Can open source outperform proprietary software?

Lately my YouTube algorithm decide i need to watch a lot of videos about Linus Torvalds, and how Linux was made. That was the start of this blog post. So thank you YouTube.

To me, the open source software is so badass when compared to closed source. There is something so cool when it's all there on the open. Everyone in the world can just access it and maybe tweak it if enough knowledge is there. The question is: Can open source strategy beat closed source products of those big companies.

It's not the case that close source software is bad. Actually it's great. But there is none of the freedom in that. Why would you need freedom to use a software? That's a valid question. But i have a feeling that the reason open source software succeed is that other people see the idea of that particular software different from developers that started it. And maybe that ideas is more true than the original one.

Why would in this situation someone be more true? I guess the software gets popular amongst community if it does one particular thing in a good way, and if there is no amount of truth in that, then there would never be "the best" software of any kind. There wouldn't be tier list of software products.

Right now I'm talking about software, but i guess anything can be open source. I guess that happens when someone decides not to put patent on something. But patents are a bit different, and a conversation for themselves.

Let's take the case that I'm familiar with. Open source game engines. Godot in particular is a great example right now. Slay the Spire is currently popular game that was created in Godot. And Godot as an open source game engine was around for a while, but it wasn't used much in the industry. But games like this show that there is money to be made with open source tools. It's there for the taking.

I remember a while a go i tried to make a game with Godot. And while researching the capabilities of game engine i found out that some features that are usually there in more professional game engines are not there in Godot. Features tied to finishing the game once when it's at the end of development. And i remember from that point i didn't like Godot that much. But now, years later. Those things are fixed and patched, hence all those released games with Godot. It's mostly small independent developers, but that's just a beginning i feel. If we pretend that those big game companies are greedy. Why wouldn't they make a game with a open source and free engine. I guess it's possible to make some kind of deals with proprietary game engine companies. But, i don't think that can be a deciding factor. After all, the most of the open source stuff is free.

Now i need to get back to tracks. The original question was: Can open source outperform proprietary software. Why is usually the case that open source is less than, or worse than commercial software? I think i figured that one. Usually when it comes to how well someone can do something is due to time.

Time spent doing it. And i believe time outperforms effort. One good example from my life is phones. Now this example has nothing to do with open source, but it shows how time can help. Usually i buy Samsung phones, but i also like cheap prices, so i bought Xiaomi phone. The problem with that was how Xiaomi just does not have or know certain things exist. For example, it could not connect to my Android Auto. My guess is that no one thought about it. While with Samsung, the pairing with Android Auto is flawless. Well Samsung had a lot of time to iron out all the quirks. The first phone Samsung made was 1988, and first phone Xiaomi made was 2011. That's a lot of years missing out if we compare to Samsung.

So my case is that majority of open source software started after someone didn't like all the features of closed source software. That implies that most of open source is younger. Even if it's 1 or 2 years, it's still a lot of time. Even though maybe there is a lot more effort being put in with all the contributors of open source project. Majority of problems need time to be detected and solved.

As i wrote all this it came to me why would big companies go for commercial closed source tools. When problem arrives the company can say to the company that made the software/tool just to fix it. And the developers of that software have to fix it fast. Maybe even write some kind of legal paper that will hold them accountable if software falls. In case of open source there is just a bunch of really smart people. And if someone came to them and said: Fix this right now, or else... They would just say "go to hell". So when something is open source there is no one to hold accountable.

Maybe the point is that someone is held accountable, and maybe the point is that no one is held accountable. So my guess is that some things just have to be closed source, else it wouldn't be good as closed source. And some things just have to be closed source, because accountability is needed, or else it would be an anarchy. I guess it's a fine line that has to be explored, it's impossible to see the right answer. The right answers might show with time.

Thanks for reading.