Open source means different things to different people so any interpretation can be valid I guess.

From an academic perspective, open source can be translated to mean the source code is open for review by anyone. People are free to use it as a learning tool for review, modification, etc… The only thing that matters in this case is the license it has been released under. In the best licenses, you are free to use the source code for whatever you wish - commercial or otherwise.

From a product perspective, open source can mean something different.

Users can take advantage of an application which is a free or low cost alternative to commercial applications (not that they are better). In addition, they can rely on the open source community for support and guidance if they are so inclined. Also, developers can use the open source application as the launching point for other applications - allowing them to focus on implementing their specific business requirements without dwelling on the mundane plumbing details. In this case, developers rely on the open source core to implement certain general features which save them the time of having to write the code themselves.

Having said all this, I completely agree with all the points you’ve made regarding the future of Open Source software. It will play an important part, but it will not play the biggest part in the role of software of the future… it will play aournd the periphery.

1. True. I think there’s a certain amount of subjectivity to any value judgment like this. My pet theory (though admittedly not one I’ve thought through) is that in the long run open source groups will tend to be “better” at small, niche products while proprietary groups will make better large, mass market products.

2. To me, the accountability is the key. If something goes wrong with your Red Hat installation, Red Hat can always shrug their shoulders and say “that’s just Linux.” Microsoft and Apple don’t have anyone else to pass the blame to. (Okay, that’s a simplification, but I think still generally true.)

3. I’ll grant that the statement as I phrased it is somewhat misleading… but I still stand by the point. Although I do have to agree with you that USB and wireless support are pretty pathetic in Windows.

I want to add my responses to the bullet points above:

1) “Better” is subjective. The reason most OSS projects in the lime-light are “comparable” to existing solutions is that people are scared of vastly new things. You use IE? Here, try framebuffer links (-g)! It’s a great browser that runs in svga mode. It’s technically amazing. Why does no one know about it? Because it’s vastly different and won’t run without a framebuffer (windows gives you one framebuffer, which it already draws on). There’s many instances of this stuff. Many things which are technically superior, but not widely known because the consumer market doesn’t care about “technical details”, they just want to click buttons.

2) This point is misleading. The common creedo is “free as in speech, not as in beer”. Free software is not about cost. There is no clause anywhere that says you can’t charge money for Open Source software (i.e. Trolltech), it’s just that you have to distribute the source, and some geek will be able to get it for free, regardless. Hell, I’ve donated quite alot of money to open source projects I value, and as such, have “paid” for the just the same.

3) This statement is, again, misleading. As software gets more complex, layers of abstraction are added. This is the way it has been for the past 30 years, and the way it will continue to go. I know for a fact that right now, USB support and wireless support are vastly superior under linux than windows. Windows doesn’t even support some of the advanced wireless encryption that has been proven much more secure. (WEP is broken and crack-able in around 20 minutes).
Saying “software is complex and linux can’t keep up” is moot, as if the linux community cannot keep up, there’s no way proprietary companies can keep up either (they have finite human resources).
With the comparisson of lines-of-code, you forget to mention that that linux source (just the kernel, mind you) supports a huge amoung of architectures, whereas windows only runs on x86 and x86_64, whereas Mac OSX runs on PPC and x86 (now).

You’re a genius, Dave. The Socialism comment is dead on. Open source is a novel idea that may or may not catch on entirely. If it does catch on, what we will have in the “final iteration (sp?)” will be a twisted, warped version of the ideas originally set forth. I’m almost willing to put money on it. Almost.

Just a quick thought: Let’s pretend (ha ha ha) Microsoft went OPEN SOURCE (hey, you’re a sci-fi writer…). Every wanna be hacker will then have access to the original code with no resistance to develop protection-breakers against, etc.

God help us.

Have I mentioned that I love you, Dave? I have a 17 year old idealist going through his Marxist phase, and as much as I like to call myself a pragmatic socialist (which is almost certainly a contradiction in terms), I have to keep reminding him that theory and practice are two different things.