Beyond the Open-Source Hype

Governments around the world are enchanted by open-source software. Unlike proprietary software, for which the code is kept secret, the open-source variety can be copied, modified, and shared. In 2003, Brazil, for instance, announced plans to move 80 percent of its state computers to the open-source operating system Linux. In 2003, Taiwan launched a National Open Source Plan to build a software industry that could replace the proprietary software in government and education. In France, the ministries of Defence, Culture, and Economy all use open-source operating systems. Japan, China, and South Korea are working together on an open-source alternative to Microsofts Windows operating system.

Those who believe open source is superior to proprietary software often tout its economic and strategic benefits. For example, they believe that the total cost of ownership of open-source software is lower than that of proprietary software because they avoid the expensive licensing fees that companies like Microsoft charge. In 2002, Finland estimated that it could save 26 million euros a year by having state agencies switch to Linux. Open-source advocates also believe the software has technical advantages over proprietary. It is more secure than its proprietary counterpart, they say, because the open-source development process produces better software.

And governments tend not to like software they cant audit for trapdoors that would allow an outsider access. Many countries also argue that open source is better than proprietary software at adapting to local needs, because you can change the behavior of the program by changing its code. With tiny budgets to spend on foreign-produced information technology and little infrastructure to create their own, open source looks like an attractive way for poor nations to gain access to the information age.

Trouble is, the benefits of open source are not always as clear-cut as its proponents claim. Software is too complicated a creation to be captured in rhetoric, and assertions about some of the technical benefits of open source fail to tell the whole story.

Consider the issue of security. In a 2002 letter to Microsoft, Peruvian Congressman Edgar David Villanueva Nez noted that, Relative to the security of the software itself, it is well known that all software (whether proprietary or free) contains errors or bugs (in programmers slang). But it is also well-known that the bugs in free software are fewer. Yet, ask computer security experts and theyll tell you thats not necessarily true. Software, with its millions of lines of code, is so complicated that experts dont know for sure that open source has fewer bugs, nor can they say with certainty that having fewer bugs makes open source more secure. There are really two reasons that it is very difficult to know whether software is secure, says Stanford University computer scientist Alex Aiken. The first reason is that even the simplest software program consists of hundreds of thousands to millions of parts, and potentially all of these have to be correct, or the system may have security vulnerabilities. The second reason is that we have no technology for systematically checking that the parts are correct and fit together in a way that ensures security.

The Chinese have a preference for open source because they distrust software that cannot be audited, a concern that became especially acute after the discovery of the phrase _NSAKEY (thought to refer to the National Security Agency) in the code of Microsofts Windows software in 1999. But auditing any source code in order to ensure there are no security vulnerabilities is nigh on impossible. Figuring that governments nevertheless prefer seeing source code to not seeing it, Microsoft has sought to allay worries over trapdoors by allowing governments to peruse its code.

Politicians, meanwhile, enjoy the notion that open source can be adapted by their people to better address local needs. Open source has the potential of empowering people in ways proprietary software does not allow. It offers users the choice to customize the software, South Africa concluded in its 2003 proposed strategy on the use of open source in its government. Its true that access to source code offers the most flexibility in making a piece of software behave differently. For instance, when a piece of software is not offered in a particular language, programmers can alter open-source code to translate it. However, it is misleading to say that open source empowers people in ways proprietary software does not. Both open source and proprietary software allow you to change the behavior of a software program in significant ways without touching the programs source code. The truth is that software authors, whether they work for a large software firm or no one at all, want users to adapt their product to specific locations and needs. Microsoft makes a living out of making its software customizable while still closely guarding its source code.

Furthermore, software is so complex that serious source code manipulation and maintenance is a high-cost endeavor, not a job one can plunge right into. It is a task for a large group of highly skilled people with a lot of timepeople who, more and more, are being funded by deep pockets, including, yes, U.S. technology corporations such as IBM and Hewlett Packard. Software becomes more interestingindeed, rhetoric-worthywhen it promises a better future. Open source may well deliver that promise, but computer science is too young a discipline, and there is too much we do not yet know about software to be so sure. Governments may be wise to choose open source. They just shouldnt count on it to do much more than what software does best: process the data of the information age.