create a competitor (like in fact is the case with Flock and Netscape). Sure you can do it with IE, but you are limited with what you can do (i.e. you can't improve CSS or JavaScript support).

If Microsoft went bankrupt, and no one bought the assets, we would be in trouble (but that is only going to happen when the market share drops (which it will eventually, even if it is in 1000 years), and by then it would not really matter). If the same happened to Mozilla, there would be no problem (Google, IBM, Novell, Sun etc could take over where Mozilla left off).

Shiv
Life is beautiful :)

cybermangellan wrote:

Eventually (Hopefully even in Microsoft) quality will be more important than quantity.

i couldn't have said it any better Smiley

sbc wrote:
If Microsoft went bankrupt, and no one bought the assets, we would be in trouble (but that is only going to happen when the market share drops (which it will eventually, even if it is in 1000 years), and by then it would not really matter). If the same happened to Mozilla, there would be no problem (Google, IBM, Novell, Sun etc could take over where Mozilla left off).

Now What a nice feature. even if the company that sold u the product is out of business u "might" get some support for it from another company;)

In reply to {0}

Download:[Pending]