I blame summer burnout – or at least that’s my own rationale. But, whatever the reason, suddenly pundits – and seemingly everyone around me – are rushing to declare that free software and open standards don't matter.

Such ideals are fine for those with spare time, they say, but they are busy, practical people. They just want to get the job done, with tools that require the least effort on their part. If that means using proprietary hardware and software, who cares?

The question has a certain amount of validity. Even among freedom advocates, few are willing to go so far as Richard Stallman and not use a web browser, a cell phone, or Microsoft Office formats because of their beliefs.

At times, the expediency of the moment makes compromise tempting. And, in an increasingly diminishing number of cases, no free software or open standard alternative exists for what you need to do.

Moreover, among computer users in general, free software and open standards are not even recognizable words. Asked to choose between convenience and principles, the average computer user will choose convenience every time. In fact, the convenience of the moment trumps just about anything else -- for example, I know several Windows users whose systems are continually being cracked who can't be bothered with a password, let alone permissions.

All the same, such views seem deeply misguided. They present false dichotomies, often based on an unrealistic definition of quality. All they really do is support the existing state of affairs between manufacturers and end-users, and delay the innovations that free software and open source are in the process of delivering.

Giving Up on Change

The sorts of views I'm talking about are rarely well-argued. Almost always, they are barely supported expressions of opinion.

Usually, the expression takes two forms. In the first form, the writers position themselves as pragmatists. For example, in "Proprietary Is Not a Four Letter Word," Mike Fratto argues that open standards are all very well, but, "if vendors are improving protocols beyond what is defined by standards, is that bad? Of course not. Like my audience, you probably want products that work and work well."

Similarly in "Open Or Proprietary, It's Whether It Works Or Not That Counts," Alan Shimel writes that, all else being equal, he would prefer open standard hardware, but, "Good or bad is in the eye of the beholder and the mirror used to make that judgment is whether or not the product does the job."

In the second form, the writers emphasize convenience. Continuing a line of discussion that he has been developing for a couple of years, Jason Perlow in "Why I've been throwing open standards under the bus," asks rhetorically, "is it worth giving up 'Openness' for convenience, ease-of-use, lower maintenance and access to larger application ecosystems?" then adds, "I want to be a consumer. I don't feel like playing system integrator in my spare time."

An even more extreme position is taken by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes in "Why I don't really care about 'Open' that much any more." Unhackable hardware, Kingsley-Hughes argues, exists to protect people from their own stupidity, and most people don't want to change the factory defaults anyway. He concludes, "So next time I talk about 'closed' hardware and software and you feel the need to tell me that I should be advocating open standards, just remember I don't care."

Some of these comments are made in a calm, reasonable-sounding tone of voice, as though only the deluded could disagree. Others are made defiantly, as though braced for criticism (and so they should be, since if the speakers really feel that way, they should stop writing professionally about free software and open standards). Few, if any, bother to explore the implications of the position being expressed.

In Defense of Free and Open

Whenever I encounter these sorts of opinions, I hear the uncanny echo of countless articles about why a Window user can't use Linux. Just as the Window user is likely to claim that Linux only runs from the command line, or that all software is installed via tar balls, so supporters of proprietary tools tend to talk as though the choice is between sophisticated proprietary tools and primitive free and open ones.

Like the Windows-user's claims, this implication is at least a decade out of date. While exceptions might exist, today quality and free and open are by no means mutually exclusive -- something of which the pundits, at least, should be well aware.

At any rate, while no one would argue against quality in the abstract, in practice the criteria for quality can be highly subjective. Is it functionality? Long-term robustness? Customization? Ease of use? And how do these criteria compare? Objective answers rarely exist. That's why, frequently, when proprietary and free and open tools are compared, quality is only a synonym for a familiar choice of names for features or a familiar layout of items on a menu or a toolbar.

An equally false dichotomy is assumed when people say that, because they have no interest in hacking hardware or software, they prefer to buy ready-made solutions. Just because you can't modify your equipment or software doesn't mean that you can't benefit from someone else from doing so. If that were so, then free software would still consist of a few hundred programmers. It wouldn't be used by millions who couldn't write a Hello, World program if their lives depended on it.