The Associated Press reports that “Cuba’s communist government is trying to shake off the yoke of at least one capitalist empire — Microsoft Corporation — by joining with socialist Venezuela in converting its computers to open-source software.” They want to phase out their dependence on the Windows operating system and phase in the use of Linux instead.

Open-source roughly means that the software application is ostensibly free of cost and that the user has access to and the right to modify the source code in order to customize the behavior of the software. Linux is an open-source computer operating system originally developed by a Finnish programmer, Linus Torvalds, but extended and improved over the years since by many volunteer programmers. Its use and operation is similar to the Unix operating system but was designed specifically for personal computers. Although Linux can be downloaded and installed at no cost, most users purchase a packaged version from a vendor to avoid the trials and tribulations of trying to install it themselves. The vendors charge for the packaging and the installation software, not the Linux software itself (how convenient).

Using the collective efforts of many unpaid programmers to produce software which is then made available to anyone that wants it is said by some to be a socialistic endeavor. Technically it is but dissenters need to understand that open-source software is developed by private individuals doing what they choose to do with their time — not by a government bureaucracy. Perhaps the ‘collective efforts’ thing is why socialist regimes seem to be attracted to open-source software.

I do believe, though, that some of the open-source contributors are a bit misguided. One of the reasons often given for their efforts was to produce an alternative to Microsoft’s monopolistic Windows operating system and Office applications. That sounds good but Microsoft has never enjoyed a monopoly. Apple offered an OS before Microsoft did and it is still available as an alternative. There was OS2 and several other less well known alternatives. There have always been alternatives to Microsoft’s Office applications. Remember Word Perfect and Lotus123? The reason Microsoft overwhelmed its competition is that they offered products that best suited users in terms of cost, capability and ease of use.

It is good that Linux is out there but I think its development was motivated more by the egos of the contributors than a real desire to do something for the people. There is also the fact that many of the contributors eventually profited handsomely from their efforts.

Besides the packaging and installation charges by the Linux vendors, some experts believe that the operation and management costs are greater for open-source than for commercial software. They believe that commercial software comes with better technical support than does open-source.

It might be good for us that the communist dictatorships to the south of us want to rid their countries of commercial software.