"Why should I switch to open source, while XYZ is so much better?!"

Discussion
1

So, some people may be on the fence about moving to open source software, especially open source operating systems. Sometimes even downright hostile to the idea.

I’m going to talk about the hostile crowd. They may provide arguments such as:

  • OSS is of less quality than proprietary software.
  • OSS operating systems are insecure because the source is out there.
  • I’m using specialized software X, there exist no alternatives for the software I use.
  • My software is unsupported by hardware vendor X.
  • The OSS OS is inferior, because proprietary OS X is more consistent.
  • My computer already came with an OS, why would I install an OSS OS?

OSS is of less quality than proprietary software.
Open Source Software is usually created by people who use said software themselves, so they have a vested interest in the software being usable. If the creator is a company, they also have a vested interest of it meeting a certain quality standard, as somebody may just run off with the source code if they are not happy with the maintainer. This because the entire source is out there for the entire world to see. This also lowers the bar to contribution to contribute significantly.

Also: what if the original creator were to die or the company creating the software were to go bust? With open source, at least the source code is out there for anyone to pick up and continue the work on. With proprietary software, this often means the death of the piece of software. Proprietary software manufacturers going out of business can result in some downright dangerous situations. Examples are networked industrial devices of which the manufacturer has gone out of business, which manages a chemical factory - this is no uncommon situation.

OSS operating systems are insecure because the source is out there.
With proprietary operating systems, you don’t have access to the source code. This does not mean the proprietary solution is more secure. Worse. Proprietary software creates no incentive to code with security in mind, as the source code is hidden from prying eyes.

Contrary to this, OSS operating systems have the source code visible for all to see.

Ok, so what about the recent XZ vulnerability? It was found by somebody noticing some strange behavior. The person was able to investigate the source code, allowing for the backdoor to be found quite quickly, resulting in a quick response from the community. This would not be possible with proprietary software, or at least considerably more difficult to expose, giving the culprit more time to do harm.

Thus, OSS is more secure simply because all it takes is one person to become curious to find a vulnerability. The source code is out there, hence investigating an issue is much easier.

I’m using specialized software X, there exist no alternatives for the software I use.
Movie studios are using open source 3D modelling software, there’s open source pay-rolling software out there (a pretty specific market, where the rules change constantly), there’s multiple distribution with multimedia in mind, there’s specific OSS for authors of books (a very niche market), and so on. Tell me the type of software you’re looking for, and I’ll find it for you.

The software is of significant quality because it’s usually maintained by people who have to use it themselves.

On top of that, the OSS you use usually follows the standards specification(s) to the letter, allowing the user to move to other, competing, software with (relative) ease. This is usually not the case with proprietary software. There’s usually a situation of vendor lock-in, which (often) allows the vendor to ask insane amounts of money for a piece of software which isn’t that much worth the money.

My OS is unsupported by hardware vendor X.
It’s your freedom at stake. Freedom of choice is being taken away from you by hardware vendor X. While it might seem easier to just go with the flow, it’s suggested to write the vendor saying you won’t use their hardware anymore, unless they provide a solution to your problem. If enough people do this, they could get concerned about their clients abandoning them and start providing support for your open source OS.

The OSS OS is inferior, because proprietary OS X is more consistent.
While for OSS OS’ there’s a variety of GUI, this tends to result in one piece of software being written with one GUI in mind, while the next has been written with another GUI in mind. Then one developer has a different idea about GUI than another. However, the variety in GUI tends to result in that there’s a cup of tea for everybody.

My computer already came with an OS, why would I install an OSS OS?
This is arguably the hardest one. The popular OS’ (MacOS and Windows) do some pretty nefarious things.

  • They both spy on their users.
    Both Apple and Microsoft collect a lot of data on their users, some of which you might not be comfortable with at all.
  • They require an online account for certain functionality.
    Things like logging into the OS, and making certain applications not function (properly) when not logged into your account with the OS vendor. That’s right, Apple and Microsoft can lock you out of your OS if they want to.
  • Microsoft specific: Windows tends to collect a lot of cruft over time. The cruft makes your computer slower and slower as time passes. There exist software to manage this, but as Microsoft does not specify exactly what everything does and other software vendors tend to do the same, you can never know whether cleaning out your OS will actually damage certain software or the OS as a whole.
  • After a while Microsoft and Apple stop supporting their OS for certain hardware and an upgrade requires buying new hardware. This is not just more expensive than it need be, but it’s also irresponsible to the environment.

OSS OS’ simply don’t have all these issues. Certainly, there are other issues for the end-users, but they are nowhere near as severe as the issues mentioned above.

Yes, computer components tend to wear (SSDs, clock battery, come to mind here), but these are usually easy to replace, extending the lifetime of the hardware and decreasing the depreciation (f.e. from €200 a year to €150 a year).

What are some of the issues faced with OSS, which matter to an organization?

  • Licensing: what does the license require of me?
  • Timely addressing of issues.
  • Documentation: this needs to be thorough.
  • Training: people need to be trained in something they’re not used to.
  • Support: which trustworthy source can they call with their support requests?

These issues are usually resolved by hiring another organization to do the support work or, given the organization is large enough and can afford to do so, do it in-house by dedicating a department to support.

I know I’m preaching to the choir. However, if some of you might find it difficult to convince someone to move to OSS, which simply is the responsible thing to do, this might be useful.

4 Likes
2

That bothers me more than any of the other points.
An “account” is a way of collecting data without saying what the data are to be used for.
It is extremely annoying to be forced to login to an account, when all you want to do is operate your OS.

5 Likes
3

So, there are several ethical reasons to switch to FLOSS for the home desktop.

  1. It’s a community product.
  2. It keeps your privacy in mind.
  3. By the simple act of using FLOSS, you’re making a statement that you support – even if a little bit – the community product. You’re bound to talk with others about the software’s pros and cons. You might give someone else an idea to also use FLOSS or even contribute to it.
  4. Even a small question or remark about the FLOSS you’re using in some community, sends a signal: I use this software. This encourages the developer – no matter how small – to keep working on it.
  5. It sends a signal to proprietary software companies that their restrictive EULAs are not appropriate. BTW: a huge chunk of what’s in these EULAs is not enforceable in many territories.
  6. You are guaranteed FLOSS does not spy on you. If you think you don’t have anything to hide, think again. Privacy is not about what you think you have to hide, it’s about what they think you have to hide and what they think which laws you violate.
  7. You are guaranteed you own the full intellectual property rights to your own creative works made with said software.
  8. Your creative works won’t be used by the FLOSS creator to train some AI.
  9. If you have an issue with FLOSS software, you can change or fix things yourself or get someone to do it for you, if you want to. You are not dependent on or need the permission of the FLOSS developer to make things to your liking. This creates a sense of freedom.
  10. You don’t pay in any way for the software. Many projects would appreciate a small monetary donation, though, but that is by no means a requirement.
  11. If you’re worried about support: most proprietary software comes with little or no support at all, unless you are willing to pay €€€ on a monthly basis. When you need support for FLOSS, there’s often a myriad of options available (forums, irc, mailing lists, etc.). The most popular desktop projects often have good documentation available (however, unfortunately there are also some which do an abysmal job at it (looking at you KDE, Cinnamon, and GNOME)). Some projects have paid support tiers, which basically means your issues and support requests get priority.
  12. There’s a good chance FLOSS gets translated into multiple languages, and not just only the most popular ones, but also less often used languages (Urdu and Afrikaans, for example). Only the most prolific proprietary software gets translated in a lot of languages, most proprietary software is distributed in one language, and occasionally in five languages.
  13. By using FLOSS, you are basically saying: “I support healthy competition in the software world.” If one developer - be it a corporation, or a single person - messes up, a competitor can take over and compete on actual merrit. Thus the contributors need to compete on quality, as opposed to how many people they succeed in making dependent on them.

So, how can you support a FLOSS project when you’re not a coder?

  • You could ask support questions. This makes the community think about their project. Your question can result in the maintainers of the project realizing a certain change or fix is needed.
  • You could chase down bugs, or try to reproduce them.
  • You could help out with the translation effort.
  • You could help out with documentation.
  • You could use your knowledge of the application to help others with the application.
  • You could check translations and documentation.
  • You could do advocacy for the project. An example of this is demonstrate said software’s capabilities at conventions and such.
  • You could write tutorials.
  • You could create public content specific to the application.
  • You could write a review.
  • You could be a moderator in their community forums (of course, this only applies when you’re well known and respected in their community).
  • You could help out with art for the GUI.
  • You could test the software.
  • You could donate some money (doesn’t need to be much, but more is always appreciated).
  • You could offer to help out with administration (financial, taxes, insurances, etc.). Many projects would be very happy with financial person to help them out.
  • Provide legal support (in case you have a profession in the legal sector).
  • You could provide training for the FLOSS. You could maybe even get paid to do so.
  • You could install and maintain FLOSS installs for people who are insecure or incapable of doing so on their own (of course, with permission). This could go as far as installing entire OSs to just installing LibreOffice and/or Firefox.

There’s probably more I forgot about.

2 Likes
4

These acronyms… FLOSS, FOSS, OSS are getting confusing.

One more point on helping

If you use FOSS for any public activity, eg writing a paper or a report, you should acknowledge it.

and one more advantage

If you use open source software the way it was meant to be used ( ie in an investigative manner) you might learn something and you might experience some mental stimulation.
It is possible to use Linux like a robot, but that is not the way it is intended to be used, and the above benefits will not flow from such use.

1 Like
5

An interesting account of the psychology of Linux use

1 Like