Why Is Proprietary Software So Bad?

By Andrew Min

One of the biggest arguments in the Linux world rages around proprietary software (software restricted by license and/or price). The majority of the Linux users out there are for pure FLOSS (Free Libre Open Source Software). That is, they only want FLOSS software on their machines. This movement really took off mostly because many of the original Linux and UNIX pioneers were firm FLOSS disciples. However, many users, especially the less philosophical and the more pragmatic, have gotten into the habit of simply wanting what works. Which is the right answer?

Philosophy: A great idea, but only to a few diehards

Richard M. Stallman is probably the most important FLOSS proponent around. This Methuselah lookalike was the inventor of the GNU project, the founder of the Free Software Foundation, and the author of the General Public License (the most popular FLOSS license around). Stallman, and most of his disciples, argue that the proprietary software war is an ethical war. According to Stallman, software should be “free as in speech”. In other words, you can do whatever you want with any piece of software you want. That means you can do whatever you want with it as long as you give proper attribution to the original author. No company should be allowed to stop you from doing this, says Stallman. After all, you can hack and redistribute a Logitech microphone. Why can’t you do that with software? Additionally, Stallmanites cite the fact that you’re basically locked into the product and are forced to upgrade when the proprietary company decides to stop supporting it. On the other hand, free software can be supported literally forever as long as someone is willing to support it.

On the other hand, there is the pro-proprietary crowd. This group, mostly made of new Linux or UNIX converts with a few UNIX veterans, just want everything to work as well as it did on Windows. They have several points. The main argument is that the average end user no longer cares about whether the program is open source, FLOSS, or proprietary. All the customer wants is for it to work. And really, the customer isn’t affected at all. Most of the time, there is going to be support, if not from a company, then from the program’s community. The average user doesn’t need to be able to hack software (these are not the days when men are men and write their own device drivers).

I just want it to work

The main problem for the Stallmanites is, quite simple, their software doesn’t always work. It’s that simple. The open source WiFi drivers just don’t match up to the proprietary drivers run with Ndiswrapper. The FLOSS video editor LIVES just doesn’t work as well as Premiere Elements. And Audacity can’t possibly measure up to professional proprietary multimedia editors. The average computer user today is an end-user. They just want it to work and they don’t care how it happens. They are also used to paying to upgrade their software every six months, so they don’t care that Microsoft software asks you to pay $300 every so often. And the fact that they can’t share, reverse engineer, or sell their software? Most ask why anyone would want to do that anyway. There are even a few that agree in principle (Mark Shuttleworth of Ubuntu, for example) but realize that free software simply cannot fill all the gaps that proprietary software leaves.

Stallman and his disciples really don’t have too many arguments against this point. Some try the argument that “it will work, but you have to hack it yourself”. However, most of the proprietary crowd are made up of end-users rather than programmers. Most don’t even know what a compiler is. The rest only know that it has something to do with the IT department at work. Try telling a businessman who just switched to Linux that “your WiFi adapter will work if you write a device driver for it”. He’ll most likely give you a look that he might give an inmate of an insane asylum and then call his IT department to figure out how soon they can install Windows XP again.

Proprietary apps will make FLOSS converts

Some proprietary supporters (myself included) actually support the idea of FLOSS. However, many also believe that a pure FLOSS system is impossible. They point to gNewSense and Gobuntu, two operating systems running pure FLOSS, that barely work without major hacking. They concede that while some programs (Firefox, for example) are clearly superior to their proprietary counterparts, others (like many drivers) are dismal failures. They then point out that halfway is better than none, and suggest that a Linux system with a few proprietary apps is much better than a Windows system with a few FLOSS apps.

Of course, Stallmanites disagree. After all, it’s a near-religious issue for most of them. Most Stallman fans believe that marring any part of a computer with proprietary software is a deadly sin. However, Stallman’s followers need to remember one simple fact: most people don’t care about their software being FLOSS or not. It’s that simple. How do you get them to love FLOSS in the first place? Simple: you wean them. A baby doesn’t automatically go from milk to steak. It’s weaned slowly. That’s how the transition from proprietary to FLOSS should go.

Conclusion

Do I love non-FLOSS apps? Of course not. But let’s face it: sometimes I need to use them. Obviously, if there’s a choice between a proprietary app and a FLOSS app that works just as well, I’m going with the FLOSS app. That’s why I use Firefox, FreeCiv, Quanta Plus, KDevelop, and heck, Linux over their closed-source counterparts. Sure, I hate that Microsoft and its cohorts create stupid laws about their software. But I’m not about to give up productivity to stop it. It’s not that big of a deal for me.