Media Split

Open-source peer produced software constitutes more and more of common applications used today. Yochai Benkler describes the phenomenon in The Wealth of Networks, giving examples of how major commercial and government entities now run on GNU/Linux servers and other free software that, because of their peer-produced origins, often perform better commercial counterparts. That peer-collaborated projects often produce better results holds especially true in the world of software. Only software that is highly specialized, difficult to replicate, and often exorbitantly priced seems to be immune to peer-production- advanced media tools like Macromedia Flash, high-end video-editing software, and engineering programs never see open-source comparisons. As the common media user begins to use free software and the corporate world continues in its use of commercial programs, the spread of open-source projects leads to another line of social schism.

The ever-expanding peer resources and immediate adaptability of open-source software makes any program seen as necessary free. That notion began even before open-source became commonplace. For example, Netscape was once a commercial, priced product, but Window’s release of Internet Explorer quickly made the public expect all web browsers to be free. Mozilla Firefox’s recent emergence as an open-source web browser cemented that notion, providing many more features than Internet Explorer despite being free. Open-source programs for word processing, spreadsheets, media players, and countless other utilities have popped up, slowly replacing the need for Microsoft’s Window Productivity Suite. Even Window as an operating system comes into question with GNU/Linux’s popularity as a more stable, adaptable, and preferred server operating system with many computer-programming adepts. In general, any utility that benefits many media users finds itself open-sourced, making it possible and growingly popular for the average person to live their media lives entirely off free, open-source software.

On the other end of that scale is the corporate world. With intensive use of specialized commercial programs, it’s easy to see why open-source peer collaboration does not work here- what company would open-source the programs that give them an advantage? What programmer would collaborate on a program he or she is not at all likely to use? Yochai Benkler’s example with IBM supporting open-source GNU/Linux is a notable exception, but GNU/Linux is a commonly available operating system whose improvement would benefit IBM. More “elite” programs are never open-sourced- there are no companies willing to give out the code for Adobe Photoshop or for Swift 3D. Even if there were collaborators willing to create open-source comparisons, the programming involved is immensely difficult. The general public will probably never have (legal) access to any of these programs and will have no need for them, either.

In the near future, and to a certain extent today, a person’s computer may be as telling of their social status as their house or their car. An average consumer’s laptop will run on Linux, completely filled with other open-source programs, while the corporate elite’s will run on Windows and host a complete army of “elite” commercial programs. Media will become a social schism, and information will continue becoming currency.