Since I entered
It was not until Mr. Patrick Reidenbach gave a lecture on Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) last September 5 that I heard of the concept.
Wikipedia defines FOSS as software which is liberally licensed to grant the right of users to study, change, and improve its design through the availability of its source code[1]. Simply put, the source code is available for everyone’s access, subject to certain duties and responsibilities.[2]
---------------------------------
For a UP Shopping Center frequenter, Open Office is not a novel program. For someone who spends hours watching youtube videos and downloading mp3s, Mozilla and Limewire are just the best deals in town.
Still, I was not aware how these kinds of software, or FOSS, were in any way different (aside from the fact that their not from Microsoft), as well as how they were conceptualized and are being continually developed. And why, despite the presence of overwhelmingly convincing reasons, there is still a need to explain, and even defend, the preference of their usage over closed-system applications (i.e. Microsoft).
----------------------------------
In a time when value and usefulness of a thing are defined by the price tag attached to it, it is hard to trust any software that Bill Gates (or his empire) did not manufacture; much so, if these could be availed for “free.”
There’s no such thing as a free lunch, as they say.
This still holds true in the case of FOSS. Mr. Reidenbach was quick to say that “free” pertains to the freedom that goes with the usage of the software and not to their amount or pecuniary value.
Subject to such freedom of use, the software is open to further development of the software in less time. Users are encouraged to report bugs [3] to the administrator of the website where the source code was made available to the public, or to debug [4] the application.
This is exactly why technology-neutral advocates lobby for the availability of FOSS, which they believe to be also a solution for the problem of piracy in the country, for why would there still be a need to install pirated Microsoft office systems when there are free and open sources available online?
----------------------------------
I may be admittedly amazed by with the concept of FOSS, but I could think of a number of reasons why it might be difficult for Filipinos to prefer it over closed systems applications.
Aside from the belief that everything comes at a price, it seems that not too many people know much about FOSS. When I was relating Mr. Reidenbach’s lecture to my brother, who’s more technology adept than I am, he said he only knew as much as I know. We agreed that more lobbying needs to be done to inform the public, who has been heavily reliant and trusting on Microsoft for the longest time.
People may also be apprehensive as to who shall be held accountable in the event the free and open software causes irreparable damage, when the Microsoft Terms of Agreement also exonerates the manufacturers from liability in the event the same damage happens.
Basically, possible hindrances could be based on public perception, which could be best combated by intensive information campaign. After all, the principle behind the use of FOSS does not require the use of advance technological knowledge on the part of the public who will hear these advocates out. As a matter of fact, it is best explained in plain language.
------------------------------------
I just realized that the same principle behind my opposition to monopolies and oligarchies just escaped me when it came to technological matters.
As it has been proven in time, where services and products are left to the hands of a selected few, the quality of these products and services, as well as the satisfaction of their intended recipients, are reduced. Due to the absence of competitors, manufacturers and service providers become complacent and they lose the needed motivation to better their products and services. Add the fact that the prices and/or costs of these goods and services may be arbitrarily increased due to the lack of any other option available to the intended recipients.
-------------------------------------
Any software that is not free and open is akin to a monopoly or an oligarchy.
And it does not really take a genius to know what needs to be done about it.
(for the week 21 to 27 September 2008)
[1] A source code is any sequence of statements or declarations written in some human-readable computer programming language. It is in written in a programming language, which is usually a simplified form of the English language to reduce ambiguity. It allows the programmer to communicate with the computer using a reserved number of instructions. (www.wikipedia.org)
[2] These conditions include free redistribution, well-publicized means of obtaining the source code, allowed devising of the code, subject to the same conditions of the original license, integrity of the source code, absence of discrimination against any group or person or field of endeavor, license must also be distributed, must not attach to or restrict a specific product and must be technology-neutral. (www.wikipedia.org)
[3] In computer technology, a bug is a coding error in a computer program.
[4] The process of finding bugs before program users do is called debugging. Debugging starts after the code is first written and continues in successive stages as code is combined with other units of programming to form a software product, such as an operating system or an application After a product is released or during public beta testing, bugs are still apt to be discovered. When this occurs, users have to either find a way to avoid using the "buggy" code or get a patch from the originators of the code.
No comments:
Post a Comment