thelavkit

Nowadays, computers have become one of the most used appliances in daily life. They are everywhere, from classic desk computers which people imagine when they think of a computer to mobile phones and dishwashers. Although they differ in computing power, the type of computer these examples have is the same. They use a general-purpose architecture instead of purpose-specific architecture as it's cheaper to manufacture and design. A computer that has a general purpose architecture can do anything that its hardware allows. Although there are a lot of factors that prevents this, theoretically your dryer can execute the classic game DOOM as long as it can execute the proper instructions. But there is a catch, they need a software to be able to function. If they have no instructions, they simply won't do anything. That's why software that runs on our devices is an essential part of our lives too. But why it has to be open source? Doesn't the proprietary software that usually comes from big corporations function as the same (or even better in some cases) as free and open source software? The truth is, proprietary software has a lot of disadvantages that stems from not being free (free as in liberty, not as in price-free).

Did you know that you don't actually own the software that you pay for? Yes, you own the permission of running the software but you don't own the software even if it's installed on your computer. Technically, every program on your computer is open source as they are nothing more than some instructions but these instructions are very abstract and is not very comprehensible (or at least efficient) for even the most educated and experienced ones in computer science. Remember, your computer can do everything, including tracking your activities to collect your data and show you targeted ads based on your personalized identity. If you don't have control over the source code, you can't be sure the provider isn't collecting your data (unless you cut your Internet connection). Although many service providers claim that they are doing this anonymously and not actually making a real profile of you, it can easily be (and has been) done. You can say that you aren't an important person, therefore it won't matter whether if you are profiled or not. The truth is, it matters. Any political side can manipulate you using your profiling. You are an individual, and it does matter whether if your information is being used maliciously or not.

Another possible disadvantage of not owning the software you run is the position of the customers' opinion. If a "feature" is served to you, you are obliged to accept it. For example, some computers have a "Copilot key" for opening Microsoft's AI product, Copilot. The said "Copilot key" isn't actually a real key in the keyboard map, it's just an emulation of keys was used in old IBM PCs. You probably heard about an "Office key" too. It's same thing with the "Copilot key", even though it's just a weird combination of keys that's hard to press. Even if you don't use these products, the keys will still be there. In the world of proprietary software, the user's thoughts doesn't pass, the manufacturer's does. The manufacturer also can deny you from using the service they provide. Even if you want to use (or continue) a product after the company decided to discontinue, if the manufacturer wants, you will not be able to. You may even be forced to get rid of a perfectly working device. Even if your workflow heavily depends on the software and you need it to be continued, the company behind the software can just decide to get rid of it. Using proprietary software is like living in a hotel room. You can do anything the owner allows, but you can't really modify your living place and you can be forcefully kicked out even if you live there. This analogy might not be perfect, but you get the idea. Using free software is like buying a new home, you might have to pay for it (although most FOSS is price-free), but you can modify your living place without anyone telling what you can do.

The other disadvantage of proprietary software is the lack of security. Although this problem stems from the previous disadvantages, it also stems from another aspect of proprietary software, not being able to modify and use different versions of the software. There are a lot of exploits that are used by people with malicious intents. Imperfection is in the nature of human, people can mistakenly do flawed things, especially in an area like programming. But perfecting these flaws are harder in proprietary software. Unless they are very critical, patches usually come in monthly updates. If the company sees it unnecessary, it might not release a patch for a critical exploit. Even if it might be extremely hard to do, people should be able to patch the software that they use. Backwards compability is an important issue in programming, and people should be able to use and modify a specific version of a product personally without any limitations. To make things even worse, companies can collaborate with the state to add or leave an exploit. There isn't a lot of things you can do if you use proprietary software. Proprietary software is used in a lot of places and it naturally creates a lot of exploits in critical places. The nature of proprietary software allows insecurity. The nature of proprietary software allows malicious intents.

Free software on the other hand, allows you to own the software that you run. You are your own boss. You can modify the software to run on a dishwasher if both the dishwasher and you have the capabilities. No one can force you to do (or not to do) anything. You are free to use, distribute and modify the software. Even if you don't have the ability to even tell what's going on, there will be someone that understands and use this force for good. If there is an exploit, it will be fixed. If a product is discontinued, a fork of it probably will continue to live. You can choose where the software will run. You will not be forced to run the software you have on other people's computers (people call this the almighty cloud). Not only free software is theoretically better, it's also ethical. The owner of the software won't have to establish power over you. You become an user of the software instead of being used by the owner. Although some people might have good intentions and are ignorant about the shortcomings of proprietary software, most people are likely to shrivel and use their power for bad. Free software can be maintained by other people even if the original author goes south. Free software is free from the intentions of the people.

To sum up, proprietary software is not only potentially worse than free software, but it's also commonly malicious too. The truth is, sometimes utilizing proprietary software might be better than utilizing open source software in practice. Although I advocated for free software in this entry, it's a solid fact that almost all the people reading this won't be able to use free software everywhere. Most of the firmware, and some of the software that has no viable free alternatives, is proprietary. There are a lot of times that people need to compromise. But that doesn't mean you can't take steps. In the way to liberty (in software), every step counts. For example, you might try to ditch your misbehaven Windows for a healthy (GNU/)Linux distro. You might have to dualboot it but at least you have made an important stride. You might want to throw your spyware browsers and try to get used to more respectful browsers. You might start using fewer Google or Meta services. Or you can support people who work on free and open source software. But in the end, it's more about the effort we make rather than the perfection. It's practically impossible to go all free, but it's possible to make it practically possible to go all free. If it's possible to have a better future, then why we don't go for it?