Open Source: That niggling thing.

I've noticed a recent trend that bothers me. People on mainstream media have been tossing the use of the phrase "open source" around in reference to software as if the listener will correspondingly wink and nod with a "crapware" grunt to boot. I'm sorry that I can't bring any specific references to finger; since my only exposure to mainstream media is limited I strongly suspect that the memory I have is from either "Law and Order" or "The West Wing".

The problem I have with resolution over the matter is that I can see why people who are uneducated about the political atmosphere of the internet might come to be seduced by a sympthetic attitude or false dichotomy: Open Source is Crap and Proprietary Software Works. This dichotomy is more true than it is false for all practical observations. However, this kind of ideological crutch does not fully express the issues involved and is thus very misleading. But people like this kind of thinking. People want to root for something, but are meanwhile ill equipped to prduce more complex models than a general assesment of 'which is better' Windows vs. Linux, or Explorer vs. Firefox, plaintext or HTML.

There are cases which make it clear that thinking in simple opposition is harmful if taken to the kind of fanatic passion, driving people to paint their faces and dress in the colors of their favorite local sports team. These are cases where systems do not function purely as a conduit for private or commercial communication, they operate as a mechanism by which we conclude our positions as mutual individuals into a recognized political attitude.

There arise more and more cases where political consequence is rendered using computer software. We were recently exposed to the issue of Diebold and Election Systems. Diebold is a company well known for its automatic teller machines (ATMs), which was a natural candidate for the production of electronic voting machines. These machines record peoples votes using proprietary software, which acts as a digital alternative to the administration of analog voting. The public does not to know what kind of computation made the end tally results. There is no transparent authentication and verification in the ballot system. This is not good.

It is one thing for a user to have an unknown flaw in proprietary software like Word, it is another thing entirely to trust a closed system to count the public vote.

More recently, drivers in Florida have pushed to reveal the source code used for breathalyser software. Those accused of driving under the influence are questioning the accuracy of a device that renders the evidence leading to a potential sentence -- an outcome with the potential to affect the rest of their lives.

Make up your own mind, there are other perspectives to be had. All I ask is that when you hear people discussing the merits and methods of proprietary vs. open source software, I hope that you choose to educate from your less knee-jerk of positions, rather than push the issue further toward the stale dichotomy it oft wants to head.