|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Microsoft vs Open Source
Today, Microsoft has become synonymous to the very term ‘computer’. But as of everything in this imperfect world, Microsoft is not without its darker sides. It has monopolized the market so much so that it can impose new standards at will. It only needs to patent some minor idea, design a file format, programming language, or communication protocol and then pressurize the users to adopt it. For eg: if you don't want windows in your new branded laptop you have to pay for it. This has taken a toll over the free-software providing companies.
One major drawback of Microsoft is that despite making full payment, it does not provide freedom with respect to code-sharing and reusability. It keeps the user divided and helpless - divided because sharing the copies is prohibited; helpless because of the non-availability of source code, which could otherwise be read and changed as per the users’ requirements. Isn’t it demoralizing to live in a house that you can’t rearrange to suit your needs?
It’s a matter of fact that a copy of the program has nearly zero marginal cost; anybody can produce as many copies as are wanted with little or no effort. Creating copies of software isn’t like making a replica of some hardware component which involves fresh new raw materials as was the case with its archetype. A license fee attached to this ‘replica’ only accentuates their greed.
One major drawback of Microsoft is that despite making full payment, it does not provide freedom with respect to code-sharing and reusability. It keeps the user divided and helpless - divided because sharing the copies is prohibited; helpless because of the non-availability of source code, which could otherwise be read and changed as per the users’ requirements. Isn’t it demoralizing to live in a house that you can’t rearrange to suit your needs?
It’s a matter of fact that a copy of the program has nearly zero marginal cost; anybody can produce as many copies as are wanted with little or no effort. Creating copies of software isn’t like making a replica of some hardware component which involves fresh new raw materials as was the case with its archetype. A license fee attached to this ‘replica’ only accentuates their greed.
| dipesh wrote: |
| Isn’t it demoralizing to live in a house that you can’t rearrange to suit your needs? |
You can certainly "rearrange' things. You just can't knock down the walls and build new ones
| dipesh wrote: |
| It’s a matter of fact that a copy of the program has nearly zero marginal cost; anybody can produce as many copies as are wanted with little or no effort. |
Yes, I can fully understand this, because Microsoft would somehow manage to get loads of money if they just made one disk containing Windows, then just let piracy do the rest! Hoorah for bad economics.
This really is a stupid thread. If you want to be using open source, just use open source! The alternative is there!
Don't worry... the death of Microsoft will come slowly, but is certain to happen eventually.
Open source still needs time to grow, anyway.
Open source still needs time to grow, anyway.
Perhaps someone will come with a brilliant new technology that would need completely different software. Like some of the ones I've seen in movies where you can communicate via holograms with people instead of e-mail messages. That will probably completely revolutionize the way people communicate with one another, as it did going from letter to e-mail writing. Hopefully Microsoft will keep up with it as virtually everything it has would have to be changed and rewritten. Although I don't like its size, I've benefitted quite a lot from Microsoft. I'm not too crazy about its marketing practices, but don't think I would go as far as looking at it as a Lucifer. More like as Gates 
Related topics
 |