made some tiny changes to things

6 files changed, 98 insertions, 302 deletions

diff --git a/writeup/tmp.tex b/writeup/tmp.tex
deleted file mode 100644
index c6fa8ef..0000000
--- a/writeup/tmp.tex
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,219 +0,0 @@
-\documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article}
-
-\usepackage[backend=bibtex]{biblatex} \usepackage{geometry} \usepackage{titling} \usepackage{titlesec}
-\usepackage[english]{babel} \usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref} \usepackage{listings} \usepackage{xcolor}
-\usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{forest} \usepackage{tikz-qtree} \usepackage{setspace}
-
-\addbibresource{ref.bib}
-
-\graphicspath{ {./images} }
-
-\titleformat{\section} {\Huge} {} {0em} {}[\titlerule] \geometry{a4paper,total={170mm,257mm},left=25mm,right=25mm,}
-
-\author{Lucas Standen} \title{Why FOSS software is preferred in the development and privacy space?}
-
-
-\begin{document} \maketitle
-
-\newpage
-
-\section{Using this document} This document is written using the {\LaTeX} text compiler. The compiler has set up
-clickable links, clickable references and a clickable table of contents, so please use these to your advantage.
-The Tex source and Bib Tex bibliography is available for all at \url{https://github.com/standenboy/epq/} under
-the MIT/X document license.
-
-\tableofcontents \newpage
-
-\setlength{\parskip}{1em}
-
-{\setlength{\parindent}{0cm}
-
-\section{A brief introduction}
-
-\section{Used language in this paper} Throughout this paper I will use language specific to the field of computer
-science, and as such it makes sense to provide a brief overview for those who don't know what specific terms mean.
-
-\begin{description}
-	\item[Licenses] In this setting a license is a legal document that is distributed with
-		almost all modern software, which describes how someone can use a piece of software.
-	\item[Free Software] This term refers to software under specific licenses, making them
-		free for the user to use (free as in freedom, not the monetary cost). This will be covered further
-		in the next section.
-	\item[Open Source] This term refers to a piece of software, where the original code for it
-		is publicly available. This too will be covered further in the next section.
-	\item[FOSS] An acronym for "\textbf{F}ree and \textbf{O}pen \textbf{S}ource \textbf{S}oftware".
-\end{description}
-
-\section{What is Free Software?} The Free Software movement is one that has been active for over 40 years
-\cite{GNUmaifesto}, it has created some of the most important tools in computing that are used by billions on a
-daily basis.  It is so engraved in our lives, yet so few even know what the term means; In a simple note, it is
-software for a computer, phone or other device that can be used without violating the users freedom.
-
-The definition of what counts Free Software and what is software freedom can vary depending on who you ask, but
-it was originally written that software that allows the following freedoms is Free Software:
-
-\begin{description}
-	\item[0] The freedom to run a program for any purpose \item[1] The freedom to study how a program works,
-	and modify it to your needs \item[2] The freedom to redistribute a piece of software \item[3] The freedom
-	to redistribute a edited version of software publicly
-\end{description} \textit{These freedoms were written by Richard Stallman\cite{FOSSdef} who is ever
-	important in this space.}
-
-It is important that one does not confuse Free Software with software that is monetarily free, this is known as
-Freeware. Free Software defends the users rights to use and modify software and is not focused on its cost.
-
-One should also note the differences between Free Software and Open Source software. In Open Source software,
-like Free Software, the original code for a program is available to anyone, however in Open Source, this is to
-better the projects development and usability, whereas in Free Software it is to better the users freedom. They
-both use the same methods to achieve differing goals; this often leads them to be commonly used together, as the
-benefits a user gets from Free Software is much the same in Open Source software, and vice versa.
-
-The main goal of Free Software is to allow the user to have as much freedom as possible when using a piece of
-software for any purpose. This is in contrast to the traditional alternative, called Proprietary Software, which
-can be defined as software that the user can not edit, modify or redistribute without the original publishers
-permission. This kind of software intentionally restricts the users freedom, usually for the purpose of profit or
-control of the software. Some common examples of Proprietary Software, are Microsoft's \textit{Windows}, Apple's
-\textit{iOS}, and Google's \textit{Chrome} web browser.
-
-Many people don't know that they already use Free Software\cite{COMMONfoss}, but often the tools they use most
-often are Free Software. A few examples of this are, Krita\cite{KRITA}; a graphics design and art tool that is
-used frequently in animation, and other digital art, is made and managed by the KDE foundation\cite{KDE}, who
-make exclusively Free Software. Dovecot\cite{DOVECOT}; an email server used by major email providers and is Free
-Software. A final example is Firefox\cite{FIREFOX} a Free Software web browser made by Mozilla that makes up 2.71\%
-of the browser market share as of 2024, however in the past has had up to 30\%\cite{BROWSERmarketshare}. These
-are all more modern examples of Free Software, however over the past 40 years, there have been countless others.
-
-\section{A brief history of FOSS} The term Free Software was first coined by Richard Stallman in 1983\cite{GNUproject},
-however even before this, examples of Free Software (and the disapproval of Proprietary Software), were already
-starting to show.
-
-One of the earliest examples of the disapproval of Non-Free Software, was the response to Microsoft's \textit{An open
-letter to hobbyists}, which was written by Bill Gates in 1976. This letter detailed that people had been stealing
-from Microsoft, as many people had brought hardware through them, but far fewer people had brought required software
-for said hardware. The fact this was happening at a scale large enough to cause this showed how many computing
-groups, also known as hacker groups/spaces, weren't willing to pay for the software they used, believing that
-if they brought the hardware they had done all that was needed\cite{OPENletter}. It is often believed that this
-is one of the first examples of \textit{hacker culture}, which would become more common into the 80's and 90's,
-and was the starting point of the current Free Software movement.
-
-A key figure in \textit{hacker culture}, as previously mentioned, is Richard Stallman. In the
- 1980's he left his job at MIT to work full time on the GNU project, which was designed
-to be a full recreation of AT\&T's Unix operating system from the ground up as Free Software.  The idea was to
-allow anyone access to a Unix like machine without paying AT\&T's expensive license fees, and allow any user to
-view it, redistribute or edit; it was to be the first fully free operating system. The early development of GNU
-was relatively slow, and it was not a completely free system for many years, as some core parts of the operating
-system were missing, meaning Non-Free alternatives had to be used. However this would later change in 1991, when
-final additions would be created.
-
-In 1988 BSD Net1 would release\cite{BSDnet1}, this was the first fully open version of the Berkeley Software
-Distribution version of Unix. BSD was by no means new by this point, however it wasn't fully free until this point. It
-had completely rewritten all the code from the original Unix that previous versions contained, meaning it was now
-completely free from AT\&T's licenses.	It would be the start of a long linage of Open Source operating systems
-which are now the base of MacOS, FreeBSD and OpenBSD and is often deamed as the first Open Source operating system.
-
-The GNU project, while still not fully finished, saw the final piece of the puzzle when Linux\cite{LINUX} released in
-1991, it was a fully free kernel which GNU was still lacking (however it did get its own kernel called GNU hurd but
-Linux is far more commonly used). With GNU and Linux paired together a user could finally get a fully free operating
-system for general use, this combination of software is still in use today, having a 4.7\% market share globally
-on desktop computers\cite{LINUXmarket}, and on web servers it is dominant. In recent years it has also shown some
-use in gaming, with it being the operating system used by Valves \textit{steam deck} gaming handheld\cite{STEAMdeck}.
-
-Since Linux's release there haven't been as many major events in the space and more so a steady flow of updates
-and new features, with a large jump over Covid. As of 2024 it would be hard not to say Free Software is fully
-viable against its Proprietary counterpart.
-
-\section{How is Free Software developed?} The process of developing Free Software has changed over time, especially
-as the internet came to be, allowing developers from all across the world to add things. In modern terms the
-development process is very simple, a developer can look at a piece of code, make changes to a local version of
-it, then it can be uploaded to a central online version of the code, to be checked by lead maintainers, before
-becoming the part of the main version (developers would say creating a local branch and submitting a pull request).
-This method was popularized by version control systems; such as git\cite{GIT}, which is also Free Software.
-What these tools allow for is the work of many people to brought together into one single code base.
-
-When code is submitted, it generally gets split into individual chunks (called patches) which each have an individual
-purpose. Each patch added will fix 1 bug or add 1 feature, this leads to a simple development cycle that can easily
-be used to fix bugs, by breaking them down into small patches that need to be written, and distributing the work
-between many developers.
-
-Without going into too much detail, this is done by merging all contributions into the main code base by
-comparing line numbers in differing versions, this is a fully automated process, managed by your version control
-system. This pattern of development is liked amongst programmers as it allows many to submit code all at once,
-which is invaluable if your project has many developers. This method is also commonly used in Non-Free Software,
-to manage large development teams\cite{NONFREEvcs}.
-
-\section{Comparing Free Software to its Proprietary counterparts} As previously mentioned there are many different
-examples of Free Software, often made to be an alternative to a common piece of Proprietary software, each have
-their pro's and con's. To compare, one can look at performance data and usability. To show a wide range of software,
-to compare this paper will look at programming IDE's, web browsers, and office software, as there make up a large
-amount of software, that are used by the majority of computer users.
-
-\subsection{Programming IDE's} \textit{An \textbf{IDE} is an \textbf{I}ntegrated \textbf{D}evelopment
-\textbf{E}nvironment}
-
-The main IDE's used by developers are Free Software, but there are a few Non-Free ones that are used.  To compare
-text editors, one can look at \textit{Vs Code} as an example of open software, with 73\% of developers claiming
-to have used it at some point, and \textit{IntelliJ}, as an example of Non-Free software, with 26\% of developers
-claiming to have used it at some point\cite{IDEusage}.
-
-These tools are both commonly used personally and professionally, and are of a similar size, making them ideal to
-compare. On the performance side of the argument, VS Code has Intellij beat, being faster to open and generally
-more lightweight than Intellij, this has been put up to the fact that VS Code is written in JavaScript, which is
-faster than Java, which is what Intellij is written in\cite{VSCODEvsintellij}.
-
-On the usability side, things are more even, both editors have features that makes them better than each other,
-each of them have plug-ins support, advanced text editing features and each have auto completion. However in this
-sense VS Code still generally comes ahead, with its more main stream user base, more gets made for it, and as it
-is Open Source easier for users to add features, in the for of patches, and in the form of plug-ins, although no
-definite numbers are available on exact plug-in counts publicly, VS Code is most defiantly ahead.
-
-\subsection{Web Browsers} To compare web browsers, one can look at two commonly used browsers, Google Chrome, and
-Firefox. Both of these are known projects, that are used by billions every day, one can look at their performance
-and usability to compare these projects.
-
-\begin{figure}[h]
-	\caption{Comparing speed of browsers, time \textit{(lower is better)}}
-	\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{webbrowserperfomace.png} \center{\cite{BROWSERperformace}}
-\end{figure}
-
-This graph denotes each browsers performance in encryption and decryption, while not fully representative of all
-use cases, it is one of many things that goes into the final speed of the browser. As the graph shows, Firefox's
-FOSS implementation of JavaScript has lead to a faster final product, most likely as more people have had eyes
-on the code, and suggested optimizations over the past 20 years. On the front of performance it is clear that the
-FOSS tool has beaten the Proprietary counterpart.
-
-In respect to usability things come more to user preference, so what one needs to look at, is customizability;
-the ability to make a piece of software exactly fit their needs. In this yet again Firefox wins out, while both
-Firefox and Google Chrome have plug-in capability's, Firefox is known for its completely open system to them,
-allowing any and all extensions to be used. In contrast google limits what can be used via the "manifest" documents,
-this series of documents describes what is and isn't allowed in the Chrome browser, and is significant as it holds
-a large market share. The most recent one of these documents, manifest V3\cite{MANIFESTv3}, has come under many
-eyes, as it will disallow ad blockers, and other extensions that selectively remove content from web pages.
-
-In today's world, the majority of browsers are based on Chrome in some way or another with Firefox being one of
-the few exceptions to this rule. Due to this, most browsers will be effected by manifest V3 as it comes into full
-effect in the coming years.  As this happens it will become increasingly hard to deny that Firefox is easier to
-customize and make usable to the users needs.
-
-\subsection{Office Software} When looking at office software, their are two commonly used tools, Microsoft Office
-(also known as 365), and Libreoffice.  Microsoft Office is Proprietary software, and has been since its creation
-in the early days of personal computing, Libreoffice on the other hand, has been FOSS software from the start
-(libre actually means free in spanish, so this is no surprise).  They both provide advanced features, and for the
-most part are completely cross compatible. In this sense they have become almost identical tools.
-
-As the tools are so similar one will find it's not worth comparing them, in this way we can say that there is no
-difference, they are both mature, well used, effective suites of software, they are equal. This is something many
-people struggle to see sometimes as they have been using one piece of Non-Free software for so long, they don't
-want to move to anything else.	This has negative effects on the users, many Non-Free tools are effected by cyber
-attacks, and long lasting bugs, that could be fixed by switching to Free Software alternatives, which are now at
-an equal state to the alternative.
-
-\subsection{General conclusions} Overall one can see that in many areas of software use, FOSS tools are already
-at an equal state or better, than the Non-Free counterparts, for general users. One may find that this balance
-begins to change in more specific fields, where optimisation and speed may become more important than it is to
-the common computer user.
-
-\section{What makes Free Software so appealing to developers?} \section{What makes Free Software so appealing to
-privacy experts?} \section{Where else is Free Software used and why?} \section{What's next for the Free Software
-space?} \section{Final thoughts}
-
-\newpage \printbibliography } \end{document}
diff --git a/writeup/wordcount.sh b/writeup/wordcount.sh
index ed898ea..d8c019c 100755
--- a/writeup/wordcount.sh
+++ b/writeup/wordcount.sh
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
 #!/bin/sh
-detex writeup.tex | tail -c +85 | wc -w # using the tail to cut of the stuff detex cant handle
+detex writeup.tex | tail -c +90 | wc -w # using the tail to cut of the stuff detex cant handle
 
diff --git a/writeup/writeup.aux b/writeup/writeup.aux
index 6fbd11d..8017ef4 100644
--- a/writeup/writeup.aux
+++ b/writeup/writeup.aux
@@ -43,6 +43,9 @@
 \citation{OPENletter}
 \abx@aux@cite{0}{OPENletter}
 \abx@aux@segm{0}{0}{OPENletter}
+\citation{OPENletter}
+\abx@aux@cite{0}{OPENletter}
+\abx@aux@segm{0}{0}{OPENletter}
 \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {5}A brief history of FOSS}{4}{section.5}\protected@file@percent }
 \citation{BSDnet1}
 \abx@aux@cite{0}{BSDnet1}
@@ -66,6 +69,9 @@
 \citation{IDEusage}
 \abx@aux@cite{0}{IDEusage}
 \abx@aux@segm{0}{0}{IDEusage}
+\citation{IDEusage}
+\abx@aux@cite{0}{IDEusage}
+\abx@aux@segm{0}{0}{IDEusage}
 \citation{VSCODEvsintellij}
 \abx@aux@cite{0}{VSCODEvsintellij}
 \abx@aux@segm{0}{0}{VSCODEvsintellij}
@@ -74,18 +80,19 @@
 \abx@aux@segm{0}{0}{BROWSERperformace}
 \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {7}Comparing Free Software to its Proprietary counterparts}{6}{section.7}\protected@file@percent }
 \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.1}Programming IDE's}{6}{subsection.7.1}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.2}Web Browsers}{6}{subsection.7.2}\protected@file@percent }
 \citation{MANIFESTv3}
 \abx@aux@cite{0}{MANIFESTv3}
 \abx@aux@segm{0}{0}{MANIFESTv3}
 \@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Comparing speed of browsers, time \textit  {(lower is better)}}}{7}{figure.1}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.3}Office Software}{7}{subsection.7.3}\protected@file@percent }
+\newlabel{fig:graph}{{1}{7}{Comparing speed of browsers, time \textit {(lower is better)}}{figure.1}{}}
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.2}Web Browsers}{7}{subsection.7.2}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.3}Office Software}{8}{subsection.7.3}\protected@file@percent }
 \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.4}General conclusions}{8}{subsection.7.4}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {8}What makes Free Software so appealing to developers?}{8}{section.8}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {9}What makes Free Software so appealing to privacy experts?}{8}{section.9}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {10}Where else is Free Software used and why?}{8}{section.10}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {11}What's next for the Free Software space?}{8}{section.11}\protected@file@percent }
-\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {12}Final thoughts}{8}{section.12}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {8}What makes Free Software so appealing to developers?}{9}{section.8}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {9}What makes Free Software so appealing to privacy experts?}{9}{section.9}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {10}Where else is Free Software used and why?}{9}{section.10}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {11}What's next for the Free Software space?}{9}{section.11}\protected@file@percent }
+\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {12}Final thoughts}{9}{section.12}\protected@file@percent }
 \abx@aux@read@bbl@mdfivesum{98F9CAE2C3A5CF97E9DA9DF270606149}
 \abx@aux@defaultrefcontext{0}{COMMONfoss}{nty/global//global/global}
 \abx@aux@defaultrefcontext{0}{BSDnet1}{nty/global//global/global}
@@ -127,4 +134,4 @@
 \abx@aux@defaultlabelprefix{0}{LINUX}{}
 \abx@aux@defaultlabelprefix{0}{VSCODEvsintellij}{}
 \abx@aux@defaultlabelprefix{0}{BROWSERperformace}{}
-\gdef \@abspage@last{9}
+\gdef \@abspage@last{10}
diff --git a/writeup/writeup.log b/writeup/writeup.log
index aec946f..6b6e1ca 100644
--- a/writeup/writeup.log
+++ b/writeup/writeup.log
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-This is pdfTeX, Version 3.141592653-2.6-1.40.26 (TeX Live 2024/Arch Linux) (preloaded format=pdflatex 2024.11.14)  3 DEC 2024 09:16
+This is pdfTeX, Version 3.141592653-2.6-1.40.26 (TeX Live 2024/Arch Linux) (preloaded format=pdflatex 2024.11.14)  3 DEC 2024 10:37
 entering extended mode
  restricted \write18 enabled.
  %&-line parsing enabled.
@@ -1112,45 +1112,45 @@ LaTeX Font Info:    External font `cmex10' loaded for size
 \openout7 = `writeup.toc'.
 
  [2] [3] [4] [5]
-<./images/webbrowserperfomace.png, id=149, 853.1875pt x 351.3125pt>
+<./images/webbrowserperfomace.png, id=152, 853.1875pt x 351.3125pt>
 File: ./images/webbrowserperfomace.png Graphic file (type png)
 <use ./images/webbrowserperfomace.png>
 Package pdftex.def Info: ./images/webbrowserperfomace.png  used on input line 1
-75.
+78.
 (pdftex.def)             Requested size: 455.24411pt x 187.45982pt.
 
 
 LaTeX Warning: `h' float specifier changed to `ht'.
 
-[6] [7 <./images/webbrowserperfomace.png>] [8]
-Overfull \hbox (5.79451pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 219--219
+[6] [7 <./images/webbrowserperfomace.png>] [8] [9]
+Overfull \hbox (5.79451pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 227--227
 []\OT1/cmr/m/it/12 Companies that use VCS\OT1/cmr/m/n/12 . \OT1/cmr/m/sc/12 url
 \OT1/cmr/m/n/12 : []$\OT1/cmtt/m/n/12 https : / / stackshare . io / git$[]\OT1/
 cmr/m/n/12 . (ac-cessed: 5/11/2024). 
  []
 
 
-Overfull \hbox (16.4897pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 219--219
+Overfull \hbox (16.4897pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 227--227
 []\OT1/cmr/m/it/12 Dovecot: the se-cure email server\OT1/cmr/m/n/12 . \OT1/cmr/
 m/sc/12 url\OT1/cmr/m/n/12 : []$\OT1/cmtt/m/n/12 https : / / dovecot . org/$[]\
 OT1/cmr/m/n/12 . (ac-cessed: 22/10/2024). 
  []
 
 
-Overfull \hbox (17.99689pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 219--219
+Overfull \hbox (17.99689pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 227--227
 []\OT1/cmr/m/it/12 The linux ker-nel\OT1/cmr/m/n/12 . \OT1/cmr/m/sc/12 url\OT1/
 cmr/m/n/12 : []$\OT1/cmtt/m/n/12 https : / / www . kernel . org / linux . html$
 []\OT1/cmr/m/n/12 . (ac-cessed: 24/10/2024). 
  []
 
 
-Overfull \hbox (3.64273pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 219--219
+Overfull \hbox (3.64273pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 227--227
 []\OT1/cmr/m/it/12 VS Code com-pared to in-tel-lij\OT1/cmr/m/n/12 . \OT1/cmr/m/
 sc/12 url\OT1/cmr/m/n/12 : []$\OT1/cmtt/m/n/12 https : / / vscode . io / altern
 atives / jetbrains -[]
  []
 
-[9] (./writeup.aux)
+[10] (./writeup.aux)
  ***********
 LaTeX2e <2023-11-01> patch level 1
 L3 programming layer <2024-02-20>
@@ -1162,10 +1162,10 @@ Package logreq Info: Writing requests to 'writeup.run.xml'.
 
  ) 
 Here is how much of TeX's memory you used:
- 39375 strings out of 476076
- 845707 string characters out of 5793774
- 1942187 words of memory out of 5000000
- 60955 multiletter control sequences out of 15000+600000
+ 39377 strings out of 476076
+ 845725 string characters out of 5793774
+ 1941187 words of memory out of 5000000
+ 60956 multiletter control sequences out of 15000+600000
  564106 words of font info for 56 fonts, out of 8000000 for 9000
  14 hyphenation exceptions out of 8191
  98i,6n,101p,1955b,1808s stack positions out of 10000i,1000n,20000p,200000b,200000s
@@ -1176,10 +1176,10 @@ blic/amsfonts/cm/cmr12.pfb></usr/share/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/public/amsfonts/c
 m/cmr17.pfb></usr/share/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/public/amsfonts/cm/cmr8.pfb></us
 r/share/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/public/amsfonts/cm/cmti12.pfb></usr/share/texmf-
 dist/fonts/type1/public/amsfonts/cm/cmtt12.pfb>
-Output written on writeup.pdf (9 pages, 152629 bytes).
+Output written on writeup.pdf (10 pages, 154685 bytes).
 PDF statistics:
- 251 PDF objects out of 1000 (max. 8388607)
- 219 compressed objects within 3 object streams
- 47 named destinations out of 1000 (max. 500000)
+ 258 PDF objects out of 1000 (max. 8388607)
+ 225 compressed objects within 3 object streams
+ 48 named destinations out of 1000 (max. 500000)
  146 words of extra memory for PDF output out of 10000 (max. 10000000)
 
diff --git a/writeup/writeup.tex b/writeup/writeup.tex
index 8d2c4d9..e765f6e 100644
--- a/writeup/writeup.tex
+++ b/writeup/writeup.tex
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ science, and as such it makes sense to provide a brief overview for those who do
 		in the next section.
 	\item[Open Source] This term refers to a piece of software, where the original code for it
 		is publicly available. This too will be covered further in the next section.
-	\item[FOSS] An acronym for "\textbf{F}ree and \textbf{O}pen \textbf{S}ource \textbf{S}oftware".
+	\item[FOSS] An acronym for \textit{"\textbf{F}ree and \textbf{O}pen \textbf{S}ource \textbf{S}oftware".}
 \end{description}
 
 \section{What is Free Software?} The Free Software movement is one that has been active for over 40 years
@@ -77,9 +77,9 @@ control of the software. Some common examples of Proprietary Software, are Micro
 
 Many people don't know that they already use Free Software\cite{COMMONfoss}, but often the tools they use most
 often are Free Software. A few examples of this are, Krita\cite{KRITA}; a graphics design and art tool that is
-used frequently in animation, and other digital art, is made and managed by the KDE foundation\cite{KDE}, who
-make exclusively Free Software. Dovecot\cite{DOVECOT}; an email server used by major email providers and is Free
-Software. A final example is Firefox\cite{FIREFOX} a Free Software web browser made by Mozilla that makes up 2.71\%
+used frequently in animation, and other digital art, is made and managed by the KDE foundation\cite{KDE}, who make
+exclusively Free Software. Dovecot\cite{DOVECOT}; an email server used by many major email providers and is Free
+Software. A final example is Firefox\cite{FIREFOX}; a Free Software web browser made by Mozilla that makes up 2.71\%
 of the browser market share as of 2024, however in the past has had up to 30\%\cite{BROWSERmarketshare}. These
 are all more modern examples of Free Software, however over the past 40 years, there have been countless others.
 
@@ -87,14 +87,15 @@ are all more modern examples of Free Software, however over the past 40 years, t
 however even before this, examples of Free Software (and the disapproval of Proprietary Software), were already
 starting to show.
 
-One of the earliest examples of the disapproval of Non-Free Software, was the response to Microsoft's \textit{An open
-letter to hobbyists}, which was written by Bill Gates in 1976. This letter detailed that people had been stealing
-from Microsoft, as many people had brought hardware through them, but far fewer people had brought required software
-for said hardware. The fact this was happening at a scale large enough to cause this showed how many computing
-groups, also known as hacker groups/spaces, weren't willing to pay for the software they used, believing that
-if they brought the hardware they had done all that was needed\cite{OPENletter}. It is often believed that this
-is one of the first examples of \textit{hacker culture}, which would become more common into the 80's and 90's,
-and was the starting point of the current Free Software movement.
+One of the earliest examples of the disapproval of Non-Free Software, was the response to Microsoft's \textit{An
+open letter to hobbyists}\cite{OPENletter}, which was written by Bill Gates in 1976. This letter detailed that
+people had been stealing from Microsoft, as many people had brought hardware through them, but far fewer people
+had brought required software for said hardware. The fact this was happening at a scale large enough to cause this
+showed how many computing groups, also known as hacker groups/spaces, weren't willing to pay for the software they
+used, believing that if they brought the hardware they had done all that was needed\cite{OPENletter}. It is often
+believed that this is one of the first examples of \textit{hacker culture}, which would become more common into the
+80's and 90's, and was the starting point of the current Free Software movement, where people continued the view,
+that software was not a commodity to be sold, but a resource to be shared.
 
 A key figure in \textit{hacker culture}, as previously mentioned, is Richard Stallman. In the
  1980's he left his job at MIT to work full time on the GNU project, which was designed
@@ -105,29 +106,32 @@ was relatively slow, and it was not a completely free system for many years, as
 system were missing, meaning Non-Free alternatives had to be used. However this would later change in 1991, when
 final additions would be created.
 
-In 1988 BSD Net1 would release\cite{BSDnet1}, this was the first fully open version of the Berkeley Software
-Distribution version of Unix. BSD was by no means new by this point, however it wasn't fully free until this point. It
-had completely rewritten all the code from the original Unix that previous versions contained, meaning it was now
-completely free from AT\&T's licenses.	It would be the start of a long linage of Open Source operating systems
-which are now the base of MacOS, FreeBSD and OpenBSD and is often deamed as the first Open Source operating system.
+In 1988 the BSD Net1 operating system would release\cite{BSDnet1}, this was the first fully open version of the
+Berkeley Software Distribution version of Unix. BSD was by no means new by this point, however it wasn't fully
+free until this point. This version had completely rewritten all the code from the original Unix that previous
+versions contained, meaning it was now completely free from AT\&T's licenses.  It would be the start of a long
+linage of Open Source operating systems which are now the base of MacOS, FreeBSD and OpenBSD and is often deemed
+as the first Open Source operating system.
 
 The GNU project, while still not fully finished, saw the final piece of the puzzle when Linux\cite{LINUX} released in
 1991, it was a fully free kernel which GNU was still lacking (however it did get its own kernel called GNU hurd but
 Linux is far more commonly used). With GNU and Linux paired together a user could finally get a fully free operating
 system for general use, this combination of software is still in use today, having a 4.7\% market share globally
 on desktop computers\cite{LINUXmarket}, and on web servers it is dominant. In recent years it has also shown some
-use in gaming, with it being the operating system used by Valves \textit{steam deck} gaming handheld\cite{STEAMdeck}.
+use in gaming, with it being the operating system used by Valve's \textit{steam deck} gaming handheld\cite{STEAMdeck}.
 
 Since Linux's release there haven't been as many major events in the space and more so a steady flow of updates
-and new features, with a large jump over Covid. As of 2024 it would be hard not to say Free Software is fully
-viable against its Proprietary counterpart.
+and new features, most likely due to the amount of people working on projects being high enough for constant
+development, as opposed to one person sending in code every few weeks or days.	There was another large jump
+in development over the Covid lock down's. As of 2024 it would be hard not to say Free Software is fully viable
+against its Proprietary counterpart.
 
 \section{How is Free Software developed?} The process of developing Free Software has changed over time, especially
 as the internet came to be, allowing developers from all across the world to add things. In modern terms the
 development process is very simple, a developer can look at a piece of code, make changes to a local version of
 it, then it can be uploaded to a central online version of the code, to be checked by lead maintainers, before
 becoming the part of the main version (developers would say creating a local branch and submitting a pull request).
-This method was popularized by version control systems; such as git\cite{GIT}, which is also Free Software.
+This method was popularized by version control systems; such as git\cite{GIT} and RCS, which are both Free Software.
 What these tools allow for is the work of many people to brought together into one single code base.
 
 When code is submitted, it generally gets split into individual chunks (called patches) which each have an individual
@@ -144,16 +148,16 @@ to manage large development teams\cite{NONFREEvcs}.
 \section{Comparing Free Software to its Proprietary counterparts} As previously mentioned there are many different
 examples of Free Software, often made to be an alternative to a common piece of Proprietary software, each have
 their pro's and con's. To compare, one can look at performance data and usability. To show a wide range of software,
-to compare this paper will look at programming IDE's, web browsers, and office software, as there make up a large
-amount of software, that are used by the majority of computer users.
+this paper will look at programming IDE's, web browsers, and office software, as most computer users have used at
+least one of these, and thus will be familiar with them.
 
 \subsection{Programming IDE's} \textit{An \textbf{IDE} is an \textbf{I}ntegrated \textbf{D}evelopment
 \textbf{E}nvironment}
 
-The main IDE's used by developers are Free Software, but there are a few Non-Free ones that are used.  To compare
-text editors, one can look at \textit{Vs Code} as an example of open software, with 73\% of developers claiming
-to have used it at some point, and \textit{IntelliJ}, as an example of Non-Free software, with 26\% of developers
-claiming to have used it at some point\cite{IDEusage}.
+The main IDE's used by developers are Free Software, but there are a few Non-Free ones that are used according to
+the stack over flow developer survey\cite{IDEusage}.  To compare text editors, one can look at \textit{Vs Code} as
+an example of open software, with 73\% of developers claiming to have used it at some point, and \textit{IntelliJ},
+as an example of Non-Free software, with 26\% of developers claiming to have used it at some point\cite{IDEusage}.
 
 These tools are both commonly used personally and professionally, and are of a similar size, making them ideal to
 compare. On the performance side of the argument, VS Code has Intellij beat, being faster to open and generally
@@ -162,32 +166,35 @@ faster than Java, which is what Intellij is written in\cite{VSCODEvsintellij}.
 
 On the usability side, things are more even, both editors have features that makes them better than each other,
 each of them have plug-ins support, advanced text editing features and each have auto completion. However in this
-sense VS Code still generally comes ahead, with its more main stream user base, more gets made for it, and as it
-is Open Source easier for users to add features, in the for of patches, and in the form of plug-ins, although no
-definite numbers are available on exact plug-in counts publicly, VS Code is most defiantly ahead.
-
-\subsection{Web Browsers} To compare web browsers, one can look at two commonly used browsers, Google Chrome, and
-Firefox. Both of these are known projects, that are used by billions every day, one can look at their performance
-and usability to compare these projects.
+sense VS Code still generally comes ahead, with its more main stream user base, more gets made for it, and as it is
+Open Source, it is generally easier for users to add features, in the for of patches, and in the form of plug-ins,
+although no definite numbers are available on exact plug-in counts publicly, VS Code is most defiantly ahead,
+with this too.	It becomes clear how projects like Vs Code become dominate. People want to use something that is
+well supported, and then because they too are using it, its support can become better, which is an upward cycle,
+that goes on until you reach the market cap.
 
 \begin{figure}[h]
 	\caption{Comparing speed of browsers, time \textit{(lower is better)}}
-	\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{webbrowserperfomace.png} \center{\cite{BROWSERperformace}}
+	\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{webbrowserperfomace.png} \center{\cite{BROWSERperformace}} \label{fig:graph}
 \end{figure}
 
-This graph denotes each browsers performance in encryption and decryption, while not fully representative of all
-use cases, it is one of many things that goes into the final speed of the browser. As the graph shows, Firefox's
-FOSS implementation of JavaScript has lead to a faster final product, most likely as more people have had eyes
-on the code, and suggested optimizations over the past 20 years. On the front of performance it is clear that the
-FOSS tool has beaten the Proprietary counterpart.
+\subsection{Web Browsers} To compare web browsers, one can look at two commonly used browsers, Google Chrome,
+and Firefox. Both of these are known projects, that are used by near billions every day combined, one can look at
+their performance and usability to compare these projects.
+
+Figure \textbf{\ref{fig:graph}} denotes each browsers performance in encryption and decryption, while not fully
+representative of all use cases, it is one of many things that goes into the final speed of the browser. As the
+graph shows, Firefox's FOSS implementation of JavaScript has lead to a faster final product, most likely as more
+people have had eyes on the code, and suggested optimizations over the past 20 years. On the front of performance
+it is clear that the FOSS tool has beaten the Proprietary counterpart.
 
-In respect to usability things come more to user preference, so what one needs to look at, is customizability;
-the ability to make a piece of software exactly fit their needs. In this yet again Firefox wins out, while both
-Firefox and Google Chrome have plug-in capability's, Firefox is known for its completely open system to them,
-allowing any and all extensions to be used. In contrast google limits what can be used via the "manifest" documents,
-this series of documents describes what is and isn't allowed in the Chrome browser, and is significant as it holds
-a large market share. The most recent one of these documents, manifest V3\cite{MANIFESTv3}, has come under many
-eyes, as it will disallow ad blockers, and other extensions that selectively remove content from web pages.
+In respect to usability things come more to user preference, so what one needs to look at, is customizability; the
+ability to make a piece of software exactly fit their needs. In this yet again Firefox wins out, while both Firefox
+and Google Chrome have plug-in capability's, Firefox is known for its completely open system to them, allowing any
+and all extensions to be used. In contrast Google limits what can be used via the "manifest" documents, this series
+of documents describes what is and isn't allowed in the Chrome browser, and is significant as it holds a large
+market share. The most recent one of these documents, manifest V3\cite{MANIFESTv3}, has come to much disapproval
+amongst users, as it will disallow ad blockers, and other extensions that selectively remove content from web pages.
 
 In today's world, the majority of browsers are based on Chrome in some way or another with Firefox being one of
 the few exceptions to this rule. Due to this, most browsers will be effected by manifest V3 as it comes into full
@@ -204,13 +211,14 @@ As the tools are so similar one will find it's not worth comparing them, in this
 difference, they are both mature, well used, effective suites of software, they are equal. This is something many
 people struggle to see sometimes as they have been using one piece of Non-Free software for so long, they don't
 want to move to anything else.	This has negative effects on the users, many Non-Free tools are effected by cyber
-attacks, and long lasting bugs, that could be fixed by switching to Free Software alternatives, which are now at
-an equal state to the alternative.
+attacks, and long lasting bugs, that could be fixed by switching to Free Software alternatives, as the technical
+users of these tools fix these issues quickly compared to alternatives. This is usually put up to the fact that
+most FOSS developers aren't working to new features and are instead working to making a tool that works for them.
 
 \subsection{General conclusions} Overall one can see that in many areas of software use, FOSS tools are already
 at an equal state or better, than the Non-Free counterparts, for general users. One may find that this balance
 begins to change in more specific fields, where optimisation and speed may become more important than it is to
-the common computer user.
+the common computer user or tools are only made by large companies and no free alternative exist.
 
 \section{What makes Free Software so appealing to developers?} \section{What makes Free Software so appealing to
 privacy experts?} \section{Where else is Free Software used and why?} \section{What's next for the Free Software
diff --git a/writeup/writeup.toc b/writeup/writeup.toc
index e23f504..1b355bd 100644
--- a/writeup/writeup.toc
+++ b/writeup/writeup.toc
@@ -7,11 +7,11 @@
 \contentsline {section}{\numberline {6}How is Free Software developed?}{5}{section.6}%
 \contentsline {section}{\numberline {7}Comparing Free Software to its Proprietary counterparts}{6}{section.7}%
 \contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.1}Programming IDE's}{6}{subsection.7.1}%
-\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.2}Web Browsers}{6}{subsection.7.2}%
-\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.3}Office Software}{7}{subsection.7.3}%
+\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.2}Web Browsers}{7}{subsection.7.2}%
+\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.3}Office Software}{8}{subsection.7.3}%
 \contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {7.4}General conclusions}{8}{subsection.7.4}%
-\contentsline {section}{\numberline {8}What makes Free Software so appealing to developers?}{8}{section.8}%
-\contentsline {section}{\numberline {9}What makes Free Software so appealing to privacy experts?}{8}{section.9}%
-\contentsline {section}{\numberline {10}Where else is Free Software used and why?}{8}{section.10}%
-\contentsline {section}{\numberline {11}What's next for the Free Software space?}{8}{section.11}%
-\contentsline {section}{\numberline {12}Final thoughts}{8}{section.12}%
+\contentsline {section}{\numberline {8}What makes Free Software so appealing to developers?}{9}{section.8}%
+\contentsline {section}{\numberline {9}What makes Free Software so appealing to privacy experts?}{9}{section.9}%
+\contentsline {section}{\numberline {10}Where else is Free Software used and why?}{9}{section.10}%
+\contentsline {section}{\numberline {11}What's next for the Free Software space?}{9}{section.11}%
+\contentsline {section}{\numberline {12}Final thoughts}{9}{section.12}%