More on the Open Web
February 27, 2008 – 4:14 pmThere were so many great comments on yesterday’s post that I have material for at least two follow-ups. I’ll talk more about the new DRM capabilities of Adobe Flash tomorrow, but first let me clarify a couple of points about the open web. Considering that most people reading this are open source techie types, it’s not surprising that nearly everyone passionately disagreed with me. A good encapsulation of the general mood is this comment by Pseudonymous Coward:
Yes, of course it will be a bad thing. Why should Mozilla bother creating Prism at all? Why don’t we all just sit back and let Adobe, Microsoft and Apple work their magic? Yes, let’s do that. Who cares about freedom, we want magic. While we’re at it, let’s make Firefox proprietary software. Who cares about freedom when YouTube owns all our videos and Flickr all our photos?
Well, Pseudonymous (if that’s your real name): first of all, I didn’t mean to imply that open standards and open source software are bad. On the contrary, I’m a long-time member of the Mozilla community. I love open source. Certainly from the perspective of a software developer it is hugely beneficial to be able to drill down into the code of the platform you are using to debug problems and gain a better understanding of what is going on under the hood. This is the main reason why rich ecosystems grow up more easily on an open source foundation.
And, indeed, I’d probably be less keen on proprietary solutions if open alternatives were not available. As I said yesterday: “Adobe will be hard-pressed to take undue advantage of its technology’s popularity since we can always fall back on healthy competitive alternatives (both open and closed).” But just because open software is an essential ingredient in the magic mix that is the web, this doesn’t mean that we should automatically reject proprietary software, and it was this attitude that motivated my rant. Traditional profit-motivated companies have plenty to bring to the party, and I’m afraid that innovation and progress would suffer if they weren’t allowed to do their thing. Adobe is a poster child in this respect because they’ve contributed so much to the web. Be open, by all means, and if you can out-invent and out-implement Adobe while doing so then more power to you. But they are creating compelling software that provides unique value to both developers and end users, and for this they should be praised, not condemned.
Another key point is the tension between technically-oriented types (this means you, dear reader) and the average user. We geeks want our software open sourced, our iPhones unlocked, our novels creative-commonsed and our XBoxes modded to double as microwave-ovens-cum-garage-door-openers. Normal users just want stuff to work with as little fuss and muss as possible. With the notable exception of Firefox, open source projects haven’t been particularly successful in addressing the latter group and — newsflash! — they are orders of magnitude more numerous than we are. Before you condemn Adobe and other evil capitalist pigs for not catering to your every nerd whim, spare a thought for those who see technology as a (scary and intimidating) means to an end, not their life’s obsession.
3 Responses to “More on the Open Web”
“it is hugely beneficial to be able to drill down into the code of the platform you are using to debug problems and gain a better understanding of what is going on under the hood”
If that’s all you want it for, it’s no wonder you think the way you do (and use the term “Open Source” rather than Free Software).
I demand the ability to *modify* and ship changes to the software, adapt it to future platforms and technologies, split it apart, integrate other things, and generally use it as I see fit - and all without being beholden to anyone for permission or ability to do so. And it has nothing to do with the fact that I may never actually take advantage of that ability my self, because I demand this as a *user*, not just as a developer, because then I know the programs upon which I rely will always be around, because *someone*, company or person, can always fork or continue on with the software should it’s current guardians falter (or get bought by Microsoft).
And this is more than just a discussion about the best tool for the job. Our whole world is quickly becoming an information economy, based around technology. The basic platform standards, formats, and protocols upon which our new world is built can’t be allowed to be owned, controlled, and advanced under the control of a a single group or company based on their profit motives. I don’t really care how good the tech is.
And you are completely right, FOSS desktop software hasn’t yet met the needs of most users… but that is quickly changing! Given the nature of the effort, and the large number of people volunteering their free time, give em a break and be patient - all that shows is that it’s still a young effort, not that the model is flawed!
By Chris Hubick on Feb 27, 2008
I didn’t say the model was flawed, just that proprietary software has a role to play as well.
By Matt on Feb 27, 2008
A current example of closed source vs. open source:
http://blog.vlad1.com/2008/02/28/finding-the-os-x-turbo-button/
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2008/02/platform_tilt.html
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2008/02/apple_cheats_fa.html
That’s the reason, why I will never become a Apple fanboy. Their products are good; but Apple is evil.
By steve on Feb 29, 2008