Open Source Codes Pros and Cons?
Monday, July 25th, 2011 at
10:01
Open-source programming embraces a philosophy that states programmers should make their code available to everyone rather than keeping it proprietary. The Linux operating system has had much success as an open-source code.
What are other advantages of open-source code (Linux or MACs "Snow Leppard")?
Why do you think that companies such as Microsoft maintain proprietary restrictions on their code?
Tagged with: Linux • linux operating system • macs • Microsoft • open source code • open source programming • philosophy • programmers • quot • snow leppard
Filed under: Open Source
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
For me I believe open source is more secure. Take Truecrypt for example. Would it be as trusted if people couldn’t see the code and know if there is a security problem. I wouldn’t trust any proprietary encryption program.
Pro:
You can fix problems yourself. (If you know how to.)
You can more easily troubleshoot problems yourself.
Cost to acquire is generally lower.
Problems cannot easily be hidden from you. If the code is good, you will know it. If it’s bad, you will know it.
Less risk of lock in because the data formats and APIs are easily extracted.
Source code must withstand public scrutiny.
Con:
If you don’t pay someone for support, you won’t have any particular support level guarantees. If you do pay someone for support, they may not be that able to support the software.
There is nobody you can blame or complain to if the software doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do. (Though often complaining about proprietary software doesn’t do you any good.)
Quality of the software can vary as different parts are written by different groups. (This happens with proprietary software too, but usually less.)
Software development is limited by available volunteers (though proprietary software can be abandoned too or limited by financial considerations).
Some people will argue that the quality of open source code is generally higher or generally lower than proprietary code. I think that’s kind of a silly thing to say. There’s a lot of truly excellent proprietary code and huge ocean of proprietary code that’s disastrous. But the same is true for open source code. Code quality varies dramatically by company and by project. It’s not like you’re going to roll dice and pick whatever program you randomly selected. If you pick a hunk of junk, you’re screwed whether it’s proprietary or open source.
Update: Companies keep code proprietary for a variety of reasons:
1) Revealing source code will compromise anti-piracy measures, threaten revenue sources.
Revealing the source code would make it easier for others to support their software, possibly causing them to lose lucrative support agreements.
2) The code may have embarrassing sections.
3) The source code may help competitors interoperate with your code and you may think that threatens other products you sell.
4) You may not have the legal right to disclose the source code or all of the source code.
5) You may fear ‘forking’. For example, part of the value of Windows is that everyone’s Windows machines work more or less the same way. If people tinker with Windows too much, that may make the platform harder to develop for, and that may be seen as reducing its value.
6) There may be a desire to control what the code does or can do for strategic reasons, often involving other products.
7) Restricting source code use may enhance product stratification. It’s hard to charge for a feature if someone can add it themselves. Sometimes the best way to sort those who cannot pay lots of money from those who can is size or complexity. But with the source code, customers can take out size or complexity limitations.