Closed Source and Open Source: Can they co-exist?

[The Stoat]

Not quite. Evolution isn't done by design but by a random process. Software is explicitly designed, so its fundamentally different. Unless of course you believe in "Intelligent Design" of course ;-) Nice analogy, but according to the Socratic principal, I just cannot agree with it at all.

Ah but the programmer is not God. The programmer is inside the eco-system. The programmer reacts to changes in the eco-system which are so complex as to be random. The programme is perhaps like a symbiotic larval stage of a the programming creature. The programmer produces the larval programme in response to changes in the eco-system which live with a host - the network for example - it benefits the host by making it more valuable to other creatures within the eco-system and creates money as a benefical by product of the symbiosis. This money can then be used to employ/create more programmers thus perpetuating the species.

This is true of course. However, there are two points I would like to make;

1. Change. This is the only "guaranteed" in life. Simply because we have a state of affairs now, its not the case that it will always be so. There is more change in technology than in any other field I know of.

2. Monopoly. Most home users have closed source operating systems because of Microsoft's monopoly. Once this monopoly goes (which I assure you it will; all great empires fall), then we will obviously see change. What that will be I am not sure of, but things will by definition be different. This reinforces my first point as well; nowhere in nature do we have a monopoly; it is not a "natural" state of affairs.

Very interesting points however, thanks for posting. Personally though, I disagree

Yes to an extent you are right. Microsoft's products fit the ecological niche. If the ecology changes then the product needs to change. Microsoft may be more than capable of evolving - they appear to be excellent parasites - because the niche changes does not mean a creature must become extinct. Nature is in fact about monopolies. The early - but by far the longest - periods of Earth's existance were dominated by a few species in massive abundance. That's because the niches were simple and the selective pressures fewer. Gradually the environment changed, new niches formed and the creatures and plants began to expolit the new niches. The ones that did so the best monopolised them and gradually became new creatures. Now there are millions of niches and there are millions of monopolies. Each species is either monopolising that niche or trying it's best to do so. That is the survival of the fittest. However specialisation is a threat to survival. The more diverse a creatures abilities and the more niches it can exploit the more likely they are to survive hence the success of humans and the failure of the sabre tooth tiger - for eg.

As i said you are right, the environment will change, however Microsoft have proved that they are capable of meeting those changes and even being a force for change. There is no reason to think that they are incapable of survival. Microsoft absorbs other programmes into it's operating systems and diversifies it's products -sometimes by mimicking it's competitor - so that when change does happen it is placed to make best use of the remaining niches and be in a position to exploit them.

Just because Microsoft is a dominant player and seen as a bully boy monopolist does not single it out for destruction i think quite the reverse.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

Ah but the programmer is not God.

Never said he was?

The programmer is inside the eco-system.

Yeah, I understand your analogy. However, I used the Socratic principal to demonstrate that I believe its an incorrect analogy. There may be some similarities, but fundamentally they are different. One of the main principals of evolution is that it occurs through random change, with no "designer" in charge. Obviously, quite the reverse is true in programming. Programmes are not written randomly, and do have a designer. Q.E.D. I think there, no?

Yes to an extent you are right. Microsoft's products fit the ecological niche. If the ecology changes then the product needs to change.

I would say "market". Its more about economics than biology for me.

Nature is in fact about monopolies. The early - but by far the longest - periods of Earth's existance were dominated by a few species in massive abundance. That's because the niches were simple and the selective pressures fewer. Gradually the environment changed, new niches formed and the creatures and plants began to expolit the new niches. The ones that did so the best monopolised them and gradually became new creatures. Now there are millions of niches and there are millions of monopolies.

Sorry but I fundamentally disagree there. A monopoly, in the economic sense, is an unnatural state of affairs. Nature is not about monopolies; its about survival of the fittest. There was no "unnatural" force keeping the dinosaurs as the most dominant beasts, there were there because they were simply the best adapted to that environment. That's exactly my point.

Each species is either monopolising that niche or trying it's best to do so. That is the survival of the fittest. However specialisation is a threat to survival. The more diverse a creatures abilities and the more niches it can exploit the more likely they are to survive hence the success of humans and the failure of the sabre tooth tiger - for eg.

Again, I completely disagree. Giraffes specialise in having long necks, whale's specialise in being huge, you can see evolution as a continuing process of specialisation. There are some cases where the specialisation is about diversity; bears for example eat pretty much anything and it works for them. But an anteater only eats ants.

As i said you are right, the environment will change, however Microsoft have proved that they are capable of meeting those changes and even being a force for change.

LOL, Again, I disagree. They are behind in every sense IMHO. Everything they do has been done somewhere else, they tend to buy it or copy it and don't innovate in any arena at all. I don't think they have proved anything yet, time will tell.

There is no reason to think that they are incapable of survival. Microsoft absorbs other programmes into it's operating systems and diversifies it's products -sometimes by mimicking it's competitor - so that when change does happen it is placed to make best use of the remaining niches and be in a position to exploit them.

On the contrary, the fact they mimick their competitors rather than innovating is to me a great reason to think they won't survive once their monopoly starts to crumble. Remember, all great empires fall, history has proved this time and time again!

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one ;-)

 

[The Stoat]

Never said he was?

Not implicitly but the use of intelligent design in context defines God as the intelligent designer. It is a religious dogma after all.

Yeah, I understand your analogy. However, I used the Socratic principal to demonstrate that I believe its an incorrect analogy. There may be some similarities, but fundamentally they are different. One of the main principals of evolution is that it occurs through random change, with no "designer" in charge. Obviously, quite the reverse is true in programming. Programmes are not written randomly, and do have a designer. Q.E.D. I think there, no?

The socratic method is the testing to destruction of an hypothesis by reasoned discussion. I didn't think you actually destroyed it so much as dismissed it. You are right in evolution there is no designer as i pointed out the programmer is not the designer per se. They are part of the ecology and respond -all be it in an intelligent way- to the random events of the eco-system. They evolve with their eco-system or die by the way side. The programme is an extension of the designer, the sperm perhaps. As the programmer mutates so does the sperm.

I would say "market". Its more about economics than biology for me.

That is your prerogative of course.

Sorry but I fundamentally disagree there. A monopoly, in the economic sense, is an unnatural state of affairs. Nature is not about monopolies; its about survival of the fittest. There was no "unnatural" force keeping the dinosaurs as the most dominant beasts, there were there because they were simply the best adapted to that environment. That's exactly my point.

Monopolies are a fundamental reality of Economics. That is why we have the Monopolies and Mergers Commission - now the competition commission. Just because monopolies are not seen as in the best interest of the consumer does not mean they are not in the best interests of the business. We put in place man made constucts such as the comission to prevent the very natural occurance of the monopoly.
I agree. The Infraclass Dinosauria were best evolved to exploit their niches. A monopoly obviously doesn't have to be specialised but that is in effect what happens most of the time in nature. A species expolits the niche and if it does it the best it will monopolise that niche. There are no unnatural forces keeping Microsoft as a monopoly. They are simply best suited to fit the niche. If not they would not survive.

Again, I completely disagree. Giraffes specialise in having long necks, whale's specialise in being huge, you can see evolution as a continuing process of specialisation. There are some cases where the specialisation is about diversity; bears for example eat pretty much anything and it works for them. But an anteater only eats ants.

Sorry but you are totally wrong. Everything we know about evolution shows that in the event of a catastrophe the most specialized die. The ant eater. What happens if a virus wipes out all the ants? It's dead. What happens if the climate changes and the African savannah trees revert to shrubs? The small antelopes will out perform the Giraffe - nothing more than a tall antelope - and it too will die. Temperature changes in the Antarctic sea will gradually reduce the amount of Krill produced and the big Baleen whales that need the Krill will die out as a result. The extinction of the Giant elk was caused by the warming of the climate and the growth of trees in it's pasturelands. The giant antlers prevented it from grazing in the trees and it died out very rapidly. Why are puffins dying out? Because they eat only sandeels and we have over fished them. Once something becomes so finely tuned to it's environment, so reliant on one source of food it only takes a small change to put it at a massive disadvantage. If you want to take this analogy back to economics why do businesses diversify. What happens in times of economic crisis to the business that is soley reliant on a dwindling consumer base? Why do people invest in a portfolio of shares? There is a logical limit to diversification as specialist knowledge is needed to get the most out of a market and that balance is played out by the most successful species. Us.

LOL, Again, I disagree. They are behind in every sense IMHO. Everything they do has been done somewhere else, they tend to buy it or copy it and don't innovate in any arena at all. I don't think they have proved anything yet, time will tell.

On the contrary, the fact they mimick their competitors rather than innovating is to me a great reason to think they won't survive once their monopoly starts to crumble. Remember, all great empires fall, history has proved this time and time again!

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one ;-)

No offence here but i note your avatar is penguin, the Linux penguin perhaps? Not a little biased? Microsoft may well be everything you say they are. However their great innovation is the ability to control the market and give the vast majority of consumers what the consumer thinks they want. If open source software is to challenge that dominance it must rethink it's business model. And that really is the problem it is percieved as specialist and niche and does not fit into the concepts that the average joe has when looking for any easy to use system. As you say, agree to disagree.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

Not implicitly but the use of intelligent design in context defines God as the intelligent designer. It is a religious dogma after all.

I think Intelligent Design is nonsense. See my thread on the subject. I think you've totally misunderstood me there.

The socratic method is the testing to destruction of an hypothesis by reasoned discussion. I didn't think you actually destroyed it so much as dismissed it. You are right in evolution there is no designer as i pointed out the programmer is not the designer per se.

Not as far as I am aware. The socratic method, as I understood it, was that you take something that someone has said; in this case it was you saying that programming software is like evolution. I then find something which proves this to be incorrect; i.e. a fundamental part of evolution is that it is a random process with no designer and programming software is entirely opposite in both respects. I am simply repeating myself here so I'll stop there.

Monopolies are a fundamental reality of Economics. That is why we have the Monopolies and Mergers Commission - now the competition commission. Just because monopolies are not seen as in the best interest of the consumer does not mean they are not in the best interests of the business. We put in place man made constucts such as the comission to prevent the very natural occurance of the monopoly.

I agree. The Infraclass Dinosauria were best evolved to exploit their niches. A monopoly obviously doesn't have to be specialised but that is in effect what happens most of the time in nature. A species expolits the niche and if it does it the best it will monopolise that niche. There are no unnatural forces keeping Microsoft as a monopoly. They are simply best suited to fit the niche. If not they would not survive.

Sorry but you are totally wrong. Everything we know about evolution shows that in the event of a catastrophe the most specialized die.

LOL, again we will have to disagree there. Not sure of your thinking there. Maybe you could point me to the studies there?

No offence here but i note your avatar is penguin, the Linux penguin perhaps? Not a little biased?

Of course I am biased. That's my whole point. I've made no attempt to hide this whatsoever. From what you say about Open Source being "niche" and "specialist", I think you are baised the other way; things change very rapidly in the technology world. I don't think Google, Pixar, Hewlett Packard would agree (and that's just three of the hundreds I could mention). I don't think the majority of website administrators who use Apache would agree, nor the majority of router manufacturers, or developers of embedded systems.

Microsoft may well be everything you say they are.

That's a bit vague. What exactly have I said they are? Your comments on Microsoft seemed more subjective than mine as I seem to recall. I try to remain as objective about Microsoft as I can. They are a great empire, and have a monopoly. That much is fact as far as I can tell.

However their great innovation is the ability to control the market

You think so? I disagree here. I don't think they have been able to control the market at all; their influence and control seems to be steadily slipping to me; they are the only area of the market steadily losing share whilst other's grows.

If open source software is to challenge that dominance it must rethink it's business model. And that really is the problem it is percieved as specialist and niche and does not fit into the concepts that the average joe has when looking for any easy to use system.

Again, I don't think it has. Look at Red Hat; they have made money (millions of dollars; not niche by any definition) from a "free" operating system. Also, you are talking purely in terms of business. As I have said before, I believe software is entirely different to anything that has gone before; I have proved (in my eyes) that you cannot compare it to evolution. Open Source defies enough economic principals to satisfy me that you cannot look at it via current economic principals. There are many many examples of both companies and software where Open Source is the preferred solution, so many so I'm not going to list them, as if you are not aware, then to me you are only looking at one side of the coin. The idea of it being "specialist" or "niche" to me is an old fashioned view, and precisely what I am trying to put across. We are talking about the future here.

 

[Rich]

However their great innovation is the ability to control the market and give the vast majority of consumers what the consumer thinks they want.

Then it's a good job that the British invention of the Internet wasn't passed to Microsoft

 

[The Stoat]

Here is an article from a respected journal on the problems that specialization can confer. I am saying that once an animal or plant or business becomes too specialized it is at the mercy of the environment. What i am saying is that specialization confers a disadvatage in times of change.

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/0305/0305_feature.html

Here is an interesting article on diversification in investments.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/estate_planning/diversification.html


Microsoft appear to have tried to mitigate the potential problems of over specialization by:
a) Engineering the environment i.e. 95% of all home computers sold are PC's running Windows.
b) Buying out competitors or simply creating their own version of the same software and then useing their market and capital advantage to prevent competition from occuring.


This makes the point very well, though it doesn't realize it.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,116848,00.asp

Internet Explorer has held more than 95 percent of the browser market since June 2002, and until June had remained steady with about 95.7 percent of the browser market, according to WebSideStory's measurements. Over the last month, however, its market share has slowly dropped from 95.73percent on June 4 to 94.73 percent on July 6.

That's like saying Bridlington-on-Sea FC have gained on Chelsea at the week end by moving up a place in the Beezer Homes Saturday Afternoon After The First Full Moon Of Each Month League.

I actually,truly, really don't have any bias. I use open source software where appropriate, my decisions are made on the principles of "fit for purpose". There are cost implications to take into account but my primary concern is that what i use or buy does the job and i am required to justify purchases. I don't use open source software simply because i have some principled point to make against closed source. It really is pointless thinking that Microsoft are going away. They are vast, have billions and billions of $'s and have stitched the market up like a kipper. One day, some where in the dim future it might happen i'm just not holding my breath.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

Here is an article from a respected journal on the problems that specialization can confer. I am saying that once an animal or plant or business becomes too specialized it is at the mercy of the environment. What i am saying is that specialization confers a disadvatage in times of change.

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/0305/0305_feature.html

Here is an interesting article on diversification in investments.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/estate_planning/diversification.html

I'll take a look at those later. I think we are getting sidetracked here though. I don't believe Open Source is specialised; I believe it is better adapted to survival than closed source. If you do use open source I am sure you will agree that the average Linux distro can be used for many different applications; home user, web server, security station, router, etc.

Microsoft appear to have tried to mitigate the potential problems of over specialization by:
a) Engineering the environment i.e. 95% of all home computers sold are PC's running Windows.
b) Buying out competitors or simply creating their own version of the same software and then useing their market and capital advantage to prevent competition from occuring.

Yes, but how do these points refute the argument that none of these methods are to do with what they are actually dealing with, which is software? Surely the ultimate goal would be to make their software better? Again, I refer to my ascertation that software is entirely different to anything else which has gone before. But again you don't agree there so I don't think we are going to get anywhere.

That's like saying Bridlington-on-Sea FC have gained on Chelsea at the week end by moving up a place in the Beezer Homes Saturday Afternoon After The First Full Moon Of Each Month League.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. You cannot trust browser statistics at all. I am sure you are aware of that. Also, this is current; I am talking about the future. I am not try to say that Open Source is taking over but that it will in the future; and if anything the statistics show this movement to be true albeit slowly.

I actually,truly, really don't have any bias. I use open source software where appropriate, my decisions are made on the principles of "fit for purpose". There are cost implications to take into account but my primary concern is that what i use or buy does the job and i am required to justify purchases. I don't use open source software simply because i have some principled point to make against closed source. It really is pointless thinking that Microsoft are going away. They are vast, have billions and billions of $'s and have stitched the market up like a kipper. One day, some where in the dim future it might happen i'm just not holding my breath.

I don't believe anyone is without bias. Its funny how you use Open Source and Closed Source, and are without bias, yet me who uses Closed Source and Open Source is biased? I also don't know why you think it is pointless to think Microsoft are going away. Firstly, this is not the point of my question. Microsoft may change their position to survive; I believe they will have to. Secondly no matter how rich or vast or powerful anyone is, this is no reason to assume they will go on forever. Indeed no one has yet ;-) I don't have any "principaled" point to make her. Again, we are losing track of what this thread is about. Its an objective discussion on the relative strengths and weaknesses of two models of software development; closed source and open source. I believe one is so superior as to eventually completely outshadow the other.

Again, I think we will have to agree to disagree here, but thanks for the ride

 

[KenHigg]

The open / closed source question as asked is a bit obfuscated. Seems there will always be areas where open source will dominate and vice versa. Just guessing here, seems areas like in the scientific community where the end users may be a little more in tune with technology, would tend to embrace an open source approach. As opposed to say someone that only wants a Word processor. Seems these people would care less about open source and just want to buy a packaged product and be done with it.

So as to the question can they co-exist, I guess the answer would be yes...

 

[reclusivemonkey]

The open / closed source question as asked is a bit obfuscated.

LOL Agreed. A little like my brain ;-)

Seems there will always be areas where open source will dominate and vice versa.

Agreed. The sensible and reasoned answer. I am playing devil's advocate here really. For all sorts of reasons, I think this century will bring about huge changes in technology. Whether or not these changes are going to be the ones I imagine remains to be seen. Its the only thing in many years that has excited/inspired me; hence my bias. Its probably naive and wishful thinking on my part, but when you have given up dreaming (as I did in my teenage years) then learn to dream again (as I did when I discovered Open Source in my late twenties), you tend to get a bit irrational ;-)

Just guessing here, seems areas like in the scientific community where the end users may be a little more in tune with technology, would tend to embrace an open source approach. As opposed to say someone that only wants a Word processor. Seems these people would care less about open source and just want to buy a packaged product and be done with it.

Again Ken, yes, reasonable points and what is the status quo to me know. I hope it will change though; I see more and more development in Open Source catering for the users who just "want it all to work"TM. Yes, there is a long way to go, but its the pace that excites me more than anything else. Again, I believe this is down to the model, which underpins my belief. I might be wrong, and I can see people's points, but I am try to predict the future here; I'm probably wrong, but no one is really convincing me yet.

So as to the question can they co-exist, I guess the answer would be yes...

Again, agreed. For the present they are doing. However, will this be the case? Personally, I don't think so. I can't give any concrete predictions, as I only have my poor confused brain to rely on; quite honestly its something I feel more than think. I am glad to be, as the Chinese saying goes "living in interesting times".

 

[reclusivemonkey]

The open / closed source question as asked is a bit obfuscated.

LOL Agreed. A little like my brain ;-)

Seems there will always be areas where open source will dominate and vice versa.

Agreed. The sensible and reasoned answer. I am playing devil's advocate here really. For all sorts of reasons, I think this century will bring about huge changes in technology. Whether or not these changes are going to be the ones I imagine remains to be seen. Its the only thing in many years that has excited/inspired me; hence my bias. Its probably naive and wishful thinking on my part, but when you have given up dreaming (as I did in my teenage years) then learn to dream again (as I did when I discovered Open Source in my late twenties), you tend to get a bit irrational ;-)

Just guessing here, seems areas like in the scientific community where the end users may be a little more in tune with technology, would tend to embrace an open source approach. As opposed to say someone that only wants a Word processor. Seems these people would care less about open source and just want to buy a packaged product and be done with it.

Again Ken, yes, reasonable points and what is the status quo to me know. I hope it will change though; I see more and more development in Open Source catering for the users who just "want it all to work"TM. Yes, there is a long way to go, but its the pace that excites me more than anything else. Again, I believe this is down to the model, which underpins my belief. I might be wrong, and I can see people's points, but I am try to predict the future here; I'm probably wrong, but no one is really convincing me yet.

So as to the question can they co-exist, I guess the answer would be yes...

Again, agreed. For the present they are doing. However, will this be the case? Personally, I don't think so. I can't give any concrete predictions, as I only have my poor confused brain to rely on; quite honestly its something I feel more than think. I am glad to be, as the Chinese saying goes "living in interesting times".

 

[Brianwarnock]

I may well be displaying my ignorance here but if open source means you have access to the source code and closed source means you only get object code then open source was what we got when I was a lad, it was normal until sometime in the 80s, and useful.
I remember BMCs secondary index utility worked fine in the test environment but failed on our main IMS database. I was able to debug and give BMC enough info for a permanent fix, but we would not have bought the product if i hadn't had been able to do the temp fix.

2 years later they were delivering object code only.

I think I go along with Ken on this issue.

Brian

 

[reclusivemonkey]

I may well be displaying my ignorance here but if open source means you have access to the source code and closed source means you only get object code then open source was what we got when I was a lad, it was normal until sometime in the 80s, and useful.

I would agree there Brian, although I was only 10 when I got my first computer (an Acorn Electron). I rejoined the computer world at University when I got an Amiga at a fraction of the price of a PC then. Happy days

I think I go along with Ken on this issue.

I think most reasonable people will Brian ;-) I think I got bored with most people agreeing with the sane and reasonable answer on my "Intelligent Design" poll. This was a thread where I knew I would be on the opposing side to most people's opinion, but I felt I could play devil's advocate without descending into "trollism".

 

[The Stoat]

I don't believe anyone is without bias. Its funny how you use Open Source and Closed Source, and are without bias, yet me who uses Closed Source and Open Source is biased?

but I felt I could play devil's advocate

Is that not bias?

I made the point that i am not biased in my decision making in the "real" world. I have tried within the confines of this thread to provide some support and references for an idea as a basis for discussion. Not as a target. If you read what i have written i tried to present a general theory that might explain how programmes change with changes in the environment they work in. That might actually give you an answer to your question.

Your question was:
The question is, can they co-exist? Or is one doomed to extinction? Discuss.

There is no evidence that either one is/would actually be capable of causing the extinction of the other because they have different strengths and weaknesses. The model says the same.

... additional evolutionary pressure will create evolutions or extinctions within the two populations. In all the years that open and closed source programmes have been competing they both have survived. I can't see an eco-system evolving in which their will be no place for both.

To which i believe Ken agreed.

Seems there will always be areas where open source will dominate and vice versa.

So as to the question can they co-exist, I guess the answer would be yes...

Again, agreed. For the present they are doing. However, will this be the case? Personally, I don't think so.

I'm interested to know why you think not. Can you actually argue in a substantive manner your reasoning and provide a proof or model?
That would be a discussion worth having imho of course.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

Is that not bias?

Like I said, I don't believe anyone is without bias. This in itself is a huge debate within Science.

I have tried within the confines of this thread to provide some support and references for an idea as a basis for discussion. Not as a target. If you read what i have written i tried to present a general theory that might explain how programmes change with changes in the environment they work in.

Again, I will repeat my ascertain that software is entirely different to anything that has gone before. I am not the only person to have this idea. If you can show me a model that fits well enough to progress the discussion; however the "evolutionary" model to me is nowhere near and a distraction.

Your question was:
The question is, can they co-exist? Or is one doomed to extinction? Discuss.

There is no evidence that either one is/would actually be capable of causing the extinction of the other because they have different strengths and weaknesses. The model says the same.

No evidence; exactly. Which is why it is a discussion, with no conclusion. I am talking about the future here; its all up in the air. One thing I will say though is that nothing ever stays the same. Change is the only guaranteed constant.

I'm interested to know why you think not. Can you actually argue in a substantive manner your reasoning and provide a proof or model?
That would be a discussion worth having imho of course.

I stated these in the thread. I also stated I have no proof or evidence; what I have is ideas, but as I mentioned in another thread, its very difficult to get these across when drawn into arguments about semantics. NOI.