Sometimes, Open Source really pisses me off.
Not the development model, of course. I have no problem with that. Some of my favorite software these days is Open Source. I'm running servers on Gentoo and Firefox is a great web browser. The Open Source tools Apple has adapted for OS X are very nice. SpamAssassin is a great anti-spam engine and you can't go wrong with BitTorrent.
However, Open Source is more than just a development philosophy. For some people, it's become a political tool. For others, it's damn near a religion. For still others, it's a symbol -- a symbol for whatever it is they believe already.
And to these people, the opposite of Open Source is Microsoft.
Huh? Microsoft? That's a company. How can a company be the opposite of a development philosophy? Isn't this a bit like saying the opposite of black is correction fluid? Yes, but the opposite of Open Source must be closed source. And if Open Source is good, then closed source must be bad. And Microsoft, as the biggest closed source company in the world, must also be bad. After all, they used their monopoly to crush Netscape, right? And now they're using it to defeat Linux. Those rogues!
As Sagat once said, Funk Dat. Netscape crushed Netscape; don't you remember how SHITTY Navigator 4.x was? I used to DREAD testing that piece of shit. Netscape's web server was slower, buggier and less secure than IIS. And their "portal" was as it is today: scummy.
Furthermore, Microsoft isn't out to crush Linux. You can't crush a product created by unaffiliated volunteers and offered for free from various locations world wide. But you have to do something -- many prospective customers are hearing that this free product is as good, if not better than, your for-pay product. So, Microsoft funds a series of studies that show their product is worth the price. Duh! Are they supposed to fold up and say "well, that's the end of me!" Linux will survive any attack you throw at it, and getting mad at these studies is pretty foolish. Open Source doesn't lose anything when somebody chooses Microsoft -- and five years ago, Linux wouldn't even be on the same GRAPH as Windows.
Why does Open Source need an opposite in the first place? It is a development philosophy. It was created because a lot of autonomous developers were all working on the same thing and figured it would be worth while to collaborate. It's an alternative, not a replacement. Touting it as the only way to go is short sighted. When it works, it works. When it doesn't work, you have two choices: write your own project or use closed source. Not everybody has the time and the money to develop their own software, and as long as people have money and needs, closed source hasn't outlived its viability. Hating Microsoft because they aren't willing to give you their source code for free is unfair. Some people won't even buy a cow if the milk is free. Do you think they'd buy the milk if the cow were free?
Microsoft recently announced that they would be releasing some of their already free development tools under an Open Source model. They did so, because previously their development tools have been one-time deals. The programmers move on to new things, and the tools would stagnate. Providing them under an OSS license allows MS to provide developers with the ability to share changes to these tools. And yet, the Open Source zealots on slashdot seemed determined to show it as a calculated attack on their model, citing ancient examples, making ridiculous demands like "open the DOC fomat!," taking numerous pot shots at code quality and reiterating common misconceptions about the Shared Source initiative. I wish there was an internet equivalent to turning away in disgust. These people have claimed Microsoft as their enemy without learning anything about the company or its development philisophy. Instead, they treat it as one big straw man in which they can dump all of their hatred and use none of the renowned critical thinking skills that brought them to Open Source in the first damned place.
This is what pisses me off about Open Source zealots. They have taken a great idea -- developers sharing code -- and turned it into some black and white battle where courageous Linux users are trying to slay the dragon of stodgy old for-pay software. Why can't we just share code and be done with it?
Posted by das at June 25, 2004 11:16 AM | TrackBack