General discussion

Locked

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.

18 total posts (Page 2 of 2)   Prev   01 | 02
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Comparisons.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Valid Point

"Microsoft has some of the least resource consuming products out there. Look at OpenOffice. It takes up so much memory ..."

That's relative. Using less memory than another hog doesn't mean you don't still use a ton of resources. However, I was using the term 'bloatware' in the sense of taking up a massive amount of hard drive space (another type of resource) to include more and more features no one wanted, asked for, or uses.

Collapse -

"Microsoft has some of the least resource consuming products out there."

by Neon Samurai In reply to Valid Point

I'm curious to know what school it is that you attend.

Anyhow, with VMware, I can run a Mandriva or Debian VM with 256 to 512 meg of ram assigned. I usually use 512 unless it's just a quick testing VM. I then get about three VMs booted now using 1.5 gig of ram assigned. I then remote into the VMs and start doing my work. The VM with X installed and running doesn't run any slower than the other two which you'd never guess where virtual machines crammed in my desktop alongside others.

I can open two Windows VMs. 512 meg of ram is the minimum I can assign them and have them still usable. That's a total of 1 gig assigned across two VMs. I remote into them with rdesktop and they are fairly responsive with just the hint of being remote connections; provided I'm only using one at a time. If one has to think heavily, the other and rest of my machine feels the performance drag.

Now, that's three VMs at 1.5 gig ram working with no noticeable performance hit while under load compared to two VMs at 1.0 gig of ram working with noticeable performance reduction when either of them is under load. Again, that's 256 to 512 meg of ram and comfortable versus 512 min and 1024 meg ram to be comfortable.

Let's try something different. I take the same Windos VM stored on a fat32 partition. I take the same version of VMware for Windows and Mandriva and install it on both bootable partitions. I boot each and one the same VM from that commonly accessible fat32 partition.

Under Windows, the VM responds like a fast modem connection with PCanywhere. The mouse movement clearly shows that it's a remote desktop though it remains responsive to work with.

Under Mandriva, that same VM responds as if it was native. When made fullscreen, you wouldn't realize it was running overtop of a host OS.

This test was done with winXP pro sp3 and Mandriva 2008.1 on an intel quad core beside 4 gig of ram and sata drives. The partition with the VM was on a separate drive from the two bootable OS.

Excel and IE both break under heavy RAM usage due to poor memory management. I used to have either and often both lockup simply because I had more than two spreadsheets open. (IE begins to hang on "connecting to website ..." and Excel begins to hang when recalculating cell formulas.)

Damn Small Linux provides a full graphic desktop and suite of default applications that can be used comfortably on 256 meg of ram in a Pentimum2; what is the minimum hardware you would install winXP sp3 on and how much other software would you include? (they are both equally up to date in versions and patches)

Collapse -

Very Educated

by deeseddie In reply to "Microsoft has some of th ...

Lets see here. Linux is lighter usually due to the fact that the O.S itself is very much a watchdog. Where you would have to manually install just about everything in the O.S. Windows a lot of programs could be automatic due to activex controls and programs that use an interface similar to windows update. Leading to a huge security risk. Also Linux installs very little by default meaning faster speeds when it comes to installing and running. Even the most bloated of distros like Ubuntu are not a disaster on system resources.

I used Windows XP SP3 on a 300Mhz Celeron w/ 256MB PC100 Memory & a 6 GB Hard Drive. It wasn't too slow. It actually ran faster than both Win98SE & 2000 did. I also used Avast Antivirus instead of the bloated AVG or Norton. I also watched out if any programs I have instead made Startup Programs that reside in the System Clock. [Most people don't do that. Then they wonder why the computer is slow and unresponsive.]

I personally am on neither side. Some systems work better with Linux, some with Windows. Also depends which one has the drivers that your computer needs.

Microsoft Windows was never really designed for the virtual environment. Thats why an HP Pavillion 2000ZE Laptop w/ 512MB Memory with an WIN98SE Virtual Box will run as slow as an early Pentium. Even with all the drivers and an emulation of 128MB Memory. [VMWare is the one I use.]

Collapse -

I agree that it is about intended use

by Neon Samurai In reply to Very Educated

My Windows and Mandriva systems are very comparible since I try to mirror functions across platforms and prefer to use software that has a build for each applicable platform.

As a general build equivalent to my other working environments, I can use a VM these days so I have one of those setup as well.

Now, the benefit that I enjoy on my system is needing Windows directly against the hardware for only a few specialized programs plus gaming. That means I can tune the Windows install as much as possible for gaming and know that cain will run just fine when it is needed. For gaming, I need the kernel, driver support for the hardware including video, audio and controllers, directX between kernel/drivers and game software.. and, of course, the game. Why must I install all the extra default services then go through and disable them? I don't need a telnet deamon but it's right there waiting with 'service startup manual' beside it.

I can install winXPsp3 on my CF27 but just the weight of the desktop plus the minimum protective software is going to slow the machine down; usable, but not comfortable. I can install drop a Linux based distro on there meant for running on light resources like Xubuntu or something I prefer more. Heck, I could leave it in the corner with only Linux (meaning the kernel), the userland layers above that and Apache. Instant webserver. With windows, I can't just install the NT kernel, minimal cli userland and IIS; I have to install the full graphic glot of the OS/distro.

ActiveX is a broken technology on it's own. It provides some benefits but being that deeply twisted into IE, and by extension, the kernel with no real separation of privileged is not worth the trade-offs.

Mind you, when I'm interacting with Windows machines on the network, I'll use a Windows workstation. When interacting with any of the *nix machines, I'll use a *nix workstation. I'd love to have ssh control over my Windows workstations like I have between *nix machines but Windows too Windows is still the better match for some tasks.

Collapse -

You must be new

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to About Microsofts track re ...

MS's track record has been crap since they dominated the market. Quality is the most expensive competitive advantage to gain and maintain. No sane businessman is going to do so when they do not need to. MS have not needed to for well over a decade.

Worse still they didn't gain their advantage through technical quality in the first place.

They gained it through sound business thinking.

The only reason products such as Visual Studio are high quality, is they had real competition.
Borland made MS look like total incompetents for years, until MS solved the problem by buying the people who were doing it. They were ones who gave us .NET, and a version of VS that could use it.

Windows best OS, on what basis. Where does it win over the alternatives?

Collapse -

People seem to forget

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

that MS is not in the market of making software for consumers. MS is in the market of making revenue for stockholders, software is just the tool.
Most IT have seen and recognized this. MS makes a product that's "good enough" for its target audience, and continues to make money through upgrade and lock-in, OEM deals, and advertising aimed at consumer and utility users. ("Mojave is really Vista!") This is how closed-source makes its money.
Competing based on quality alone has long since ceased to be the case in most product markets (A quick wave to BOSE here).

Collapse -

Better at what, for what, for whom and when?

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Open-Source Vs. Proprieto ...

If it were as simple as the development model, you would not have to ask the question would you?

My personal opinion, is that there will always be some higher quality open source offerings than any closed source ones, for all but the most niche of applications.

Whether you need and can 'afford' that quality is of course the question.

By the way,
It's open vs closed, you can be proprietory and open.

Collapse -

As long as it works

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

As long as it works, I don't care if it's proprietary or open source. If it's free, awesome....but I don't mind paying for features and stability.

I currently use mostly proprietary software TBH; on my personal systems you'll find XP, MS Office, Opera, Adobe CS3 suite etc; all of which work properly for me, and I wouldn't want to switch unless there's real benefit to me.

Back to Software Forum
18 total posts (Page 2 of 2)   Prev   01 | 02

Related Discussions

Related Forums