Why NOT Open Source

A lot of discussions revolve around the value of Open Source.  There certainly are a lot of reasons to embrace it, at least in some form or another.

It is possible, that perhaps a more relevant and interesting discussion to have with people is, "Why not?"

In a way it is unfortunate, a lot of conversations about Open Source only take into consideration the value of Open Source, but do not take into context the specific audience.  In a way, it is a form of peer pressure to suggest that one MUST move to Open Source, for the betterment of humanity.

Have you ever wondered why butter is yellow or egg yolks are pale or beef is a bright red, on the store shelf?  All these things have a reason,

whether one wants to classify them as good or bad.  It is arguable that reality is neither good nor bad, rather it is simply the way things are, right now.  And they are things we have become more than just accustomed to.  A change, at least with food, could create a reduced physical comfortableness, if not just psychological.  And it could actually cause us harm.

There is an argument that everything is over regulated.  In agriculture, one cannot sell off one's over quota milk, or sell meat or eggs straight to the store.    In some countries, people can't process their own wild game from a hunt.  It might seem ridiculous, yet in all fairness, many people have no idea of proper processing and preservation of raw food items.

In the context of food preservation, one needs to consider that the advent of domestic refrigerators is 100 years old.  As many as three generations of people have grown up not knowing that the colour of butter is naturally yellow in the summer and naturally white in the winter, the colour of free range egg yolks is brilliant yellow to bright orange or reddish depending on the season, the colour of ground beef is leaning towards brownish grey, and that cheese that has mould isn't necessary bad, as it can be cut off, (although it is important to note other types of moulds are quite bad for us).  These colour cues, along with refrigeration and best before dates, means that people don't have to think about the food they're eating.

When it comes to construction or electronics industries, these too are carefully regulated to ensure that people in the industry, and end consumers, are safe.

If you were to build a house, and used 2x4 wood joists 24 inches apart, there is a high chance the floor would fail, unexpectedly.

If you don't wire your electricity properly, even in low voltage configurations, there is a possibility that, depending on the application and insulation, it could cause an electrical fire.

Recently there was a big concern in the Open Source software community over a problem with certain security related software.  The bug, called heartbleed, could cause people to be vulnerable to id theft leading to potential monetary loss.

Having said that, it's very important to note that the bug was found long before the heartbleed virus was created.  The bug was patched and the new software was not vulnerable.  It was companies that did not keep their software up to date on security patches, that ended up being vulnerable.

What all of this has in common is people.

It is the reality that in this day and age, and into the future, people can't expect to know everything.  With heartbleed, it is the virtue that the open source based computers that were vulnerable, were so reliable in staying up and working, that people "forgot" to update them, or were simply lazy.  People who don't raise their own produce or animals or are not involved in the food industry, simply do not have enough time to learn how to know if food is good quality, or fresh.

For that reason, industries are regulated, so the consumer is safe.  But then, we become reliant on the businesses that provide these goods and services to us.  Are we certain that these business are keeping up with regulations, while still providing us fresh, quality goods, or services that are technologically current?

Within a month of the heartbleed bug being a popular media topic, Microsoft's Internet Explorer (pretty much all versions, including the most current) became vulnerable to a potentially dangerous bug.  In the face of heartbleed, Microsoft is making claims that it takes pride in having the most secure browser and will fix the bug, yet as noted in this current list of just internet explorer security vulnerabilities which are not in public media, one can never be sure that even large companies are keeping us safe and secure, and providing us with the best goods and services we demand.

And then, there is economics.  Not just of money, but perhaps moreso of time or knowledge.  While we may be able to learn skills to make everything we need, the time necessary to learn, as some learn faster than others, and the time to acquire and assemble the things we are building, do take us away from perhaps more meaningful endeavours.  It is partially for that reason that money was created.  A way to exchange goods and services which we may neither have the skills nor the time resources to produce for ourselves.  So with a form of money, other than using bartering, we are using our own skills to earn money in order to buy the things that we may just not be motivated to create ourselves.  For these reasons, it makes sense that we seek what appear to be large, profitable companies to take care of our needs, as a consumer.

We look at large companies as being not just good at what they do, but also solid enough financially to ensure that they will continue to do business far into the future, in the event that we need repairs or upgrades.  Yet, as much as businesses wish to have large profit margins, one is hard pressed to find a public company that consistently has a 30% profit margin.  Economists have studied this quite a bit and this basically means that, if any company, from the smallest to the largest, were unable to have earnings within a 7 day period, they would ultimately be bankrupt.  Because executives generally know this, companies plan for these types of problems.  But we can see time and again, that if a company does not realize profitability in a market, they drop their product line or shut the doors of that business department.

Large companies or long lived companies can seem like safe bets, but in a down economy, or any time really, nothing is guaranteed.  One thing about Open Source is, if one person or even a group of companies can not stay in business, the product or service is still available for anyone to make, use, or modify, even if the original creator is no longer interested in maintaining the project.

The Open Source movements continually speak about choice.  And if someone does not have the time, knowledge, or motivation to create their own material items, one of the values of Open Source is that others might be willing to create the items that the customer might desire.  The customer can still choose to support Open Source by having the option to choose to purchase an Open Source item.  So in the end, I think that every person can support Open Source in their own way, or not.  And for those who do not choose Open Source, that really is, OK.  It remains all about choice.

There are certainly times when Open Source is a less desirable option.  What Open Source always provides is choice.