Free (To Make Your Own Choices)
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.
So, I figured I’d go through the statements systematically, 1-by-1. And yes, just like Jess, I LOVE open-source/free software. Merely playing devil’s advocate here.
“Free software is… the freedom to use your computer, the way YOU want, not the way the marketing and legal department wants”
Free software does not necessarily give you the freedom to use your computer the way that you want to. Yes, if you have the skills necessary to modify open source software, you can do so and change software such that it lets you use your computer how you want to. However, most users do not have these skills, and therefore cannot do this. Admittedly, this alone does not preclude users from using their computer how they want to. Most good open source projects will take on board user feedback and try to accommodate the user where it makes sense. By acting on user feedback, such projects can, potentially, allow users to use their computer how they want to. The problem here is that there is not enough developers actively involved in open source for a project to devote much resources to acting on feedback in this way. With the global economy being what it is, it has been postulated that fewer skilled developers will have the luxury of working unpaid on open-source and indeed, some cursory evidence appears to indicate that this is the case. (Although, it has also been speculated that the economic crisis is exactly the kind of thing open source will thrive on through broadening adoption.)
I’m also willing to bet that marketing and legal departments do not affect software features as much as consumer support for a product do. Ultimately, a software development company has to produce software ‘good enough’ for the customer; the customer must be appeased. (While some may argue that ‘good enough’ is never ‘good enough’, it is the pragmatic option.) It follows that being able to do what you want to do with your computer is a primary concern of those who produce proprietary software.
“.. you have the right to do not all that much. You are barely allowed to even run it [the operating system]”
Some EULA’s can be pretty restrictive. For example, iTunes cannot be used on war machinery. However, “…barely allowed to even run it.” is pretty much a textbook example of hyperbole. Maybe, the lecturer is trying to overstate things here simply for students to take the basic idea to heart or help him convey the point he is trying to make. I would argue that by overstating the restrictiveness of EULAs the way that he has, he is stating a falsehood.
“Most vendors do not give you source code, so you cannot make changes to it or inspect it for security flaws”
Fundamentally, I feel this conveys the same sentiment as “Free software is… the freedom to use your computer, the way YOU want, not the way the marketing and legal department wants” but mixes in a more specific concern, ie. security flaws. Security flaws, or the potential for them, seems to always crop up as reasons to use x or do y. It is used like this because it affects software rather critically, so there is some merit in mentioning the security inherent in a particular development approach. Nevertheless, it pays to be wary of people using the concept of ’software security’ for a sensationalist effect.
Personally, I don’t think security is as much of a concern in open source vs. proprietary software as people make it out to be. Whilst I’d expect the number of potential exploits to be lower in an open source piece of software than a proprietary piece of software, I’d also expect software security to be compromised at roughly the same rate.
“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”
Whilst open source software makes it possible, I simply do not have the time to check all the software that I use (directly or not) to ensure it won’t jeopardise my life or do sneaky things. Open source development does not change that you ultimately have to trust someone, the software developer. I refuse to be forced in to a life of paranoia because I don’t know what goes on under-the-hood. Needless to say, in our society there are legal provisions that allow for compensation in the event that a piece of software does something life-threatening or sneaky. With the developer being held responsible in such a legal situation, it is really in their best interests to make sure their software won’t do these things.
“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!?!?!”
In my opinion, DRM and copy protection are things that just should not exist, despite continued consumer support of software that uses these mechanisms. This does run against the idea that customers decide what they can do with proprietary software through consumer power but I still have faith that with enough competition in a particular software area that consumer power is particularly potent.
However, I don’t think that DRM is inherent in proprietary software, it’s just what some software vendors choose to do. It is something to be angry about but not something to force down the throats of 3rd year uni students.
“The cost is free…”
Free is win in my books! But then he ruins it,
“…and you are not held to ransom by other companies who seek to control you for your money”
Again, phrases like “…not held to ransom…” irk me because essentially, they’re just used for their sensationalist effect. I feel what he’s ultimately getting at here is vendor lock-in, which is bad and does limit the customer/user in ways that would be considered impermissible in other industries.
Wow, what a diatribe I wrote there!
I agree! You are way more elegant in your analysis of this.
Re: security in open source software – from my knowledge of operating systems, I think Linux is probably more secure than Windows in a lot of ways; for example, Linux is closer to a microkernel whereas Windows is more monolithic (I think?). But I think a significant part of the more security claim is that less exploits have been found because less people in the mainstream use Linux. Windows would be bombarded with people trying to find exploits, you would want to exploit something that heaps of people use.. Linux, not so much.
I think he has developed his opinion of open source, and then tried to convince other people of his ideas, quite forcefully. I mean, if you supply people with just facts, they will probably come to the same conclusion – and by leaving out all the colourful phrases about “being held to ransom” etc, you’d seem a lot more legitimate. The lecture was kind of alienating, instead!
Hehe, am glad you like it, I thought it was pretty terrible compared to your awesome post!!!
I definitely still feel Linux is more secure than say Windows. I totally agree that this has more to do with its actual design (things like monolithic vs microkernel) and ’security through obscurity’ than how its development is organised (open source vs proprietary development model).
Yeah, sometimes people just need the facts. People don’t take well to unsubstantiated opinions being forced upon them. It often feels pretty agressive and I agree; he would end up with many more people thinking his opinions are credible if he just took a step back and taught rather than opined.