Open Source software vs. Proprietary software

He never said that Microsoft was the only proprietary software vendor on the planet. He just used a Microsoft product as an example. So what?

By the way, Sun, IBM, and RedHat all offer and support open source software products. Furthermore, you can always get CDs for open source software CDs and DVDs via mail or at retail outlets, if you like. That's hardly an argument, especially since any time you get Windows updates through the Windows Update utilities, you're downloading them, so you might want to rethink that statement that you "NEVER" download proprietary software. I'm pretty sure it simply isn't true.

Actually, if you have more questions for me directly that you consider to be in appropriate for this thread, you can contact me at my gmail address (same account name as the account name I use here). I'm not terribly worried about making that one public, as I don't really use it much. In fact, I often forget to check that address for a week or two at a time, so don't think I'm ignoring you if I don't respond right away.

As I hinted earlier, you could likely get better help from a LUG than from me on specific matters. I like to think I can give reasonably objective, well-reasoned analyses, but I'm not an expert in everything and if you get into a LUG you'll probably find that everything I'm good at, there's someone there, willing to help, that is at least a little bit better in whatever area you have questions about than I am. I'm necessarily somewhat well-rounded, as a consultant, but there are experts in every area in which I have mere competence, and you'll probably find many of them in a LUG. Meanwhile, I'm almost without any helpful knowledge in such matters as dealing with VMWare and other virtual machine applications for running an OS within another OS.

In case the option hasn't occurred to you, by the way, there are ways to run other OSes within virtual environments on Linux machines as well, to include Windows. I don't know a whole lot about them, either, I'm afraid, but I do know they exist. If that sounds interesting to you, it's probably worth looking into. You can get more information (enthusiastically, I'm sure) from your local LUG.

Good luck in your endeavors.

Very good point. People that make claims that MS software only seems more vulnerable because more people attack it, since it's more widely used, and people that make claims that OSS is necessarily fly by night, clearly don't know their history or the current state of IT. More than 60% of the Web runs on Apache, which is an open source solution, receives more attacks than any MS product, and yet survies largely unpurturbed while IIS goes down every few months in the hundreds due to some worm or virus. Meanwhile, projects like Apache, BIND, Sendmail, and even Linux, all very widely deployed and heavily used, have effectively been around as long as, or longer than, Windows.

In very few words, you've made a very telling point.

OSS generally is extensible in the same way and, even better, if you decide to modify the core app itself and it doesn't work out you can always just get it again, for free.

Keep in mind that Linux, as the canonical example of OSS, comes from the same roots and offers the same functionality as HPUX, AIX, Solaris, SCO UNIX, System V, and all the rest of the Unices, proprietary or otherwise. In fact, the fastest supercomputer in Europe is an IBM product built on Linux using clustering technology.

Whole cities in Europe and Asia are standardizing on Linux. The US government is involved in the SELinux project. Microsoft's own websites are protected by a third-party proxying service provider that runs BSD (an open source Unix very similar to Linux) on its servers.

You might want to catch up with the real world. OSS is a more serious professional option than you seem to realize.

CtrStrike, FYI Microsoft is just an example. there is no need to offend someone by telling them to "Read a few periodicals please...".

Downloading the source package from the Open Source developers and compiling it takes usually only few minutes. You do not need to review the source code but then you can be sure that the executable matches the developers source and when in problem they will be happy to fix it.

As apotheon implied, if you use the Microsoft Windows Update website, you download proprietary software. I'm not implying it here, I'm stating it as a fact. The entire purpose of the Windows Update website is to patch your Microsoft proprietary software. As a "benefit to the user", it also provides other vendor specific updates (video drivers, printer drivers, etc.)

Have you ever heard of the Microsoft Developers Network (MSDN)? There are several thousand developers who have MSDN subscriptions (I admit it, I have a Universal Subscription). These subscriptions, especially the Universal level, allow for direct downloads of Microsoft software. And I mean everything! There really are resources in there that you can't get anywhere else. Of course, that means that you'll be downloading proprietary software from a website that you either trust, or not. Yup, this brings back the whole website trust issue.

Have you ever downloaded software for a virus scanner? What about updates for the virus scanner? If you answered yes to either question, guess what? Unless your virus scanner is Open Source, you've downloaded proprietary software from the internet.

To tie this back to another part of the discussion, yes, there are hackers out there who continually try to spoof the Windows Update website. This is a prime target because most home Windows users have the automatic update turned on to not only download patches, but install them automatically. Now that's something to be worried about.

My thoughts on this article are that using proprietary software requires you to "trust" the supplier of the software. If your protection depends on your ability to sue the supplier then this may ultimately produce a financial settlement and perhaps some support. In the case of open source software your protection still lies in the "trust" of the source of the software. I'm still waiting to hear about corruption of open source software that is downloaded from reliable sites. On the support side, open source has been shown to be responsive via the community of users. My experience has been that that community is more useful and responsive than commercial support by commercial suppliers.

Are we expecting UNIX to die tomorrow? Don't think so. HP/IBM/SUN/usoft - probably not. It's called evolution my friend and the patent process. Please don't discount me as unread and unfamiliar. It's my job to be on the pulse of IT and development trends as a chief engineer and IT architect. I personally enjoy OSS just am not able to deploy it to a customer base...

When a SW solution whether it be a mgmnt suite, OS whatever reaches maturity, attains a rev control state, releasability, and support - it can then be considered. In essence at that point in time it moves from the traditional OSS model. You sight Progeny. If I went this route with the "expert support" and the "custom Linux solution on an enterptise scale" aren't I essentially doing the same thing as if I went with Sun/Solaris and their support team?

I was actually enjoying our engagement until now. Firstly, I should say I design worldwide US federal network management systems and the operations centers these architectures are housed in. Whether it be VPN, VoIP, SONET ATM, legacy technologies, across the platforms and OS's [you name it], I and my engineering teams design and build management solutions to bring real-time statising of literally hundreds of thousands of nodes to the desktop in a common operational framework. I probably won't be using a downloaded copy of linux to have this new mgmnt infrastructure ride upon it. In some cases unfortunately we don't take our contracts into seat mgmnt [if you understand what that even means] and so I have to be very concerned about the future and supportability of my solutions when I turn them over to the customer.

Hopefully this begins to shore things a little for you - know thats it getting a little "off-topic" but I was figured I needed to add the rest of the picture since you were mis-interpreting many of my comments.

Apo you might want to can it with the get up to speed crap. Unfortunately most of the programs that I've designed and put to the field can't be talked about in these forums [for the case in point] but the examples you sight above are small fry my friend. In many cases when you're a successful engineer [such as myself] you work with these 'prorietary' vendors to help them develop their code to support you're customers needs [I'm the middle guy in this case]. Why you ask would I do that, because OSS isn't accepted by the big paying population - READ UP BUDDY. By working with the vendors I can have the applications enhanced [in many cases working the coding mods side by side with them myself] and in the end a supported solution [by the original vendor] that can safely be sold to the customer.

Firstly we don't run anything [corporate or otherwise] without rigorously testing it. Every production cycle has a development cycle first.

I've not found Solaris to be unsecure [when properly secured first], and we run it on the world's highest level classified systems [it passes the highest Government security standards]

I've not found it to be unreliable [has to be one of the best in industry [reason that we have the linux cast off in the first place (its UNIX foundation)

I've not had problems with SUN Microsystems support - EVER. As a matter of fact my last Principle UNIX Systems Administrator that I hired was done so from Sun Microsystems.

And I've never had issues with vendors being dishonest people.

I'm curious apo how do you feel you've been wronged personally?

I'm personally very happy as are our customers with solutions that are being built on UNIX and W2K platforms. Heck even my home systems run XP and I don't have any issues with them.

I most definitely use the windows update site [no I don't have the auto update enabled or would I recommmend that to people] and I realize that I'm patching proprietary SW with it - this was more focused to my earlier discussion of the enterprise applications that we use and deploy as solutions to our customers. No we don't download, build, or patch over the internet everything is built and patched from CD. We recieve email that updates are on the way.

I do get very tired of the proprietary is just awful awful awful and all is good with the world of OSS. If this were true then we wouldn't be using proprietary SW today just as I would imagine KaceyR you wouldn't have Microsoft SW loaded on your home computer either.

Let's give credit where its due, stop the bad mouthing, and move on.

The world of our beloved SW vendors is very secure I'm sure...

That was a sad excuse for an attempt to dodge my points. Try addressing what I said, rather than simply dismissing them with some sort of irrelevant declaration of your supposedly broad knowledge of the subject. You painted a picture for us of open source software as incapable of enduring, as unlikely to be here in a few days' time, et cetera. I pointed out where you had that backwards.

Then, you try this dodge of the subject.

Exactly my point. If you bought into enterprise support contracts, you'd be getting support similar in concept to that provided by Sun, or Microsoft, or IBM (who, by the way, also provides enterprise support for open source software). It does not move "from the traditional OSS model", though. The OSS model is one of distributed software development, not of support contracts. The Linux kernel is an open source project, and it is supported by a number of very successful corporations.

The main difference is that, unlike something like Solaris or Windows, there's more than one source for support that includes the deepest possible knowledge of the software package(s) in question. You'll actually probably end up with better enterprise support for open source software than with closed source software, if you are willing to shop around.

There isn't a single thing you've said here that actually addresses anything I've said. You seem to be trying to build straw-man arguments. Have fun with that.

"Microsoft still comes out on top as the more stable and more reliable product vendor."

This HAS to be a troll. Nobody is that stupid.

If you've operated in the commercial software world long enough with no experience with the open source model, you'll probably develop some habits of thought processes that don't track with open source software. Keep in mind that the quote you indicated refers to Microsoft as being a "more reliable . . . vendor" than the open source community.

That shows more of an assumption of similarity between Microsoft and the open source community in terms of product marketing and support. Such parallels are invalid, but the habit of thinking in those terms is one that is somewhat understandable for anyone that has been too locked into the commercial, proprietary, closed source vendor model of distribution. Because certain software platforms compete, people that are used to vendor association with products starts to think of the organization/community behind those software platforms as being competing vendors. Thus, such misconceptions arise.

The truth is that the open source community isn't ANY kind of vendor. Open source software doesn't need vendors, just as seawater doesn't need vendors. It's there: all you need is a cup in which to collect it.

People used to a vendor model of distribution are comfortable with vendors. They look at vendorless distribution and all that's there for them to point a finger at is the development community. Thus, they start pointing at the distributors as this chaotic aggregate of not visibly connected little handsful of people, and they say "Look! That doesn't look like a reliable vendor at all!" It's true: that doesn't look like a reliable vendor. It doesn't look like a vendor of any kind, but they don't get that far in reasoning because, upon realizing it doesn't look like a reliable vendor, they gloss over the possibility of looking at the wrong thing.

It's not stupidity -- it's misunderstanding.

To your point, Linux is not running any serious application. It is only popular with the technical folks and a case is always presented that it is free and cheap. I have known of a number of instances where companies following the fee and cheap model fell flat on their face. On the flip side, if Microsoft released a product and if it did have bugs we can look forward to a fix. Who the hell is answerable in the 'Open Source' market? In a nutshell it belongs to all and owned by none. You said it, Microsfot released a patch in 2 weeks is a testament to their commitements around their product. I am know Microsoft fan or follower but simply drawing comparisons between a succesful company is not in good taste.

I really don't care what you think.

I understand your passion for "Open Source", but that doesn't prove that Microsoft's model is flawed or is wrong.

Bottom line is it is still unreliable to look forward to a product which is owned by all and responsible for none.

How many times have you seen all the servers that you talk about being down for "Maintenance". Dah!! if that tells u something.

"How many times have you seen all the servers that you talk about being down for 'Maintenance'"

I don't even know what you're trying to say. I realize this must be due to some kind of language barrier. English, it would seem, is not your first language. I'd like for you to clarify what you're saying so that I can respond to it.

It has occurred to me that you might be trying to say something about the reliability of the open source servers to which I referred, but considering that your implicit assertion (if that's what you mean) is without any merit I think that you probably actually meant something else.

I just saw this article today and it adds even more information to this topic. Not sure how long the link will be good for..

The title of the article is
Linux Kernel Review Shows Far Fewer Flaws
By Dennis Fisher
December 14, 2004

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1741077,00.asp?kc=ewnws121504dtx1k0000599

That's another good article. Thanks for the link!

According to these numbers, by the way, the average commercial software package suffers something on the order of one hundred times as many flaws per thousand lines of code as the Linux kernel. I'm amused.

That shipped from Microsoft with a virus payload as part of the standard installation?

That made life interesting at our office where had a small group of business users pushing Win 95 as the standard clients, and the IT group pushing Win NT.....

Especially when the 95 client started doing DoS attacks (unintentionally of course) on all the Novell servers because of excessive SAP broadcasts in the way 95 did the master browser and the IPX/SPX stack ;)

I lived in Bolivia, SA for 3.5 years, and during the first two years, I noticed that EVERYONE was switching over to Microsoft products. Previously, you had mostly Word Perfect, Novell, etc...

Well, the reason for the switch was that Word Perfect and Novell were actively pursuing all software pirating there. Microsoft wasn't.

After gaining a large share of the pirating market, MS went in and started chasing down the piraters and going after all of the companies with the illegal copies of MS software.

At that time... retail prices of MS products were DOUBLE what the same software was selling for in the US. i.e. from my old spreadsheets ;) MS Office Standard purchased from the US and shipped to Bolivia was $475 fob, purchased from MS Argentina (via MS Select) the price was $895 (not quite double, but close).

MS W2k Server, Bolivian Price $2143, US price, $1372.

This is in a country that is considered one of the poorest in the Western Hemisphere (average FAMILY monthly income = ~$100).

MS uses piracy to establish market share, then they come in and charge outrageous prices to gain significant profits.

Examine your own statements. Individuals and businesses in Bolivia switched (your word) from Word Perfect and Novell to Microsoft.

That means that they either purchased the Word Perfect / Novell software or, as you imply, they pirated it.

It stands to reason that Word Perfect and Novell were pursuing the pirates because they were losing money. Microsoft wasn't involved because they weren't the ones losing money.

Suddenly, the pirates realized that Word Perfect and Novell were getting "too close", so they switched to Microsoft products. Now Microsoft started losing money in the region and their own marketing people saw companies running Microsoft products that had been pirated. The Microsoft response? Start pursuing the pirates. Just like Word Perfect and Novell.

As for the price difference, I've seen Microsoft product prices vary that much from vendor to vender just here in the United States. That a foreign country has a high price tag is no surprise. Shop around or, better yet, contact Microsoft directly and work out a purchase/support/upgrade agreement.

If that's not to your liking, turn to Open Source Software (whew! I thought I'd never get this back on topic). There are OS's, complete office software, management utilities, collaboration tools, etc. available at little or no cost.

What your really stating is a concern for product tampering. Although a number of post have stated what to do to "guarentee" that what you are downloading is not "hacked", the reality is that most people don't bother or do not think it will happen to them.

This is the same issue face by many industries. See link (http://www.facsnet.org/tools/ref_tutor/tampering/prolif.php3).

The fact of the matter is this is the world we live in. Your best (and only) solution is, buyer beware(...or live in a hole)!

Is what you should really be titling your argument. Well, when you get the compiled open source from a software repository of the distro itself, it's pretty much a tried and true rendition. I use Ubuntu 6.06 LTS, and have yet to have anything they place in their repositories fail. Is their product perfect ? No more, no less than what Microsoft puts out as software updates. I've actually witnessed more software update failures from a Microsoft WGA certified system than I have seen with Ubunti 6.06 LTS just in the past 75 days I've bene using both Ubuntu and Windows XP.

Ok, I want the code or compiled tarball from Gnome, Mozilla or whoever else. So where do I get it from ? The .org itself. Never had a single problem with those either.

So what is my point, fwiw, open source has had holes patched thru updates, just as Microsoft or Apple has patched with their updates. Sue Microsoft or Apple, that would have to be a class action thing. So if I or anyone else loses their data due to their or a third party software, I have no assurances I will prevail, they will give a darn about the issue, even fix it. So your point regarding assurances because I paid for something is baseless.

In this world, just because you pay for something doesn't guarantee satisfaction. We've spent 10's-100's of billions already to rebuild Iraq to Haliburton. Take a good look @ Iraq, there isn't a heck of a lot to show for that money. Maybe we as taxpayers should sue Haliburton ? Well, after a government audit, there seems to be a lot of money that remains unaccountable. Same thing holds true for software companies. Sue Microsoft and Apple if you can, I can't imagine much coming of it. So in that regard, open source is just as good, only I didn't pay for it.

Open Source has come a long way, why pay for proprietary when the Open Source is readily available and every bit as good ? I don't use Windows anymore, Windows XP and 2000 Pro have had 3 denials of service since 2001 on my systems from internet issues. That same time period, Linux, whatever distro I was using as preferred, not a single denial of service. I used Windows Office the other day @ work, MS Access and Excel both crashed. Open Office has yet to crash on me. So I guess because my employer paid for MS Office, it's better ?

"Open source is good but not unless it is owned and supported."

Oh really???

What about the Alphabet? It is very much open source. But according to You the Alphabet would ve good only if it was owned and supported.

Well, the alphabet is such a good product, that it does need very little, if any support.

You should broaden Your perspectives!