Closed Source and Open Source: Can they co-exist? (1 Viewer)

[reclusivemonkey]

Well no one here is dumb enough to be on the side of "Intelligent Design", so I'll try another one here. I reckon I'll have to fight this one myself though ;-)

Not a question of which is better, although that's bound to crop up. The question is, can they co-exist? Or is one doomed to extinction? Discuss.

 

[ShaneMan]

Well no one here is dumb enough to be on the side of "Intelligent Design", so I'll try another one here. I reckon I'll have to fight this one myself though ;-)

Not a question of which is better, although that's bound to crop up. The question is, can they co-exist? Or is one doomed to extinction? Discuss.

Not too interested in answering your poll but was just curious. Is everyone that does not agree with you "dumb"?

 

[reclusivemonkey]

No. Dumb is taking a clear statement like;

Well no one here is dumb enough to be on the side of "Intelligent Design",

and then changing it to

Is everyone that does not agree with you "dumb"?

Especially when you have nothing to contribute, either about Intelligent Design, or the post in this thread. Just in case you are wondering, yes, anyone who believes that "Intelligent Design" is scientific theory (which was the point of the thread), is dumb. I'm not saying you are dumb, but what you just posted was.

 

[ShaneMan]

No. Dumb is taking a clear statement like;



and then changing it to



Especially when you have nothing to contribute, either about Intelligent Design, or the post in this thread. Just in case you are wondering, yes, anyone who believes that "Intelligent Design" is scientific theory (which was the point of the thread), is dumb. I'm not saying you are dumb, but what you just posted was.

Ok, I guess I'm clear on this now. I did a dumb thing by changing a clear statement. I did a dumb thing by adding my comments(not my viewpoint) on your statement of anyone who believes "Intelligent Design" scientific theory is dumb. I did a dumb thing by assuming that anyone who does not agree with you is dumb. I guess just to pile on, I do believe God created so I guess all of the above makes me real dumb. I got it!

 

[reclusivemonkey]

Ok, I guess I'm clear on this now.

Not quite. I'll expand.

I do believe God created so I guess all of the above makes me real dumb. I got it!

No. Believing that God created the Universe is not dumb. It is simply your faith. The notion of Intelligent Design, i.e. the fact that the Universe is complicated, and therefore must of been created by God, is dumb (especially when the underpinning argument of the whole thing has been disproved, scientifically, which is the method by which Intelligent Design presents itself). Religion is not Science, Science is not Religion. Science does not threaten anyone who was real faith, as the two are entirely different things. This is why objectivity is important in discussion. You've assumed I have said believing in God is dumb, which of course is not the case.

 

[selenau837]

I recently learned the difference in open source and closed source in my prgramming classes. As for if they can co-exist, I do not know.

From my understanding I dont' see how they can co-exist in the same application. Why would someone who would create a closed source program have segments of it open sources for you to change at will. To me that doesn't make sense, nor does it seem safe since they could potentielly mess up something that affects the closed source portion.

So, I gues with my limited knowledge I would say no. I would love to hear more opinions on this however. I am still learning and open to ideas.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

From my understanding I dont' see how they can co-exist in the same application. Why would someone who would create a closed source program have segments of it open sources for you to change at will. To me that doesn't make sense, nor does it seem safe since they could potentielly mess up something that affects the closed source portion.

Hi Selena, I should of been a little clearer really. I mean in the software world at large. However, I would like to address some of the points you make if I may.

All programs start off as "open source". Programmers write computer code. This is then compiled into code that the computer can understand (binaries). So, when a closed source program is distributed, it is compiled, so you cannot read the code. You can get the source back from the binary, but its rather difficult. So a closed source program which may include open source code, still wouldn't have that available for anyone to change. Not to mention that under most open source licencing, you cannot include the code in a closed source program, but must leave the code open to inspection. That's not a great explanation, but I hope it makes it a little clearer. I can give you many more helpful links if you are interested.

My thinking is that open source is superior, and will eventually outpace closed source code, which will wither and die . Now I'm off to put my tin foil hat on...

 

[FoFa]

If by Open Source, you mean global development (public domain) and closed source you mean not in the public domain, then..
We use both. How ever most of our "stuff" is closed source. Oracle, Sql server, MSAccess (itself), MS Server, HP Unix. But we run Linux and I run FireFox and Gimp. But the main reason we run closed source in house designed stuff is because there is no equivilant in the Open Source community. Plus we would not make it open source because it gives us an advantage over our competitors in some areas. Why would we open that up to them?

 

[selenau837]

Hi Selena, I should of been a little clearer really. I mean in the software world at large. However, I would like to address some of the points you make if I may.

All programs start off as "open source". Programmers write computer code. This is then compiled into code that the computer can understand (binaries). So, when a closed source program is distributed, it is compiled, so you cannot read the code. You can get the source back from the binary, but its rather difficult. So a closed source program which may include open source code, still wouldn't have that available for anyone to change. Not to mention that under most open source licencing, you cannot include the code in a closed source program, but must leave the code open to inspection. That's not a great explanation, but I hope it makes it a little clearer. I can give you many more helpful links if you are interested.

My thinking is that open source is superior, and will eventually outpace closed source code, which will wither and die . Now I'm off to put my tin foil hat on...

I guess I was confusing closed source with propriatry source code.

So would you say that closed source, in your explanation, is the same as encapsulation? Hidding it from the user, however if the user so desired they can change it?

Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[reclusivemonkey]

If by Open Source, you mean global development (public domain) and closed source you mean not in the public domain, then..

There are many licences, it is confusing to me and I am an ethusiast! I put it the way I did to try and simplify the matter (not to insult anyone, not everyone understands it, you clearly do ). I basically mean on the one hand you have something which anyone can participate in, and on the other hand you have something only a handful of people can work on. Yes, thats an oversimplification, but it helps with my next point!

But the main reason we run closed source in house designed stuff is because there is no equivilant in the Open Source community. Plus we would not make it open source because it gives us an advantage over our competitors in some areas. Why would we open that up to them?

Yep, totally understand where you are coming from, and I wouldn't disagree. However I am thinking longer term; evolutionary if you will. I can't offer fact and figures, because its a prediction of mine, and pure opinion/speculation. Bear with me;

1. I believe software is entirely different to anything else produced by mankind; no existing models/theory fit in.

2. The potential numbers of people that can contribute to open source far outweight the numbers of people who can contribute to closed source (for simple logistical reasons; you have to have a control environment for the closed source).

3. Change. One thing you can guarantee on! I believe we are yet to have our "technological revolution" that we have had in agriculture/industry. I believe open source is it. Not quickly or dramatically, but over a long period of time.

Not much to back it up, but its Friday afternoon here at work ;-) I may be able to come up with something a little better when I get home.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

So would you say that closed source, in your explanation, is the same as encapsulation? Hidding it from the user, however if the user so desired they can change it?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I will give an example of what I mean. When I download an open source program, I get that. I get all the code used to create that program, I get what the programmer (or team of programmers) has in front of them when they are developing it. If I was able to, I could take that code, and make any ammendments I wanted (providing I stuck by the licensing agreement). I compile it myself, then I have the end result.

When I download a closed source program, I don't have the code. I can't make any changes, I can't even look at the code. It is "closed" to me.

If by "hidden", you mean that the source is still there, and I could look at it and change it, I would consider this "open source", although there are many variations of licences, I am simplifying it for my point.

 

[FoFa]

I think we are all in the same ball park here. And I think where you might be headed...
Lets take Web Services (of which I am not an expert) as an example. A piece of code (web service) can be written (closed source) that can be placed in an open library that others can use. The source maynot be visible, but I could call this web service in my program to perform some function/s. From a business point of view it could allow you to use your order processing program to order my items, and send the PO request to my system. Or it might allow you to invoice me on your AR system, but send the data to MY AP system when you do it (rather than the whole scheduled transfer data via EDI as an example or snail mail it or fax it etc.). It would be like my system is part of your system (or the other way around). But I would not want to make the source available in this case. So I guess the real question becomes, if you have the functionality (shared programs) do you care the source is exposed or not? Then on the other hand with anything like this, there would end up being so much, you can never find what you want anyway

 

[reclusivemonkey]

I can see what people are saying here. My opinion is that whatever closed source applications exist, an open source application is bound to be written. As open source has a greater potential for people to contribute, eventually closed source simply won't be able to compete, and the open source solutions will outpace anything else. Not a very solid theory I know, but it will be interesting for me to watch as I grow old Its not so much a case of the two being incompatible; more that one model seems alien to the arena its in to me. So I guess my answer is really "Yes they can, but will one kill off the other?" I guess only time will tell really.

 

[Kodo]

Here's a laugh for you guys. My boss was in a meeting today and the client asked how good MySQL is. My boss tells him that it's just a bit better than MS Access. HAHAHAHH!!! I am going to quit this job soon because I hate liars..

 

[FoFa]

Here's a laugh for you guys. My boss was in a meeting today and the client asked how good MySQL is. My boss tells him that it's just a bit better than MS Access. HAHAHAHH!!!

Well, it is quite a bit better than MSAccess as a database.
It sucks compared to MSAccess as a application platform.
So depending on how much weight you put behind each one, the average could be a bit better than MSAccess.

 

[Kodo]

They're not even in the same ball-park. MySQL is not a portable database like MS Access is. MySQL is a database server and is more like MSSQL than MSAccess. MySQL 5 supports triggers and sprocs now... it's superior to Access with regards to functionality, But you can tell me how vBulletin thinks it like MS Access some other time. I'm still laughing at the outright lie while thumbing through monster.com and careerbuilder looking for a new job.

 

[RV]

They're not even in the same ball-park

Agreed.

MySQL is not a portable database like MS Access is

Not agreed.
I wouldn't even dare calling Access a database

RV

 

[jsanders]

Agreed.



Not agreed.
I wouldn't even dare calling Access a database

RV

Really?
What would you call it then?

 

[The Stoat]

1. I believe software is entirely different to anything else produced by mankind; no existing models/theory fit in.

I tend to disagree on this point. Programmes fit the evolutionary model almost perfectly.

Example.

A programme is written to do a task. In order for it to work it requires an environment. The environment is in two forms. Firstly the computer platform i.e. the motherboard, processor, memory. Call this the internal environment. Secondly the environment for which it was designed to facilitate or provide a service for i.e. the business. Call this the external environment. The internal and external environments are inter-dependant. Changes in either environment will affect the other. This in essence is an ecosystem. The programme is an animal within the eco-system. As the ecosystem changes the programme may need to change. Those programmes that need to change and are unable to do so will die those that can may evolve into a new form. Other forms will appear through mutations of the pool of programmes as they interbreed. The eco-system has predators i.e. hackers and viruses. It has competition i.e. other programmes that do the same job. All of which exert evolutionary pressures upon the programme. Natural selection.
The programme even has an immune system i.e. the programmer and other supporting software like a virus scanner.

Open source and closed sources programmes employ different survival stratergies. Open source relies on it's percieved low cost and ability to be modified to suit niches in the eco-system. Closed source is often perceived as more secure and tends - not always - to have the benefit of money behind it to allowing it to survive in harsh climates. Open source by it's nature is more accessible to threats, like an animal with it's DNA on display. However it is able to make use of a widely distributed immune system. Closed source is percieved as more secure but once breached the immune system may take more time to react to the threat.

They also inhabit different ecological niches meaning competition for resources - i.e. money, programmers, hardware etc will vary and not necessarily conflict.

Open source tends to be used by specialists - i'm thinking here of the popularity - or lack of - for open source operating systems for home computers. Home computers by and large use close source operating systems If the niches within the eco-systems overlap or interact there will be competition between the programmes that inhabit them. Networks for example. This additional evolutionary pressure will create evolutions or extinctions within the two populations. In all the years that open and closed source programmes have been competing they both have survived. I can't see an eco-system evolving in which their will be no place for both.

TS

 

[reclusivemonkey]

I tend to disagree on this point. Programmes fit the evolutionary model almost perfectly.

Not quite. Evolution isn't done by design but by a random process. Software is explicitly designed, so its fundamentally different. Unless of course you believe in "Intelligent Design" of course ;-) Nice analogy, but according to the Socratic principal, I just cannot agree with it at all.

Open source tends to be used by specialists - i'm thinking here of the popularity - or lack of - for open source operating systems for home computers. Home computers by and large use close source operating systems

This is true of course. However, there are two points I would like to make;

1. Change. This is the only "guaranteed" in life. Simply because we have a state of affairs now, its not the case that it will always be so. There is more change in technology than in any other field I know of.

2. Monopoly. Most home users have closed source operating systems because of Microsoft's monopoly. Once this monopoly goes (which I assure you it will; all great empires fall), then we will obviously see change. What that will be I am not sure of, but things will by definition be different. This reinforces my first point as well; nowhere in nature do we have a monopoly; it is not a "natural" state of affairs.

Very interesting points however, thanks for posting. Personally though, I disagree