Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Reading Response #2: Is Free Better?
Like most consumers, I'm not so much concerned with how it works as how much it costs. The readings did help me understand how different software programs function, building on kernels to provide access for different operating systems, but to my untrained eye there wasn't a discernable difference between Linux, Microsoft, and Mac OS. What did stir my interest was the concept of Open Source software. Not only is it free but people are able to adapt the code?! What confuses me is that such a democratic software resource hasn't created more of a revolution for the mainstream consumer (like myself). Software programs such as Napster and Limewire have dramatically and permanently affected the way music is distributed and marketed. Why hasn't Linux created a similar dynamic? Is the very democratic nature of the Open Source medium (constant changes and updates) precluding mainstream distribution (as embedded software on PCs and laptops) or is it because there isn't a strong correlation between Linux' software programming and hardware development? For example, Apple manufactures popular hardware and peripheries (like the ubiquitous iPods and iPhones) that run on its proprietary operating system as Microsoft does PCs. Either way, I am definitely going to learn more about Linux' operating system because I am all for technology that not only attempts to close the "digital divide" but also provides users with an opportunity to actively participate in the development and adaptation of software directly for end users.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Why hasn't Linux created a similar dynamic? Is the very democratic nature of the Open Source medium (constant changes and updates) precluding mainstream distribution (as embedded software on PCs and laptops) or is it because there isn't a strong correlation between Linux' software programming and hardware development?
Open Source is democratic in nature because the source code itself is open for anyone to modify, the operating system kernel itself. But the software for Macs and Windows in mainstream distribution packages is designed to function in a closed source, proprietary operating system.
Linux is blocked by industry to join the greater network. It is very much a revolutionary movement in that it works from the sidelines. But because Linux is not bound by the tech industry's rules and schisms, it actually makes software programs that are designed well. As opposed to the crap designed by Windows, not user friendly at all. The people who design software programs for Linux are programmers who like to do so. They create it as a labor of love. As such, it ends up being a better product than those made for money.
But why should the mainstream consumer get involved with Linux if everything "easy" and mainstream to use cannot be used with Linux? So people outside of geeks don't know the potential of Linux. As long as it is out there, it is not going away though. There is a lot of resistance towards Linux because that boundary between industry control and civilian creation is blurred. With Linux, anyone (or a group) can write their own software program just as good as, and probably better than, Microsoft. And how will those poor companies get our money if we do that?
Post a Comment