Subject: Are we stressing the free software ideology too much?

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:35:13 +0200 (IST)

Are we stressing the free software ideology too much? I happen to think
so. We all know about how free software should be freely distributable,
freely modifiable, freely usable, and possibly copyleft as well. But
should we stress it to newcomers? Should we keep stressing it to
ourselves, and have silly "proprietary software - good or evil" fights?

I think it's time we stressed the technical superiority of Linux and other
free software instead of the ideology behind it. I realize this technical
superiority was derived from the open-source nature of the code. However,
its ideology is much less important for the user as a user than its
technical superiority.

So I suggest that we first educate the people stressing the facts that
make it a superior system technically. After they switched they'll have
no problem learning about its open source nature and the wonderful
benefits it brings.

In regards to the "What if a better proprietary solution comes along", the
answer is simple: some people care that a software will be open source (or
at least very close) because this in itself is a technical superiority as
it makes sure they can always maintain this software. Those who don't may
switch for some time, but it will only cause an incenitive to improve the
existing open source software, and to again close the gap.

Like I said to a correspondant of mine, I find it hard to believe some
company can easily come up with a better product that the entire GNU/Linux
system. While individual components were replaced either by open source
ones or in rare cases proprietary ones, the system as a whole is too large
an effort for one company to take upon itself. Better join it, than go
against it, and build on existing foundations.

Microsoft is, at the moment, the only entity who is trying to outcompete
the open source world in its entirety. And they are having a very poor
success, as almost anyone who have used both systems seriously can
tesitify that Linux is the superior one.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish        [email-masked]
Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/

An apple a day will keep a doctor away. Two apples a day will keep two
doctors away.

	Falk Fish

---

From: Alexander Maryanovsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 01:54:25 +0200

>its ideology is much less important for the user as a user than its

Wrong. The ideology behind Free Software is *more* important to the user 
than its technical superiority, he's just not aware of it :-)
Or at least that is what RMS would probably say. It's almost 2am and I'm 
too tired to make the argument for the above point myself, but I'm sure you 
pretty much know what I'd say :-)

Alexander Maryanovsky.

---

From: Gabor Szabo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 11:58:49 +0200 (IST)

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Shlomi Fish wrote:

> make it a superior system technically.

Are you also suggesting that something just because it is Open Source is
superior ? Think again. It might provide the opportunity to be better
but the fact that I release something under GPL (or any other OS license)
does not make it better than anything else.
Well, except for the fact that it is Free/Libre. This is the only aspect
in which GPL make my software superior - to whoever Freedom of software
matters.
Then of course - because it is Open Source - others might pick up my
software and improve it and it might become a really good piece of
software but AFAIK so far no one proved that this is true in all aspects
of software development.

Besides I can hardly belive that there is any piece of software that is
superior to every other competitor - meaning it is better for everyone
to use that software. So I can't belive that Linux is superior operating
system.
It somehow does not fit my view of the world.

But of course you are entitled to your own view.

After all TMTOWTDI :-)

  Gabor

--
Gabor Szabo

Perl in Israel
http://www.pti.co.il/

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:04:35 +0200 (IST)

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Gabor Szabo wrote:

> superior ?

I don't think that something is necessarily superior out of being open
source. But this is often the case, probably out of the open source nature
of it.

> Think again. It might provide the opportunity to be better

I can testify from my experience with Freecell Solver, that if it weren't
open source it wouldn't have had half the features and functionality it
has now. All the closed or not publicly available solvers are left as they
are, without being improved upon.

Part of its success was that I followed common open source conventions -
set up a web-page for it, periodically announced it on Freshmeat, answered
questions about it, etc. This has greatly motivated me to add improvements
and I was able to get a lot of good ideas and input from the users.

ESR explained much better than I ever could why Bazaar-style development
works so well in "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", and explained other
factors for its success in the other parts of the series.

You are right that alone, releasing a software under an OS license does
not make it superior. But the open-source software development process
usually results in better products than the equivalent closed source
solutions.

> software but AFAIK so far no one proved that this is true in all aspects

No one has proved that it is true, and it would be very hard to prove it
is. I don't have a problem with people using proprietary software if it is
better in some respects that the available free alternatives, or if it
has features than the equivalent open-source one does not have.

Just releasing a software as open source is not a guarantee to success. It
still requires a lot of effort on the part of the person who released the
software. A lot of open source software become inactive after a very short
stage of development. But so does a lot of commercial software. Usually,
the open source software that makes it become better than the proprietary
software that does.

> to use that software. So I can't belive that Linux is superior operating

As a whole GNU/Linux offers more features, a better usability, less
maintenance problems, a higher rate of advancement, and a better working
experience than MS Windows. There maybe some minor points in which Windows
is superior, but they are very minor and isolated. Besides, I can always
try to fix or overcome Linux' minor deficiencies somehow, than I can ever
hope to fix all the things I dislike about Windows.

Can you possibly add a ForkProcess() system call to the Win32 API? Or add
a better geometry manager than X-Y? You cannot without MS' cooperation or
some very Evil hacks. In Linux (in which problems of this scale do not
exist), it is easy to overcome a certain limitation, because the source is
yours to modify.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email-masked]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

	Falk Fish

---

From: Orna Agmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 12:38:39 +0200 (IST)

> But of course you are entitled to your own view.

If I have the choice between using two identical softwares, one GPLed and
the other propraitory, I would choose the GPLed I would even choose the
GPLed when it is slightly inferior.

That is because I do not measure programs only by their features, but by
their bugs. I know I may find a bug someday, or need a feature, or need it
to work on a new platform. I do not want to find myself with a hole inside
my chain of tools, in a couple of years. But of course, if someone does
not mind throwing away all one has written[1], to be replaced by another
program...

Orna.

[1] I write scientific programs. I intend them to last years. In a certain
speech, on January 9th 2003, In the IBM GNU/LINUX day,  some lecturer said
that scientists write program for single use only.

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 18:57:32 +0200 (IST)

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Orna Agmon wrote:

> > [Long message by Gabor snipped]

> GPLed when it is slightly inferior.

I never said the open-souce nature of a software is not a technical
advantage. It is, in a way. However, it is not always enough to make it
more superior, at present, to its closed source equivalents. (at least not
in the eyes and needs of many people).

> not mind throwing away all one has written[1], to be replaced by another

Of course, this is one reason a person may wish not to use a proprietary
solution. Of course, this is a generalization. Some proprietary vendors
listen to their customers needs, fix bug quickly, release often, and also
implement new features that these customers wish for. OTOH, some open
source developers are very anti-pathic, do nothing with bug reports, and
are reluctant to implementing new features in their software on their
user's request. It even happened to me once that a patch I sent to a
software which added some essential features, was rejected on the spot by
its developer and maintainer. (and I'm sure it did not cause it to be much
slower or whatever).

I don't know if the situation is better among open source developers or
among proprietary vendors. But of course, in open source you can always
fork the code, which is not possible in proprietary software.

> that scientists write program for single use only.

Heh heh. With Shrinkwrap software like the open source software I write,
the intention for them is to last forever, or at least until the
underlying technologies below them are replaced by something completely
different. Some software in the UNIX world is already a few decades old,
and is still actively used a lot.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

	Falk Fish