Open Source

Open Source:

The good and the bad

The open source makes the internet open to opinion and user contribution. The open source allows for users to be able to change the design and improve it depending on what they personally feel is appropriate.

Cathedrals and Bazaar

àCathedrals: structured for people

àBazaar: (open to all) anyone can comment and have an opinion

After reading both Lanier’s critique of open source and Raymond’s I was torn between the two ideas. I didn’t really pick a side because they both came up with great views on how they felt the open source affects us. Lanier focuses on the loss individual creativity and Raymond and how open source has room for improvement and benefits us every day.

Raymond points out important ways in which software is open to improvement. Open software breaks up commercial group power. There is not one program in control of all. Any one is able to contribute an idea that will better the program. We have the power and the freedom to alter and change anything. Open sources produce better results and are more productive. He states “every good work of software starts by scratching a developer’s personal itch.” Raymond defends this “bazaar ideology.” The open source puts together the ideas of a global community that can enhance the experience of the source.

“Digital Maoism”  =(communist idea/abolishes private property/equality)

Lanier talks about the loss of reliable information due to an open source. Yes, there is an overwhelming amount of information on the internet. However, the open source makes it unreliable and does not challenge individual creativity.  Open source reduces productivity. People no longer feel the need to go out of their way to think on their own about an idea. They easily rely on someone else’s idea that may or may not be completely credible. Open source opens a world of information sharing. It does help people become more informed.

Lanier gives an excellent example. Lanier talks about Wikipedia and his own experience with the source in order to defend his claim. Wikipedia is a very informative source and serves the needs of thousands globally. However, information on the source can easily be altered and changed to just about anything.  What gives us certainty that the person writing on a particular topic is not just some random dude who had nothing better to do?

 Lanier talks about his own Wikipedia link where he is defined to be a film director. His Wikipedia is corrected and within a day it goes back to saying film director.  This is a perfect example of how people are free to change information making it less reliable and are able to change information about someone else.

The Open Source brings about a mixture of interpretations. Lanier and Raymond had their own theories and so did many others. The Open source is open to be discussed for its positive elements and its negative elements. On one hand it makes getting information online more accessible and on the other hand can bring down creativity and individuality.