Openness

1
Openness
Openness as an evolutionary determinant of human
existence
November 14/15 2005, Wim Westera
2
Claims of the open source movement

• Higher innovative power
• User-led adaptibility
• Better flexibility
• Better exchange of data
• Cheaper
• Good guys versus bad guys
• An ideology rather than a well-substantiated line
  of thought

3
Main question

• Is open source better than closed source?
• Example the ease of Philips technology
• Linguistic perspective
• Historical perspective
• Existentialist perspective
• The survival argument
• Conclusion

4
1. The ease of Philips technology
5
Philips proposition

• Sense and simplicity
• Change burdens into pleasure
• Simply press the button it just makes sense
• Why bother? It is the result that counts
• Closed technology

6
2. Linguistic perspective

• Openness
• Transparency
• Hospitality
• Fairness
• Frankness
• Proximity
• Accessibility

• Closeness
• Secrecy
• Rejection
• Reticence
• Reserve
• Exclusion
• Inaccessibility

7
Welcome
8
But, . many counterexamples

• Privacy
• Press embargo
• Non-proliferation treaty
• Encryption of data electronic banking
• Psychopaths open institutions

9
3. Historical perspective
10
The Enlightenment

• Liberation of medieval doctrines -magic
  -prejudices -superstition -fear of God
• Individual responsibility
• Free speech, free choice
• Rational thought
• Scientific explanations
• Open academic content

11
A flood of new technologies
( )
Huijgens
Galileo
12
Modern technology revival of magic

• Complexity
• Proprietary solutions
• Industry patents
• Concealment of machineries
• So
• Close (concealed) technologies
• Technologys magical aura in medieval style

13
4. Existential perspective

• Technologys role
• liberating humans from burdens
• providing enrichment of human existence
• making available goods without effort (heat,
  light, food, information, coffee, )

14
Technology alienation from the world

• Ignorent of the origin of products
• Ignorent of the composition of products
• Ignorent of the working of products
• Dependent on technology
• Dependent on specialists
• Apathetic consumption

15

• Why bother? It is the result
• that counts! Isnt it?
• Dumb, lazy and dependent users
• Apathetic consumerism
• Alienation from the world rather than user
  involvement

16
Towards user involvement

• Borgmann (1984) claims that technology should be
  open and interactive in kind visible,
  accessible, adjustable, repairable

Machinery
Commodity
17
Open software and involvement

• user-defined configuration
• user-defined preferences (skins)
• active object manipulation
• real-time events
• multiple representations of data
• intelligent responses
• participation in games and communities
• source code modifications

18
Levels of user involvement (software)
19
5. The survival argument

• Darwin, Lamarck Survival depends on our ability
  to change
• Close technologies Inertia dumb, lazy and
  dependent button operators stagnation, decline
  extinction
• Open technologies Adaptation, commitment,
  growth, change, development, progress and
  improvement
• survival

20
6. Conclusion

• Is open source better than closed source?
• Open source movement has
• better chances to survive.
• Not by just making sources
• available, but by enabling
• user involvement
• for various types of users.

21
Thank you for your attention
Wim.Westera_at_ou.nl