Ask HN: Is Open Source a Moral Imperative?

It's all about your priorities...but I'm surprised that you think switching to Linux will make you less productive (at least you've qualified it with, "for a while"). People who uses computers a lot, as I presume you are, can generally be more productive on a Linux system...it's just dramatically more flexible, and so it can be tuned to suit your requirements in ways that Windows and Mac OS X cannot. I'm completely useless on a Windows or Mac machine...not because I don't know how they work and all the things I need to do to make them more useful (like installing vim, Cygwin, and PuTTY on Windows immediately), but because they are just less friendly to software development work. Package management is also a joke on Windows and Mac OS X...every time I have to install a new piece of software it makes me want to stab someones eyes out. There's sort of a belief that Windows has more software than Linux...but, to me, it always feels like it has dramatically less, because the base system is so limited. A stock Linux system has tons of software, and hundreds or thousands of more apps are a single command away. Mac and Windows are simply anemic by comparison, and you have to hit the web to find additional stuff and install it using whatever archaic process the developer opted to use.

Anyway, back to the point, if you believe Open Source is a good thing for the world, then using more of it, supporting more of it, and building more of it, should be among your goals in life. I happen to believe that, so those are among my goals each day. However, they aren't my only goals, and I don't think they necessarily need to be your only goals. I also have to make a living, so I work on some small bits of proprietary software that coexists with the Open Source software I work on. I also have to have some fun, so I have a Nintendo Wii running all proprietary non-Open Source software. I have to test my commercial products on Internet Explorer and Safari, so I have a dual booting system that can boot Windows for running IE and Safari. When I built an HTPC, I used Windows Vista, because there are no Blu Ray player software products for Linux (and there may never be an Open Source Blu Ray player). I'm less extreme than I once was; there was a time when I had no proprietary software in my life, and it worked fine for me at that time.

But, I take satisfaction in taking part in the Open Source community. I wouldn't find using a Mac or a Windows machine as my primary system as satisfying. Some folks have other priorities. UI and hardware beauty, as found in Apple products, are important to a lot of people, and they are willing to accept the higher cost and the legal restrictions that come with it. I find Open Source and freedom dramatically more beautiful than the restrictive and infantilizing Mac experience, but I'm probably wired up funny. Using a Mac makes me angry, while most people seem to find it peaceful, or something.

Before switching to a Mac, I was a Linux user for years and years.

I use a Mac simply because I feel OS X is the better operating system. Linux has made strides on the desktop but when push comes to shove, it's just not "there" yet. I'm sure I'm going to be downmodded for saying that, but I really feel it's the truth. Desktop Linux is unstable. While it doesn't crash often, it does sometimes, and I feel that one crash is too many. Multiple displays are wonky. Flash still doesn't work properly. Etc. Etc.

I use OS X because it has the UNIX underpinnings I need to do my job with the stable desktop and cohesive UI that I feel Linux is missing.

Unlike many Linux zealots, I don't feel that there is anything "wrong" with closed-source software. I didn't use Linux for years because it was free as in beer or free as in freedom. I used it because I thought it was the better tool.

And that's why I use a Mac.

Here is my biggest concern though: Apple is an evil, proprietary company. In my opinion, worse than Microsoft. If you use OS X, you are legally locked in to Apple hardware. You cannot legally run OS X on anything but Apple-bought-and-branded computers. At least, with Windows, I have the freedom to install the software on any bloody hardware I want. Yeah yeah, you can Hackintosh or whatever, but it goes against Apple's EULA.

Just because Apple releases parts of OS X under open source licenses, doesn't mean OS X isn't completely proprietary. You can only run it on what Apple lets you run it on. If you need to upgrade your workstation(s) and want to stick with OS X, you are completely at mercy to Apple's products and prices.

In the end, I suck it up. Hopefully one day this will change, but right now OS X is a pleasure to use, and that outweighs the dislike I have with the license.

Desktop Linux is unstable.

Nonsense.

[joe@delilah installer]$ uptime 17:21:39 up 16 days, 9:17, 9 users, load average: 0.40, 0.26, 0.24

And that was a reboot because I had to run Windows for something. I'd gone probably two months without rebooting before that.

Linux, desktop or otherwise, is stable as hell. I stay logged in for months at a time without even thinking about it.

While it doesn't crash often, it does sometimes, and I feel that one crash is too many.

I've seen Mac OS X crash more often in the past two years (the time since a good friend started having a Mac laptop around me enough that I'd have an opportunity to see it crash) than I've seen Linux crash, and I don't even own a Mac (while I have at least one Linux system running every waking moment). In my experience Mac OS X is an order of magnitude less stable than Linux. It would have to be for me to have seen a dozen crashes over two years from a system that I see working for maybe a few hours every week on average, vs. my Linux boxes that I see running 80 or 100 hours every week. And, it's a well-maintained Mac, serviced by Google's Tech Stop.

Multiple displays are wonky.

This one I'll concur on...sort of. It was pretty bad until a couple of years ago. And, it's still bad on some hardware. But, on the best supported video cards, it works very well and without hassle. You do have to be careful about hardware...but Linux probably has more supported hardware these days than Mac OS X or Windows Vista (though very new stuff often doesn't have good drivers yet).

Flash still doesn't work properly.

I haven't had problems with Flash in years. There is the problem of running Flash on a 64 bit install of Linux...but if you use a 32 bit Firefox build, Flash works fine (I'm running on a 64 bit system, and I have no complaints about Flash). This is an issue of the vendor not providing a working 64 bit build--nothing to do with Linux. And there are easy workarounds.

I'm not downmodding, I just don't think your arguments are accurate. The cohesive UI argument is pretty much the only thing I will actually completely concur on. But, the cost of getting a cohesive UI is to give up a cohesive and sane command line (using Mac OS X on the command line makes me very angry, and I have a dozen terminals open at all times, so I would be very angry indeed working on a Mac all the time), not to mention all the other third party tools you have to give up to retain cohesiveness...I just don't see how that's a good trade.

SwellJoe, I wasn't trying to knock Linux. I was just talking about my experiences regarding why I made the switch. It's great to hear that your experience has been more positive. I'm happy that you've found your groove in Linux, and I've found my groove in OS X.

And, likewise, I'm not knocking Mac OS X. I just didn't want misinformation being taken as fact; we're talking to someone who has, apparently, never used Linux on the desktop. It'd be unfair to him to give him a false impression of the stability of Linux, in particular...it is one of the few areas where Linux clearly and demonstrably outshines any other mainstream desktop OS including Mac OS X by a large margin.

I'd never argue that folks can't be productive on OS X, or that Apple doesn't make fine products. They can, and they do. But, let's be fair about our comparisons. Consistency is weak on Linux; we'll all agree. UI beauty is lacking in many applications; we'll agree. Hardware support, particularly newer devices, can be a problem; agreed. But stability is weak? Hells no.

My own Linux uptime anecdote: ~14 months on my thinkpad T43 (daily use, with sleep/resume).

I noticed how long it had been after 4 or 5 months and decided to consciously avoid updating the kernel etc. It finally just crashed one day. Going multi-year on a Linux server is pretty common of course.

Just try Linux. You've got a Mac; run it in Boot Camp. Or buy VMWare or Parallels and run it right next to the Mac OS. There is no need to theorize about this.

If your idea of software is emacs, the command line, the browser, and a bunch of servers and compilers Linux will be just fine for you. Perhaps even better than the Mac. I am very, very close to this camp, so I was almost happy with Linux.

But if you do anything with graphics, audio, or video I predict that your free-software devotion will be sorely tested. In theory there are free alternatives to Photoshop, Illustrator, Cubase or Logic or Sonar or Performer, Final Cut, iMovie, Snapz Pro or IShowU or ScreenFlow, Lightroom or Aperture, the iWork apps, and the venerable iTunes. But based on my limited sampling of iTunes and Logic alternatives three years ago, you're better off just sticking with the Mac. Life is too short to spend fighting your tools instead of using them.

And now I'm hooked on 1Password, so I just can't leave the Mac. ;)

I develop Mac software for free and release the source under GPL. The two ideas aren't completely incompatible (though one is perhaps more likely to find shareware than freeware on the Mac, and shareware isn't typically open-sourced).

It's more a question of how "pure" your environment is. Yes, technically, if Apple decided to radically change something about my system, there is a chance I may not be able to access some application or data after an upgrade (once it's "closed"). But it would also be extremely stupid of them to alienate their customer base in such a way. So for all practical purposes, there is no real risk. And I am willing to accept that minimal risk.

It also helps that the company has decided not to make complete garbage, and actually makes a useful product. In such a case, why shouldn't it have my money?

Apple contributes a decent amount back to open source. WebKit, launchd, mach, etc. See http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/ http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html and http://www.macosforge.org/ for a bunch their code.

A lot of the stuff in an OS X install is open source.