article: "What If All Software Was Open Source? a Code to Unlock the Desktop"

[Mike Schwartz]

article: "What If All Software Was Open Source? a Code to Unlock the
Desktop"
This article :
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/562834?print-article     [1]
was summarized at
http://technews.acm.org/archives.cfm?fo=2010-03-mar/mar-31-2010.html#456952
    [2]
and [2] also has a hyper link to [1].

The article quotes James Fogarty (a U. of Washington prof) saying:
<< "Microsoft and Apple aren’t going to open up all their stuff. But they
all create programs that put pixels on the screen. And if we can modify
those pixels, then we can change the program’s apparent behavior" >>.

...so, IMHO this "breakthrough" is nowhere *near *as cool as real,
honest-to-goodness FLOSS.  By saying << this "breakthrough" >>, I mean
both a thing called "Prefab", which the article talks about, and the idea
contained in the above quote, which (I think) is the idea behind Prefab.
 (Apparently, Prefab is a code implementation of that idea.)  Prefab seems
to be intended to give the user a sort of *"pseudo"* ability to modify a
closed-source, proprietary, non-free app. -- [well, at least, to modify its
user interface]. (In fact, what the article *says,* is "any" app; --
which to me sounds exaggerated.)

Among the advantages it does NOT have -- (but free / open-source software
does) -- is the ability to study the source code, in order to gain an
understanding of the design -- that is, how the whole app -- (not just the
user interface) -- works.  (how it is "supposed to" work; or,  how it was
intended to work). Sometimes that opportunity might even be a good
substitute (in a pinch) for having well written user documentation.    It
might even provide someone who was not the author / designer of the code, a
good basis for writing said documentation -- that is, a way to learn enough
about it, to be able to write the user documentation;  and **that**
["educational"
aspect] may be outside the scope of Prefab, and of [1].

((A quote (link) from the end of the article [1] :
More information about Prefab:
http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/jfogarty/research/prefab/
Disclosure:  I have not [yet] gone there / read that.))

In fact, it occurs to me now (and probably to some others long ago!), that
one of the DISadvantages of "vendor lock-in" -ware, is that hiding some of
the "knowledge" that is in the source code, requires keeping the design so
secret, that the quality of the "end user" documentation might have to be
limited intentionally.  If the "end user" documentation gets too good, then
it might start to impart to the reader, some of that same "knowledge"; --
which (of course) is FINE in the case of FLOSS!  But if you want it to be
technically difficult -- [*as well as,* perhaps prohibited by the terms of
some EULA] -- for anyone to reverse engineer your app, or even some part of
it, like one feature that it offers, then you have to impose an "NDA" on
yourself -- an NDA that would (of course) be N/A in the FLOSS world.

On the other hand, I still like this article [1] somewhat (and the idea of
Prefab), because I think it does begin to entice the user (of "secret"-ware)
(that is, non-free / non-OSS software) with some of the *appealing
aspects*(and maybe convince that user of some of the
*benefits*) of being able to modify a software app, *"other than"* by
begging the vendor to change it, and then just hoping / praying.  That is
just one of the advantages of FLOSS.  But it is a big one.
-- 
Mike Schwartz
Glendale  AZ
schwartz at acm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20100401/bf5c25e3/attachment.htm>