Slashdot Mirror
Converting Users to Open Source- Why Do You Care?
mack knife asks: "Here's a question for Slashdot readers: Why do you care what web browser/email client/etc people use? What do you care if Firefox catches on or not? Why do some people feel the need to convert others to their pet applications? Personally, I am a convert to Firefox/Thunderbird, but I understand that many users are happy with their Microsoft products; I'll mention what I use and why, but I won't harangue them on their apps' shortcomings, nor will I try to push an unfamiliar open source app on someone who is more comfortable with a 'mainstream' product. Some open-source proponents can be quite obnoxious about this, and I'm interested to hear why it is taken so seriously."
- Firefox -- remove the windows spyware problem. Extensions! Tabs
- Linux server -- better able to manage stuff
- Thunderbird/Evolution -- removes the email spam problem
- Openoffice - Adequate. Free.
Whichever way you look at it, it just makes sense for most individual users and some business users.Putting all the above stuff together for the typical corp so that it can be locked down and administered properly is not up to par with similar Microsoft offerings (Exchange, Domain controller, Active Directory) though.
That's what Microsoft just works better in the corp environment at this time. And no matter what you say, its not easy to convince others otherwise right now.
Newsfollow.com
The more people we convert, the more support for our projects and the better they will become sooner.
Why do people try to get other people on their side in an argument instead of just arguing alone?
I don't recommend Open Source software unless I think it's good software. That said, Open Source has an impressive track record for quality software when compared head to head with commercial software. (I couldn't IMAGINE using any of the standalone IM clients when I look at what gaim offers both in functionality and in ease of use.)
Especially in the last few years Open Source software has made great strides (Firefox, OpenOffice, Gimp, Gaim). Still, while I'm a great fan and advocate of linux, I keep my Open Source recommendations safely in the Windows realm... not what I'd like, but people are definitely reluctant to learn a new "system", and I do enough support without having to be the ONLY linux person they know to go to. (While I still have to field LOTS of Windows questions from friends and family, at least they have other people they go to when they can't find me.)
But, finally, in the Windows world there are many great Open Source options and I've found people quite receptive. For example, again and again I get thanks from converted Firefox users -- which is nice (though I cringe at the thought of Microsoft finally responding with IE7 and features stolen to match Firefox).
Bottom line: having learned from experience I only recommend Open Source alternatives when I'm completely confident the alternative will be:
For myself, I try to use Open Source alternatives whenever possible, but for the unwashed masses the above criteria apply.
When people ask me for professional advice, I recommend that they use the right tool for the right job. In some cases, for some people, that's Open Source and in other cases, it isn't.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
It's simple.
Because Microsoft's E-mail client and web browser are unsafe and insecure products. People using software with default security profiles that ensure arbitrary code does not run is in everybody's best interest.
Some do it for moral reasons (they believe X company 's practices are immoral or, in some cases, that proprietary software itself is), some do it for an ego trip, and some are just pained by seeing what they regard as inefficiency.
I generally do it for a mix of the three.
If I get everyone in the world to switch from MSIE to Firefox, then web developers will stop developing webpages for MSIE and only make ones that work (and work well) in Firefox. Similarly, if everyone uses OpenOffice instead of Microsoft Word, I'll stop getting documents via email that break in my word processor.
(And then there's all that other stuff about improving the products I use more as a result of a broader user base.)
I care because I like to support who I see as "the good guy" (or at least the better guy) by using their software. IMO, open-source is just a better idea, and helping it become popular is a good thing.
Also, it's usually free.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
The more people that use something, the more support for it there will be, so the more features, bug-fixing, plugins and updates there will be.
Plus, as a working programmer, I'd much rather work on a sane system like a Unix variant than the damn Windows API I am forced to deal with. The more popular Linux (and/or OS/X) becomes, the more likely I can get a job doing so.
In other words, simple self-interest.
The cake is a pie
I'm interested to hear why it is taken so seriously.
Because I'm the one that has to clean up the mess that's been made, and I'm lazy.
--J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
I don't try to push anything on anyone. But I do alwasy try to suggest an opensource app. Most developers of open source apps(at least the ones I know) do there work for free and just like to see that people use it. And some apps are just downright great programs. I won't belittle someone for using a closed source program. In fact I advicate a few. But I also always suggest that they try out firefox if for no other reason than the better virus protection it will give them with out IE's holes.
I try to "convert" my friends to open-source projects because I want them to be using the best and most secure software. However I don't really care about advertising to the masses.
Philosophy.
In the long run, friends of mine using Internet Explorer affects me in the sense that I'll have to be the one to clean the spyware off their computer and repair whatever damage it caused. Apathy is a problem with software just as it is with politics. People accept what they are given
Fetch Text URL - Firefox Extension
I think the main reason is competition. When only one browser controls most of the market then new features (and bug fixes) dry up. More importantly people like choice. I hate IE, although I don't think it deserves the vitriol it sometimes get. But for a long time many sites didn't work well with my alternative browsers. (Firefox at work, Safari at home) But those other browsers having more marketshare then more people will pay attention to testing their sites better so that I can use my browser.
But I fully admit to not understanding the "hate Microsoft at any price." I think there is just a drive among some people to hate the leader. In computing that's been Microsoft. In MP3 players it's now Apple, and you hear a lot of that there. People ought just be able to pick the solution they like. So long as that's possible, who cares?
Have you ever spent 6 hours or more removing spyware from a Windows computer?
:P
Ever done it multiple times in one week?
I describe the above as a 'repetitive stress injury on the brain'.
Sure, the time's billable, but still. I hate MS as much as the next guy, but when it comes right down to it, I recommend more useable solutions, and useability includes not being infected to the gills.
By the way, nice troll for clickthroughs. Amazon would be impressed.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Open Source solution = Can be a good solution.
Closed Source Solution = Cannot be a good solution.
You have the "I don't own a TV so you shouldn't either" or "I am a vegan and you should be too" type of attitude this guy is talking about.
Helps with spam? Yes. "removes the email spam problem"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!
The cake is a pie
When you've spent 4 hours trying to clean a friends computer 'cuz IE infected it with viruses, then you'll care that they use firefox
They were a bunch of hippies of the 70's, sharing everything, every ideas, every solutions, every new concept together. It was so creative, so powerful that it generated one of the biggest industry on the planet.
That's nice and all, but you're missing the part of history in which PC's became ubiquitous because of companies like Microsoft and Intel.
I don't respond to AC's.
One of the reasons open source has become what it has is because of users. Users are an integral part of any open source project... without them the project will remain buggy and stove-piped.... with them bugs will be found and features will be added.
I am constantly trying to move friends and family to open source products... not only for their benifit but also for the benefit of the projects themselves. Whether or not this is "the right thing to do" is up for grabs... but it makes me happy to see my wife using Firefox and (on the odd occasion that it crashes) clicking the "Submit" button on the crash reporting screen. That is enough reason for me to evangelize.
Friedmud
im a OSS zelotte naw becuz I waz brained washed by two mush reding off slashdot comments. ( some peeple says its afected my gramar to.)
Many of us are also the first tech support contact for many of our family and friends. It is super frustrating to get problem reports for things like:
I don't have any of these problems on linux/firefox. Its hard for me to figure out what is wrong with software that I don't use and don't care about. Usually my solution is to upgrade them to the stuff I'm using.
--
Currency Exchange Calculator
Brilliant reasoning.
All of these closed source companies making software out there are producing bad solutions? That is patently ridiculous. Blind zealotry, as illustrated in myopic statements like that, are not helping promote your position in any way.
To assume that companies like Microsoft, Sun, Adobe, Oracle, SAP (all "closed-source") are not producing ANY good solutions is retarded.
This sort of inane "spread the love, give away your work for free, and make the world a better place" is so unrealistic it is laughable. What color is the sky in your world?
I like making money. It helps feed my family, among other useful things. I have no problems at all taking money in exchange for writing software. We live in a capitalistic society. Money is exchanged for goods and services. That is how life works. If I have a kick ass idea, do you think my first thought is "hmmm, I should give this away and get good Karma!" or "Hey, cool, I could sell this and make a million bucks!". Hmmm, lets see.... Karma.. or .. A Million Dollars? I'll take the $$ every time. Screw Karma, I need to live in the real world.
I'm not a rabid open source proponent - I'm actually rather pragmatic about it. I'll use what gets the job done for the right price, and what gives me the power to do what I need to do. I admire RMS's goal of freedom, but I acknowledge that part of a user's freedom is being able to selectively trade those freedoms for what they perceive as a worthwhile exchange. Sometimes closed source, commercial software allows me to do the job faster/easier/better.
Simple fact: My parents have managed to pick up spyware and an email worm or two using Outlook/IE. I installed Firefox and Eudora (running in lite/free-as-in-beer edition) on their machine, and in the last two years they haven't had a problem, and claim that both are "easier to use" than their previous counterparts. One is open source, the other closed source but still free-as-in-beer. Since then, they've been more productive and have had exactly no spyware/worm/virus problems.
Would I switch them to OO? Not likely, even I can't make it do some of the things I want, and the training to convert them from MSO to OO would outweigh the gain (none?).
In a business environment, though, I will often advocate using open source. I'm a firm proponent in not relying on vendors, but being able to open up the code when something goes wrong and fix it quickly. I've just seem too many cases where my own company was worried about having a vendor to blame rather than concentrating on making things work.
It would help if you understood grammar and spelling as well.
The same reason people bring gifts on chrismas day, give a dollar to a begging homeless, help other vehicle drivers if their car is stuck in the snow and whatever else I can imagine. And why people try to convince others of their religion, political opinion - sharing of ideals. People want to bring others the same good things they experienced and that's one reason. Some open source projects are head and shoulders above their commercial counterparts, especially the Gecko-based browsers come to mind, but also the VideoLAN client and some more. I just feel pity for people I know and value if they creep around the web with their default installed IE, fighting popups and blinking banners, always in danger of malware and security holes while navigating with clumsily with one window to Google and back.
As a more savvy user, I just have and urge and a duty to help people I know and like. And as most friends, even the most technically unsavvy, ignorant and technologically careless people use their Mozilla or Firefox and *never* switch back and even install that thing on their own on the next machine or at the office, I feel I helped them. Most are thankful the popups are gone, the tabbed browsing is easy, Google is fast to reach and their computer breaks down less often - I don't have that much support issues for my friends, there's less malware to bust and less systems to reinstall for them. And to be honest, it was quite a burden sometimes when another PC was infected *again* and they'd called me in panic to make that thing usable *again*.
And then, it's ideological. Fight monopolies, for the betterment of society as a whole and my own cheaper and better software environment in the future. And then you see people thanking you for showing them alternatives. Not all people are happy using an infringed copy of Office XP and even less are ready to shell out 300 bucks for a legal one. So give them OpenOffice, they are happy, society is a small bit better and it doesn't cost more than a few cents.
So in short: I've seen my friends and colleagues quite happy with their Mozilla enough times to know I've got to convert some more to that browser. And I know exactly the internet and document world would look like hell and be useless when open standards and free-as-in-speech software weren't there. I hate it when people are exploited or hindered and that's why I try to make open and free standard software popular among my friends and relatives.
it's that we care about your software playing nice with our software
This sums up my feelings exactly. It goes bigger than this though. Computers have become such a part of our lives that using one company for your computing needs is bad. It is about standards. That a web page can be viewed or a document can be read if you use a device that adheres to standards. I would like to watch a streaming video and not have to use a specific software companies product. I would like to listen to music and not be limited by a Microsoft or Real or Apple standard, I want to take my song and play it with Linux, Apple or Microsoft, not buy a new format for each one. Here is where the problem is, big companies, in order to make money...and only to make money, lock you into a specific format and then the quality suffers for the end user. (This can happen with any company, its just the big company right now in computers is Microsoft) If more people would use alternative products based on standards, they would not have such a grip on society. Imagine if you could get a new computer with Linux and Microsoft from your local big box store. Why can't you? The business practices of Microsoft...Imagine if my library went with thin clients and Linux instead of 22 new Windows systems, that money would of went to books instead of profits to a company to turn around and lock more people in... it goes on and on...
The reasons are the same as why we might be interested in removing dictators from power, in maintaining human rights and in the developement and protection of democracy. That is... freedom.
While I take issues with some of the ways some countries have decided to "protect democracy" I also take issues with the way some people have decided to "spread opensource". That is, Zeolots of any nature are to be discouraged.
I don't think people should be yelled at shouted out or otherwise badgered about their choices of software. I do however think that there is a lack of education about opensource alternatives, and a great deal of FUD (dis/mis information) that's spread out and about and that fighting that is important.
But how do we fight FUD? but through the continuing open of discource between people about the alternatives and the freedoms (and the consequences of that freedom) that are available to them.
--Anders
who in this scenario is actually causing the problems? Is it Joe User, who is simply using the same software that 95% of the other users are using, or is it Techie McSmarts who is using all this "fringe" software and causing a ruckus whenever the rest of the Joe's compatriots produce a file he can't read?
It is neither person's fault. The blame lies with companies like Microsoft that refuse to play nice with the rest of the software world. There really is no reason that both types of users shouldn't be able to use their different software. This is the whole point behind having open standards; we all get to choose our own tools while still being able to communicate with each other.
I'm just pointing out that to the user that's still using the old software, and who doesn't have a political or philosophical disagreement with that software, and who isn't techie enough to care about how "under the hood" their software is junk, your argument isn't really going to convince them of anything.
My argument isn't intended to convince them of anything. If I had my way, they would still be able to use whatever software they find most comfortable. The point is to allow this freedom for _everyone_ including the minorities.
Because:
- Standards. I want a web/internet where you aren't forced to use one specific browser on one specific OS. I want to be able to access the web from my PDA, cell phone, etc. Neither runs an OS that can run IE (nor does my desktop). By increasing the number of people using a non-IE browser we are forcing websites back into the original spirit of the internet: standards and interoperability.
- Cost. Most open-source projects are free and this value is a good-thing to the end-user, who can then spend that money on more-important things. If they WANT to blow tons of money certainly that's their option, but most people feel up against the wall and with no choice but to shell out the $100s for MS Office just so they can write the occasional letter/paper.
- Security. Open-source projects such as Firefox lack the inherantly-insecure technologies of many closed source equivalents (such as IE and ActiveX) because the open-source projects are aimed at and empower the END USER, while all too often the closed-source projects are vehicles for revenue, empowering the corporations and hearding end-users into whatever direction earns the supplying company the most profit. ActiveX is not for end-user best-interest... it is a mechanism that gives WEBSITES (aka companies who are customers of MS who pay MS big $$$) more control over end-user computers, wrapped-up in the sheep's clothing of being some sort of "benefit" to the end-user. In many cases, IE is nothing more than a ad-pumping machine.
- Support and general well-being. The more people using safe, reliable software that doesn't trash their system (due to bugs or being susceptible to viruses, spyware, adware, etc) the more happy computer users there will be. I'd rather earn consulting dollars showing someone how to do cool and useful things in OpenOffice than cleaning spyware off their computer for the umpteenth time.
Exactly! plus I believe in following the law carefully, but I find it too complex and too expensive to use propriety software.
Much more importantly though, I don't feel safe using products such as IE, and I fear for the safety my family and friends on the internet. I gave my fiance a computer for christmas - I built it myself and installed Fedora Core 2 for her; she's very happy with it, and I am relaxed since she has a reliable, secure computer.
Plus a lot of F/L/OS software is just better than the alternatives - Apache and Firefox are just better, and gaim, openoffice and gimp are better value for money than trillian, ms office and photoshop.
So if anyone wants a checklist:
- Safety
- Compatability
- Quality
- Price
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
Personally, I DON'T care what someone else uses for an OS or an Office Suite or Web-Browser.. I do care if they "standardize" me out of my choices though!
Currently, too many people are Lemmings and just follow what they are told. However, if they see that other options exist (and many of them are BETTER), then they will be happier.
Of course, if we just sit back, Microsoft WILL continue to push it's products down the Lemmings throats (via Monopoly, Advertising and whatever other technique is needed). If one company "wins", then capitalism, freedom, competition and innovation lose. When was the last time Microsoft came up with a technology of it's own? (Microsoft Bob!?)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The question is, how would all the people I mentioned make money if everyone used open standards and interoperable products?
Using open standards would not change this. What will change is the number of choices that we have to get a particular task done as well as the number of choices for jobs themselves. Technology jobs are not going to decline. We just might start seeing more opportunities working with a wider variety of software. It would be a big win for everyone. Also, if Microsoft all of a sudden started to use open standards people would not stop using their software. If anything it would probably be just the opposite.
When people call you up asking you to fix what is wrong, after you have just finished a hectic 8-hour shift... You tend to want them to use stuff that'll make both of your lives easier.
I only really care to convert people to open source products when they're the best choice. Firefox is obvious because IE is terrible. Whenever people come to me with a computer problem, it usually somehow connects to IE. Maybe Microsoft will make a good browser in IE 7, I don't know. I'll try it when it's ready.
As for other programs, it really depends on the person and the needs. If they can't afford Microsoft Office, I recommend OpenOffice, but I warn that there are still a few compatibility problems. I tell people that Gimp is pretty cool, nowhere near Photoshop, but about seven hundred dollars less. I mainly recommend it for people that haven't gotten around to pirating Photoshop yet.
Then, of course, there's Linux. I love Linux and have a pretty awesome setup here at home. When people see it, a lot of them end up wanting to switch. Most of the time, I tell them not to. The thing I love about Linux is how you can get into the guts of the system to configure, troubleshoot, or build on it yourself. That's also why it's not so good for most people. I love being able to dig through text files to tune it just right, or add the right code to make it do something really obscure. It's really awkward when a non-techie ends up having to do the same. For instance, I just set up Debian on my new computer and gdm isn't coming up. I don't care, I just disable gdm anyway. I'll jigger around with XF86Config later on, but X isn't a big priority for me. The normal user, when thrown back to a text console, would have no idea what to do. If they want to learn, I'd be glad to help, but I know a lot of people that don't want to spend hours editing text files and reading through man pages to be able to use their computer.
The main point is, as far as day-to-day usability is concerned, proprietary software is often still way past open source. I'm not bashing it. It's made for different purposes. But the complexity and adaptability I'm so fond of will likely keep it from being embraced by the population at large.
[insert witty quote here]
most internet explorers think that blue E on their desktop is the 'internet'. they think the words 'internet' and 'web' describe the same thing - hence "i'm playing hl2 over the web" or "the internet is broken". as i said in another post to use techonology without an understanding of it is dangerous.
but more importantly than this, learning to use an alternative piece of software is like learning a second language. it helps you with the first, and it helps you with others. wizards with microsoft word get stumped when faced even with an older version, let alone koffice. if you learn to use openoffice on windows, you'll be able to pick up the next office suite you try quicker.
i never understood english grammar, until i learnt some french grammar - now i can use qui/que corrently in french i can use who/whom in english. now i'm familiar with fc3, i can get by in other linux distros.
I feel for RMS sometimes, he's been trying to get this message out for 25 years. I think it's important to understand, even if you dont agree with him, that the freedom to make a program do what you want is more important than how well it does it. It happens that open source and free software has created quality because of the nature of the process, but I would still rather use open source even if it's more cumbersome to do so precisely because it's there for me to examine, understand, learn, or modify as I see fit. Non programmers too benefit from this freedom, since they can request features. Anyone out there ever successfully got Microsoft to include a feature they needed?
I don't think it's about having a cause. It's about hating to see people making (what we see as) the wrong decision - whether that decision is what god to worship or what software to run.
Most Firefox enthusiasts don't just think that it's a better browser than Internet Explorer - they think that it's so much better that there is no possible reason to use IE. As most geeks are pretty intolerant of stupidity (I know I am), they'll do anything they can to dissuade someone from a course of action they see as totally illogical.
In the same way, Christians don't understand why someone would condemn themselves to eternal Hell rather than worship their God. In their minds it's not just a wrong decision, it's a stupid decision. And, while they might justify their actions as being concern for their fellow man, or even enlightened self interest, the justification of most of them is that they hate to see someone doing something that dumb.
Throughout the question, we can see that letting people do things which can be shown to be unethical, costly, and dismissive of freedoms we ought to cherish (such as freedom of speech) are considered "harangu[ing]" or "obnoxious", and yet nothing proprietors do is framed in that way.
I hope this doesn't mean that it's okay for them to deny me the freedom to share and modify. I hope this isn't yet another attempt to frame the debate so that the onus of responsibility is on me to justify myself without requiring business to justify treating me this way. Sharing and modifying is how computing worked since long before the free software community began, proprietary software is actually rather new, but that zeitgeist has been lost in large part. If it weren't for the free software community, we wouldn't have wonderful things like GNU/Linux systems.
I don't teach people about open source because that movement was built to cater primarily to business, and I'm interested in speaking to all computer users, not just businesses. I teach people about software freedom and related matters on my radio talk show (Digital Citizen, every other Wednesday on WEFT 90.1 FM from 8-10p) and I take calls. If you're in the Champaign, IL area then, I invite you to tune in and join the discussion. I don't think of open source as an enemy, I think of open source as a newer spin-off that loses a great deal of power in its argument by dropping any talk about freedom. One practical freedom that movement doesn't push for is private derivatives (making a copy of a program's source code, changing it to meet one's needs, and using it privately without telling anyone else it exists), something I've used a lot to solve my own computing problems.
I do this work for my radio show because I take threats including DRM, software patents, and so-called "trusted computing" (which the FSF refers to as "treacherous computing") seriously. The mainstream media never discusses these issues from the user's point of view, if they discuss them at all. Their focus invariably encourages the user to take the business perspective and ignore what these ideas mean for them. I think these topics deserve serious inquiry and challenge. Software freedom addresses these issues head-on and provides a viable path for us to be able to compete on the quality of the good or service provided, respecting the idea that what separates us from a dog-eat-dog jungle is working together and helping each other when we need help.
Digital Citizen
it's like smoking tobacco - on the face of it, your right to fuck your lungs is entirely your business. your right to fuck your internet experience by using crap like IE and Outlook is also entirely your business.
however, when i have to pick up the bill (increased taxes (in countries with universal healthcare) and/or increased insurance premiums (in the US and other third world countries)); when i have to come home from a bar reeking of smoke; or when my aunt dies of lung cancer after a lifetime not smoking but working in the casino industry, i start to see your 'private behavior' as impinging on me, and take an interest in limiting where and how you smoke, as well as how much of the resulting mess you pay for.
likewise, when my network access goes to shit because the latest melissa virus is chewing half the worl's bandwidth; whe i keep having to fend off relatives begging me to come and de-infest their windows boxes; when the 'network and IT support' indirect charge on the grants my (all linux/mac) department receives in effect subsidizes the high-support requirements of the other, windows-running departments at my research institute, i start to give a shit what other people have running on their boxes, and take an interest in sandboxing your shitboxes off frm my network, and in making sure you bear the full financial costs of your stupid IT decisions.
Once, Nasrudin was presiding over a court case. "First," he said, "I will hear the plaintiff."
The open-source plaintiff stepped forward and said, "You cannot trust a heartless and soulless corporation to care about your needs!"
"I believe you are right!" cried Nasrudin.
The closed source defendant objected, "You haven't heard our side of the story yet!"
Nasrudin nodded. "Then let us now hear the defendant."
The defendant stepped forward and said, "You cannot trust strangers to help and support you out of the goodness of their hearts!"
"I believe you are right!" cried Nasrudin.
The bailiff coughed, and said "Your honor... we can't decide the case if they are BOTH right."
"I believe you are right!" cried Nasrudin.
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
The question is, how would all the people I mentioned make money if everyone used open standards and interoperable products?
;-)
Call me crazy but I think that if companies found that IT spending paid off more (because it meant actually getting something accomplished rather than spending all this time for maintenance of poorly written software) that they might pay more for it.
IT budgets aren't that flexible. People will find ways to spend the money that will help their business. If you are not spending all your resources fixing problems, this may mean that you may get paid to do something productive
Also less money on licensing fees may mean more IT jobs in-house....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It's interesting that most of the points people are making here, while valid, do not address the "open source" part of this question at all. "Standards-based" is not synonymous with "open source". Safari and Opera are two very good browsers - both are being developed to conform to W3C standards, but neither is open source to my knowledge.
The question that people seem to be responding to here is "why I recommend non-Microsoft software solutions".
Me? I prefer (and recommend) the best tool for the job, whether it's open source or not. I love Firefox, but I also love Photoshop. My OS is OS X because "it just works" for me better than desktop Linux ever did - although both of them helped me to be more productive than when I was a Windows user.
#DeleteChrome
This particular Ask Slashdot has a dumbfoundingly obvious answer: most FOSS zealots try to convert users to FOSS software because they gut-wrenchingly hate and fundamentally mistrust businesses and want to do everything they can to stick it to businesses where it hurts.
On the other hand, most users don't care whether software is free (as in liberty) or not because they just copy whatever they want anyway, legally or not. Most users don't care whether software is open-source or not because most users are not programmers and have no interest in or need for source code. And most existing FOSS software today is more difficult to install/configure/maintain/use than commercial offerings.
So from the user's point of view, there's only one motivation to switch to FOSS software, and that's to get their obnoxious FOSS-touting acquaintances to shut the hell up. And as statistics suggest, this isn't enough of a reason to convince your average user to switch.
That is, unless you are a particularly hairy and foul-smelling breed of FOSS zealot and your victim is a reasonably good-looking young woman who would much prefer suffering through a difficult computing experience for the rest of her life over actually tolerating your incessant geek whining for yet another day.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
You obviously work at 7-11. I write code for money. I don't sell my software, but I sell my ability to write software. A company is paying me to do this... so I do. The meaning of life is different for each person. My method of making money might not be the same thing I do to further our species.
Go work at a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen for a few days. Volunteer to teach. Help people that way. Don't sit in your tower and think your latest function for your FTP client is saving humanity.
What's worst of all in the database situation is when companies spend the mucho dinero for something like Oracle, and then don't use what they're paying for, out of fear that they'll lock themselves in with proprietary features.
If you're using Oracle and you're not using stored procedures, PL/SQL, replication, load balancing, etc. you're just spending way too much cash when you could be using something cheap or free with the same capabilities.
Not to say you can't do fancy, proprietary things with Postgres, but if you're trying to be agnostic, might as well not pay extra.
Feel free to extrapolate this gripe to the use of Excel when a free alternative would work, or Photoshop when The Gimp would work, etc.
Just as frequently, those users can't share data with each other and are trying to figure out why. Linux tools can easily render Microsoft formats and if they're not perfect, geeks don't care. The problem is when someone tries to use OfficeXP and find that it has a bug that means you can't use Office97 to open half of its documents, despite saving them in '97' format. For example. That problem I remember being a fairly easy hotfix, but the type of problem just keeps happening.
Open formats are mandatory, anything else means that you don't own your data.
How about I dont kill people so you shouldn't either. We strongly believe that enslaved software is one of the most horrible and morally repugnant things in the world. There is room for ethics and morality in software engineering, something that enslaves you cannot be the best tool for the job.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Competition & Security for all
By encouraging users to use other products such as Linux, MAC, Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, etc. we force software companies and projects to increase stability, performance, and features.
If more users used products other then Microsoft's then they would in turn need to better their offerings. As they increase their products features, performance, and stability users will depend that alternatives to Microsoft's products also increase. Competition is a good thing and healthy competition leads to advances for all of us.
Users who do not use Microsoft products are less likely to experience viruses as most of these are written for the masses (i.e. Windows, Outlook, Internet Explorer, Office).
Viruses are easily propagated today as once a security hole is found the majority of users have this same security hole. By reducing the number of users that use Microsoft only products we reduce the number of identical security holes. This decreases virus propagation which reduces traffic on the Internet.
We can not move everyone off of Microsoft products nor should we as this will just move the problems from one platform to another ore one application to another. However if we encourage users to look at options they have and in doing so we convert a percentage of them to other products everyone will see the benefit of better products and less virus propagation.
Just my two cents....