Open vs Closed Systems Essay Example for Free

Open vs Closed Systems Essay The state of Kansas defines OSS (Open Sourced Software) as software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code. The book defines open source operating systems as those made available in source-code format rather than binary code. Closed source is exactly the opposite. Closed source is proprietary software that is only made available in binary code which is very difficult to reverse engineer. Open-source code is exactly what the programmer developed including all of the comments and notes. Open-source is most commonly confused with free software although the difference is very miniscule however strongly opposed. When all of these ideas are put together we can understand that as an end user with open sourced OS’ we have the ability to see all of the code and modify most of the OS if we have the necessary skills to do so. Whereas with closed source we can only see the code after it has been compiled into binary, or machine code, and only make changes that the programmers allow us to make within the OS. Open Sourced OS When we talk about open-sourced OS’ usually people think of UNIX or Linux. These are great examples of what open- source is. If a user wanted to download a version of Linux to install on his computer he could, and the open source would not cost him a thing. What he may end up paying for is support. Or if he is an experienced developer himself he can do what open-sourced software was originally intended to and make changes to the source himself. This is the biggest difference between open and closed source OS. With open source the individual has the freedom to make absolutely any change he deems necessary to the OS. Imagine being able to change the way Windows works. If you somehow figured out that the Windows OS would always crash when you have exactly 6 explorer windows open what would you do? Well if Windows was an open-source OS you could fix it and compile it. Then you could send the fixed version to the author so it could be updated and distributed to everyone else. That is the beauty of open-sourced OS’. Some can argue that because there are so many more eyes on the open-source systems that it makes them more secure. Closed Source OS Closed-source operating systems are the extreme opposite of open-source. The only form of closed source you can get is binary, which means you’ll have to do some very heavy hex reverse engineering in order to be able to actually understand the code. Closed source OS’ like Microsoft cost hundreds of dollars to buy, and if there’s issues with the latest version, you are forced to wait until Microsoft developers release an update that may fix your issue and yet break another one of your applications. Users are at the mercy of Microsoft at all times. You can make recommendations and complaints about Windows not behaving in a matter that suits your needs, but you can’t do very much more. GNU Public Licenses GNU (GNU Not UNIX) General Public licenses are licenses used for distributing free software. The idea of â€Å"copyright† was flipped around and introduced as â€Å"copyleft† by the FSF (Free Software Foundation). The purpose of â€Å"copylefting† was to do exactly the opposite of copyrighting. Instead of locking the software down and using the full extent of the law against anyone attempting to copy the copyrighted software; a GNU GPL forces the authors to allow anyone to copy and modify the code. The best example of how the GNU GPLs are used is the Linux operating system. Using GNUs UNIX compatible tools, Linus Torvalds created a UNIX like kernel and invited all developers around the world to modify his code and submit it back to him. Using the open source method Linus was able to complete the Linus OS much faster than anyone anticipated. Even though GNU had begun to be developed before Linux, the use of the internet and GNU GPLs allowed Linux to be completed before GNU was. Microsoft Licensing Due to the fact that Microsoft Windows was created to be a closed-source OS, users are forced to pay for a license before being able to download the binary file and install the software. Microsoft licensing copyrights the software and prevents anyone not appointed by Microsoft from viewing and modifying the source code. The advantage of Microsoft licenses is that when vulnerabilities or bugs are found, the end user doesn’t have to worry about figuring out how to fix it. Microsoft developers package the fixes and notify the end user’s OS when they are available for download. For an end user with no programming experience, the Microsoft Licensing scheme is a perfect scenario. Of course it costs a nice chunk of change, but for some people ignorance is bliss. The obvious disadvantage to this licensing structure is the complete opposite. The end users are completely powerless to fix known vulnerabilities and bugs. Microsoft has been able to blow past the competitors because of the availability of Volume licensing and software assurance policies. The biggest customer any software company can have is the government. When Microsoft started offering proprietary software that was easily deployable in any environment, the government and most other large companies were enticed into buying into the Microsoft Licensing closed source idea. Conclusion As a rule of thumb a person should never completely close any door even after seeing what’s inside and turning the other way. In one hand open-source OS’ can be extremely useful because they are easily modified and tailored to ones need. Along with the fact that there seems to always be someone interested in helping with code and the development of useful software. Most of the time, these programmers are not getting paid and are mostly just looking for a challenge. And on the other hand when money isn’t an issue and the knowledge of code is an issue, one can easily find themselves completely absorbed in the closed source way of life. Is either one better than the other? Maybe in some scenarios, but neither can nor should be considered a failure of societies way of thinking.