Open Source: Where's the proof?
Open Source: Where's the proof? The Open Source advocates always like to claim that open source produces better software.  My question is where's the proof?  It seems as though everybody takes it for granted that it's true without actually checking into it.  The arguements are compelling.  More eyes on the code should mean that more features get added and more bugs get fixed and so we should get better software but I think if we actually look that's not the case.

The Open Source people usually point Emacs, GCC, Linux, Perl and Apache. That's about as far as they get. Maybe they add sendmail or fetchmail in there. A few of the new desktops might make it too like KDE or GNOME.

Lets take GCC. It seems like the commercial products of both VC++ by Microsoft and the high-end development tools for the SGI are both far superior to GCC. I can't say I know all of what's available for GCC but for example all the browsing stuff in VC++ and the ability to change code while debugging and execute the changes without recompiling. The SGI ones have a awesome debugger too.  Of course if GCC is better just show me the proof.  Maybe it generates better code.  But if it does is it so much better as to outway the benefits the other compilers might offer interms of getting your job done quicker.  For example is it easier to write an end user application with GUI using GCC or VC++?  I suppose it depends on your definition of a UI.  Lets say you want to duplicate WordPad from Windows (not: for the GCC case I'm assuming you are under Linux with some X desktop.  I think VC++ is going to win pretty easily.

How about Emacs?   That's probably a religious arguement. Some people like their editors. Some people even prefer "vi" and "edlin/ed" but I think it can be argued that for example in several areas Visual SlickEdit are currently better than emacs.  If Open Source is so great and Emacs is one it's greatest achivements why can just a few programmers (probably less than 10) create a better product so quickly while Open Source Emacs with its thousands of eyes lags behind?

Sendmail doesn't in anyway compete with MS Exchange in terms of features (and in my opinion very very useful features) I think a simple demo would convince nearly anybody of that. With Sendmail you get basic e-mail, administrator only managed mailing lists and alias.  With MS Exchange you get e-mail, non-administrator managed mailing lists and alias AND you get Web access to your e-mail, IMAP support, a newsgroup server which can run as a full NNTP partner or just a polling type (ie, with no more access than a NNTP client) You get shared public folders that can track updates it individual entries.   The list goes on and on.

Apache I don't know at all so I can't comment except to say again it appears that "out of the box" it is much easier to setup the Microsoft product and out of the box many many more features work without major configuration.

Perl? Well it's just a language of which there are hundreds.  The one getting the most press is Java which is the product of a commercial endevor.  Not Open Source.   Note: I'm not going to try to debate whether Perl is better or worst than other languages.

The leaves Linux and the desktops available for it.  As for the desktops it's pretty arguable none of them have caught up with Windows or the Mac yet but of all the programs above they do seem to be making most progress.  It will be interestng to see if they can get enough applications to support those desktops to make them approchable by the average user but clearly Windows is still better at that particular feature.

Linux is also sorely behind NT in terms of features.

Of course I'm open to the possibility that I just don't have enough experience with all of these products but my impression is that it's really the Open Source people missing the experience with the non Open Source world and just accepting on faith that it's better.

Comments:

You sound like a tech version of Seinfeld [ e ]

Here's one reason why Apache is better than anything Microsoft has produced in the past: Code Red.

posted by anon_anonymousApril 28, 2002 at 9:57

Apache the same [ e ]

Similar flaws are in Apache.  The difference is only that more people are trying to make Microsoft look bad and therefore writing viruses that effect Microsoft based OSes / products.  If Linux or Apache had the same number of people working to write viruses for it it would have just as many Code Red like problems.

But that wasn't my point above, my point is that Open Source still has not delivered the goods except possibly in a few small cases.  Apache might be one of those cases but that's about it.  In almost all other catagories there is better closed source software than open.  If open source is inherently better that should not be the case.

The reason is simple.  Apache (and the other products above) are written by engineers for engineers meaning other engineers are the people that setup and maintain those products.  Therefore they are likely to be technical, not mind reading though a README file or 10 plus a 2 inch thick manual/guide book and then search for more docs and faq all over the net and, if they have a feature they need or a bug they find they might even fix it.

For other types of software though this is not the case.  Games and Applications are written by engineers for users.  That means the people using the products, the people most likely to see the bugs, problems, etc are not the same people that know how to fix them.  Hence, there is little to no benefit to being open source for games and apps.  There's big benefit to being closed-source though.  You can generate income which you can use to pay programmers to make the product better.  This is why closed-source apps/games pretty much kick all kinds of ass over open source apps with very few exceptions.

posted by greggmanApril 29, 2002 at 10:03

Open Source = Bad Interface [ e ]

http://mpt.phrasewise.com/20
02/04/13

posted by greggmanApril 30, 2002 at 11:37

Each have their place [ e ]

Linux or Unix in general works best in a server environment. As such it can run headless and serve clients much much faster on the same equipment as it doesn't have all the graphical overhead.

Windows works best as a desktop or client operating system, it has a shallow learning curve for anyone carrying out mundane computing tasks. Unix has a steep initial learning curve which then plateaus, so is best suited to the Enterprise where professionals are configuring and building applications. Though Windows has a shallow learning curve at the beginning it then climbs sharpley when you want to do anything complex.

When windows is used in the server environment this unfortunately breeds development of applications that are built by people of all levels of competence all claiming to be developers, hence the internet is filled with internet applications which don't work properly. Too many of the great pretenders.

This does not address your point about open-source as apposed to closed. One point of strength in open-source that has been missed is the visibility of the code from the point of view that, if you write something in a hacked about manner you will be open to critisism. Also if you have something to offer, by way of new features or you have found a bug you can jump right in and get it sorted for the next release. It is left down to you really, if you simply use the systems for free you aren't really able to complain as you haven't incurred any cost and you haven't exerted any effort in the development.

However closed source does have some excellent applications and it is upto the individual to weigh up if parting with their hard earned cash is really going to benefit them as there are also some dreadfull closed-source applications out there that in the marketing blurb do everything you could ever wish for, and in reality in such a cumbersome way that you wonder was it really worth it.

With regard to Apache, it has a couple of great advantages, it is portable from one platform to another. It supports more than one scripting language and backend technology architecture: Java, XML, PHP, Perl etc. As does the Microsoft solution though perhaps not to the same extent.

However working on enterprise applications in Java, I would choose BEA Weblogic Server over either of the above mentioned. But given the choice between Apache and IIS for Java I would certainly choose Apache.

However re SlickEdit, I am certainly with you on that point. A superb editor with support for multiple languages and available for multiple platforms. Very powerful and very adaptable to your personal preferences. Looses market growth to the competition on UI building I fear. Something that perhaps they should look to include if only at a very basic level in future releases. I tend not to do too much UI development, but when I do...

posted by anon_brettcrawleyukcomOctober 25, 2002 at 7:31

Continuing the debate [ e ]

The point about open source being open as in you can view/edit/modifiy the code is taken.  The point I'm trying to make the that because it's open, open source advocates claim * because there are more eyes there will be less bugs * because anyone can add features there will be more features.  While on the surface that seems to make sense, if you actually check it's generally, even most of the time, not true.

Therefore, being open may not really be a plus if it doesn't really produce better software. 

On top of that, time = money, so saying open source is free therefore you've lost nothing is not true.  For example as detailed on another page, I tried to get Linux to share my net connection and support all the features of Windows ICS.  With Windows (or Mac OS X) it's like one click, maybe two and my net was shared.  With Linux it was search for hours trying to find out how to setup NAT, finding various docs that didn't go into enough detail or were out of date.  Getting that working I then needed to spend hours finding out how to run/setup DHCP, getting that working I then still didn't have sharing working as well as ICS.

I tried to get Mozilla 1.0 to run on my Linux box since it came with 0.96  The installer didn't work, I have no idea what it did with the software it installed but clicking on Mozilla I still get 0.96.  Sure I could figure it out if I took more time but that's just it.  Instead of getting done what I wanted to get done I have to spend hours configuring open source.  So, free does not really equal free.

When windows is used in the server environment this unfortunately breeds development of applications that are built by people of all levels of competence all claiming to be developers, hence the internet is filled with internet applications which don't work properly. Too many of the great pretenders.

There's no evidence that open source OSes don't have just as shody software. There are people of all levels of competence making both types of software.  I'd argue it's the other way around.

In closed source, you generally make more money by making better software because if you make shody software then you are not going to get recommended and you are therefore not going to sell anymore.

In open source sofware.  If you are hoping to make money since you can only do it through service it's best to design your software to require service.  For example by leaving it hard to setup.

If instead you are not interested in money but are only trying to help out or fix your own problem then that's generally as far as you take it.  Once it fixes your problem you stop.  Instead of make it work on all variations or allowing it to be configured or giving it manual or making it easy to use you just stop once  it satisfies your particular need.  There's nothing wrong with that, but closed soruce software generally has to do all those things or else it won't sell.  Hence, the motivations behind closed source tend to produce better software than open source.

posted by greggmanOctober 26, 2002 at 0:46

You really haven't done your homework... [ e ]

What sucks about your article?

Your comparisons suck.  In almost every case, you compare apples and oranges.  Let's take the gcc/VC++ example.  gcc is a compiler.  Nothing more, nothing less.  VC++ is a bunch of things rolled into one: IDE, compiler, debugger, etc.  Such things exist for *nix, though, as far as I've seen, not all rolled into one as VC++ is. Also, the OS comparison is not valid.  Linux was never meant to serve the same purpose as windows.  It also happens to be a fair bit younger of an operating system.  The linux desktop did not start to really develop until close to the time Windows 95 came out, by which time Windows was nearing a decade old.  Anyway, take a look at netcraft.com, and you'll see where linux/apache shines.  Also have a look at this article: http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_
fs_why.html .  Another thing to consider is that with Redhat 8.0 and Mandrake 9.0, the supplied desktop GUI is just fine for almost any desktop user.  Next time you write an article like this, take some time to do your homework instead of spouting off ignorantly.  It'll save you embarassment - no one wants to look like an idiot.

posted by anon_threak_gibsonyahoocomNovember 12, 2002 at 20:35

I agree [ e ]

I work as a unix engineer for a large European bank. I agree pretty much with your article. Most open source games, and the majority of open source desktop apps simply suck. Unix has a much narrower spectrum of uses than Windows.

posted by davidkellyApril 26, 2004 at 9:16

with your eyes closed, all cats look alike [ e ]

"The difference is only that more people are trying to make Microsoft look bad"
I think you are failing to give Microsoft the credit they deserve here.
Microsoft is making Microsoft look bad. The majority of the Internet runs on Apache, see http://news.netcraft.com/
Apache is the larger target, by far.
Of course anyone who would seriously suggest that "people are trying to make Microsoft look bad"  is not interested in facts.

posted by LamontCranstonMay 5, 2009 at 16:47