Closed vs Open Source as Fast As Possible





Is open source they way of the future for software?

lynda.com message: Sign up for your 10-day FREE trial at http://lynda.com/techquickie

Follow us: http://twitter.com/linustech

Join our community forum: http://linustechtips.com

source

36 thoughts on “Closed vs Open Source as Fast As Possible

  • My first taste of Open Source was VLC Media Player that many years ago on Windows XP and shortly after i was introduced to Linux and the rest is history.

    To me open source makes complete sense because instead of having a limited number of people who can view source code to work out bugs, problems, improve programs etc (closed source is limited in viewing stuff). I can take part in the community of Open Source so everyone get's to see the source code, and in turn the bugs are fixed quicker, people can contribute better features, add more things, support programs better, share ideas and help each other with problems.

    One of the biggest reasons i love Open Source (Especially linux) is if i see a problem that needs fixing and i know how to fix it i can do it myself to improve the program i can then share the fix with the community and if my fix helps everyone it may then be added to the official source code and it makes me feel good for contributing.

    Open Source for the win 🙂

  • DONT FORGET that proprietary companies LOVE to use the word free, they always say "Sure our software is free"…
    But they dont tell you that you have to read the fine prinnt, and that their term of free is that its a "Free Trial" "Free to Try" ..
    unlike Open Source, that is actually free for people to use. Its a bit hard what I am trying to convey in a text on youtube….LOL
    But basically over the years of my life I have bumped into many companies, websites etc etc that say "ooh ya our software is free." MANY download sites also say this as well.
    when its actually not. People need to be very very very careful when they hear or see the word Free…… If no where on the site says Open Source, then most likely its really not free
    but actually its "Free To Try" or Trial Ware." also many software seems to be free, you install it and it feels free and seems free, then out of know where 2 weeks later, 1 month later
    Whaaam…. you get hit with the "You have to pay for this software"…..LOL – So dont just download software JUST because it says its free, because it just might be Trialware or maybe
    even a little trojan , worm or keylo9gger hidden inside waiting for gullible people to freely and stupidly download their shitty ass software…..LOL

  • This is a terrible description of open and closed source software. There are plenty of free closed source software like faststone for example.

  • I dont think he should have generalized Free Software and Open Source Software together, because the idea behind the use of one or another is often pretty important…

  • Your explanation is wrong. I will mention two very clear errors:

    1) Neither "Free Software" as defined by the Free Software Foundation nor Open Source as defined by the Open Source Initiative require the software to be free of charge. On the contrary, both explicitly state that commercialization / sale is a right which cannot be taken – if you were forbidden to sell it, it would be neither Free Software nor Open Source.

    There are well-known examples of open-source software which is sold. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is one such example.

    Of course, the problem is that once you sell it once, you cannot possibly prevent the buyer from offering it for free. Red Hat works around it by keeping the code open-source but their binaries proprietary. You can recompile all of it and distribute it for free to others, sure, and that's what Scientific Linux and CentOS do, but you would not have Red Hat's brandies and warranties.

    2) "Closed-source" is not the opposite of "Open Source". That happens because Open Source is a formal definition with 10 requirements. Closed source however is an informal expression which can mean anything and at face value could mean just that the code is not available. So you could have something which is not closed source (because the code is available somehow) but also not Open Source (because it does not allow modification or redistribution without permission).

  • I believe everything should be Open Source, besides military software. Because when something is open source, the public then can contribute to the project to make it better and better. It's the reason why the Android and Linux Operating systems have come so far so fast. And why Mac and iOS has been the same for years because Apple doesn't believe in open source.

  • "On a copy of Microsoft Office you paid for?!?!" Paid my arse. I use Office Mobile. For some reason, that was the version of office my laptop came with.

  • oh and I had such high hopes for the video. GPL is nothing more than a cleverly hidden proprietary license. If anyone were to read their own Creed you can see they hate commercial software. They hate any company that would make money from selling or licensing software and they put more restrictions in their GPL license then some proprietary licenses do.

    If an organization truly believes in the OSS model and wants their code to be actually free in both senses then they release it Apache or BSD. It's easy to tell the people that work for a living vs. ones that don't by the license they pick.

Comments are closed.