I very strongly agree with dz.
Micro$oft did help to turn a whole buch of previously stupid users into wiser users, wise enough to realise it's time to take another turn
In my opinion, M$ also did a lot of bad things, f u c k i n g around with standards and therefore hindering progress in computer sciences, but they did introduce "user friendliness" which made the PC accessible (financially accessible and userfriendly enough for non-techies) to the whole wide world!!!!
For the rest, I hate M$ for the abuse of their power and flaky products (they still are the only company that produces a virus vulnerable OS), but it's true that in the bad things, we also can find some good things!
Closed source in itself is not bad at all, it's just how it is used... It is not the gun that kills, it is the finger that pulls the trigger!
There's a lot of non-Micro$oft closed source which is very good, ORACLE's database to just name one of the many examples. In those cases I do not need to change the programs (so I do not need to have access to the source code). They spent a lot of research (time and money) on develloping such a solid product (while Micro$oft spends those resources on lawyers instead) so it's only normal that they keep their trade secrets to themselves and ask good money for it.
The need for source code to be open or closed depends on more than just a rule of thumb that says that it is bad when the source is not accessible.
I some cases, however, I would indeed say that as the "end" user, I NEED to see the code, for security reasons, but even then, it may perfectly be proprietary code that is not to be released to the public.
A fine example of this need would be the scandal caused by Lotus. Some years ago, Lotus notes had a "back door" in their software, allowing the NSA easy access to encrypted mails sent with Lotus Notes. Given the fact that a lot of European governamental organisations were using Lotus Notes, when somebody found out, this news had the impact of a bomb!!!!
So where security is involved, I would say that the code needs to be made accessible to the user, because we have no reason to trust companies like Micro$oft or SCO...
In the case of drivers, like is the case of NVidia, that's another problem... Just as long as they perform very well and that they include the features we ask, it's okay, even though open sourced drivers would allow for more flexible situations and would allow for more freedom of choice. NVidia is perfectly entitled to keep their trade secrets to keep their edge, but it would be nice if they released details on their specs so that 3rd parties could write drivers without having to resort to backwards engineering. But if the driver comes from Micro$oft, there's no garantee that this driver doesn't spy on my internet browsing habits .
So I'd prefer Open Source, but I do respect closed source!!!!
If you wanna support Open Source even more, give a small donation to the devellopers that made the programs that you like the most!
JM.
