DevBlog

I've blogged about this before...the half truths and lies used by the Open Source community to try to explain why it's better than proprietary software. To be fair, Microsoft is no better, but I don't hear them shouting as loudly as Open Source supporters. Long time Fox developer Whil Hentzen is moving to Open Source. He recently posted a document on his web site that explains why he's moving to Open Source. [Disclaimer: I have known Whil for years and count him among my friends. His company, Hentzenwerke Publishing published my book.] However, there needs to be an examination of his stated "facts".

Freedom
Whil states:

With proprietary software, your freedoms are severely curtailed, and are becoming more and more limited each day. You're only allowed to use the software in ways that the manufacturer designates, on platforms that the manufacturer deigns acceptable, and for time spans or by numbers of users expressly allowed by the manufacturer. You are not allowed to make changes to it so that it works better for your own situation - indeed, you are not even allowed to look at how the software is put together in order to determine how to best make use of it.

What is wrong with this arguement is that a huge percentage of users not only won't change the open source software they use, but don't even know how to do it. My mom can't do. My dad can't do it. My brother and sisters can't do it. I'm a pretty good programmer and I can't do it either. I can learn, but my mom, dad, brother and sisters don't have a clue as even where to begin. This arguement is like telling the general public that they can change the engine in their car if they want. Yup, they can...but they either don't want to or can't. They're happy with what they got when the "opened the box".

Choice
Whil states:

Open Source, on the other hand, is all about choice. Don't like a particular browser, or office suite, or email client? You've got many alternatives to choose from. And since there is competition between the providers of these choices, they need to compete on both features and quality. A monopoly doesn't have to concern themselves with features or quality, because there's no reason to.

Huh? Does this arguement even make sense? I can change my browser, office suite, or email client anytime I want. There is nothing forcing or requiring me to continue using Microsoft products. I've got just as many alternatives to choose from as anyone using open source products. And can Whil honestly tell me that Red Hat wants you to use a different variant of Linux or that Open Office wants you to move to Star Office? Nope. They want you locked into their products as much as Microsoft does.

Security
Whil states:

When a vulnerability is made public, proprietary companies do a public relations dance that includes denial, reluctant admission, and then foot dragging, the speed of which is dependent on how close the media holds their feet to the fire. It's common to find severe vulnerabilities in Microsoft products to go unpatched for months. Open Source vulnerabilities, on the other hand, when they are discovered (and despite the availability of all of the source code, that doesn't happen very often), are always fixed within days, if not hours, of their discovery. It's a contest of egos to be the first one to provide the patch that fixes a problem.

Go read Scoble's blog about his lunch with the head of the IE group at Microsoft. Not only does Scoble point out that Microsoft is serious about security but you'll also learn why fixing these problems is so difficult.

Also, if you were to write a virus, wouldn't you want to get the biggest bang for your buck? There are millions more computers running Windows compared to Unix/Linux. This translates into more computers being infected. This does not mean Windows is inherently less secure than Linux. Go do some research at cert.org and you'll find there are as many security advisories for Linux/Unix as there are for Windows.

Finally, Windows is built on a codebase and technology ideas from the early to mid 1990s. Security back then was very different than it is now. We weren't all connected to the Internet. The Windows code base all the way down to the kernel just wasn't designed for today's interconnected networks. Windows XP, Service Pack 2 will go a long ways to fix many of the problems. Windows Longhorn will be a HUGE step forward and be MUCH more secure than what we have now.

I'm not saying that Windows is perfect and not vulnerable. I just don't see any facts that show Linux/Unix is more secure than Windows.

Opportunity
I have no arguement there with Whil. There is probably more opportunity in Open Source than in Fox.

So, What is the Truth?
First, the arguements used by the Open Source about what is wrong with proprietary software are not based on fact, but rather on feelings.

Second, the arguements used the proprietary vendors against Open Source are also flawed.

Third, proprietary solutions give you the same freedom of choice as Open Source.

Fourth, the Open Source community doesn't understand the market.

Fifth, Open Source is neither more nor less secure than Windows.

Sixth, I think both Open Source and proprietary solutions have their place.

What do you think? Feel free to comment.