The MS vs. Open Source debate…
How often have you participated in a technical forum, where there are two camps - the Closed Source-fanatics and the Open Source-fanatics? I bet it’s a lot - whatever the topic, it takes two lines of text to activate either one of them and the flamewar has begun.
I’m not going to debate which one is the better - closed source or open source. I’m simply going to say what their parents should have told them so long ago - “if you argue over the internet - you’ll end up being viewed as an idiot no matter if you win the argument”. I think both sides are equally poor at advocating their ’cause’ - they end up slandering the other instead of calmly explaining their position.
I’m sick and tired of degenerating debates, where the topic is lost in “religious” statements. Both open and closed source has it’s merits - learn that, and you are already somewhat ahead of the debate. The ability to see the problem or topic from both sides is such a huge advantage, that you can only spend too little time honing that ability. Standing in your own corner with your guards up… you’ll end up being alone and ignored.
I like being enlightened - and I have been enlightened from experts in both camps - but the ones that have taught me the most, are the ones going “Well, in this case, it would probably be best to use… due to these reasons:”. It’s much like choosing one programming language in favor of another. Each will have it’s best applications and certain weaknesses. Funnily enough, the camps exist here too - although they are split out between a few more camps. They are equally elitist and only listen to others with the same attitudes as themselves.
Now, if people were able to actually take a stand somewhere in the middle and listen to both parties thus turning the debate into discussing possible middle-ways, we’d be getting somewhere. Instead we are left with different factions that develop the wheel, over and over again. The time spent doing this is time lost.
One of the greatest ’sinners’ in this respect is the software-patents. I really think they hinder technical progress in a lot of ways. The only ones getting extra turnover from these are the lawyers. I’m happy that the proposal to introduce them in Europe has been cast aside. The copyright laws are there to protect code from someone copying it already. And I think it is hard if not impossible to figure out where to draw the line at what is an actual invention when it comes to software. The time spent in courts figuring out if it was indeed an invention… well, by that time the idea will be old news, and something better has already come by. The digital revolution has happened as fast as it has due to people sharing ideas and others ‘being inspired’ by other’s ideas.
There will be loosers - of course there will, but it’s for a greater good. Progress. Just picture it as a product life-cyklus of less than a year, and you’ll understand why I think patents lasting 20 years is silly. Now, it becomes a matter of who makes the best application - not just the idea itself. Speed is relevant of course, but if you have no application for the idea, the idea is useless. It means that companies cannot rely on their nest-egg, but have to evolve or become extinct.