Closed software has more benefits than free software

The argument

Adobe, IBM, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, and Oracle all have one key factor in common: They are very successful companies that develop closed software. This type of software significantly defers from open software or freeware. With freeware, redistribution and modification are completely permitted and encouraged, but with closed software such actions are entirely off-limits. The company or the developer owns it and its source code is not made available to the public. Closed software tends to come with many benefits that far overrule the ones that are gained from free software. In terms of usability, closed software’s documentation and guidelines are written with the intent that anyone can understand and freely use them. As for freeware, on most occasions, the manuals are not up to set standards and they are designed for developers or highly skilled coders to read. There are also many technical support systems built exclusively for closed software. Most people who use freeware are tech-savvy and they can easily write code. However, with closed software, it is reassuring to know that there are 24/7 support services available for those who are not as tech-savvy. The user interface with closed software is significantly more user friendly than that of open software. Given all of these benefits of closed software, it is obvious that this is, without a doubt, more preferable to freeware.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Freeware far triumphs closed software with regards to benefiting society. Freeware assures that the online community has access to the source code. This greatly helps to elevate the standard of security associated with free software. Code can be easily edited or upgraded, and loopholes or bugs can be fixed by many other online users. Since the source code is readily available, the wider community can improve it. As people modify it and make it more efficient or adaptable to their individual needs, many innovative products can be produced. Overall, this not only benefits individuals but it can also lead to revolutions in the technology industry itself.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Commercial success is evidence about business models, not about software quality. The premise names firms that built proprietary products, but several of them are also among the largest contributors to open-source projects, and much of the infrastructure their own products depend on — operating systems, web servers, databases, language runtimes — is open source. [Rejecting P2] The comparison is drawn against the wrong category. As with its opposing entry, the body uses 'freeware' — software distributed at no cost, typically proprietary and closed — as though it meant free and open-source software. Documentation and interface quality vary enormously within open-source software, and widely used projects ship consumer-facing interfaces and general-audience manuals; describing them all as written for skilled coders does not survive contact with the examples. [Rejecting P3] Paid support is a service that can be purchased for open-source software too, through vendors whose entire business is supplying it, so the distinction is between commercial and non-commercial support rather than between closed and open code. [Rejecting C] The counter-argument on record adds the access point: published source lets users audit what a program does, fix defects without waiting on a vendor, and continue maintaining it if the original developer abandons it — none of which is available for closed products however good their documentation.