Firstly, I have to say that I support open source software.
Now, one of my courses at uni this semester is Operating Systems. I don’t mind the course; I realised with slight shock while reading over the lecture slides for the upcoming exam that I actually found most – if not all – of the content of the course quite interesting. I like it.
But, one of the lectures was a bit interesting in another way. Towards the beginning of the course we were given a lecture entitled “System Software”. A very ambiguous title. As it turned out, the aim of this lecture was to convince any proprietary-software-loving folk in the audience that their views were wrong.
The lecture was incredibly biased, here are a spattering of memorable quotes from the lecture, (Module 2 – System Software, Operating Systems, University of South Australia):
“Free software is… the freedom to use your computer, the way YOU want, not the way the marketing and legal department wants” (Very colourful words there, yeah, screw the system!)
(Regarding the EULA for Windows XP) “.. you have the right to do not all that much. You are barely allowed to even run it [the operating system]” (Barely allowed to even run it? If you install and run Windows on the average home computer, you are not breaking the EULA – and yes, I have read it).
“Most vendors do not give you source code, so you cannot make changes to it or inspect it for security flaws” (Okay, I consider myself a decent programmer, average at the least – and I have never, ever even felt the need to go through the source code of an open source operating system to “inspect it for security flaws”. Who does that? Not me. If that’s one of the reasons to use open source, we must be scraping the bottom of the barrell..)

This is a third year Operating Systems lecture slide. No joke.
“There are lots of software engineers out there that do not have a clue, do you trust them with your airplane/life? Someone could put spying tools into the software they give you” (Scare tactics, much?)
“Copy protection can stop you from using software you have legally purchased. What if the next version of Windows prevents a hardware dongle from working because there are no drivers. You may need to illegally crack your software to use software you are legally allowed to use!?!?!” (There really was that much punctuation, and the lecture failed to state the actual intent of copy protection).
“The cost is free and you are not held to ransom by other companies who seek to control you for your money” (What…? Very colourful words again).
The lecture also gives a run down on Richard Stallman and names him as a visionary. But, of course, there’s no mention of the Steves, or Bill Gates, have they not contributed anything to operating systems over the years? Anything pre-Linux doesn’t exist.
The lecture continues to hammer in the point about free software being amazing, but why is there no mention of any other alternatives? Instead of the colourful words, why not give people some facts and figures, and some info about this horrible, deathly “proprietary software” thing, which is barely mentioned?
I’m all for open source, but I’m also for people being free to make their own decisions.
Posted in Software