The N&O’s Stump the Geeks columnnist recently took a question regarding free software. Her answer left the impression (though perhaps unintended) that free software was dangeous since it may be filled with viruses and back doors. The answer implied “who ever heard of people writing software for free? And how could any of it be good?”

Never mind that people do write software for free, often because whatever is commercially available doesn’t address their needs. Or it could be that commercial software is too expensive (see Adobe Audition vs. Audacity). Or they do it just because they can. The cooperation of programmers worldwide built much of the infrastructure which runs the Internet, in addition to many other world-class software projects. Free software, and open source software in particular, has been a wonderful blessing, keeping many users from reinventing the wheel, so to speak.

Open source software can also be more secure than proprietary software, in that the source code is available for anyone to inspect. It is difficult if not impossible to hide viruses and worms within open source software (though that does not guarantee it to be bug-free, of course).

I was disappointed the columnist did not make a stronger case for free software. I suppose it shows that the public still equates free software with theft, when in fact the generous, sharing nature of open source software should be embraced.

(Note, the N&O is playing games again with making Internets readers register. The above link may not work. Sigh)

[Update 19 Feb]: Found a link to the Stump The Geeks column in question. Thinking about it now, her “only pay software is safe” answer doesn’t just ignore open source, it’s wrong. Remember last year’s Sony’s rootkit fiasco? Open source software isn’t without its flaws but at least you know exactly what you’re getting.

I was marveling about our modern society the other day. We live a life of leisure compared to our ancestors of a hundred years ago. Our roles are largely of this strange category called “consumers,” which can be defined as “those who consume.” We have built a society where we have insulated ourselves from the source of many of the things we enjoy in our lives.

If I’m hungry for chicken, I don’t have to hunt for one. Someone else raises it, slaughters it, processes it, trucks it to my city, cooks it, and serves it to me, all in exchange for my money. My hands stay clean.

I don’t have to get involved in North Carolina’s death penalty debate. Someone else catches criminals, tries them, convicts them, incarcerates them, and executes them, all in exchange for my money. My hands stay clean.

The same goes for the quest for energy. Someone else digs out the coal from the earth, transports it to the power station, transforms it into electrons through burning, filters the toxins in the air it produces, and delivers it to my house, all in exchange for my money. My hands stay clean.

With such a division of labor, my direct involvement becomes limited to the final product. How does the power company know I prefer clean power? How does the state know I prefer they not kill people to teach others not to kill? How do I accept the hundreds of chickens that died to satisfy my hunger? Instead a wonderful fantasy exists where someone else is responsible.