Article about Open-Source that ran in my school newspaper

[Stupid Boy]

I was somewhat offended by an article that ran in my school's newspaper. I wanted to write a letter to the newspaper (which will almost definately be published because they're always desperate for those) about this, but I realized that it would be even better if I wrote it on behalf of JustLinux Forums. Here's a draft the article that the author gave me. If you quote from it, I'll fix the quotes from the actual article:

When students logged on to SHS computers for the first time this year, they were greeted by a strange sight: A bright orange fox jumping around the globe. Are the foxes planning to take over the world? Is it a sign from aliens? Are the kids from the elementary school down the road going to invade? In truth, the icon is for Firefox, an alternative to Microsoft’s Internet Explorer that was developed by the Mozilla foundation. Since its creation in September 2002, Firefox, an internet browser known as an “open-source” program, has spread through computers all over the world from company desktops to personal laptops. But what is open source software and why has it become so popular?

Most software, like Microsoft Windows, Internet Explorer, and Microsoft Office are created by a corporation for profit. These companies keep the basic code, known as the source code, secret so that other companies cannot copy the code and resell it. However, the open source model is very different. Instead of hiding the source code, open-source ideology dictates that the source code should be published so that any individual can modify it. Furthermore, executed and tested versions of the program, called “stable versions” are available for download on various websites. The idea behind open-source has even spread beyond software. Student who use the internet encyclopedia Wikipedia have already discovered one such extension. On Wikipedia, any user can create or modify an entry in the encyclopedia, making it more comprehensive.

This has clear advantages. “Because the source code is available to everyone, expert programmers are able to collaborate to make the program better.” said Computer Science teacher Doug Vermes. “They are able to find better ways to do things and create better enhancements. In addition, bugs get fixed more quickly.”

Specific programs have other advantages. “Firefox is easy to use, more secure, and has useful features, features, like opening many “tabs” of websites in a single window.” said Junior James Watters, a user who switched to Firefox after “spyware and viruses hijacked [his] Internet Explorer 6.” Because so many individuals are checking the source code for errors, they can detect more “bugs” and correct them, making the programs more stable than their commercial rivals. However, programs like Firefox are also effective against malicious internet programs, like viruses and spyware. Since Microsoft’s Internet Explorer is the most popular browser, many hackers choose to configure their malicious programs to attack Internet Explorer, but do not choose to attack Firefox or other programs, giving them partial immunity. But the what many consider the best part of these open-source programs is the cost, or lack thereof. All open-source programs are, by definition free.

However, releasing the source code of a program also is a weakness against viruses. “Because the code is available to the public, it is easier for hackers to find vulnerabilities in the program.” said Vermes, “But the nature of open source makes it easier to fix these problems.” Another problem with open-source programs is that there is no reliable group to turn to for technical support if something goes wrong. Some companies, like Red Hat, provide licensing. What these companies do is download a copy of the source code, debug it and sell a subscription. As long as users maintain their subscriptions, Red Hat will provide them with a copy of the program and give them free updates and technical support. However, this causes the programs to lose one of their most attractive advantages, their price.

So what is the future of open-source programming? “The licensing system is changing.” explained computer teacher Barbara Bierbauer. “In three to five years, purchasing and installing software will be different that it is now.” For some companies, like Microsoft, the threat of open-source software poses a serious threat. The only way to effectively compete is to improve to meet the level that open-source programs are at. According to computer teacher Greg Leong “I hope it will up the ante for commercial software for both groups.” Bierbauer explained how this will change the licensing system, “There will be timed licensing for specific software. For example, we buy licenses for software at SHS so we can use different software on a limited number of computers. Static licensing is static. With open source, you always get the most up to date version” With the new methods of the open-source movement, companies will be forced to constantly improve their software.

However, the real question is, who should be using open-source software? While open-source programs have many advantages, such as unique features, increased security, and decreased cost, they are not necessarily for the lay user. “Open source is designed for people with more technical knowledge. For the lay user, open source software is slightly more difficult to use than non-open source programs.” said Sophomore Sam Roth. “These programs were developed by and for people who want alternatives to the programs currently offered by other companies.” Many of the open-source programs are designed to perform functions that other programs cannot and are built for constant innovation, but many commercial programs are designed for an “end user,” the term used to describe a person who uses the final product of program development. Leong agreed “Open-source is not for the “average joe”, tweaking with peripherals (mouse, keyboard, printer, etc.) is harder and more time consuming with open-source.” However, the open-source movement may evolve to deal with these problems. If so, its advantages are great, and it is the wave of the future, for some individuals, like Watters, they choose open-source because “It’s the new internet thing.”Subbakrishna, Salil. “Open-Source Freeware.” The Maroon Oct. 2005: 9.

I would like to come up with some ideas in this thread, write a draft, post the draft here, and have the members of the forum help me revise it. After it is finished, I will send it to the newspaper. I will sign it with something like, "Thomas Levine on behalf of JustLinux Forums."

Just some background information:

The school's name is "Scarsdale High School" -- SHS.
We have Dells that run Windoze XP.
The computer department is really good.

Here are a few things to think about:


Firefox is not freeware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware).

Which "free" did he mean when he said that, "All open-source programs are, by definition free"?

"Another problem with open-source programs is that there is no reliable group to turn to for technical support if something goes wrong."

"What these companies do is download a copy of the source code, debug it and sell a subscription." I'm not sure about this. Is this a bit misleading? They create a whole new distro as well and sometimes create their own software. (I'm not being sarcastic at all.)

The article makes all open-source software seem user-unfriendly.

"However, the open-source movement may evolve to deal with these problems." Don't you think it's already gotten pretty far?

"Most software, like Microsoft Windows, Internet Explorer, and Microsoft Office are created by a corporation for profit."

At the time I wrote this post, SourceForge had 103,929 projects, Newegg had 1191 items in the Software section, and Amazon had 70911 items in the Software section.

Also, DistroWatch had "a total of 386 Linux distributions and 9 BSD distributions" while there is really only one (two if you count the server version) distribution of Windoze and a bunch of crippled versions of that main one. The same goes for Mac.

Finally, vanilla Windoze and Mac installs have much less software than vanilla installs of most Linux distros would. (I think DSL would beat them, but a floppy-based distro might have not.)

Microsoft "Internet Explorer" is part of Windoze.

[cybertron]

Clearly written by someone with a rather striking lack of real knowledge of open source, and quoting a number of people with the same problem. No time now, but maybe later I will come up with some counterpoints. I certainly hope you will write that letter as this kind of misinformation can be very damaging to the adoption of open source (IMHO). I see the same kind of thing when people ask me if it's harmful for Linux to reboot it.:rolleyes:

[Stupid Boy]

Another thing I realized:

I will write the letter using entirely open-source software, and I will have a very easy time writing it.

I will press the power button. Without pressing any more buttons, I will get to gdm, where I will log in. After a few seconds, I will click on the OOo Writer logo. I will proceed to write the letter. Finally, I will use Mozilla Firefox to email the letter to the newspaper. The proprietary equivalents of each of the programs that I will use will be no easier to use than the open-source programs that I will use.

[q6z4k]

To get the real idea about open source, I suggest you to watch The Code and Revolution OS.

[Parcival]

Well, I have read worse articles on OSS, but pretty much the same questions you listed caught my attention. One thing I'd like to mention when it comes to "designed for the end user" is KDE's usability project. The times when the shell was the only means of survival are over and there are repeatedly reports of end users who find Linux easier to use than Windows.

On a last note: before you write a letter on behalf of the JustLinux Forums you better get in contact with Brian Proffit as you're dealing with a trademark and a project that belongs to Jupitermedia here. I guess he'll be okay with it if you ask him, but if you don't ask him you could get into trouble. Microsoft wouldn't be pleased either if you suddenly decided to speak on behalf of their PR department. :D

[Stupid Boy]

Well, I have read worse articles on OSS, but pretty much the same questions you listed caught my attention. One thing I'd like to mention when it comes to "designed for the end user" is KDE's usability project. The times when the shell was the only means of survival are over and there are repeatedly reports of end users who find Linux easier to use than Windows.

On a last note: before you write a letter on behalf of the JustLinux Forums you better get in contact with Brian Proffit as you're dealing with a trademark and a project that belongs to Jupitermedia here. I guess he'll be okay with it if you ask him, but if you don't ask him you could get into trouble. Microsoft wouldn't be pleased either if you suddenly decided to speak on behalf of their PR department. :D

I searched a bit, but I can't figure out how to contact Brian Proffit. How would I contact him?

It's not a big deal if I can't say that I'm writing this "on behalf of" JL, but I want to put JL in there so I don't look like I'm the only person who thinks this.

q6z4k, I've already seen Revolution OS , and I'm looking for a place I can get The Code. Can I download it legally from somewhere?

I did understand open-source much better after I saw Revolution OS. I do not understand, however, how this is related to the current thread. Did I say something wrong about the difference between open-source and freeware?

[Headfuzz]

It's by no means the best piece of journalism I've come across, that's for sure.

"Sophomore Sam Roth" is, as we say in Britain, talking complete bollocks. Saying open source software is not designed for the lay user is like saying books are not designed for partially sighted people. There are plenty of books designed or adapted with large print or braille for those who find it difficult to read and there is plenty of open source software designed or adapted for non-technically minded users.

The whole point of open source is that it is freely adaptable to suit the end user's needs; be they for ease of use or hardcore network packet analysis or whatever. The person interviewed is clearly confusing the obviously technically savvy developer network that maintain open source software with the general populous that use it.

That really is a ridiculous statement and I do hope Sam Roth is studying a subject as academically far away from any area of computing as his "knowledge" of open source software is from the reality of the subject.

Added to which I am rather shocked a piece such as this would be solely based around subjective (in certain cases ill-informed) opinion rather than the author actually having done some research into the subject of the article and produced some verifiable facts and figures. Personally I'd be rather embarassed to put my name on a public document that is based purely on bias and opinion. :confused:

But then, maybe standards have dropped and/or teaching methods have changed since I was a student :p

[mrBen]

To contact Brian, send a pm to bproffitt on the forums (I _think_ he has PMs enabled).

Suggesting that all Red Hat is 'debug' the software is just wrong. Red Hat sell 'support' and nothing else. All the code is still open source.

Other distributions work in different ways - Xandros, for example, include their own, non-OSS, software, and this is the value-add. SuSE used to work in this way too, but that has changed since Novell bought them.

IE was not originally part of Windows, although it's now massively embedded within the OS. MS no longer makes a profit from IE, as they do not charge money for it. But they make money from associated products, and from leveraging their monopoly through it's proprietary nature.

However, if you took away the last paragraph, the article would be reasonable. The last paragraph is just a load of rubbish.The guy obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. He's tried to take a generic development model, and tie it in with specific examples. Moreover, given that the article started by talking about it, he's obviously never used Firefox.

[Headfuzz]

However, if you took away the last paragraph, the article would be reasonable. The last paragraph is just a load of rubbish.The guy obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. He's tried to take a generic development model, and tie it in with specific examples. Moreover, given that the article started by talking about it, he's obviously never used Firefox.

Precisely what I thought, which is why I chose to focus specifically on that paragraph. Without that paragraph, which is completely baseless, it is just a badly written article. A few figures would have made it a lot more believable; perhaps a few simple quotes or references to sources such as this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/28/_ie_firefox/) (which in this case has already done the donkey work for the author) would have made it a more respectable piece and not just conjecture.

[cybertron]

However, if you took away the last paragraph, the article would be reasonable.
And at least half of the quotes and the part about Red Hat that you mentioned. Then it would be somewhat accurate. At least they didn't try to get into the GPL and OSS licenses too much. That could have been very interesting (although whether the author is even aware of such things is highly doubtful).

Actually, the quotes would have been good to show some common misconceptions about open source, and then explain the truth. Unfortunately the author used them as credible sources, and obviously they're not. The computer faculty obviously know something about open source, but at least some of them have a ways to go (or just need to look again as their information is woefully out of date).

And with all the problems, at least this article doesn't seem malicious like some other *cough*O'Gara, Enderle, Didio*cough* ones I've read. Not well researched perhaps, but the problems were more the kind of thing you would expect to see in an article written by a student than one written by a shill. That's a plus.:)

[Stupid Boy]

I don't know why I didn't remember this before.

The original reason that I wanted to sign this with JL was so that people didn't feel like I was stealing their ideas. If people don't mind that I sign the letter with my name only, I would prefer to do that, but if someone else contributes significantly to this letter, I would be happy to put his name on as well.
------------
I was thinking about starting the letter today after school ends. I have a class at 6:30, so I'll have 2 hours to do whatever. I normally can find something to do, so it's not a big deal that I can't start the letter now.

Here's the main reason that I don't want to start it at school: If I start it at home and finish it at home, I can say that I did not use any proprietary software in creating the letter. So, I'm planning on starting the letter either today or tomarrow or at least coming up with an outline.
------------
I'm using one of Tic-Tac's hacked BIOSes for the Abit NF7-S. Is that open-source? Also, is there any other thing on my computer that could be closed-source?

I don't mind if one or two things are not open-source; I just want to note that so that people can't say I was lying.
------------
About the author, Salil Last-Name-I-Can't-Spell, and Sophmore Sam Roth

I know them both pretty well, and here's some surprising information:

They both almost definately use Firefox exclusively.
Sam is in the technology club, and so am I. He knows much more than the average person, and you could call him a computer nerd. I've been trying to get him to try Linux, and he installed Ubuntu, but I think he doesn't want to like it.
Salil is probably pretty similar to Sam, but he is probably less computer-savvy than Sam. (I know Sam better than Salil.)
Both are considered good students.

[Parcival]

Is the nvidia driver considered open-source?

No, the nvidia driver is proprietary software. It just happens that it comes for free, like "free" in "free beer".

[bwkaz]

However, releasing the source code of a program also is a weakness against viruses. "Because the code is available to the public, it is easier for hackers to find vulnerabilities in the program." said Vermes, Bovine fecal matter.

:p

It is NOT harder to find a buffer overflow (for example) when you have the source code for a program. The same types of patterns exist in the machine code after it's compiled -- this is how all the buffer overflows in various pieces of Windows were found and reported to Microsoft. Someone analyzed the machine language in the EXE or DLL, and found a point where the pattern of machine language instructions meant that a buffer overflow might be possible at that point. If they'd had the source, they would have searched for a different pattern, but a pattern would have been there to be found.

"But the nature of open source makes it easier to fix these problems." OSS does get fixed faster, because more people can see where the problem is, and come up with potential solutions (as ESR said in one of his essays, and dubbed "Linus' Law": "given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow"). But it's not also more vulnerable to buffer overflow exploits because the code is available; it's just as vulnerable as closed source software.

[cybertron]

I've always wondered how people find buffer overflows in binary-only apps. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Sepero]

Well, I have read worse articles on OSS, but pretty much the same questions you listed caught my attention.
I agree with this. I have seen much worse articles, and I think a rebuttal wouldn't be the best use of your time.

I think a much better thing to do would be to almost ignore the article completely. Instead, write your own article. An introductory article for those new to FLOSS(Free/Liberated/Open Source Software) and GNU/Linux. For those who are curious about trying new software. Be unbiased. Let them know that no software is immune to crackers, and FLOSS is no exception. And tell about Apache vs IIS, proof that high popularity doesn't make FLOSS *more* vulnerable to attack. Give them internet links to where they can read more about the subject. At the end, you could recommend to them a newbie friendly distro or two. Perhaps you could even have a few distro CD's available in the library for anyone interested.

Be different, be original.

[Stupid Boy]

I agree with this. I have seen much worse articles, and I think a rebuttal wouldn't be the best use of your time.

I think a much better thing to do would be to almost ignore the article completely. Instead, write your own article. An introductory article for those new to FLOSS(Free/Liberated/Open Source Software) and GNU/Linux. For those who are curious about trying new software. Be unbiased. Let them know that no software is immune to crackers, and FLOSS is no exception. And tell about Apache vs IIS, proof that high popularity doesn't make FLOSS *more* vulnerable to attack. Give them internet links to where they can read more about the subject. At the end, you could recommend to them a newbie friendly distro or two. Perhaps you could even have a few distro CD's available in the library for anyone interested.

Be different, be original.

If I write an article like this, either it will seem like I'm copying him or it won't seem like news.

If other people think I should do this, I can, but I think people would actually read an letter that says that the entire school newspaper article was wrong. It's for making fun of the school newspaper (not this writer in particular) that I want to point out all of these errors than for explaining to people what open-source software really is. Perhaps it would make sense to do both; once they read about how the entire article was wrong, they'll want to read an article that is true.

[Sepero]

Wait, let me understand. You wish to have a letter that competes with the school newspaper?

That would be so cool! I wish I'd thought of that when I was in school. :D

[Parcival]

I still think Sepero's idea is pretty good, though. To prevent people from thinking you copied the article, you could refer in your article to the previous one ("As mentioned...") on points where it was more or less correct and then add your own information ("Furthermore...").

I guess making fun of the paper will attract more readers, but writing a good article will alllow people to gain more knowledge. It would probably be best if you could somehow do both.

[Stupid Boy]

I didn't say exactly what I was planning on doing because I was lazy.

The Maroon,the official school paper, named after one of the school colors, requires that I take a course to write articles. Also, I'm pretty sure that if I complete that course, I can't write "letters to the editor," which get published in the paper whenever I write them.

The Cutting Edge, an unofficial school paper that's sort of like Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show accepts articles from anyone. It always accepts true articles and funny false articles, and they always get printed in the next issue.

I plan on writing as short a letter as possible to The Maroon that simply corrects the original article. Next, I can write an article for The Cutting Edge that goes into more detail about open-source software.

Here is an incomplete draft of the letter:
Last month's Maroon included an article about open-source software by Salil Subbakrishna titled “Open-Source Freeware.” Although I am happy to see open-source software being discussed in The Maroon, I would like to clarify some of the common misconceptions presented in this article.

Open-source software is often free in both senses of the word. Open-source software is often gratuit because one can often download it off the internet. However, one may charge others to download open-source software, and one may download open-source software for free and sell copies of it to others. More importantly, open-source software is libre. This means that everyone has these freedoms:

[list] The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. (1)

The source code is the code that a programmer writes. It can be easily examined and modified. After the source code is written, it is compiled to create a binary, which is the same program in a form that the computer can read. In this form, the user cannot examine and modify the program.

Proprietary software is closed-source software. This means that its source code is not distributed; only binaries of the program are distributed. It is not libre, but it can be gratuit.

Open-source software is not rare. According to “Open-Source Freeware,” “Most software ... are created by a corporation for profit.” Although this may be true, one must not think that something like nine-tenths of software is proprietary. Sourceforge.net had 104,030 projects the last time I checked. Compare this with the selection at popular online stores: Newegg.com had 1191 items in its Software section, and Amazon.com had 70911 items it its Software section. Distrowatch currently has 345 different active Linux and BSD and 50 more inactive distributions. The selection of proprietary operating systems is relatively small.

Some software is designed for the “average Joe,” while some is not. This goes for both open-source and proprietary software. If there is a need for an easier-to-use program, someone will probably create one. So, most proprietary programs that are easy-to-use have an open-source equivalent that is about as easy-to-use. For example, just as there are graphical interfaces to do almost everything in Windows, there are graphical interfaces to do almost everything in Linux. Also, I don't think anyone finds Firefox harder to use than Opera or Internet Explorer.

Open-source software better technical support than proprietary software.

Having access to the source code of a program does not make it easier to find vulnerabilities in the program. According to bwkaz, a moderator of JustLinux Forums (justlinux.com), “It is NOT harder to find a buffer overflow (for example) when you have the source code for a program. The same types of patterns exist in the machine code after it's compiled -- this is how all the buffer overflows in various pieces of Windows were found and reported to Microsoft. Someone analyzed the machine language in the EXE or DLL, and found a point where the pattern of machine language instructions meant that a buffer overflow might be possible at that point. If [he]'d had the source, [he] would have searched for a different pattern, but a pattern would have been there to be found.”

In this letter I only wanted to correct some of the misinformation that I found in the article. I have written an article that will run in The Cutting Edge about open-source software and its history.

(1)http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Revolution OS said (I think...) that proprietary software allows for no competition in the support sector because the company that produces the software is the only one that can provide support. This doesn't make sense to me, so can someone explain what Revolution OS actually said?

I'm trying to think of a good introduction and conclusion. I'll probably bring this to my English teacher after it's finished, and she'll definately be able to help me with the introduction and conclusion, but I really have no ideas for the conclusion.

I want to put as little opinion into this letter as possible and make the other article more opinionated.

In the other article, I plan on talking about a lot of the things from Revolution OS. I was specifically thinking of [u]The Cathedral and the Bazaar[/i] while I was writing the first couple paragraphs.

I also am trying to keep opinion out of this letter because I don't want it to be so long that the newspaper won't print it. Therefore, I'm about to email the newspaper to ask how long a letter can be.

EDIT: I didn't fix the italics when I copied the letter from OOo to the post. The French words "gratuit" and "libre" should be in italics. So should any titles that should be in italics.

[Parcival]

Make it so. :)

Small piece of critizism: the average reader won't understand your shift towards OSS when you're talking about Distrowatch. I assume most people won't know what a distro and/or distrowatch is so they won't get the comparison you're trying to make. I think you need to explain distrowatch better or - more elegantly - swap places:

Although this may be true, one must not think that something like nine-tenths of software is proprietary. Sourceforge.net had 104,030 projects the last time I checked. Distrowatch currently has 345 different active Linux and BSD and 50 more inactive distributions. Compare this with the selection at popular commercial online stores: Newegg.com had 1191 items in its Software section, and Amazon.com had 70911 items it its Software section. The selection of proprietary operating systems is relatively small.

[XiaoKJ]

not to dampen your mood, I can say most Singaporeans never read any article. And I doubt the situation is different elsewhere. I'd really recommend you to just go to the marketing part of yor article and don't think too much into adding content. it can come later. interest is much more important.

references are a must, and I've not yet seen excessive use of them. just promise them a new article to explain your viewpoint.

And, for goodness sake, try innovating guys! I know we have splendid works on the net you can use, but don't go outright to copy/lift them! I know the others don't know, but in chinese, your own style makes a difference.

[cybertron]

Open-source software better technical support than proprietary software.
This isn't grammatically correct (sorry, grammar nazi:)) and if you're going to make this claim you need to back it up or people will just assume you're nuts. Also, I'm not seeing any reference to support in the original article (although it could be there), so you might want to just leave it out for the moment and touch on it again later since it tends to be a subject people will debate a lot. Heck, it could very well warrant its own article.:)

I'd really recommend you to just go to the marketing part of yor article and don't think too much into adding content.
Except that this was the problem with the original article. It was very light on content and heavy on opinions (or marketing if you will). The point is to refute it with facts.

[XiaoKJ]

Except that this was the problem with the original article. It was very light on content and heavy on opinions (or marketing if you will). The point is to refute it with facts.
No --- I mean, while you introduce content to your discussion, don't forget marketing it. Fight it content based and most people wouldn't even read them.

And style the title nicely.

Maybe you can make it a 3-part item: fight it content based, introduce and promise a follow-up and then add an entirely new article that puts it in a different light.

[Stupid Boy]

First, I left the part about technical support in because I planned on creating a paragraph about it later. As I said, this draft is not complete. The error you mentioned is not grammatical, though.

I don't see how I could get this small enough to fit in the section for letters. At it's current size, it would take up almost the entire section, which normally contains three letters.

So, unless the newspaper sends me a better idea, I think I'll just make one big article in The Cutting Edge that has a section about common misconceptions about open-source and uses the article from The Maroon as examples these common misconceptions.

I didn't want to put in too much opinion was that I wanted 1) to make clear that the original article was totally wrong and 2) to make it fit in the Letters section.

#2 isn't going to happen, so I'm thinking I'll write something like this:


History
Open-source philosophy
Common Misconceptions
More information - talk about where one can read about OSS, books about OSS philosophy, where to download programs

[Sepero]

If I may make a large wiki-like re-edit. Feel free to take or leave whatever you wish.
Last month's Maroon included an article about open-source software by Salil Subbakrishna titled “Open-Source Freeware”. Although I am happy to see open-source software being discussed in The Maroon, I would like to clarify some of the common misconceptions presented in this article.

There are two meanings to the word "free", and Open Source Software(OSS) can often be classified as both. First, there is the zero dollars($0) meaning. This means that you don't have to pay for it. Second, there is the liberated meaning. Free (liberated) Software means that the author has given you freedom to modify, change, and copy it for your friends. ( www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ) [Note: that Free Software, also called OSS, is not freeware($0 software).]

The opposite of OSS is Proprietary software ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software ). Generally Proprietary software does not grant any freedoms to change or copy it, and often makes such things illegal ( www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx ). Microsoft and Apple corporation are two of the largest distributors of Proprietary software.

When computers were invented, all software was OSS. People freely shared and gave away software. This helped increase knowledge in the scienific computer community. It was not thought of as "stealing", because you could give a copy and still keep the original. In fact, you would give your software to as many people as possible in the hopes that they would help you with it in return. Proprietary software wasn't invented until decades years later.( www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html )

According to “Open-Source Freeware”, “Most software ... are created by a corporation for profit.” This can be considered opinion since it cannot be proven either way. As of this writing, Sourceforge.net (a website that sponsors *only* OSS projects) had 104,030 projects. Compare this with the (proprietary) software selection at popular online stores: Newegg.com = 1,191 and Amazon.com = 70,911.

In Proprietary and OSS, both have software is designed for the “average Joe”, and both have software that is not. The difference is that with OSS, anyone create new software without paying $XXX dollars for "VisualDevelopmentCenter++". In fact, most OSS Operating Systems (like SuSE Linux www.novell.com/products/desktop ) come with development software *already* installed.

On the issue of technical support, it will cost money whether you use Proprietary or OSS. Though, there are two benefits to OSS in this realm. First, with OSS, you often don't have to pay an *additional* amount to aquire and use the software. Second, if you choose, you may forgo technical support entirely and learn to administer the software yourself. Many Proprietary software developers do not give you either of those options. The main goal Free/Open Source Software is complete Freedom.

Having access to the source code of a program does not make it easier to find vulnerabilities in the program. According to bwkaz, a moderator of JustLinux Forums (justlinux.com), “It is NOT harder to find a buffer overflow (for example) when you have the source code for a program. The same types of patterns exist in the machine code after it's compiled -- this is how all the buffer overflows in various pieces of Windows were found and reported to Microsoft. Someone analyzed the machine language in the EXE or DLL, and found a point where the pattern of machine language instructions meant that a buffer overflow might be possible at that point. If [he]'d had the source, [he] would have searched for a different pattern, but a pattern would have been there to be found.”

In this letter I only wanted to correct some of the misinformation that I found in the article. I have written an article that will run in The Cutting Edge about open-source software and its history.

[Stupid Boy]

Here's another draft. I didn't work on the introduction or the conclusion at all, but if you have any ideas for them, please tell me.

The two things that I commented out at the end didn't seem to fit, but if someone can find a place to use them, I'll use them.

There's a bibliography-in-progress at the end. I'm going to check Wikipedia and websites about free software so I can fill the article with citations. (Most of this article came from my head.)

Last month's Maroon included an article about open-source software by Salil Subbakrishna titled “Open-Source Freeware.” Although I am happy to see free software being discussed in The Maroon, I would like to clarify some of the common misconceptions presented in this article.

The first thing I must do is define a few terms. The word “free” in English has two meanings that are often given different words in other languages. When the word “free” is used in “free software,” it is the type of “free” in “free speech” rather than the type in “free beer.”[1] According to the Free Software Foundation (FSF), “Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.” (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html) From now on, I will only use the word “free” to mean this second meaning. I will use “free-of-charge” to indicate the other meaning.

The “source code” is the code that a programmer edits. After writing the code, he compiles the program, producing a binary of the program. A programmer needs the source code in order to modify the program. He can only run the program with the binary; he cannot make changes to the program by editing the binary. Free software is always distributed with the source code so that others can improve and study the software. “Open-source” is a term that was invented to deal with the ambiguity of the word “free.” Open-source software is software whose source code is distributed. Likewise, closed-source software is software whose source code is not distributed. “Open-source software” is normally interchangeable with “free software.”

When computers were invented, all software was free. People freely distributed, copied and used each others programs for the same reasons they do today. They simply wanted to help others. In the early 1980's, this began to change. The modern computers of the '80's used proprietary—not free—operating systems. In order to use these, one had to promise not to share it. Also, users were not always given the source code, so they were unable to improve the programs. (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html)

Rather than accepting proprietary software as many other computer programmers had, Richard Stallman, an employee at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab, decided to stand up against proprietary software. He started by creating an operating system that he named “GNU,” a recursive acronym for, “GNU's Not Unix.” He left his job at MIT in January of 1984 and began working on GNU. By 1990, Richard Stallman and other developers had finished the entire GNU operating system except the kernel, (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html) the part of the operating system that communicates with the hardware. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_%28computer_science%29)

Stallman and fellow developers had been having trouble developing the kernel. Fortunately, Linus Torvalds had been developing a kernel separately from the GNU project. This kernel, named Linux, was combined with the GNU system to create an operating system called GNU/Linux. (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html) However, many people call it simply “Linux.” Finally, free software had been revived. Unfortunately, proprietary software was and still is the norm.

There are a few reasons why proprietary software remains popular. First, many people simply don't know that other software exists. Another reason is that proprietary software companies put out to propaganda to prevent the spread of free software. In its “Get the Facts” campaign, Microsoft unsurprisingly maintains that Windows is better than Linux. Still, the main reason is probably just a combination of resistance to change and misconceptions that are spread like rumors. I would now like to dispel the most common rumors that I hear about free software. I will start each explanation with an exact quote of a person spreading the rumor.

Rumor #1: “Most software ... are created by a corporation for profit.” (Subbakrishna) I'm not sure of whether this is true, but it may be misleading if it is true; if this is true, “most” must mean merely “a majority,” not “an overwhelming majority.” As of this writing, Sourceforge.net, a website that sponsors open-source software exclusively, had 104,030 projects. Compare this with the software selection at popular online store that sell both proprietary and free software: Including free software, Newegg.com had 1191 items in its Software section, and Amazon.com had 70911 items it its Software section.

Rumor #2: “'Open source is not for the 'average joe.''” (Subbakrishna) First, this is clearly not true because most people have been having a pretty easy time using Firefox, an open-source application. In fact, some people like it more than Firefox. “According to junior James Watters, as a result of its being open-source, 'Firefox is easy to use, more secure, and has useful features like opening many tabs of websites in a single window'” (Subbakrishna)

****In Proprietary and OSS, both have software is designed for the “average Joe”, and both have software that is not.****(I want to make this grammatically correct, but I can't figure out how to. I'll probably ask my English teacher. The problem: the software doesn't belong to proprietary or OSS.) The main reason people think this is that they often associate Linux with free software and think they have to install a whole new operating system in order to use open-source software.

There are distributions of Linux designed to be very easy for the “average joe” to install. These distributions are normally as easy or easier to install than Windows, yet it is still understandable that the “average joe” could find it difficult to install the distribution; he wouldn't find it too easy to install Windows either. While Windows is not especially hard to install compared to Linux, nobody will try arguing that an “average joe” would not experience difficulty in installing Windows.

The use of the shell in Linux may be another reason that people believe that Linux is harder to use than Windows. There are many people, like me, who prefer the shell (similar to Windows's Command Prompt) to using graphical utilities for certain tasks. However people don't need to use the shell in Linux any more than they need to use the Command Prompt in Windows. To write this article, I booted Linux and logged in. I then reached my desktop, and I opened OpenOffice by clicking an icon on my desktop. After I finished this article, I opened Firefox by clicking an icon on my desktop, went to gmail.com and sent my article to The Cutting Edge. I never had to type a command in the shell. I would have used the exact same procedure had I been using Windows.

Rumor #3: “'Because the code [of free software programs] is open to the public, it is easier for hackers to find vulnerabilities in the program.'” (Subbakrishna) According to bwkaz, a moderator of JustLinux Forums (justlinux.com), “It is NOT harder to find a buffer overflow (for example) when you have the source code for a program. The same types of patterns exist in the machine code after it's compiled -- this is how all the buffer overflows in various pieces of Windows were found and reported to Microsoft. Someone analyzed the machine language in the EXE or DLL, and found a point where the pattern of machine language instructions meant that a buffer overflow might be possible at that point. If [he]'d had the source, [he] would have searched for a different pattern, but a pattern would have been there to be found.”

Rumor #4: “Another problem with open-source programs is that there is no reliable group to turn to for technical support if something goes wrong.” (Subbakrishna) According to Peter Hofman, project manager for Munich's Windows to Linux migration, the opposite is true. “'When we implement a Microsoft product, we can only call one person for help with the software and that is Microsoft,' Hofmann said. He said if one Linux specialist company did not provide sufficient support, the city 'can change over easily to another in one year.'” (Crampton) Because only Microsoft has the source code to Windows, no company can provide as good technical support as Microsoft can because Microsoft is the only company that has the ability to examine the source code to determine what may have caused a problem. Therefore, there is no competition for Windows technical support, and Microsoft does not need to provide good technical support. Any company can provide technical support for free software, however, because everyone has access to the source code of free software. This creates an incentive for companies to develop useful technical support.


#Distrowatch currently has 345 different active Linux and BSD and 50 more inactive distributions. The selection of proprietary operating systems is relatively small.

#Unlike free software, proprietary software prevents people from following what we were taught in early childhood. Children are taught that people should share with and try to help others. Free software encourages this by allowing people to redistribute copies freely and to improve the software. It is illegal to do this with proprietary software...

Crampton, Thomas. “Microsoft chief dines in a Linux city.” International Herald Tribune. Oct. 6, 2005.
Subbakrishna, Salil. “Open-Source Freeware.” The Maroon Oct. 2005: 9.

You can read the bottom article here (http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/10/06/business/ballmer.php). I used this one for a current events assignment due today, discussed it in class and confirmed that many people in my class do believe the rumors that I discussed.

I want to find a better way to say this:
In Proprietary and OSS, both have software is designed for the “average Joe”, and both have software that is not.

Also, does Sourceforge sponser non-free open-source projects?

[bwkaz]

The first thing I must do is define a few terms. <...> When the word "free" is used in "free software," it is the type of "free" in "free speech" rather than the type in "free beer."[1] <...> From now on, I will only use the word "free" to mean this second meaning. I will use "free-of-charge" to indicate the other meaning. Please DON'T do it this way.

You and I may know what you mean, and we may be able to disambiguate "free speech" vs. "free beer", but most people can't or won't. The fact is, most people don't care one bit about the FSF's whole "freedom" thing. They don't see how it applies to them (and in most cases, it doesn't), so they tune it out completely.

This is why several smart people decided to come up with the label "open-source", as you mentioned. It has none of the dual meanings of "free", and it's much less confusing. See, for instance:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html

for why "free software" (as a term, not as a concept) needs to go, and:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/shut-up-and-show-them.html

for how associating "freedom" and "code" doesn't work in anyone's minds except most hackers'.

When computers were invented, all software was free. I don't believe that's true. Got any evidence of it? Other than FSF propaganda? (See above; there's a reason few people agree with the FSF's tactics -- because those tactics don't work, and never have. The less they see the light of day, the better.)

<Short RMS biography> See http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/rms-bio.html -- especially the comments about "buying into too much of the mythology that RMS has created around himself". The guy's human, just like the rest of us. Not a prophet of free software.

<a mention of Get The Facts> Might be nice to mention that the whole lower-TCO argument out of Microsoft at the time was from a study that Linux on a mainframe, and Windows on a PC. If you pay the same for the hardware, Linux's TCO is probably lower.

<number of projects at SF> It might be honest to mention that many of these projects are either dead or dying, because nobody cares enough about them. Including the original author. Whereas proprietary software is usually published, then pushed, only because the corporation cares enough about it to do that.

In fact, some people like it more than Firefox. I think you meant IE? ;)

****In Proprietary and OSS, both have software is designed for the “average Joe”, and both have software that is not.**** How about:

Proprietary software shares (at least) one property with open-source software: There are examples of both that most people find easy to use, and there are examples of both that many people find hard to use.

An example of each might be nice. For easy OSS, you have FF, otherwise the Gimp might work. (As long as you haven't already learned Photoshop, the Gimp is pretty easy to figure out.) For hard OSS, try either cdrecord, m4, or some other arcane command line program.

For easy proprietary SW, maybe ... hmm. Not IE, because it does too much that the user doesn't expect. Windows has the same issue sometimes. Maybe some part of Mac OSX that isn't actually open source (so not the kernel). For hard proprietary SW, try Photoshop (and make sure you talk about "learning Photoshop", not "using Photoshop once you've learned it") or something like that.

Regarding Peter Hofman's comment about only Microsoft knowing how the internals of Windows work: We're seeing the same thing at work lately, with Microsoft's automatic certificate enrollment and renewal process. We've had to call our parent company's Microsoft rep several times over the past few weeks, on different issues we're seeing with this. If we'd had the source, we could have figured out the problems ourselves, or asked one of several million other people.

Also, does Sourceforge sponser non-free open-source projects? Free software and open-source software are the same thing, so there are no examples of the software you're asking about.

But if this would make it more clear, I believe SF's decision on whether to host the development for a piece of software hinges on whether its license follows either the Open Source Definition (see opensource.org) or the Debian Free Software Guidelines (essentially the same set of rules).

I could be wrong on that, though.

[Sepero]

You and I may know what you mean, and we may be able to disambiguate "free speech" vs. "free beer", but most people can't or won't. The fact is, most people don't care one bit about the FSF's whole "freedom" thing. They don't see how it applies to them (and in most cases, it doesn't), so they tune it out completely.
This is absolutely true.

This is why several smart people decided to come up with the label "open-source", as you mentioned. It has none of the dual meanings of "free", and it's much less confusing. See, for instance:
Yes, those guys are smart. Unfortunately, they don't represent you and me. They represent businesses and corporations. I am unsure of how much history you have read on the OSI, but they were some what of a rebelious break off from the FSF, created to get FOSS into corporations. OSI is the more laxed and "politically correct" version of the FSF. Unfortunately, I don't think the FSF does a real great job of representing the people either. (I say this with complete exception of the GNU licenses.)

But this is why the use of "Free Software" will not die. Free Software represents people and community. Free Software means sharing with your neighbor(yes even that bitter old lady down the street). Free Software is about someone helping you out, and you helping someone in return. (Just like these forums.)

Open Source means spreading liberated software into business and across the globe. Open Source represents a better profit margin. Open Source is about companies having the choice of in house support or outsourcing.

Neither has better asperations. They are both needed for Free/Liberated/Open Source Software to thrive.

I don't believe that's true. Got any evidence of it?
Sure do. Punch cards. Millions and millions of punch cards. The thought of "hiding" source code was only an after-thought in the pursuit of monitary gain. (Though, I don't think that selling software for money is "evil". In fact, I wish more people bought OSS.)

It might be honest to mention that many of these projects [on SF] are either dead or dying, because nobody cares enough about them. Including the original author. Whereas proprietary software is usually published, then pushed, only because the corporation cares enough about it to do that.
Very true. I originally didn't think of this. Plus, most commercial software is better polished than the average software on SF.

[Sepero]

***In Proprietary and OSS, both have software is designed for the “average Joe”, and both have software that is not.***

I think this may be more grammatically correct.
Proprietary and OSS both have software that is designed for the “average Joe”, and both have software that is not.

I wouldn't worry too much about grammar, though. There is one goal that supersedes grammar, and that is getting your reader to *understand*. This can be much more difficult than "good grammar", but if achieved, very worthwhile.

Having said that, I must also criticize your delving into the "hackers world of thinking". I recommend not mentioning *anything* about “programming code”. You cut your audience down to roughly 10% of the population with this foreign subject, and most true hackers already know these facts.

Instead, you should focus to educate on the other 90% of users. The users that are dumb and blind. The ones who are too easily lead like sheep to the slaughter. Fortunately, we have two strong commonalities with these users: desire for free sh!t, and desire for Freedom.

>-Unfortunately, I've run short on time.-<

But I want to caution, leave Linux being free-of-charge($0) alone! Do not talk about it with newbies. Most newbies should buy a distro. One that takes them buy the hand and does everything for them. (Linspire, Xandros and Suse are the top contenders.)

Instead, Focus on Freedom.

In brief, you should explain about all the “Non-source code” related Freedoms, and there are LOTS:
-Freedom to choose any person or firm you want for tech support.
-Freedom to share software with friends legally.
-Freedom from defragmentation. Never having to do it again.
-Freedom from vendor lock-in. (ie. MSOffice and its broken backwards compatibility.)
-Freedom from proprietary backdoors.
-Freedom from viruses.

The list goes on and on...

it's what Free Software is all about.

[Stupid Boy]

I don't really want to talk about the free software philosophy at all. If it were possible, I would like to start right away by making fun of the newspaper by proving that the article was only spreading false rumors behind open-source.

I had been thinking before about just provinding "links" to other articles that would explain what open-source software. (Also, this would go perfectly in line with the free software philosophy.) Unfortunately, the only way to do this in a printed newspaper is to print the other article as well, which would look weird to many people.

I haven't finished writing the part about rumors, and I want to change those into subtopics to make them look cleaner.

I haven't read the links you have given me yet, but I am about to.

I would prefer to find a way around introducing people to open-source software. I don't like say things that are almost but not entirely true, but I wouldn't mind replacing the first six body paragraphs something like this:

Last month's Maroon included an article about open-source software by Salil Subbakrishna titled “Open-Source Freeware.” This article discusses the pros and cons of open-source and proprietary software, however many of his arguments against open-source software are completely invalid.

Then, I could assume that have a sufficient idea of the diffirence between open-source and proprietary software. Probably it would be necessary to explain what a source code is, so I think I'll say something like this:

The source code is the code use to create the program. The programmer uses a special program to turn the source code into a different code that can be run. With open-source software, everyone has access to the source code, but with proprietary software, only the creator has access to the source code.

What do you think of this idea?

[bwkaz]

Unfortunately, they don't represent you and me. They represent businesses and corporations. But here's the thing:

Why is that bad?

IMO, one of the bigger mistakes that RMS made was to completely thumb his nose at corporations, and actually alienate most of them by being (or at least, I should say, seeming) openly Marxist.

(To be fair, he thought he had good reasons -- from what I've read, the prevailing wisdom of just about everyone in the 70s-80s was that there was no way to get corporations to use software like RMS's without that software turning into a corporate thing. And if that would have happened, yes, it would have been bad. But there's no reason to believe that anymore, not after IBM and Red Hat and SuSE and others have started selling and supporting Linux, and zillions of other companies have started using it. We can continue to thumb our noses at them if we want, but IMO, it only makes us look arrogant to most people.)

they were some what of a rebelious break off from the FSF, created to get FOSS into corporations. Not exactly. They were not a break-off from the FSF, they were a bunch of people that were unsatisfied with RMS's rhetoric and tactics, so they came up with their own. And yes, one thing they do is attempt to explain open source to corporations, but that's not their main reason for existence.

Their main reason for existence was originally going to be to hold the "open source" trademark; later, they became the organization that enforced the "open source" certification and (in doing so) decided which licenses conformed to the open source definition. (Mostly this was because they found out they couldn't trademark a descriptive term like "open source", so they moved to a certification mark instead.)

But this is why the use of "Free Software" will not die. Free Software represents people and community. Free Software means sharing with your neighbor(yes even that bitter old lady down the street). Free Software is about someone helping you out, and you helping someone in return. (Just like these forums.) But what you may not realize is, most people simply don't care about any of that. That argument (in connection with software at least) works great when you're talking to hackers; it fails miserably when you're talking to anyone whose brains aren't wired the same way. As I said before; most people simply don't care.

Yes, they want access to help, and preferably free help, when something breaks. But the rest of the time, they don't care. (Most people probably don't even think about "where would I get support for this?" when they're choosing what software to use. Some corporations do, but that's usually only because they want someone to blame.)

Punch cards. Hmm, I see your point. When everyone programmed in machine language, there was no difference between source and binaries, so hiding the source was pretty much impossible. True.

Very true. I originally didn't think of this. Plus, most commercial software is better polished than the average software on SF. And usually it's only better polished because it's been in development longer, and "heavier"; when you have a small number of people working on a project, the pressure is to work out as many show-stopping bugs (ones that will stop you from making money, at least) as you can, before you sell it. So the program is worked harder, and the program goes through much more development, and only then do people see version 1.

Whereas many open-source projects are still fairly new; the developer pushed out a version 0.0.1 as soon as they possibly could, and they've been fixing issues (where "issues" includes both "bugs" and "missing features") ever since. If nobody else cares, and the developer gets bored, the project never gets past version 0.0.5, and in that state, it's very unpolished.

I wouldn't worry too much about grammar, though. There is one goal that supersedes grammar, and that is getting your reader to *understand*. This can be much more difficult than "good grammar", but if achieved, very worthwhile. I'll absolutely agree with you there. :)

I recommend not mentioning *anything* about “programming code”. Hmm. You are probably right there; at least in that most people don't care about programming. If you want to keep the reasoning on why it's no easier to find holes in open-source software, though, you'll have to touch on it at least a little. There's not really any reason that has to stay in, though.

Most newbies should buy a distro. One that takes them buy the hand and does everything for them. (Linspire, Xandros and Suse are the top contenders.) And again, I'd probably agree with you there. But then again, I think that's why the "free software" term is a dismally bad one; to most people, "free" almost always means free as in beer. So they get confused when you start talking about freedoms, and confusion is a bad thing.

Instead, Focus on Freedom.

In brief, you should explain about all the “Non-source code” related Freedoms, and there are LOTS:
-Freedom to choose any person or firm you want for tech support.
-Freedom to share software with friends legally.
-Freedom from defragmentation. Never having to do it again.
-Freedom from vendor lock-in. (ie. MSOffice and its broken backwards compatibility.)
-Freedom from proprietary backdoors.
-Freedom from viruses.

The list goes on and on...

it's what Free Software is all about. Some of these will appeal only to Windows power-users (the ones that even know what this "defragmentation" thing is, for instance), but many of them are important, so it's probably a good idea to keep them.

If it were possible, I would like to start right away by making fun of the newspaper by proving that the article was only spreading false rumors behind open-source. Sounds like a decent idea to me. :D

Probably it would be necessary to explain what a source code is, so I think I'll say something like this:

The source code is the code use to create the program. The programmer uses a special program to turn the source code into a different code that can be run. With open-source software, everyone has access to the source code, but with proprietary software, only the creator has access to the source code. What do you think of this idea? Mostly minor nitpicks, but maybe I'd look at something like:

"Source code" is the term used for the human-readable version of a program (as opposed to the version that a machine can execute). The programmer uses a special program to turn source code into a different sort of code, which can be executed directly by the machine. With open-source software, everyone has access to the source code, but with proprietary software, only the creator has access to the source code.

It might also be worth saying something about "you need the source to be able to fix bugs", although that could get very arcane very quickly, and that wouldn't be good.

[je_fro]

You had me until you said, "I don't really want to talk about the free software philosophy at all."
I don't care what anyone says, it's a dog-eat-dog world, and if RMS hadn't had the foresight to create a license which FORCES the sharing of modifications, we wouldn't have ANY of this.

[Parcival]

to most people, "free" almost always means free as in beer. So they get confused when you start talking about freedoms, and confusion is a bad thing.

Playing the role of an advocatus diaboli I have to say that's correct - but only in the realm of the (American) English language. In German, we make the distinction with two different words:

"frei" as "free" like in "Freedom"
"gratis" as "free of charge"

When you approach people in Switzerland and tell them you have "freie Software" for them they rise their eyebrows in surprise and answer with "Oh really, what's that?". If you offered "gratis Software", they wouldn't even really look at you. :)

BTW, the word "gratis" may be used in English as well: Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=gratis). Don't know which shop keeper started to give away "free something", but he surely caused quite a bit of confusion.

[Sepero]

Unfortunately, they don't represent you and me. They represent businesses and corporations.
But here's the thing:

Why is that bad?It's not "bad", the OSI is just too lax and laid-back in my opinion. Besides, I just think we need corporate AND private endorsement for FLOSS. But like I said, I also feel that the endorsement towards private individuals should be managed differently than it is today.

[Stupid Boy]

The reasons that I don't really want to talk about freedom are:

1. The "Open-Source Freeware" article didn't say anything wrong about the free software philosophy, and I just want to argue with this article.

2. I don't see how I say much more than a few lines about free software, I'll have to get into a big discussion.

3. At the beginning of and after the article, I can put something like this:

For more information about the free software philosophy, go to the FSF and GNU websites blah blah.

A person who disagrees with bwkaz and does not want to post his opinions to avoid starting a flame war instant messaged me. Here is the "conversation" with his name replaced with "***********":

(02:47:15) ***********: bkwaz: You and I may know what you mean, and we may be able to disambiguate "free speech" vs. "free beer", but most people can't or won't. The fact is, most people don't care one bit about the FSF's whole "freedom" thing. They don't see how it applies to them (and in most cases, it doesn't), so they tune it out completely.

This is why several smart people decided to come up with the label"open-source", as you mentioned. It has none of the dual meanings of"free", and it's much less confusing. See, for instance:

(02:47:40) ***********: For once, i disagree with bkwaz
(02:47:50) ***********: bwkaz*
(02:48:36) ***********: free software is too much of an important concept to skip
(02:50:16) ***********: it fuels what makes linux different from freeware+source, or MS shared source. (even those shared source isn't open source)
(02:51:16) ***********: the term free is correct, and open source doesn't focus on why we are the best. Open source is just a quality.
02:52
(02:53:28) ***********: and the biggest difference is that open source wants to coexist with proprietary, free software does not
(02:54:51) ***********: open source is an attempt to make everyone happy, and free software is ruthless attempt to do what we should, without stopping to care about anything but getting the job done
(02:55:44) ***********: bwkaz:
"When computers were invented, all software was free."
I don't believe that's true. Got any evidence of it? Other than FSF propaganda? (See above; there's a reason few people agree with the FSF's tactics -- because those tactics don't work, and never have. The less they see the light of day, the better.)

(02:56:10) ***********: the FSF's tactics are the reason linux is still free
(02:56:42) ***********: and they work because of their extremist tactics
02:57
(03:00:45) ***********: sepero hits the nail on the head, but still doesn't grasp stallmans purpose
03:02
(03:04:16) ***********: but je_fro was the most correct with his short post:
You had me until you said, "I don't really want to talk about the free software philosophy at all."
I don't care what anyone says, it's a dog-eat-dog world, and if RMS hadn't had the foresight to create a license which FORCES the sharing of modifications, we wouldn't have ANY of this.
(03:06:30) ***********: What bwkaz calls RMS's "rhetoric" and "openly marxist" ideas are the only reasons we still live, and will still win
(03:06:53) ***********: ^read far up^
03:07
(03:09:17) ***********: and that really explains your question yesterday, as open source was spawned from free, but made less strict for business reasons, thus all free==open source, but because of stallmans "rhetoric", open source will never==free. Hope that makes sence.

[bwkaz]

(02:48:36) ***********: free software is too much of an important concept to skip
(02:50:16) ***********: it fuels what makes linux different from freeware+source, or MS shared source. (even those shared source isn't open source) And AGAIN I'll say this (it seems like people are ignoring this part of what I've said):

MOST PEOPLE DON'T CARE.

Whoever said this is correct, in that the freedom is what makes GPL-licensed -- and, to a lesser extent, BSD-licensed and other-"free"-licensed -- software different from, and better than, most other software. But that truth is not going to convince anyone to use it. What's going to convince people to use it is either the cost, or the feature set. Cost is generally lower with open source software, but that's not always a good argument to use (see above: free distros aren't always for newbies); feature set is usually much better.

Tell them the features that FF has that IE doesn't. Tell them how little your favorite piece of OSS crashes, and when it does crash, how much less of your work is usually lost. Ask them to at least try it (without any preconceptions of how to do what they want), and see if they can tell that it's better just by using it. (My cousin has said that about FF compared to IE -- something about how just by looking at FF, he could tell it was better. Not everything works that way, though, and not everyone will be able to see the difference.)

the term free is correct, and open source doesn't focus on why we are the best. Open source is just a quality. Um? I don't get this at all. There's no difference in the software itself. The difference is in the terms. They both describe the same thing, but they do it differently. When you say "free", people ignore you. (That's why everyone has been ignoring RMS for about twenty years, except for a lot of hackers.) When you say "open source", they at least start to wonder what's going on.

and the biggest difference is that open source wants to coexist with proprietary, free software does not Wrong.

Open source advocates sometimes want corporations to adopt open-source programs. But that's NOT the same thing as "coexisting with proprietary software". If open source advocates wanted to coexist with proprietary software, there would be no reason to try to convince anyone to use any type of software at all.

the FSF's tactics are the reason linux is still free No, but their license is.

and they work No, they DO NOT WORK. If the FSF had been able to convince anyone at all (other than hackers) that their philosophy was good, the OSI would not exist today, and I wouldn't be saying any of this!

and if RMS hadn't had the foresight to create a license which FORCES the sharing of modifications, we wouldn't have ANY of this. And I do agree with this. If it wasn't for RMS's license, none of this would exist. If it wasn't for his compiler, his editor, and his C library, Linux would be nothing. This is all true.

The problem is, the way he TALKS simply doesn't convince people. (And convincing people is what this counter-article was supposed to do, I thought.)

That's what I'm arguing against: Not RMS's license, not his software, but the way he tries to explain things. The way he tries to convince people. (Case in point: "Software [alternately: information] wants to be free." 97% of people look at a statement like this and say "what on earth are you talking about?" They don't get it, so they ignore it. Ignoring it is bad, if you want them to use it.)

What bwkaz calls RMS's "rhetoric" and "openly marxist" ideas are the only reasons we still live Well, no, the reason I still live is because I continue to eat, and I haven't been hit by a large vehicle... :p

and will still win We win, at the end of the day, because our software is better. Not because of any single person's rhetoric, or tactics.

If you think RMS is the reason we're winning today, then please explain why RMS's "free software" wasn't actually used by hardly anyone other than hackers, before 1998-1999. He'd been doing his FSF thing for 14-15 years by that point, right? So why wasn't everyone using his software?

And if you can't explain that, then please examine why you think echoing him is a good idea, when you're trying to get normal people to use OSS.

[je_fro]

The problem is, the way he TALKS simply doesn't convince people.

I've seen RMS twice, and he does tend go a little Pinko at times...
But since I don't plan on earning a living as in-house GNU/Linux (heh) support for a big company, I'd rather the big companies stay away from it. Corporate involvement tends to crush the spirit out of all the cool stuff that comes along....

[cybertron]

Just quickly I wanted to confirm that SF doesn't accept any non-OSI approved licensed projects. I know that had been mentioned, but it sounded a bit uncertain at the time.

Also, it's my turn to disagree (slightly) with bwkaz. Please, please use correct grammar. If you make some obscure grammar mistake, 1) nobody's going to notice and 2) 99% of people won't care, but if you make a fairly obvious one (the their, there, they're mistake comes to mind), it just looks unpolished. That said, I agree that content is more important, but people will also tend to question your credibility if you don't write well. From what I've seen, your writing looks just fine (to me) so I wouldn't worry too much about it, but do take a moment to proofread before you submit.:)

/grammar nazi:D

[Sepero]

Well now, I've been on the JL forums a couple years now, and I never thought a thread like this would come along, but here we go... :)
sepero hits the nail on the head, but still doesn't grasp stallmans purposeI know RMS's ways, and I don't agree with RMS on almost ANYTHING, except how software should be liberated.

But that truth is not going to convince anyone to use it. What's going to convince people to use it is either the cost, or the feature set. Cost is generally lower with open source software, but that's not always a good argument to use (see above: free distros aren't always for newbies); feature set is usually much better.Agreed. Just like non-mechanics only want the car to run and look nice; non-hackers only want the software to run and look nice.
When you say "free", people ignore you.True, but only in English where it has a dual meaning. (Remember FLOSS is worldwide.)
(That's why everyone has been ignoring RMS for about twenty years, except for a lot of hackers.)And in the “non-corporate world”, guess who writes the code... :rolleyes:
But still you're partially correct, because its not right that regular people be left out of the "loop".
and the biggest difference is that open source wants to coexist with proprietary, free software does not
Wrong.Sorry bwkaz, this time I think you are seriously wrong, and this is *exactly* why I lean more towards the FSF instead of the OSI. This is exactly what I mean when I say the OSI is too "lax" and "laidback". My ultimate desire is for the day when liberated software is (again) virtually the only software that exists. With proprietary software surviving only in niche markets, outside of the public.
No, they DO NOT WORK. If the FSF had been able to convince anyone at all (other than hackers)...Ok, we can drop the "FSF doesn't convince anyone" rhetoric. Truthfully, there are two groups that produce software: corporations and hackers. The OSI convinces corporations, the FSF convinces hackers. We need both. (This is actually another thing I feel bad about. The fact that we don't have a “middle-ground software foundation” to help the people inbetween [non-coders] to understand what's going on.)
That's what I'm arguing against: Not RMS's license, not his software, but the way he tries to explain things.I agree completely here. And this is why I'm not a big supporter of RMS specifically. Politically, RMS is a freak. I don't give a flying frick whether you like Bush, Clinton, or Sadam! That has Nothing to do with Free Software. I support the FSF, and that is a separate entity from RMS. I cannot say that enough because most OSI supporters seem to have a hard time grasping that concept:
RMS != The FSF

[Parcival]

We need both.

100% agreement here. It's the key to our success.

[bwkaz]

But since I don't plan on earning a living as in-house GNU/Linux (heh) support for a big company, I'd rather the big companies stay away from it. Corporate involvement tends to crush the spirit out of all the cool stuff that comes along.... Hmm. So those of us that do plan on doing in-house support for Linux for our companies can't? Or am I reading that wrong? ;)

I don't believe large corporations just using Linux will "crush the spirit" of it, either, but that's an opinion thing; I don't think I can convince you, so I won't try. :D

True, but only in English where it has a dual meaning. (Remember FLOSS is worldwide.) Everyone flosses! :p

Anyway, back to the point, yes, the ambiguity only exists in English. But this article is, after all, going to be in English. ;)

Sorry bwkaz, this time I think you are seriously wrong, and this is *exactly* why I lean more towards the FSF instead of the OSI. This is exactly what I mean when I say the OSI is too "lax" and "laidback". My ultimate desire is for the day when liberated software is (again) virtually the only software that exists. With proprietary software surviving only in niche markets, outside of the public. Eventually, yes, that would be nice. (But then, we don't need the FSF for that either. We just need to keep writing better code. In the long term, I believe that merely doing that will be enough to "win".)

But my point was (and I seem to have missed putting this in at this point in my reply; sorry about that), you can't get there without having large numbers of people use OSS. (Duh.) Which means you NEED to get large businesses to use it. Which means the OSI is required, because large businesses have been completely ignoring the FSF for 20 years. I believe that this is because their tactics don't work.

Ok, we can drop the "FSF doesn't convince anyone" rhetoric. I'm not sure how it's rhetoric; it's true. They've had 20 years to convince people, and they've done an absolutely abysmal job of it.

Truthfully, there are two groups that produce software: corporations and hackers. The OSI convinces corporations, the FSF convinces hackers. And here I think you might be confused. The OSI convinces corporations to use OSS, not create it. (Mostly, anyway. ESR has a couple papers on how to make money off OSS, but I don't believe the OSI is generally in that kind of a position.) The article being written here was also done to try to get people to use OSS, not create it.

You have to use different arguments when you're trying to convince people to use a certain type of software, than the arguments you have to use when you're trying to convince them to write a certain type of software. The people writing software are usually able to see the benefits of open-source without much convincing by anyone. (Management, on the other hand, usually needs much more convincing, and the arguments you use to convince them are very different from the arguments you'd use to convince an actual developer.)

The people using software, OTOH, can't see most of these benefits for themselves, and talking about "rights" and "freedoms" with respect to the software you want them to use gets you a blank stare. Talking about higher quality, fewer bugs, faster fixes, etc., usually gets them to at least try it.

(This is actually another thing I feel bad about. The fact that we don't have a “middle-ground software foundation” to help the people inbetween [non-coders] to understand what's going on.) I don't see the OSI and FSF as opposites. The OSI's positions (if you can believe what they put on their site; I can) are neither for nor against the FSF; they could include people like RMS, if he could get over his "you're not pure enough!" stance.

ESR has written (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/shut-up-and-show-them.html) (in 1999) that:

[RMS] would have you believe that the FSF and OSI have diverged over vast matters of principle, when in fact the OSI (and the Open Source movement as a whole) is carefully designed to be able to include people with beliefs like RMS's.

<...>

The real disagreement between OSI and FSF, the real axis of discord between those who speak of "open source" and "free software", is not over principles. It's over tactics and rhetoric. The open-source movement is largely composed not of people who reject RMS's ideals, but rather of people who reject his rhetoric.

Is this justified? Well -- consider the 180-degree turnaround in press and mainstream perception that has taken place in the last fourteen months, since many people in our tribe started pushing the same licenses and the same code we used to call "free software" under the "open source" banner.

Where we used to be ignored and dismissed, we are now praised and respected. The same press that used to dismiss "free software" as a crackpot idea now falls over itself writing laudatory articles about "open source". And the same corporate titans who dismissed RMS as a `communist' are lining up to pour money and effort into open-source development. Our market share and mind share have both zoomed to a level that would have seemed the stuff of delirious fancy as recently as January of last year. That's what I'm saying -- not that RMS is evil, or that he hasn't done enough stuff, or whatever. Just that the way he presents his ideas doesn't resonate with most people, and so they've been ignoring him. I therefore think it's a mistake to echo those ideas when you're trying to convince people to use OSS.

I support the FSF, and that is a separate entity from RMS. I cannot say that enough because most OSI supporters seem to have a hard time grasping that concept:
RMS != The FSF True. But RMS's tactics are what the FSF uses, and I see those tactics as horribly broken. From a purely utilitarian point of view, the FSF and RMS are both bad -- the FSF has existed for those 20 years, and they've convinced almost nobody (in pure-numbers terms) to use their software. RMS has been a public figure for a few years longer than that, and he's done just as poorly.

[Gogeta_44]

Okay, I'll admit I was the 'anonymous' jabber source from before. As stupidboy said, I don't want to start (or feed) another internal flame war. Let's not focus on nitpicking our own internal problems, when we could be fighting for what we really want to stop: Microsoft and proprietary software.

Or even better, let's keep on topic and post ideas on how to get this article out. This isn't the OSI vs. FSF thread is it? ;)

[Sepero]

And here I think you might be confused. The OSI convinces corporations to use OSS, not create it.Just a few corporations that have created/released OSS: Redhat, IBM, Novell, Sun, Apple, and (wait for it)... Microsoft.

I will stop now, for the sake of StupidBoy and saving this thread. For now, let us agree to disagree.

[bwkaz]

OK, that's fine. :)

[Stupid Boy]

I deleted a lot of stuff and cleaned up a few things. My main questions:

The current way I'm citing stuff feels too formal. This is obviously not being written like a newspaper article because I'm only explaining why other people are wrong and I'm quoting newspaper articles. Can you think of better ways to do it? (I can ask my English teacher this.)

In what order do you think the rumors should be?

Last month's Maroon included an article about open-source software by Salil Subbakrishna titled “Open-Source Freeware.” This article discusses the pros and cons of open-source and proprietary software. While I was excited at first to see an article about open-source software in the Maroon, I was surprised after reading the article that it was even published. Much of the information in the article, including all of the cons of open-source software, was either entirely false or very misleading. I have chosen the four most important of these misconceptions, which happen to be very common beliefs, and I would like to discuss why they are false or misleading and why people believe them.

Open-source software gives users certain freedoms that proprietary software does not give them. The name “open-source” comes from the requirement that the source code be distributed with open-source software. The source code is the code use to create the program. The programmer uses a special program to turn the source code into a different code that can be run. While one cannot run the program from the source code, the source code is needed to develop the program and study how it works. With open-source software, everyone has access to the source code and, but with proprietary software, only the creator has access to the source code.

“'Because the code [of open-source programs] is open to the public, it is easier for hackers to find vulnerabilities in the program.'” (Subbakrishna)

According to bwkaz, a moderator of JustLinux Forums (justlinux.com), “It is NOT harder to find a buffer overflow (for example) when you have the source code for a program. The same types of patterns exist in the machine code after it's compiled -- this is how all the buffer overflows in various pieces of Windows were found and reported to Microsoft. Someone analyzed the machine language in the EXE or DLL, and found a point where the pattern of machine language instructions meant that a buffer overflow might be possible at that point. If [he]'d had the source, [he] would have searched for a different pattern, but a pattern would have been there to be found.”

“Most software ... is created by a corporation for profit.” (Subbakrishna)

I'm not sure of whether this is true because I have seen no statistics to support this, but is misleading if it is true; if this is true, “most” must mean merely “a majority,” not “an overwhelming majority.” As of this writing, Sourceforge.net, a website that sponsors open-source software exclusively, had 104,030 projects. Compare this with the software selection at popular online stores that sell both proprietary and open-source software: Including open-source software, Newegg.com had 1191 items in its Software section, and Amazon.com had 70911 items it its Software section.

There are a few reasons why these numbers are hard to compare. Many of Amazon's and Newegg's products are the same program with a different license or different versions or packages of the same program while different versions of projects at Sourceforge are not counted as separate projects. Also, some of Sourceforge's projects have not yet released files for download. Still, I feel confident saying that the selection of open-source software is not significantly smaller than the selection of proprietary software.

“Another problem with open-source programs is that there is no reliable group to turn to for technical support if something goes wrong.” (Subbakrishna)

According to Peter Hofman, project manager for Munich's Windows to Linux migration, the opposite is true. “'When we implement a Microsoft product, we can only call one person for help with the software and that is Microsoft,' Hofmann said. He said if one Linux specialist company did not provide sufficient support, the city 'can change over easily to another in one year.'” (Crampton) Because only Microsoft has the source code to Windows, no company can provide as good technical support as Microsoft can because Microsoft is the only company that has the ability to examine the source code to determine what may have caused a problem. Therefore, there is no competition for Windows technical support, and Microsoft does not need to provide good technical support. Any company can provide technical support for open-source software, however, because everyone has access to the source code of open-source software. This creates an incentive for companies to develop useful technical support.

Also, open-source software documentation is readily available on the internet. Places like The Linux Documentation Project (TLDP) are devoted to providing guides to doing things with Linux. There are also Wikis, web applications that allow users (often completely unrestricted) to add and edit content, and internet forums devoted to general Linux support, support for specific Linux distributions or support for specific programs.

“'Open source is not for the 'average joe.''” (Subbakrishna)

First, this is clearly false because most people find Firefox, an open-source web browser, pretty easy to use. In fact, some people like it more than Internet Explorer. “According to junior James Watters, as a result of its being open-source, 'Firefox is easy to use, more secure, and has useful features like opening many tabs of websites in a single window'” (Subbakrishna)

This is one of the many properties that proprietary software shares with open-source software. There are examples of both types of software that people find easy to use and examples of both that people find hard to use.

For example, here are some easy to use proprietary applications followed by their free, easy to use equivalents: Nero, K3b; Internet Explorer, Firefox; iMovie, Kino. Here are some hard to use proprietary applications followed by their free, hard to use equivalents: Photoshop, The Gimp; Adobe Premiere, Cinelerra. I understand that people will disagree with me on the difficulty of some of these applications. I sorted them by the difficulty an “average joe” who had never seen the program before would have in using the program, but I normally prefer to ask people what they mean when they comment on the difficulty of a program. You may believe that some of them are misplaced, but this still shows that open-source software is not harder to use than proprietary software just because it is free.

The main reason people believe this rumor is that they often associate GNU/Linux(often called simply “Linux), an open-source operating system, with open-source software and think get the impression that they must install a whole new operating system in order to use open-source software and have to install things and configure within the operating system differently. It is understandable that these people find setting up Linux more difficult than setting up Windows because these people are already used to Windows.

I am not going to argue about whether installing things in Linux is harder than installing things in Windows because the difficulty of installing a program does not effect the program's ease of use. In Gentoo Linux, the Linux distribution (group of applications and tools that is distributed to users for installation) that I use, I always run the same command to install programs. Regardless of the difficulty of use of the programs, the only part of the command that I ever change is the program name; I run the same command to install Firefox as I run to install Blender.

The use of the shell in Linux may be another reason that people believe that Linux is harder to use than Windows. There are many people, like me, who prefer using the shell (similar to Windows's Command Prompt) to using graphical utilities for certain tasks. However, people don't need to use the shell in Linux any more than they need to use the Command Prompt in Windows. To write this article, for example, I did not use the shell at all. I booted Linux and logged in at a login screen very similar to the Windows one. I then reached my desktop. I opened OpenOffice by clicking an icon on my desktop. After I finished this article, I opened Firefox by clicking an icon on my desktop, went to gmail.com and sent my article to The Cutting Edge. Again, I never did not use the shell at all during this process. Also, I would have used the exact same procedure had I been using Windows.

More information about open-source software:

The Free Software Foundation - http://www.fsf.org/
The GNU Project - http://www.gnu.org/
The Open Source Initiative - http://www.opensource.org/

Crampton, Thomas. “Microsoft chief dines in a Linux city.” International Herald Tribune. Oct. 6, 2005.
Subbakrishna, Salil. “Open-Source Freeware.” The Maroon Oct. 2005: 9.

[je_fro]

Hmm. So those of us that do plan on doing in-house support for Linux for our companies can't? Or am I reading that wrong? ;)


More power to ya!

[Parcival]

In what order do you think the rumors should be?

I think the order's fine. However, I think you have to reword two paragraphs that are yet too difficult to understand:

Open-source software gives users certain freedoms that proprietary software does not give them. The name “open-source” comes from the requirement that the source code be distributed with open-source software. The source code is the code use to create the program. The programmer uses a special program to turn the source code into a different code that can be run. While one cannot run the program from the source code, the source code is needed to develop the program and study how it works. With open-source software, everyone has access to the source code and, but with proprietary software, only the creator has access to the source code.

“'Because the code [of open-source programs] is open to the public, it is easier for hackers to find vulnerabilities in the program.'” (Subbakrishna)

According to bwkaz, a moderator of JustLinux Forums (justlinux.com), “It is NOT harder to find a buffer overflow (for example) when you have the source code for a program. The same types of patterns exist in the machine code after it's compiled -- this is how all the buffer overflows in various pieces of Windows were found and reported to Microsoft. Someone analyzed the machine language in the EXE or DLL, and found a point where the pattern of machine language instructions meant that a buffer overflow might be possible at that point. If [he]'d had the source, [he] would have searched for a different pattern, but a pattern would have been there to be found.”

I think for the average reader it's not yet understandable what the difference between the two forms of code is. For example, instead of using the ambiguous term "different code", make a clear difference from the beginning by talking of e.g. "programmer's code" and "machine code".
Similarly, it's quite a jump (for the average reader) from the term "vulnerability" to "buffer overflow". Of course, if you quote bwkaz you need to quote precisely like with any quote, but bwkaz knows that a buffer overflow is a potential vulnerability - the average reader doesn't. I suggest you add some further explanation there.

If you want, you can email me your text as an openoffice document so I could record the changes I would make to the document.

[Sepero]

Personally, I just think too much is being written for a rebuttal; it's about the size of a full article. If you subtract all quotes, I would think a rebuttal should be about 1/4 the size of what you currently have. (More links to outside content would be a good way to reduce the size.)

Again this is just my opinion.

[cybertron]

(More links to outside content would be a good way to reduce the size.)
But how many people who read this are actually going to visit said outside links? They're nice for the 1% of people who will actually look further into it, but most people are going to read the article, hopefully learn something, and then say "oh, that's nice" and go about their business. If you're lucky they'll have a new perspective on Open Source, but I doubt too many of them are going to be installing Linux because of one article in a school paper (no offense Stupid Boy). I think the point here is to make sure that the negative opinions of the original article get refuted by someone who actually has experience with OSS.

Also, as a general rule rebuttals that I've seen are frequently around the same length as the original because it takes more effort to both explain why the original is wrong and what the truth is.

But then that's just my opinion.:)

[bwkaz]

Similarly, it's quite a jump (for the average reader) from the term "vulnerability" to "buffer overflow". Yes, that is a problem...

but bwkaz knows that a buffer overflow is a potential vulnerability - the average reader doesn't. I suggest you add some further explanation there. OK, I'll give my permission (;)) to change it to this (but put it however you want to put it if you don't like this; just run it past me first):

It is no easier to find a buffer overflow (one type of vulnerability, and the type that probably causes the most damage) when you have the source code for a program. Buffer overflows are almost always found by looking for certain patterns in the program. When you have the source code for a program (the version that a programmer can easily read), you look for one of a certain set of patterns. But when you only have the machine code (the version that a machine can directly execute), you look for one of a different set of patterns. The patterns are different, but some pattern exists in both versions.

[Maybe cut the following part out?]

This is how all the buffer overflows in various pieces of Windows were found and reported to Microsoft. Someone analyzed the machine code in the EXE or DLL, and found a point where a pattern meant that a buffer overflow might be possible there. Then they did some testing to find out for sure whether one existed. If this person would have had the source, they would have searched for a different pattern, but a pattern would have still been there.

[Stupid Boy]

Right now it's at about a page and a half, and I want to get it down to a page. It doesn't have to sound really fancy; the newspaper that will run this article is a lot like The Daily Show, so a lot of the articles are just made up, and a lot of them have somewhat crude humor. It's also printed on letter-size paper rather than the normal newspaper paper.

I want to make fun of the author of the other article and the people he quotes as little as possible. I'm having trouble doing that because I want to quote from the article.

Even though I would love to fill it with citations, I'm probably not going to do that for a few reasons:
1. It will look weird.
2. People may argue that the places I cite are invalid because they'll all be free software or open-source software websites.
3. I'm a bit lazy.

I'm planning on showing it to my English teacher tomarrow.

Here's my latest draft:
In Salil Subbakrishna's article, “Open-Source Freeware,” which was in October's issue of The Maroon, I found many statements about the disadvantages of open-source software that were either false or very misleading. I would like to correct at least the worst of these errors so that people understand the truth behind open-source software.

So first, what is open-source software? To explain that, we need to know what a source code is. To create a program, a programmer first writes a programmer's code, called the source code. After writing this programmer's code, the programmer uses a special program to turn this programmer's code into a machine code that the computer can execute. Users run the program from this machine code, but they cannot study how the program works from this machine code.

Open-source software gives users freedoms that proprietary software doesn't give them, many of which are related to the distribution of the source code. While there are different philosophies behind both types of software, these freedoms are the only things that separate the two types of software.

According to Subbakrishna's article, a “...problem with open-source programs is that there is no reliable group to turn to for technical support if something goes wrong.”

Numerous reliable groups exist that can provide technical support for open-source software. Sometimes, a user can even contact the developers. With open-source software, everyone has access to the source code, so anyone can find bugs in the software and fix them. Also, anyone can form a company that provides technical support, so users who are not pleased with one company's support can switch to another company.

For proprietary software, however, only one group can provide support for the software. Because only one group has access to the source code of the proprietary software, only one group can find and correct problems with the software, preventing competition in the technical support area. (Note that this is different from when companies like Dell help users deal with problems by advising users to reinstall software or change settings.) Of course, not all proprietary software companies provide terrible technical support. However, because they have no competition for technical support, they have less of an incentive to provide good support.

In Subbakrishna's article, sophomore Sam Roth says that, “'Because the code [of open-source programs] is open to the public, it is easier for hackers to find vulnerabilities in the program.'”

While this seems to make sense at first, it is simply not true. According to bwkaz, a moderator of JustLinux Forums (justlinux.com), “It is no easier to find a buffer overflow (one type of vulnerability, and the type that probably causes the most damage) when you have the source code for a program. Buffer overflows are almost always found by looking for certain patterns in the program. When you have the source code for a program (the version that a programmer can easily read), you look for one of a certain set of patterns. But when you only have the machine code (the version that a machine can directly execute), you look for one of a different set of patterns. The patterns are different, but some pattern exists in both versions.”

In Subbakrishna's article, Doug Vermes says that,“'Open source is not for the 'average joe.''”

This rumor is based on certain examples of programs that users find hard to use; it does not apply to all open-source programs. Let's start with Firefox, a fairly well-known open-source program that Subbakrishna discusses in his article. Most people will agree that Firefox is just as easy to use as Internet Explorer. Mozilla Thunderbird and Evolution, two open-source email clients, look and function almost exactly like Microsoft Outlook. OpenOffice.org, an open-source productivity suite, looks and functions almost exactly like Microsoft Office. I could go on with more examples for pages. There are open-source applications that are harder to use than their proprietary counterparts, but this is not caused by simply being open-source.

More information about open-source software:

The Free Software Foundation - http://www.fsf.org/
The GNU Project - http://www.gnu.org/
The Open Source Initiative - http://www.opensource.org/

EDIT: bwkaz, I'd prefer to use your real name rather than your forum name. First, is that okay? And second, what is it?

[Sepero]

To create a program, a programmer first writes a programmer's code, called the source code. After writing this programmer's code, the programmer uses a special program to turn this programmer's code into a machine code that the computer can execute. Users run the program from this machine code, but they cannot study how the program works from this machine code.

The word “program” was used too many times and will confuse readers. Readers may not register the word “execute” (execution/death?). It is Possible to study machine code(assembly). Plus, not all source code is compiled. A possible suggestion:

To create a program, a developer(or 'programmer') first writes a program's code, called the source code. Often, this source code is then translated(by another program) into instructions that your computer can better understand. A new program is born. Users can then run and use this new program, but studing how it works is very difficult in this new form.

I didn't get past paragraph 4, but there's another thing. You said the word “proprietary” without introducing it to the reader.

-out of time again-

[Parcival]

“It is no easier to find a buffer overflow (one type of vulnerability, and the type that probably causes the most damage) when you have the source code for a program."

I would make that

“It is no easier to find a buffer overflow when you have the source code for a program." (a buffer overflow is one type of vulnerability)

to support more fluent reading. Furthermore, I don't think it's save to say that a buffer overflow is the vulnerability that causes most damage. A buffer overflow doesn't necessarily do damage per se, it just lets a part of a software/system crash that a cracker can potentially use to access a system e.g. with root priviledges.

Except for my remarks I think the article's ready to print. :)

[Stupid Boy]

I made a few changes based on Sepero's reply. The article from The Maroon 974 words, and my article has 727 words. I'd still like to make mine a bit smaller.

Also, I'd like to change bwkaz's quotation to this:

It is no easier to find a buffer overflow (one type of vulnerability) when you have the source code for a program. Buffer overflows are almost always found by looking for certain patterns in the program. When you have the source code for a program, you look for one of a certain set of patterns, and when you only have the machine code, you look for one of a different set of patterns. The patterns are different, but some pattern exists in both versions.

[Sepero]

“Sometimes, a user can even contact the developers.”
I would change that to “Often”. (Perhaps even Very Often ;)).

Section #2 looks pretty good. :)

“It is no easier to find a buffer overflow (one type of vulnerability, and the type that probably causes the most damage) when you have the source code for a program.”
Suggestion:
“It is no easier to find a buffer overflow (one of the most common vulnerabilities in software) when you have the source code for a program.”

“But when you only have the machine code (the version that a machine can directly execute), you look for one of a different set of patterns. The patterns are different, but some pattern exists in both versions.”
Suggestion:
“But when you only have the machine code (the actual program that a computer runs), you look for one of a different set of patterns. The patterns are different, but the patterns exist in both versions.”

No complaints about the ending. Overall I rather like it.

[Sepero]

“It is no easier to find a buffer overflow (one of the most common vulnerabilities in software) when you have the source code for a program.”
Upon second look, this might not be a very accurate statement. Perhaps:

a buffer overflow (one of the most potentially dangerous vulnerabilities in software)

[bwkaz]

EDIT: bwkaz, I'd prefer to use your real name rather than your forum name. First, is that okay? And second, what is it? Sure -- Bryan. But just in case anyone comes here to look, and says "there's no mod named Bryan here! what are you trying to pull?", you might want to put bwkaz in parentheses or something. Just so it's there. :)

Also, I'd like to change bwkaz's quotation to this: Between this suggestion and what Sepero was saying later, how about:

It is no easier to find a buffer overflow (one of the most potentially dangerous vulnerabilities in software) when you have the source code for a program. Buffer overflows are almost always found by looking for certain patterns in the program. When you have the source code for a program, you look for one of a certain set of patterns, and when you only have the machine code, you look for one of a different set of patterns. The patterns are different, but some pattern exists in both versions. Since source and machine code were explained above, I think that should do just fine.

[je_fro]

looks like this paper was written using opensource principles...

[Stupid Boy]

I had one of the people from The Cutting Edge read the article, and he said that I should submit it as an op-ed to the Maroon. I actually think this is better than submitting it to The Cutting Edge, but I hadn't realized before that it would turn out sounding like an op-ed.

bwkaz, I could call you Bryan 'bwkaz' <Last Name>. I think that's the most natural way to say it.

I had my brother read the article, and he told me mainly to add examples. For examples of companies that provide technical support, I would like to include a small company that people won't know, a large company that people won't know and a company that everyone will know but nobody will expect to be providing technical support for open-source software. There are so many (http://www.google.com/search?q=technical-support+linux&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial) companies that do this that I'm having trouble choosing examples. Which ones are the best-known ones in the open-source community?

Although it is a bit redundant, my brother suggested adding the word "security" right before "vulnerabilities" in your quote.

looks like this paper was written using opensource principles...
I have been thinking the same thing.

[Sepero]

I had one of the people from The Cutting Edge read the article, and he said that I should submit it as an op-ed to the Maroon.
What's an op-ed?

Although it is a bit redundant, my brother suggested adding the word "security" right before "vulnerabilities" in your quote.
I tried to make the text as brief as I could while still delivering the essential message. Feel free to add what ever you like.

[Stupid Boy]

What's an op-ed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html

[bwkaz]

bwkaz, I could call you Bryan 'bwkaz' <Last Name>. I think that's the most natural way to say it. Probably. I've PM'ed you my last name (it's not that I think people here would do anything evil with it; I just don't trust the search engine bots, or the occasional spammer that registers and tries to post "free nintendo ds!" crap ;) -- so I'd rather not have it posted here, if possible).

and a company that everyone will know but nobody will expect to be providing technical support for open-source software. IBM for that one perhaps? Otherwise possibly Oracle, though I think they only provide support for their product running on Linux. HP?

Which ones are the best-known ones in the open-source community? Probably Red Hat, SuSE, some of the other for-pay distros. And IBM, and VA Linux. Novell perhaps, too, or would that fall under SuSE?

That's almost exactly what you were thinking, in fact: For a small company, pick any of the tiny-looking ones on your Google search (BearOps, Puget Sound Technology, marko.net, ForLinux, PogoLinux, etc., etc., all ~5 million of them (and that should be an indicator too -- the fact that there are about 5 million results for "linux technical support" on Google, even counting all the false positives)). For a large company no one knows about, either VA Linux, Red Hat, SuSE/Novell, or something like that. For a large company that everyone knows about, but nobody expects Linux support from, I'd probably go with HP or IBM.

[Stupid Boy]

The examples I have chosen:

Gonicus, VA Software and Novell

Gonicus and SoftCon are the companies that Munich used for its LiMux project. I chose to use Gonicus because SoftCon sounds more like VA Software than Gonicus does.

I made a few minor changes, and I think I italicized all of the changes. I'm planning on submitting it to The Maroon early next week; they normally send the paper to a printer at the end of the week and dirstribute it in the middle of the week after.

In Salil Subbakrishna's article, “Open-Source Freeware,” which appeared in October's issue of The Maroon, I found many statements about the disadvantages of open-source software that were either false or very misleading. I would like to correct at least the worst of these errors so that people understand the truth behind open-source software.

First, what is the difference between open-source software and proprietary software? To explain that, we need to know what a source code is. To create a program, a programmer first writes a programmer's code, called the source code. After writing the source code, the programmer often uses a special program to translate the source code into a machine code that the computer can run. Users run the program from this machine code, but it is difficult to study how the program works from this machine code.

Open-source software gives users freedoms that proprietary software does not give them, many of which are related to the distribution of the source code. The source code of open-source programs, such as Firefox, and The Gimp, must be distributed, but the source code of proprietary programs, such as Internet Explorer and Photoshop, is kept secret. While the two types of software are based on different philosophies, these freedoms are the only things that separate the two types of software.

According to Subbakrishna's article, a “...problem with open-source programs is that there is no reliable group to turn to for technical support if something goes wrong.”

Numerous reliable groups exist that can provide technical support for open-source software. Users can contact companies like Gonicus, VA Software and Novell, or users can use free-of-charge resources from the internet. Often, a user can even contact the developers of the software. With open-source software, everyone has access to the source code, so anyone can find bugs in the software and fix them. Also, anyone can form a company that provides technical support, so users who are not pleased with one company's support can switch to another company.

For proprietary software, however, only one group can provide support for the software. Because only one group has access to the source code of the proprietary software, only one group can find and correct problems with the software, preventing competition in the technical support area. (Note that this is different from when companies like Dell help users deal with problems by advising users to reinstall software or change settings.) Of course, not all proprietary software companies provide terrible technical support. However, because they have no competition for technical support, they have less of an incentive to provide good support.

In Subbakrishna's article, computer science teacher Doug Vermes says that, “'Because the code [of open-source programs] is open to the public, it is easier for hackers to find vulnerabilities in the program.'”

While this seems to make sense at first, it is simply not true. According to Bryan “bwkaz” aosteuhsaotehustaohesut, a moderator of JustLinux Forums (justlinux.com), an internet forum devoted to GNU/Linux (a free operating system), “It is no easier to find a buffer overflow (one of the most potentially dangerous security vulnerabilities in software) when you have the source code for a program. Buffer overflows are almost always found by looking for certain patterns in the program. When you have the source code for a program, you look for one of a certain set of patterns, and when you only have the machine code, you look for one of a different set of patterns. The patterns are different, but some pattern exists in both versions.”

In Subbakrishna's article, computer teacher Greg Leong says that, “'Open source is not for the 'average joe.''”

This rumor is based on certain examples of programs that users find hard to use; it does not apply to all open-source programs. Let's start with Firefox, a fairly well-known open-source program that Subbakrishna discusses in his article. Most people will agree that Firefox is just as easy to use as Internet Explorer. Thunderbird and Evolution, two open-source email clients, look and function almost exactly like Microsoft Outlook. OpenOffice.org, an open-source productivity suite, looks and functions almost exactly like Microsoft Office. I could go on with more examples for pages. There are open-source applications that are harder to use than their proprietary counterparts, but simply being open-source does not cause this.

More information about open-source software:

The Free Software Foundation - http://www.fsf.org/
The GNU Project - http://www.gnu.org/
The Open Source Initiative - http://www.opensource.org/
JustLinux Forums – http://justlinux.com
Sourceforge – http://sourceforge.net

I still need a title.

[Sepero]

Again, I must point out that you say the word "proprietary" without introducing it first. I think you should somehow introduce it before using it.

[Stupid Boy]

Again, I must point out that you say the word "proprietary" without introducing it first. I think you should somehow introduce it before using it.

I have been thinking for a while about how to do this, and I think I figured it out this morning in the shower. I can change the first sentence of the second paragraph to:

First, what is open-source software, what is proprietary software, and what is the difference between them?

Also, I thought I should add somewhere that companies can make open-source software for profit (by providing support). Probably the part about technical support would be a good place to put this, but I can't figure out exactly where it would go.

[bwkaz]

Also, I thought I should add somewhere that companies can make open-source software for profit (by providing support). Probably the part about technical support would be a good place to put this, but I can't figure out exactly where it would go. Hmm. How about something like this for the first paragraph under support? (Changes in bold.)

Numerous reliable groups exist that can provide technical support for open-source software. Users can purchase support agreements from companies like Gonicus, VA Software and Novell, or users can use free-of-charge resources from the internet. (In the interest of honesty, the reliability of answers received from a contracted support agency are sometimes [note: emphasis on "sometimes"] better than random answers off the Internet, but this happens less with open-source software than with proprietary software.) Often, a user can even contact the developers of the software. With open-source software, everyone has access to the source code, so anyone can find bugs in the software and fix them. Also, anyone can form a company that provides technical support, so users who are not pleased with one company's support can switch to another company.

This is how most companies make money off open-source software. Instead of acting like their software is a product, and charging for it, they provide their software at no (or a very low) cost, under an open-source license. Then they charge for support, certification of compatibility, documentation, or some other similar add-on.

[Calipso]

If youre looking for companies that offer linux/open source support, these guys might be worth a look: Enomaly (http://www.enomaly.net/) and maybe LNC (http://www.linuxnetworkcare.com/index.php)

[Stupid Boy]

I made changes to the sections that were discussed after I posted the last draft.

I also added a sentence at the beginning so people won't be able to think, "He's just taking the things the stupid people said even though there were smart people who disagreed with the stupid people in the original article."

In Salil Subbakrishna's article “Open-Source Freeware,” which appeared in October's issue of The Maroon, I found many statements about the disadvantages of open-source software that were either false or very misleading. These statements were all presented as fact. I would like to correct at least the worst of these errors so that people understand the truth behind open-source software.

First, what is open-source software, what is proprietary software, and what is the difference between them? To explain that, we need to know what a source code is. To create a program, a programmer first writes a programmer's code, called the source code. After writing the source code, the programmer often uses a special program to translate the source code into a machine code that the computer can run. Users run the program from this machine code, but it is difficult to study how the program works from this machine code.

Open-source software gives users freedoms that proprietary software does not give them, many of which are related to the distribution of the source code. The source code of open-source programs, such as Firefox, and The Gimp, must be distributed, but the source code of proprietary programs, such as Internet Explorer and Photoshop, is kept secret. While the two types of software are based on different philosophies, these freedoms are the only things that separate the two types of software.

According to Subbakrishna's article, a “...problem with open-source programs is that there is no reliable group to turn to for technical support if something goes wrong.”

Numerous reliable groups exist that can provide technical support for open-source software. Users purchase support agreements from companies like Enomaly, VA Software and Novell, or users can use free-of-charge resources from the internet. Often, a user can even contact the developers of the software. With open-source software, everyone has access to the source code, so anyone can find bugs in the software and fix them. Therefore, anyone can form a company that provides technical support, and users who are not pleased with one company's support can switch to another company. This is how companies make money off of open-source software. Even if a company develops its own open-source software, it does not make money by selling the software; it makes money by selling technical support for the software.

For proprietary software, however, only one group can provide support for the software. Because only one group has access to the source code of the proprietary software, only one group can find and correct problems with the software, preventing competition in the technical support area. (Note that this is different from when companies like Dell help users deal with problems by advising users to reinstall software or change settings.) Of course, not all proprietary software companies provide terrible technical support. However, because they have no competition for technical support, they have less of an incentive to provide good support.

In Subbakrishna's article, computer science teacher Doug Vermes says that, “'Because the code [of open-source programs] is open to the public, it is easier for hackers to find vulnerabilities in the program.'”

While this seems to make sense at first, it is simply not true. According to Bryan “bwkaz” haonteusanthos, a moderator of JustLinux Forums (justlinux.com), an internet forum devoted to GNU/Linux (a free operating system), “It is no easier to find a buffer overflow (one of the most potentially dangerous security vulnerabilities in software) when you have the source code for a program. Buffer overflows are almost always found by looking for certain patterns in the program. When you have the source code for a program, you look for one of a certain set of patterns, and when you only have the machine code, you look for one of a different set of patterns. The patterns are different, but some pattern exists in both versions.”

In Subbakrishna's article, computer teacher Greg Leong says that, “'Open source is not for the 'average joe.''”

This rumor is based on certain examples of programs that users find hard to use; it does not apply to all open-source programs. Let's start with Firefox, a fairly well-known open-source program that Subbakrishna discusses in his article. Most people will agree that Firefox is just as easy to use as Internet Explorer. Thunderbird and Evolution, two open-source email clients, look and function almost exactly like Microsoft Outlook. OpenOffice.org, an open-source productivity suite, looks and functions almost exactly like Microsoft Office. I could go on with more examples for pages. There are open-source applications that are harder to use than their proprietary counterparts, but simply being open-source does not cause this.

More information about open-source software:

The Free Software Foundation - http://www.fsf.org/
The GNU Project - http://www.gnu.org/
The Open Source Initiative - http://www.opensource.org/
JustLinux Forums – http://justlinux.com
Sourceforge – http://sourceforge.net

[Sepero]

Users purchase support agreements from companies like...
Users can purchase support agreements from companies like...

This is how companies make money off of open-source software.
This is often how companies make money with open-source software.



Even if a company develops its own open-source software, it does not make money by selling the software; it makes money by selling technical support for the software.I would remove this line. I think it is inaccurate and adds little to the overall text. There are lots of OSS companies that charge for their software(and are well worth it); tech support just happens to come with it.

[je_fro]

Users purchase support agreements from companies like...
Users can purchase support agreements from companies like...

This is how companies make money off of open-source software.
This is often how companies make money with open-source software.



I would remove this line. I think it is inaccurate and adds little to the overall text. There are lots of OSS companies that charge for their software(and are well worth it); tech support just happens to come with it.


Yeah, I still think StupidBoy is missing the point. It's too bad the word "free" means "without cost" in english, because what "free software" means is that it's unencumbered by a proprietary license. To say it for the 1000th time, it's free as in "free speech" not "free beer". You can sell free software, you just have to make the source code available. That's all.

[Stupid Boy]

I made the changes that Sepero suggested. Before I send this, can bwkaz say this:

It is no easier to find a buffer overflow (one of the most potentially dangerous security vulnerabilities in software) when you have the source code for a program. Buffer overflows are almost always found by looking for certain patterns in the program. When you have the source code for a program, you look for one of a certain set of patterns, and when you only have the machine code, you look for one of a different set of patterns. The patterns are different, but some pattern exists in both versions.

[Sepero]

If I may suggest another reference. It is very indepth.
http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html

[Sepero]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

[bwkaz]

I made the changes that Sepero suggested. Before I send this, can bwkaz say this: Sure, I'll go on record as having said that. :p

The other comments sound good to me too. :)

[Gogeta_44]

Hey, just a suggestion, but you could put a link to this thread in the article to show our "open" development... and as a shameless plug to get the small percentage of those interested to come to JL. :p
Ah, whatever,
Just an idea.
Article looks great so far.

[Stupid Boy]

Sure, I'll go on record as having said that. :p

The other comments sound good to me too. :)

I'd prefer if you would just copy the quoted text and paste it in a post.

gogeta44, what's idocracy?
----------
It turns out that I have until next week to submit this. So, I can ask the last big question: What should I title it?

I don't want to put anything about computers because that could discourage people from reading it. Although it's a bit mean, the best title I could think of was, "Don't Believe Everything You Read in The Maroon." What do you think of this title?

[Gogeta_44]

gogeta44, what's idocracy?

A word I misspelled when I retyped my signature.
But what does this have to do with anything?

[Parcival]

So, I can ask the last big question: What should I title it?

"Trust is good, checking the source is better."

[bwkaz]

Ah, I see. OK:

It is no easier to find a buffer overflow (one of the most potentially dangerous security vulnerabilities in software) when you have the source code for a program. Buffer overflows are almost always found by looking for certain patterns in the program. When you have the source code for a program, you look for one of a certain set of patterns, and when you only have the machine code, you look for one of a different set of patterns. The patterns are different, but some pattern exists in both versions.

:p

As far as the title goes, I'm not very good at coming up with stuff like that on my own. But I do like Parcival's. :)

[Parcival]

Thank you sir. :)

[Sepero]

title suggestions:

"What Open Source Software is, and what it means to You."

"The beginning of a new era: Open Source Software"

[Stupid Boy]

I like Parcival's too. I understand the pun about the source, but is trust a pun too?

[Sepero]

Sorry parcival, I really didn't like the title you gave, that's why I suggested others.

[Parcival]

@ Stupid Boy: No, "source" is the only pun I intended.

@ Sepero: I noticed on several occasions we don't necessarily always share the same opinion. ;) That's why freedom of speech, democracy, etc. exists after all. :)

[Sepero]

@ Sepero: I noticed on several occasions we don't necessarily always share the same opinion. ;) That's why freedom of speech, democracy, etc. exists after all. :)
I disagree. :D

[Stupid Boy]

I've been thinking about the title Parcival gave. I only liked the part about "source," and I couldn't think of a better title that used "source" as a pun.

I thought that a good title might be something like, "Open-Source Software Sucks." I would then have to change the introduction to clarify that the title is entirely wrong and that is just what the original article says. The main problem with this is that I can't find a good euphemism for "sucks."

Another one, "Don't Spread Rumors!"

I don't think either of mine are too good either.

[Stupid Boy]

Gogeta_44 found "Use the Source Luke!" in Fortunes (I think). I could change this to "Use the Source, Luke!" and use this. It is sort of stupid-sounding, but it's better than the others.

You can runfortune -sm source
fortune -sm Sourceto find short fortunes that contain the words "source" and "Source" andfortune -m source
fortune -m Sourceto find all fortunes that contain the word "source" and "Source."

I also found one very similar to Parcival's idea, but I still don't know how to make a title out of it: "Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for."

I'd like to see a few replies before about 12:30 p.m. today. I want to submit the op-ed today because the newspaper starts layout today.

[Sepero]

Perhaps you could try:
fortune -m open

[camelllamamoose]

I know this is from a long time ago, but I came across this and as the author of the article, feel obligated to make a response.

First, the title "open-source freeware" was created by the editors, I had no control over that although I repeatedly attempted to get it changed to "open source software". Alas, we don't get everything we want.
Second, this article was never meant to be a bible on open-source. This is a student newspaper and thus the focus is on students. While I tried to avoid any egregious factual errors, my focus is on giving an overview of the system and looking at the implications for students. The purpose of many of the "inaccuarate quotes" is to ge a student perspective, not to provide repositories of knowledge. I'm sorry if my lack of technical information offended you, but most students have enough trouble understanding the basics, forget the more technical stuff. I grant I'm not expert and the article didn't go farther than the basics. (As a side note, I had been lobbying to get an article like this since January of 2005. Even then, I only got four days to do the entire thing from start to finish) They had considered offering it to someone else. At least I know roughly what open-source is.

In short, I grant the article has some flaws and you can criticize the way it is written and if you want to write an improved version, fine. But I highly suggest that you try and understand the context behind an article before you criticize the people who are involved with it. You're offended? At least I made an attempt to understand what was going on. You just started criticizing.

[Parcival]

The purpose of many of the "inaccuarate quotes" is to ge a student perspective, not to provide repositories of knowledge.

(...)

At least I made an attempt to understand what was going on. You just started criticizing.

Well, the Linux community does a lot for speaking out the message, too, so you can't claim that we just restrict ourselves to criticizing.

Furthermore, what's journalism's worth when it's just about providing "perspectives", but not knowledge?

Nobody can criticize your motivation for publishing that article. However, we can criticize statements like the openess of software is a security risk. The problem is since open-source is something new for the readers, it's necessary to be as accurate as possible. If they already get a wrong impression based on the little information they initially absorb, it's getting hard to change that again.