What is the disadvantage of open source software?

Answer 1

The benefits of both closed and open source are dependent upon the person answering the question and their opinion on the matter. Commonly cited benefits of closed source software include the following non-exhaustive list. First, closed source software can't be viewed by the public, which according to closed source proponents, increases security due to the increased time it takes a cracker to break the software; the open source proponents state that it is this is simply "security through obscurity", and that publicly viewed source increases accountability. Secondly, closed source proponents say that their software licenses stand up better when challenged legally. Since there have been no major, decisive cases where open source was challenged by a patent lawsuit, this has not been proven either way. Closed source programs are often cited for breaking patent violations without the source code even being examined to see if the precise letter of the patent has indeed been violated.

Thirdly, closed source proponents claim that the developers have a better "vested interest" because they are paid to develop the software, and thus results in higher quality software that is refined relative to the crude design of open source versions. While it is true that many open source projects yet lack the visual appeal of a closed-source, patented, licensed software, does not mean that it is impossible for open source to achieve this level of design, but instead reflects the fact that the typical open source programmer is more concerned with fixing bugs and tightening security instead of bolting on "chrome."

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, monetary value and intellectual property are cited as primary reasons to choose the closed-source route. By being able to hide bugs, you can release closed source software faster, since fewer people can analyze the code and find critical problems, and you can charge for the application (thus not depending on donations or support contracts), and protecting a particularly useful algorithm from being used by competitors by hiding its implementation details can provide more monopoly time in the market.

Open source projects are usually donation-funded or support contract-funded and generally do not perform as well from a stock-market perspective, according to closed-source advocates. The lack of a long list of successful, profitable open-source ventures tends to support that opinion, but the list grows longer daily, as if to prove a point that closed-source might not necessarily be the best option.

Overall, the supposed advantages of both closed and open software will be tainted by the developer's values (the "reason" why they're developing the software). Closed source advocates are almost always money-oriented, while open-source developers are almost always altruistic in nature, believing that the money will follow of its own accord and they can feel good that they helped solve the world's problems. This answer purposefully presents both sides so that it can be made apparent that the actual advantages offered from either side will depend on the project's objectives. Note that none of these advantages have been scientifically verified (as far as I can determine), and are only opinions of those with the loudest voices on each side (the easiest voices to hear).

Answer 2

Closed source software companies pay salaries to people to develop the software and therefore development is pretty much guaranteed << there you go.