smert.net

A few days ago I had this crazy idea that open source was like the “science” of the software world. It could be openly analyzed for bugs and defects. Anyone could update it or change it for the better (hopefully) provided you took the time to understand the code. Many more people will eventually be analyzing your code for defects and improving it. Arguably Windows is the “bible,” it is set in stone and must maintain backwards compatibility with previous versions. You cannot make any feature changes to it and you certainly can’t fix bugs. What you can do is tell them about a problem bug and hopefully they will fix it (which is unlike the bible). Now to avoid a religious debate which I don’t feel like having I am only being general about the topic. The bible is old and static and science on the other hand is a self-correcting process.

While at first this seems like a good analogy the more I think about it the effect is lost. Windows has changed for the better over the years (except Vista, which I don’t care for) and isn’t that completely static. I do feel that open source has much more capability than proprietary systems. The more people that contribute and use the software the greater chance it has to become better. Open source is still self-correcting like science is and I’m not trying to say open source = science either. Perhaps I should have shortened it to “Open source has a much greater ability to become self correcting, like science in a sense.” I’m sure you can provide plenty of counter arguments to my analogy.

Update (17JUL07)

Perhaps it wasn’t such a crazy notion after all.

Update (11AUG07)

http://www.linux.com/feature/118380

Update (10DEC07)

http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html