Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> The thing that's superior about OSS over proprietary is that because the 
> code is released, *if* you have the skills, you can fix it yourself.  
> I'll grant that's a big "if".

  There are other advantages too, mainly related to trustworthiness.
Because the source code is open for anyone to examine, it's less likely
that it will contain undocumented parts which do something the user might
not want it to do, such as compromising his privacy without his consent.
Some proprietary software have got into big controversies because of "phoning
home" without the user's consent or knowledge. OSS is enormously less likely
to contain this kind of code because it's so much easier for people to notice.

  Another advantage is that OSS is often developed by several independent
parties which are not driving their own personal gain with the project,
something that is the rule with proprietary commercial software. OSS is
user-oriented, doing what benefits the users the most. The primary goal
of proprietary software is to benefit the company the most. In some cases
this means putting features and restrictions which benefit the company at
the cost of the users. This is the more likely the more of a monopoly
status the company has. (Think of draconian DRM measures, for instance.
Users don't want nor benefit from DRM, only companies benefit from it,
but users have to swallow DRM because of big company monopolies. This would
*never* happen with OSS.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message