Microsoft is greater than Open Source

True peer production, in the sense of a community of people creating a final product in the same way Wikipedia is brought together will never happen. As open source becomes more and more prominent, we will see it begin to fall apart due to it's lack of a unifying goal.

Nothing binds the people who create open source software to a specific model. While Benkler constantly states it as almost an advantage that people are willing to share and contribute for non capitalistic reasons, this model is bound to fall apart due to scattered goals. Take the current builds of Linux as an example. With competition among the already small Linux user base over different forms of Linux, it prevents a unified model of the software (such as Windows has). As a result of this, no universal and comprehensible “installer” has ever been created for the Linux OS, creating a huge wall for any end user who wants an easy switch to a new operating system. Different distributions have created different solutions for this problem, resulting in a mishmash of different file formats and general issues. Compare this with the central idea of Microsoft's installation system and the necessity of a central vision soon becomes apparent.

Benkler cites Nasa clickworkers as an example that an open network can work wonders for cheap efficient research. However, the research required people clicking on craters in a picture of mars. There was no unified objective needed – the end user only had to perform a simple manual task to accomplish the goal. The Mars experiment is basically the perfect example of an open network – you really can't screw anything up, and anyone can perform the task. Actual Open Source software isn't the same.

Wikipedia, although more involved than the clickworker project, isn't the same as open source either. The end user just has to contribute information to an already existing database (with a set mission). Wikipedia is successful because the users do have a unifying goal; they are more like colleague's at an actual encyclopedia, confirming and updating other people's entries, then random contributers to a project.

Open-source software is amazing. The ability of people to contribute and create a usable, functional, and free piece of software is astonishing. I actually typed this entire essay using open source software. It runs well and it's stable. However, it's funny to notice that so much open source software rips off of company's designs. Open office is basically designed to be a free and functional version of Microsoft's office suite. The toolbars in Open office basically mimic Microsoft's design and all functional features, including the interface and spell checking feedback is Microsoft's creation. And the GUIs of so many distributions mimics the perfect start menu, task bar, window design of Microsoft. The Athena computers around campus all have an eerie Windows feeling to them.

Because Windows is designed by a company with an aim to sell products and a typical top down formation, it is able to maintain a unified goal and create. For innovations of the future, it's still going to be companies with incentive to innovate that move technology forward.