Rarely is there seen such a pure personification of the ideological difference between open source and closed source systems, then what is epitomised in the clash between Android and IOS. The open source philosophy is built on the fundamental ideal that everyone should be able to freely contribute. It is an ideal which is closely linked to Cyberlibertarianism and illustrates that within an open source ecology, there exists no discrimination for those who wish to contribute to the code. In contrast the closed source system is a walled system; code is not revealed and debugging is only available as a direct result of ownership of the software.
Defenders of the closed source system, however, believe that this open model creates disorders, maximises error and leads to lowest-common denominator design and usability. Freedom from centralised control, they say, results in an absence of standards or a profusion of competing ones, as well as a lack of discipline and accountability. Central control makes it easier to roll out features and keep a handle on errors, while proprietary standards allow developers to work faster and more efficiently, because they don’t have to support multiple formats or guess where the next upgrade patch is going to come from.
Despite criticism the development of open source software has enabled a greater level of innovation. By making software public, it has allowed programmers or testers to edit, modify, develop, share and create better quality code. Debugging has also become easier with potential issues being recognised as the are easily accessible. Ironically this open and free environment has also facilitated a greater feeling of competitive spirit within the software community. In this community there is nothing distinguishing user from programmer fostering an environment where each individual is attempting to outperform the other. Programmers can come together communicate ideas in this “bazaar” admire each others skill and be further inspired to develop. In addition they can recruit and identify individuals with potential talent.
In his work “The Cathedral and the Bazaar” Raymond states that “given enough eyeballs, all are shallow” meaning the more widely available code is for testing, the more rapidly all issues will be discovered. In the “Cathedral model” in which source code becomes available with with each release, but between releases is exclusive to developers, an inordinate amount of energy and time must be spent searching for issues and bugs. The working code is only available to a few developers whilst in the “Bazaar model” code is developed in view of the entirety of developers. This “Bazaar model” or open system allows free access to and the right to modify source code. In its construction it grants not only developers but also all users, who are potential developers, the right to read and change its source code.
Developers, users, and user-turned- developers form a community of practice. A community of practice in which a group of people who are informally bounded by their common interest and practice in a common field. These members can regularly interact with each other for knowledge sharing and often collaborate in pursuit of solutions to a common class of problems. Within an OSS project success is unlikely unless there is an accompanied community that can provides the platform for developers and users to collaborate with each other. Members of such communities are volunteers whose motivation to participate and contribute is of essential importance to the success of OSS projects.
We see these differing ideologies epitomised in the struggle between the two vastly different operating systems IOS and Android. The transition in society from PC’s to mobile phone platforms has seen internet use by users become a valuable commodity. There currently exists 1.5 billion smartphones worldwide with Mobile devices accounted for 55% of Internet usage in the United States in January.Mobile devices accounted for 55% of Internet usage in the United States in January. Apps made up 47% of Internet traffic and 8% of traffic came from mobile browsersAlthough total Internet usage on mobile devices has previously exceeded that on PCs, this is the first time it’s happened for app usage alone. This is following a fall in PC sales which has suffered recently it’s worse decline in history.
The mobile platform and its importance as a pathway to the internet has seen Google focus primarily on this medium. No longer are the wars of Microsoft and Netscape the dominant clashes within the global network. Rather the central clashes of this era of internet history will play out in the arena’s of the open sourced Android and the ‘Walled garden’ of Apple.
Whether you prescribe to a particular spectrum of this debate it appears that this competition has resulted in greater innovation and increased production by these two mobile platforms. Android is a virtual bazaar that runs on a linux based mobile system. Emulators are accepted on Android as is side loading, and you can receive apps and code from a variety of sources. Apple in contrast does not allow anything with downloadable code. When google first purchased Android, it purchased the first real potential competitor of the IOS platform. There edge, openness an creativity, a potential edge that Apple lacked with their fixed stores and strict guidelines. Choice is the central idea that dominants the open source system. In this ecology users can customize more than on IOS models. There is no limit on app sources and individuals can alter the code to fit their individual needs.
IOS also has its own advantages in its protection against dangerous installations of unapproved software. This is connected to early ideas of feudalism with users sacrificing their information for security. IOS limits the varied sources of applications by locking down the software and doing decrease malware problems and increases device security.
In the world of operating systems, this tension exists between Windows, which is seen as the embodiment of everything centralized and proprietary, and open solutions such as Ubuntu and (more recently) the Chrome OS from Google. In the mobile world, the biggest battle is Apple vs. Google: the latter has the open-source Android operating system, with a totally open app store and development process, while Apple not only controls the code behind the iPhone, but is also notoriously controlling when it comes to its app store, routinely rejecting apps without saying why, and restricting the features they can have — and even the kinds of content they can include.
The same tensions are being played out elsewhere. Facebook has become one of the world’s largest social networks, but not by being open — or at least, not as open as some other web services. Although it provides access to some of its features (such as Facebook Connect) via its API, and is happy to suck information into its service from wherever possible, it is notoriously reluctant to allow much information to flow in the other direction. It controls the terms of service and restrictions on games and other apps with an iron hand, and reserves the right to change its terms on a whim.
In the world of video, meanwhile, there’s a battle underway between Adobe, which controls Flash, the de facto video delivery standard for the web, and (ironically) Apple, which has refused to support Flash on either the iPhone or the iPad and instead has been pushing developers and media distributors towards the open-source HTML5 standard. Meanwhile, on the networking hardware side, Cisco, which has been a vendor using proprietary code for most of its life, has been struggling to find ways to deal with the appetite for open-source solutions in high-speed networking, video conferencing and voice-over-Internet services.
This tension between open and closed runs across many different sectors, and exposes issues that are crucial to the evolution of the technology industry. We hope you will join us in exploring them over the coming weeks
Open source means there are a lot of people working on the software. Plenty of individuals are making sure the code is solid and that the software is easy to use. Documentation is usually easy to find, and there are plenty of people out there writing “how-tos,” which make design and development easier and even fun. You can count on regular updates that are continually improving the product. Open source systems let you see what makes the software tick, and you can often change it to suit your needs. Use this to your advantage when it comes to differentiating yourself from the rest of the pack.
However, because of the popularity of open source systems, many people are familiar with open source code, which creates a higher risk for hacking. If you choose to design in an open source system, your development team is going to need to put time and work into preventing third-party tampering. This difficulty will scale based on many factors such as how many people need to have access to sensitive areas of the site (like the admin panel).
Closed source software usually equates to better security and support. For an ecommerce site, it isn’t necessarily more secure to go with a closed source system, but unlike open source systems, developers don’t have to spend as much time securing code. If a developer runs into any issues in a closed source software, providers are more than happy to offer you support. This is a convenience, because it cuts down on the development time and cost.
Unfortunately with closed source, the barrier to entry is a lot higher. A smaller community means less experience and collective knowledge. This usually equates with much higher costs across the board. You often have to pay for the software or service, and if your support package doesn’t include it, you end up having to pay someone else for their expertise.
References
http://philip.greenspun.com/ancient-history/managing-software-engineers
Click to access ICSE03.pdf
http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/10/technology/pc-sales/?iid=EL
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/28/technology/mobile/mobile-apps-internet/