I beg to differ.
Software, in my opinion, shared by thousands of other programmers and users globally, agree that software should be shared and therefore be free of charge if the software vendor wishes. The thought that all programmers could learn and share came from Homebrew and the start of computer experimentation and programming experiences. Rather than simply stating opinion, let's review facts that defend open source software:
Firstly, let's start with Firefox (this will be an entire essay here, but it should be accurate.).
- Firefox vs. IE
1) Security and Share Statistics: Firefox (or Fx), as of 2010, patched it's code six to seven times faster than when compared to IE. (See Wikipedia and other sources--this is not another Fx myth.) Microsoft (MS) states Explorer is "2.9 times better than Firefox in protecting against malicious malware." These statistics are simply not true for Firefox as a whole, as they were taken from a Windows-based computer; on a Linux-based PC, it is estimated to be much safer than IE. Secondly, IE was rated more secure for the newly implemented "SmartScreen Filter" which Firefox does not have. What the users are not told is that SmartScreen Filter is a unique feature that is an IE-only implementation--open source browsers have their own security implementations underneath the browsing experience, though they are not obvious to the end user.
2) Firefox has, as of 2010, climbed to a 30% market share. IE holds 49%, but Firefox will slowly catch up--therefore, while it is true Fx does not have as much of an advantage yet, it will. Fx supports HTML5 tags--on the current IE release, version 8, HTML5 support is in development. MS even states in their own "Compare" chart: "Firefox and Chrome have more support for emerging standards like HTML5 and CSS3, but Internet Explorer 8 supports standards commonly used by the websites you visit today." What, then, will happen to sites
tomorrow?
Fx 4 is already on its way, and though IE9 promises more standard support, Fx4 is also stepping ahead in improving browser functionality as well as of Beta 5.
Other Facts:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Windows employed Service Pack 1 to Vista--the first batch caused computers to randomly reboot, causing a postponement in automatic deployment; in addition, Vista had (and this is an understatement to give Windows users the benefit of the doubt) 300 fixes within the deployed service packs. While it is undeniable that Linux is also updated mainstream, Linux is free software, while Windows is not--rather, for Vista Ultimate, on average, the end user purchases a copy for $350. Therefore, in conclusion, shouldn't software that relatively, in the case of an upgrade to Home Basic, that costs 100x at $100 more be developed properly, with their developers fully funded?
- Apache and MySQL are being rapidly adopted in the online world over proprietary standards for websites. 200,000 users are now using openOffice.org and variants (and this is simply from web surveys).
- Android, a Linux-based OS for smartphones, is estimated to have gained 17% market share; Symbian OS has gained 40% as of 2010. Combining these figures together in an 100% share would result in 57% of the mobile market. Before Palm was purchased by HP, it also used webOS, a Linux-based operating system.
- The world's top supercomputers, including the Cray, use a variant of the Linux operating system. It is easier for developers to run and maintain accurately, as the code is more secure and reliable. If bugs are found within the system, they can be fixed within hours of release.
- Open source operating systems, due to the fact they are "open" can be coded by any programmer to run on hardware ranging from a supercomputer to an iPod. Windows cannot be openly ported, though it does support ARM and other mobile architectures. As for software support to these ports in 2010, an estimated 32,209 software packages are available to the Linux user or programmer to install, compile, modify, or use. Windows far surpasses this, however, the rumor of no programs being available for open source systems is no longer the case. For all operating systems, an estimated 240,000 open source software projects are currently being hosted.
Opinion & Conclusion:
------------------------------------------------------------
Open source software is better, as you can change it *legally*, distribute it to
anyone *legally*, and burn multiple copies of it at will *legally*. Proprietary software limits the media features (again, Windows 7 Starter to Windows 7 Home Premium--this is a fact), and where the software can be backed up legally, and how many copies you can have. Many users resort to piracy because they cannot afford new copies of software. Additionally, when more people see and work on the same project, more minds can see what they are working on and thereby fix it.
Therefore, with all these statistics, without arguing any further, as a programmer, or simply an end user, would you use proprietary products on your computer?
-- Andrew Greimann
