Originally Posted by jragosta
I see that logic isn't your strong point.
The overwhelming majority of web sites are accessed via proprietary software. The fact that the proprietary software has some open source code inside is a red herring. People buy and use proprietary software vastly more than they 'buy' and use open source software.
To the contrary, the fact that a piece of proprietary software contains another piece of software which is open source, is ABSOLUTELY relevant.
When you distill it all down, the fact of the matter is, in choosing to purchase and use a piece of proprietary software, in most cases you are actually choosing to purchase ad use a collection of many pieces of interrelated software, some of which may be proprietary, and some of which is open source.
But the simple fact that a piece of open source software is being wrapped up inside a piece of proprietary software doesn't negate the demonstrable FACT that the open source software is still present within the proprietary software. So it is a FACT that every time somebody uses a proprietary piece of software that contains open source libraries, they are also using open source software in a different package.
Hence, everybody using the most popular rendering engine in the mobile space -- WebKit -- in any of its various packages, is making use of open source software. They may also be making use of proprietary software at the same time, in the form of the various extra amenities that must be added to turn an HTML engine into a fully functional browser. This isn't a bad thing, and I am not trying to argue otherwise.
Many open source projects deliberately license their code in such a way to encourage proprietary tools to be developed based upon them.All I'm saying
, is that your original statement -- that proprietary software outnumbers open source software -- is based on a false premise. You cited Windows, Mac OS X, and Safari as examples of proprietary software to the exclusion of open source software, when in fact, all of those examples can also equally illustrate situations in which people are using Open Source software.
Mac OS X: if you are booting the kernel, then you're using open source software -- enclosed within a proprietary wrapper, but the inescapable fact remains that there is open source software being used.
Microsoft Windows: The TCP/IP stack is derived from the BSD sockets implementation. Open source software, again, enclosed within a proprietary wrapper.
Safari: The simple fact that it is being run on either Mac OS X or Microsoft Windows means that there is a layer of open source software involved in getting Safari up and running in the first place. But if you want another example, then you can't get any more obvious than WebKit.
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with proprietary software. Nor am I saying that there's anything wrong with taking appropriately licensed open source software, and encapsulating it inside a proprietary wrapper. (Personally, I think that's perfectly OK. But still I love the irony of all proprietary developers who were too lazy to write their own library, so they took a shortcut by adopting a "crybaby-I-want-something-for-nothing" mentality and using the open source alternative...)
I just took issue with your attempt to state, as a FACT, that open source software is hardly ever used, and then citing a bunch of programs that contain open source software as your so-called "evidence".