[TenTec] Technical Correspondence

[Clark Savage Turner]

On Jul 25, 2007, at 6:01 AM, wo8l at aol.com wrote:
>
> The idea of opening up software to any and all comers is a little 
> scary.?

Sure, it may scare some people, it involves the writer/owner allowing 
the customer/user to have some control in the features, understanding 
and repair of the software (rather like most all other consumer goods 
we buy, we can look at them, dissassemble them if we like, fix them?)   
Closed source, however, involves full control retained by the 
writers/manufacturers.   As a user, you depend fully on them for all 
features, fixes and updates.  Not always a bad thing, not always a good 
thing.

Note that (at least a few years back) - surveys indicated that business 
network downtime insurance was LESS when a company used Linux (open 
source!) and cost more when using Microsoft servers and software.  
Linux, open source, provided the more reliable solution!   Microsoft 
has been working hard to catch up to that sort of reliability   A very 
interesting situation.

> First, in today's digital communications world, if?a company doesn't 
> own and control the software, then what do you own?? A box with a 
> bunch of electronic parts in it, I'd say.

This, actually, has nothing to do with closed source by itself.  You 
can certainly open the source and keep copyright and patent rights 
intact.  In fact, patents are open source by law!  You HAVE TO publish 
your innovation in order to receive a patent.  Of course, copyright is 
easily circumvented by other writers if the source is out there, but 
many of us respect the rights of others, we just want to know how to 
understand it or fix it if the writers are too busy or too lazy to fix 
it!  (OR if they want to make me buy a whole new piece of software to 
"fix" the bugs left in the last version!)
>
> Second, if you have open software, warranty and repair issues get very 
> sticky.? You'd almost need a policy that when somebody modifies the 
> software on their own, the warranty is void.? In terms of out of 
> warranty

"Almost" need this?  All warranties I've ever seen include this.  It is 
completely standard and is fair, of course.  Why would it be otherwise?

> repairs, there would be cases when it would be too much trouble to 
> return the product to optimum condition.
>
> Third, and most important, people overestimate their knowledge and 
> ability with software and that leads to trouble very quickly.? I work 
> as a contractor in computer type jobs.? The world is full of people 
> who think they know what they're doing when they really don't, 
> including me.? I commonly ask the question "why in the world did you 
> do THAT?"

Well, that certainly is a good point.  You point to the main feature of 
closed source - the user is NOT responsible and has NO control or power 
when the software is broken or a feature does not work, the owner of 
the software is the only one who can touch it (or refuse to touch it).  
That's OK for those who want things that way, but for those who like to 
be responsible and learn about things, fix things, look at how they 
work  (like most hams I know???), open source makes a lot more sense.
>
> Open software is nice in theory but it can lead to real problems.

Oh, heck, its nice in reality for much longer than most closed source 
companies have existed.  It leads to different benefits and risks than 
closed source, but it focuses on the user's interest in the software 
rather than the writer's control of the software.  That is a different 
set of problems :-)

Clark
WA3JPG