General discussion


Open-Source Vs. Proprietory Software

By deeseddie ·
Hi, I'm new here at TechRepublic and here is my 1st discussion. Do you believe that Open-Source software is better or Proprietary. Let me just use this list of Operating Systems and Office Suites to compare.

Operating Systems

Open Source- Ubuntu Linux 8.10 Interprid Ibex
Proprietary- Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium

Office Suites

Open Source- OpenOffice
Proprietary- Microsoft Office 2007

I would prefer Open-Source because the developers always seek improvement in their software. Are more open to new ideas and will let anybody work on these projects that are good at programming.

On the improvement behave why do you think the a new version of Ubuntu is released every 6 to 12 months. Even with security updates and enhancements the structure of the Operating System becomes antiquated overtime. Just look at Windows XP and then Vista. Even if besides the glossy look Vista is a disappointment.

I honestly believe the way things are going Open-Source Software will level out with proprietary software in 10 years.

However I still believe Microsoft will have a lot of say in the new Open-Source field due to these couple of qualities.

1]Microsoft created the 1st Massively- Distributed OSe's.

2]Microsoft created the GUI most OSe's use today

3]Bill Gates was a great programmer and businessman.

4]The NT 5.0 Windows OSe's where just unquestionably great dispute a few security issues. Which where already ironed out the the OS line. Along with the fact that Internet Security has grown to the point that there is now free Internet Security Software. Avast to name a few.

5] Microsoft still has the support from the public and the corporations.[Including Programmers.] So the likelihood of developers programming for a different OS without getting paid one dime will keep programmers on Microsoft's side. Which in terms means the public.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Better for what?

by NickNielsen In reply to Open-Source Vs. Proprieto ...

The way things usually work around here, somebody will start a discussion by expressing their opinion and their reasons for holding that opinion. Thus my question for you: Which combination do you prefer and why? Maybe that will get some discussion started.

Personally, I prefer the Intrepid Ibex and OpenOffice for two reasons. First, they cost much, much less than the Windows/Office combination and I'm a cheap sumbitch. Second, given Microsoft's track record for both operating systems and applications and the observations that the Aero interface is nothing more than a fluffy resource hog and that the ribbon (for me) gets in the way more often than not, I've come to believe that Microsoft is more interested in form than function.

Collapse -

Santewelding mode

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Better for what?

Oh the serendipitousness.

Collapse -

About Microsofts track record

by deeseddie In reply to Better for what?

Actually Microsoft didn't get a bad track record until Windows Vista. Besides US Vs. Microsoft case and security issues with the OS itself. Even Windows ME had quite a few fans because the other-all stability was better than Win98SE with the only subtraction being Real-Mode DOS. Even the Court-Case was just because a bunch of overzealous liberals saw that Microsoft dominated the market by being the best O.S and brought Microsoft to court.

Collapse -

? ? ?

by NickNielsen In reply to About Microsofts track re ...

...Microsoft didn't get a bad track record until Windows Vista.

Excuse me? Is what you're smoking legal? Microsoft has had a bad track record with IT pros for at least the last two decades. Even if you excuse the security issues and anti-trust lawsuit, their public track record isn't much better over the last 15 years. For example, MS has been under investigation by the US government or operating under a consent decree for anti-competitive practices in some way, shape or form since 1990 (George H.W. Bush was in office, which pretty much puts the lie to your "overzealous liberals" remark).

So "Microsoft dominated the market by being the best O.S"? First, Microsoft is the company, Windows is the OS. Second, do you really believe the restrictive covenants in MS' agreements with OEMs had nothing to do with Windows' domination of the market? Do you think the mistakes made by MS' competitors had nothing to do with it? Please. You're entitled to be as stupid as you like, but letting your feelings blind you to facts surpasses stupidity and achieves idiocy.

edit: corrected dates, added link

Collapse -

I see you want to have it out

by deeseddie In reply to ?:| ?:| ?:|

Well lets just put it this way. Some of the biggest Microsoft Fans if seen out IT Pros in the Public School System. Have a big huge corporation down in Tampa with 500+ employees. Heck a lot of this network admins will never use Firefox because of certain security holes & compatibility standards. [As well as the fact Firefox hogs more memory.]Students in a public school system can also get around Websense using proxies in Firefox. However thats not me and I do choose to use Ubuntu, Firefox & so on. Even more so than Microsoft Products.

Oh about the liberal remark. I will not apologize for that. Look at how all these companies got bought up by the government. If a corporation ceases to exist it dies. There will be new corporations popping up within a few years. The Bail-out was a liberal issue. Just like limiting free-market & law suiting anybody who shows good business practice. Trust me, Microsoft didn't even get close to doing what Standard Oil company did in the late 1800's. Microsoft got to where they where out by aggressive marketing & really sweet deals with OEM's.

I'm politically just a Moderate. However I do have common since behind what the government is doing.

Collapse -

"...a big huge corporation ... with 500+ employees."

by CharlieSpencer In reply to I see you want to have it ...

Dude, 500 employees is NOT a "huge corporation".

"...a lot of this network admins will never use Firefox because of certain security holes..."

Just so long as they realize there are even more holes in IE.

"...Firefox hogs more memory."

I won't disagree with you when you're right.

Collapse -

Have it out?

by NickNielsen In reply to I see you want to have it ...

I refuse to participate in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. But I will attempt to confuse you with facts.

- Schools use Microsoft products because they can purchase them from state contracts without going through the otherwise mandatory competitive bidding process. It's not a matter of better, but of easier. Been there, done that.

- Firefox uses more memory because it's not partially integrated into the OS. Microsoft insists that IE is part of the OS; ever wonder how much of what IE requires to run is loaded as part of the initial Windows load?

- The holes in Firefox are fewer and more rapidly repaired than the holes in IE.

- If a student can even access a proxy server, no matter the browser, Websense isn't properly configured. That's an admin issue, not a browser issue. Again, been there, done that

As for the bailout, the TARP was initiated by Bush administration appointees to save politically connected incompetents.

Collapse -

History lesson.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to About Microsofts track re ...

"Actually Microsoft didn't get a bad track record until Windows Vista."

Microsoft's reputation has waxed and waned many times over the years. MS-DOS 4.0 was the first example I can recall of an MS product causing the company grief. Later some twit decided it was a good idea to push NT 4.0 on laptops; it wasn't. ME's fans were far outnumbered by it's detractors who stuck with W98 until W2K came along. Let's not even discuss Microsoft Bob, the "Star Wars Christmas Special" of MS products. New MS Office releases are usually ignored for years by everyone except consumers, and the suite is now the textbook definition of 'bloatware'.

"Microsoft dominated the market by being the best O.S"

Okay, now you're just drinking Kool-Aid. MS dominates the OS market through contractual agreements with hardware vendors, a strong marketing campaign, Apple's decision to close it's hardware architecture, and lack of consumer awareness of the alternatives.

Collapse -

Valid Point

by deeseddie In reply to History lesson.

You are absolutely right. However a lot of people have upgraded to Office 2007 though. The school I go to had to due to a new agreement with Dell. That the school system ditches IBM/Lenovo's with Intel Processors for Dells with AMD Processors in order to save $50 per Workstation.

Very few companies I see use a version of Microsoft Office before 2002. Some would use versions as old as Office 97. However most Corporations/Consumers I've seen use 2003+.

Another thing, Windows ME was released 8 months after Windows 2000. So what you mean is most people waited out till Windows XP.

Oh and about the bloatware. Microsoft has some of the least resource consuming products out there. Look at OpenOffice. It takes up so much memory on a 2.5Ghz Pentium D w/ 512MB Memory that it closes scanline per scanline. Office 2007 runs beautifully on a 1.4 Ghz PIII w/ 384MB Memory.

The only Office Suite thats lighter on resources is Corel WordPerfect Suite but I don't believe anybody even knows about that program anymore.

Collapse -

It's misleading to compare the foot print

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Valid Point

of a non ms application with an equivalent ms one, except in terms of the extra resource load required by whatever you are operating on, for instance a document or worksheet.

A good proportion of the functionality comes in the OS and is already loaded in dlls and such.
FF3 according to windows itself uses twice as much memory as IE7 to view this page. Now either IE7 is developed to be twice as good as FF3, or something else is going on...

Let,s see now, which one is integrated into the OS, and exactly what form would that integration take in a monolithic design?

And no FF could not have made the same decsions. It would have required a lot of closed source knowledge, it would have meant taking on some of MS's from a technical point of view more stupid designs, it would have limited them to one platform, and last but not least put them completely at MS's mercy.


Related Discussions

Related Forums