Microsoft has released code for inclusion in the Linux kernel, but should it be accepted? Linus Torvalds gives his perspective. Check at http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7439/
PHP 6, the next major revision of the popular Web application development language, looms on the horizon and promises many changes. Learn what’s new and what’s obsolete and how to prepare your code for tomorrow. Check at http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7433/
After Mircosoft, now it is the turn of Adobe, another big name of software industry to adopt open source. How, check at http://www.ddj.com/linux-open-source/218501532?cid=RSSfeed_DDJ_All
So, now its turn of big daddy of software industry i.e. Microsoft to contribute to linux community. How? Check at http://www.ddj.com/linux-open-source/218501538?cid=RSSfeed_DDJ_All
First thing first, I am not a specialist on the subject who can give an opinion. However, during some work, some questions struck me, so I thought why not to blog them. I think, there are some points that require some comprehensive discussion from different perspectives in the community, whenever open source is talked about.
So, what we actually mean, when we use the term “open source”. Is it…
- a philosophy pitted against proprietary software?
- another model of software development like waterfall etc.? or
- just a piece of software of a specific functionality?
Importantly, what does it mean from an end-user’s point of view? How can it benefit them? Another perspective is from developer’s point of view and both are quite different from each other.
As a philosophy, open source often refers proprietary software as unethical, hence say completely no to them. I think this mindset has some political and social motivation. However, this is not the place to talk about these aspects. But, concepts like software evolution, no vendor lock-in, cost reduction etc. are worth to make a note, no doubt.
From a developer’s point of view, I think, open source can be regarded one another way for software development. Although, quite often, “open source” and “open source software” are used interchangibly. But, I think, they are quite different having certain meaning associated with each of them. “Open Source” stands for a certain way of software development. It offers a new methodology for developing software that is quite different form traditional way of development. Through community based collaborative development with consistent bug-tracking & fixing and effective version control, a software evolves with time into a reliable and stable system of good quality. However, it requires some pre-existing piece of software, in whatever form. This gives us the notion a software requires to be developed in a closed group somewhere during its development cycle. So, can we say open source and closed source (so called properietary ones) complement each other? Don’t know. Possibly no specific answer for it.
On the other hand, whenever we refer the term “Open Source Software”, we are referring to a particular piece of software of a specific functionality whose source has been opened to the community to access, modify or redistribute it under some license (chosen from a long list otherwise a new one recognized by OSI/FSF). Another commonly used term is “Free Software” which is often used by FSF.
I think, for a end-user, it doesn’t matter whether a software is open source or proprietary one as long as it serves his/her purpose, performs stably, and is available on some reasonable cost, if not free (of cost).
So, these are my thoughts. If something to comment, go for it.