Progress drives Linux, greed drives Windows Vista
By Matt Jansen
MIT just announced that it will offer a new class focused on building mobile applications for the Linux-based Google Android. The class is already full and is a small example of how students believe open source is making progress in the mobile industry.
“The class, which at least 50 students tried to enroll in, is being offered to students in the computer science major at MIT and is designed to give them an early edge in what could soon become a dominant platform among cell phone operating systems,” according to the Boston Business Journal.
That’s a show of support from upcoming developers who believe in the open source business model, which typically makes software available freely and charges for ongoing custom support.
The question becomes, which type of driver creates a better product? Microsoft claims in its Meeting the Linux Challenge guide for partners that the commercial software model “. . . supports innovation because of the financial incentives to create new innovative software solutions.”
Furthermore, Microsoft explains that “commercial software developers limit access to source code in order to protect their intellectual property investment.”
In contrast, the Open Source Initiative lists 10 requirements of any software seeking to be considered open source, including free redistribution, source code, and integrity of author’s source code.
The problem with this sort of closed door development is that it limits innovation by restricting perspective to a subset of highly compensated developers. Windows Vista’s misaligned set of features compared to customer expectations is an example of commercial development chafing at its limitations.
That’s partly why MIT is supporting its new Linux-based Google Android class, “one of the main reasons mobile development hasn’t crossed over from a specialty to a mainstream academic offering is that most operating systems are guarded by wireless carriers, and gaining the access to inner workings of these proprietary systems can be difficult” says Karen Donoghue from Tufts University.
Related:
Entry was posted
on Tuesday, January 29th, 2008 at 10:23 am
under
Read more entries by Matt Jansen.
Stumble It!
January 29th, 2008
I think all future technology development relies on open-source operating systems.
I erased Vista from my brand-new Sony Vaio, and I use ubuntu for quite a while now.
Thanks!
January 29th, 2008
To me the main problem is who owns the software. With a proprietary OS like Vista I’d have to pay for a license to use the software (kind of like “renting it” because it’ll never be truly mine). With open source, such as Linux, I could use it in perpetuity (forever) without any fear, or limitation (everybody owns it).
At this point, the price is completely irrelevant.
January 29th, 2008
Microsoft represents the “old” school of thought about software. Proprietary software business models have shown to be “out of touch” in regards to real user needs, besides lowering quality expectations for way too many people. The main driver in proprietary software is greed (make one product, sell it a million times). It’s in a way like pharmaceutical companies: if there’s no money on it, they won’t do it.
Lack of flexibility is another well known issue in proprietary software. The proprietary model doesn’t have any incentive to satisfy people needs, or provide good service, as long as people keep paying. It’s a pure monopolistic market model, even if it’s a small company.