Slashdot Mirror
CNet Promotes Essential Open-Source Software to Joe Public
Zool writes "A feature is currently running on CNet explicitly promoting open-source software alternatives for typical home users, with programs rated and compared to commercial offerings. Although there's no mention of the Linux advantages to home users, the list is extensive and certainly written with the intention of snagging wider open-source adoption and understanding in the mainstream. 'Why should you care about open source? You should care because the vast majority of common applications, even complex commercial stuff like Adobe Photoshop, Windows Media Player and Microsoft Office, have free, open-source alternatives. And this point is worth reiterating: open-source software is free. No cost. Zero. Zilch.'"
Somehow I think it odd to have a picture of an open case hard drive to represent open source software.
"And this point is worth reiterating: open-source software is free. No cost. Zero. Zilch."
I find this may be the better approach in introducing people to free[dom]/open source software. People don't understand at first the implications of free[dom] software.
After the hook of 'free', then people can learn about the freedom aspects. Of course if they clue in right away the importance of freedom, all the better.
Are there really any CNet readers who aren't tech savvy enough to have actually heard of open source? Sure, there are people out there who have never used any free software, but they sure don't read CNet.
That point is worthless, or some negative value. Because open-source software is free speech , notfree beer. Plenty of open source is $free, but there's plenty of paid products that include the source code. It's harder to prevent people from redistributing open source, to collect the money from something they can copy to others without paying. But that's copyright violation, which CNet is now promoting, even though it makes its own income from that same protection.
Lanxon is the MP3 and digital music reviewer for CNet. Next time he says anything defending music industry copyrights, or his own on his articles, readers should remind him. Maybe by republishing it under their own name.
--
make install -not war
What a godawful format. This is 2007, our web browsers have scrollbars for a reason. It's like a damn PPT, but with ads. Though, I suppose that's no surprise with articles like "Top ten geek haircuts" and "Top ten off switches". And no, I'm not kidding.
Journalistic integrity, thy name is CNET.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
For Windows users, here is a fairly comprehensive list of useful software, the vast majority of which is free (as in beer). The list is a bit unwieldy and unevenly updated, but I've snagged a few useful programs by browsing through it recently so I think it's pretty useful for those looking to get off unnecessary commercial apps.
> And this point is worth reiterating: open-source software is free. No cost. Zero. Zilch.
Does this mean that the debate on the difference (or the lack thereof) between free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-speech is finally and officially over? It's about time.
* quality wise, both may have (and have) problems.
* There are fantastic OS and not OS programs
* There are failures in OS and closed source arena
* 92% of the Sourceforge products stagnate in tehit own inactivity. You hear about the success but not about the MILLIONS of OS failures.
* It is a myth the superiority of OS because everybody can fix the source by theyself. Yes, this can be done, but few do it. And doing it doesn't guarantee that millions of users will automagically apply the changes.
The major (and only) difference is idiological. And it's politically correct to say that OS is cool, but I don't care for ideologies. Show me a good soft and I will use and promote it, be it OS or not.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
While this may be a familiarity issue, I'd like to hear from someone that really has dug deep into both and has a fair assessment of the two.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Too bad they didnt mention tools in my favorites:
Knoppix
VirtualBox
MPlayer (the Hungarian one, not MS)
GParted
GRUB
NT Password Recovery Here
Cinelerra
FilmGimp
BitPim
NMap
RDesktop
VNC
And the best of all... Debian and Ubuntu
If OSS is to thrive, it needs to not offer worse alternatives, and by so doing, convince people that OSS is unreliable.
No matter what people who wish it were otherwise say, OpenOffice is a piece of junk. It's huge. It's buggy. It has difficulties using other formats. It explodes frequently. It requires massive Java-ware installed on the machines of otherwise happily non-bloated users. It's worse than anything Microsoft has shipped.
Point people toward Abiword, or point them toward Google apps, but don't push that piece of junk on them, unless you want to cement in their minds the idea that "free but inferior" is the definition of open source.
Thank you.
technical writing / development
What's going to happen when tens of thousands of mouthbreathing CNET readers all start wanting "support" for the OS packages they've installed?
Actually, it is quite appropriate.
It has been an long, hard drive to for the developers to get the software out in the open - and they did it all while on grass.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I'm not bashing Linux or OSS; I think the fact that both exist is wonderful. I'm happy for all the people who've switched to Open Office, or Linux, or whatever, and come away pleased with it. At the same time, however, I simply have neither the time nor the energy to learn how another OS or application suite works. Just figuring out the quirks of Vista (and I'm required to do so) has been annoying enough.
These sorts of lists are important for people already using or wanting to use OSS but who aren't sure where to start, but I don't see them bringing anyone into the fold. Even if I found an OSS replacement for every application I use, and even if the OSS programs were, in every case, better than the applications I already use, I'm still not very interested in taking the time to learn an entire new application suite unless the difference between Program A and Program B is absolutely huge. If Program A takes 20s to do a common operation, and Program B takes 5s, then yes, color me interested. Other than that, not so much.
http://www.osalt.com/ has been doing this for quite a while now...
--> Insert Funny Sig Here
Not all open-source software is completely free.
I use Open Office extensively and have never installed MS Office despite having an MSDN subscription which provides it for "free" for the last 5 yrs. I do this out of principle, but this decision has cost me. There are incompatibilities present that have cost me time and effort.
I own Adobe Photoshop because Gimp would cost me dearly in time and effort. I've tried many times, but Gimp is really not a PS replacement.
And while Linux is "free" and my company's products support it, the userbase is comparatively small to our Windows base and the costs of using it, learning it, keeping up with it, and maintaining product support are astronomical (per user capita) compared to Windows.
That said, there are a huge number of open-source packages that are not only free but save me an enormous amount of time and effort. Thunderbird is far more time-friendly than Outlook has been to me. Firefox. Python. Ruby. Ruby on Rails.
Others save me money by proxy. My web host uses Open Solaris, for example.
Open Source software has a very important niche within enterprise and home use. But a large number of the mainstream packages that most home users would use will frustrate those folks with quirks. Some things are only free if you value your time at nothing.
Free (as in beer) doesn't really represent a value proposition if you've "pirated" your non-Free software anyway.
The message that needs to be gotten across is "Free AND Legal". I've had people express complete disbelief in my claim that they can have Legal Copies of software for free (beer) -- to the point where they were pretty sure I was lying or making it up.
New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
How about objectivity?
I know a number of businesses and private people who use Open Office every day exchanging documents with others without a hitch, whereas I have never heard of anyone who gave it up because it was huge, buggy, or had difficulty using other formats.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but Open Office is a very beautiful thing for everyone I know personally who has ever tried it.
The bad: Microsoft Office comes with Outlook, which is vital for most business users. For this reason, OpenOffice isn't an alternative to Microsoft's corporate solutions. It's also lacks some of the advanced design functions of the 2007 version of Word.
The Bad: The software suffers a few bugs that could be something of a hurdle for newbies. It's in the advanced pre-release stages, meaning the team developing it hasn't deemed it suitable for general release.
Conclusion: MediaPortal is ideal for anyone who isn't afraid of looking at a program's preferences screen. If looking at settings confuses and scared you into a dark corner, stick with Microsoft's Media Centre for now.
The Bad: VLC won't let you sync your media library with your new MP3 player. There are no radio services directly available through VLC.
The Bad: WinZip offers a vast array of features for advanced users, such as intelligent compression, which chooses the most efficient archiving method based on the type of files being compressed. WinZip will also let you schedule backups and periodic and automatic updating of existing backup archives.
The bad: It's not as attractive as the standard IM chat clients and it's not blindingly obvious which contacts are part of each network.
The bad: The interface is quite basic and not as accessible to less tech-savvy users. More sophisticated and well-designed wizards in programs such as Nero are better at easing newbies through the creation process. The program is also a little slow when preparing to burn a disc.
Conclusion: Technophobes, however, will prefer the idiot-proof wizards provided by commercial software bundled with pre-built PCs.
The bad: While it's superbly kitted out for home users and podcasters, it can't match commercial products like Adobe's Audition software for studio recording. The GUI is also rather plain and not as easy to read as some paid-for alternatives.
Conclusion: Be prepared for a steep learning curve.
The bad: Firefox can sometimes devour a system's RAM. It can also take a few seconds longer to load a page than Opera or Internet Explorer.
It seems to me like the programs work but if you want more advanced features or a prettier/easier to use interface you have to buy the non-OSS software.
When I plug open-sauce (which, despite my polar-opposite allegiances I still do), I rarely state "free" as a reason to install something.
"Community developed" always goes down much better....latch on "free" as a side-product benefit, but "community developed" makes it sound like "written by the people for the people", so tends to get better reception.
Everything is 'free'; it just depends whether you have to steal it or not.
throw new NoSignatureException();
Most OS alternatives don't offer features that aren't in the commercial versions. The only exceptions are the success stories: Firefox did add a lot of features that IE could only dream of, and Writer can export to PDF, but that's where it ends. GIMP and other Open Office progs run miles behind the commercial products, that's why it doesn't break through. Joe Average copies Photoshop and MS Office from his neighbor, so to him it seems free anyway. Why should he bother to install "another" free product that has less features than the fancy commercial software everyone else uses? Open Source should be innovative and come up with features the commercial equivalent doesn't have; that's the only way it can gain big public success.
...the lack of offline messaging for msn can be quite annoying.
Mind you it's not fault of the pidgin developers, but microsoft, who seemed to have used some arcane way to implement this feature.
I've used gaim and pidgin for a long time, but crumbled and when to msn solely cause of lack of offline msging.
and mind you pidgins simple look was a plus for plus for me.
I wanted to post a comment on the article but comments appear to be locked - VLC does have streaming radio and video via Shoutcast - not sure if the writer has used VLC for anything other than DVDs or opening a media file. As far as using an iPod I have switched over to Floola to manage my library and podcasts on my mini - it works in Linux as well as OSX and Windows.
FTA: "it can't match commercial products like Adobe's Audition software for studio recording".
;-)
This isn't true. We tried out all the commercial OSX apps, including Adobe soundbooth (audition isn't availiable on Mac) and found Audacity was the best fit for a small VO studio. Bells and whistles count for nothing if the basic audio editing features aren't up to scratch. Audacity isn't without problems or bugs and I'm not saying that, in fact the source code freely mixes GUI and processing code -- ick! Functionally for basic editing workflow, there's nothing wrong with it and this is something you can't say about the commercial apps.
FTA: "The GUI is also rather plain and not as easy to read as some paid-for alternatives".
So says someone who never ran bias peak or thinks slick UI design makes a professionally usable tool. The UI for a 1/4", blade and chinagraph was good enough for 40 years, the Audacity interface is perfectly serviceable.
Of course, I use sweep at home
I've been working a steady contract supporting .NET development and MS products but I'm letting this contract run out in January so I can devote more time to supporting F/OSS development and applications. I may be a bit ahead of the curve but MS development is just so hideously boring. Plus I'm getting a lot more calls about alternatives to Vista and I'm curious if the market is really there or if it's just talk. I'll let you know how it goes. Worst case is I end up taking on more Windows support and come crawling back when faced with imminent starvation.
All the fun stuff in IT is happening in open source...and that's more than MS. Although in fairness to my clients, if MS or proprietary is the right solution, I'll pick the right tool for the job. This is business not religion. But I find in my own business and home network that F/OSS is frequently the better decision.
Should be interesting. Send food. ;)
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Also, such a statement ignores that there are many different "Open Source" licenses. People automatically think "GPL", but it's certainly not the only one. And with so many issues cropping up with GPLv3, we may see a decline of GPL and an interest in other, equally "Open Source", licenses.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
time is money.
Since the author of TFA has apparently closed off comments for now, I'll state it here:
Bravo. It's nice to see a main-stream media outlet offering this kind of coverage of FOSS.
I've experimented with FOSS for a long time, and have wanted to switch for many years. Last spring, I did, once and for all. I now use Ubuntu 7.10 on my home system, even for gaming. (I was surprised to find that many companies are offering a Linux version as well as Windows.)
In my opinion, meny FOSS projects are ready for the main-stream. They simply need some good publicity, and a following.
Thomas A. Knight
Author of The Time Weaver
Tthe free shit sucks !! Ay, mattie, pirates ahoy !! Why would I use free shit when I can get the good stuff and for free !!
I agree with your first three bullets, but really, OSS is not necessarily ideological, it is also a pragmatic point of view, one you do not address. OSS doesn't need anyone to use or promote it; yes, that may be nice but not necessary, but it exists on its own for no other purpose except that someone wished to solve a problem or play with the technology - nothing more or less. How do you think that cd ripping came about? How about DNS?
The 92% are not necessarily failures; if a project stagnates, it could be because it has more viable competitors, and, if a project has ultimate value to someone, somewhere, who can DO, it will fly. Maybe not today, maybe not to level of packaging and functionality some would like. And, they are idea templates for what can be done or a POV of functionality, a scratch pad of abortive attempts.
You are placing commercial attributes on things that are not commercial; the world is filled with that myopia. It is that of a Consumer, not an artist or an architect, but a builder who gets paid by the hour to hammer nails - there are other viewpoints which are forever misunderstood by those outside of them.
They forgot Avidemux. It's great for converting video files and it works on Windows and Linux.
Time makes more converts than reason
Mattie is short for Matthew. Matey is short for "Mate", as in "First Mate", as in the person you would find on a pirate ship.
Exactly. This is a trend I've seen in OSS applications. Most of the time, they're miles (or even light years) behind their proprietary competitors. GIMP? Can't support advanced color spaces, needs to replicate all the Photoshop features (however, as I'm not user of Gimp nor photoshop, I can only say what I've heard). OOo? The MS compatibility phantom is luring around. Audacity? Lacks professional features found in commercial packages. Oh, is there an OSS alternative for Adobe Premiere Pro? Zero. Nich. None.
Well, what is to be expected from apps written by hobbyists? If only people began to produce actual clones of existing applications: Imagine something like "PicShop" (tfeaturing a 1-to-1 equivalent for all Photoshop features), or something called "Showtime!" replicating all the Premiere Pro features, or something called "AudioStudio Pro" replicating all the Adobe Audition features. And we're still missing the Visual Basic OSS alternative (for Windows, because Linux has Gambas, but there's no windows version, and there will never be).
Why? Why do OSS programmers fail to realize that Windows users want something to work just like the PROFESSIONAL SOFTWARE they have spent hundreds of dollars in?
Perhaps it's that OSS programmers haven't even TRIED the commercial apps? And don't even mention REGULAR USE.
Perhaps The FLOSS community needs something that I would call "The Proprietary Software Free documentation project" that showed and explained the menus, interfaces and case uses for 100% of the features implemented in the latest versions of commercial software. Documentation like this would serve as the basis for making actual cross-platform clones of existing proprietary software.
Think of Linux. It wanted to be "A better Minix than Minix". And Firefox is certainly "a better IE than IE",even if that's not its motto. So where's the "A better photoshop than photoshop", or "A better audition than audition", or "A better premiere than premiere"?
So why has nobody started these projects? OSS zealots want a revolution, but fail to produce the weapons. And then they complain about people who prefer to pay hundreds or thousands or dollars than using their ackward and/or inferior products.
Is it a shame to try to clone existing applications? Is it a sin? Is it?
The article is great. Can we mod ZOOLS karma up for posting this? /. are often lacking.
These are the kinds of things for newbies that old crusty sites like
We the freedom/software community should promote how great opensource is compared to the expensive programs. Anyone with a new computer he/she is setting up would immediatly benefit from the short list of programs the article reviewed.
And the post even makes the GIMP sound so easy to use! I.E. dont scare the willing.
First a bit of background, I am a general all-around tech support person for an island with a population of approximately 15,000 people (on the South end of the island). Most of my clients are either retired and/or are tech-shy.
As a dedicated user of Open Source software I consistently advocate it to my clients as a solution for many of their needs. The attitude that I run into time and time again that if you are not paying out the wazoo for software then it can't be any good. Many won't even try a piece of software unless they pay for it.
I have taken to creating a DVD or CDs of Open Source programs (particularly OpenOffice.org), charging for them and donating that money back to the respective project. It's a system that seems to be working for everyone - clients feel they are getting something valuable because they paid for it and the projects are getting much needed donation money.
There's certainly a lot of value in something that 'just works'. Take Apple for instance- they sell ridiculously overpriced stuff, but it's worth it for some people because they don't have the time to deal with problems (but have the money to buy Apple).
Also, the more money you have, the more your time is worth. I 'waste' more money now to save me time that I never would have paid in college. That's because in college I had a lot of time but not much money, where as now I have a lot of money but not much time.
It's like hiring a maid- something that's a total waste of money for most people. Once you are making more per hour than the maid service costs, though, you might as well work some overtime and hire someone else to do cleaning for you.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Expecting people to switch en masse is not reasonable until the UI is completely idiot proof and requires no advanced diagnostic. Even Ubuntu is not there yet.
A better strategy is to promote open source software running on Windows. Firefox, Thunderbird, Gimp, Open Office etc. all run on Windows. Introduce users to these great apps and allow them to use them at their own pace. They can even run the open source apps side by side with the MS equivalents if they like. Since most open source apps run on Windows and Linux, it means the underlying OS is of less relevance.
Later when Linux for the desktop is more mature they can be tempted to move. It may even be that Dell / Compaq etc. off cheap machines with Linux on them. If the apps are the same then the pain in moving is so much less.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Anyone remember when you could go to CNET's Download.com and download Linux applications? Then one day the Linux section vanished.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Whether that cost is in the licensing terms, functionality restrictions, lack of interoperability, vendor support, etc. the cost can always be measured unless every single aspect of the 'free' software is on par or greater than every single aspect of the 'cost' software.
"To work for libertarianism -- to oppose the growth of government and aid the liberation of the individual -- used to be
I agree on both of those products. Photoshop and Office are superior to GIMP and OpenOffice. Office 2003 at least is stable, fast and reliable. It's not my favorite platform for writing, but I'd be out of touch if I insisted OpenOffice was better. It's a piece of junk. Journalists praise it because it's an easy story to write, but the reality of the situation is that life will hand you your ass if you do a serious writing project on OpenOffice. Most of the people here have found it to work for their needs, which are mainly writing letters. But just about anything can do that.
technical writing / development
...when it comes to FOSS. They do care about free as in beer.
(This is in response to the tag freespeechisnotfreebeer.)
Don't underestimate the power of The Source
Open Office.org
Last month, our community college extension program was offering state subsidized courses in MS Office at $5 for each three hour course at the beginner and intermediate levels. No age or income restrictions whatsoever.
It was quite a success and a reminder that to most folks OpenOffice.org is a ticket to nowhere.
To talk of piracy is so much wasted breath.
The odds are quite good that if you are in the market for an office suite, you will qualify as a Home User through your employer's volume licensing plan or you will be eligible for a steeply discounted academic package.
MS Office for the cost of S&H.
The most you are likely to spend is $150 for MS Office Home (three seats, retail boxed) or $200 for the OEM Office bundle installed on your new road-warrior laptop. If that isn't in the budget, how you can afford the consumables for an ink jet or a laser?
The GIMP
I'll admit that I cringe whenever I type these two words.
It comes perhaps from my experience with a sheltered work program for the disabled.
Setting that aside for the moment, basic editing software is bundled with every printer and multifunction printer. Paint.NET is elegant little program. There are good alternatives for the amateur in Paint Shop Pro.
Older versions are easy to find, dirt cheap, and come with a thick printed manual.
basic editing software is bundled with every digital camera and multifunction printer.
The very-mainstream-Microsoft-is-a-big-advertiser Popular Mechanics has been a surprising proponent of open source for the past several months. They published a similar article a few months ago comparing mass market apps to their open source counterparts, and last week they began offering a Popular Mechanics-themed Ubuntu download!
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
They definitely forgot to mention The Ugly. At least for The Gimp.
Contrary to the clueless beliefs of most people at /., these two terms are not exclusive in any way. Think of it as saying,
CNET is promoting fruit versus the alternative: bananas.Tux and a CD/DVD-ROM?
:)
OK, I can go with the DVD/CD but what does Linux have to do with Windows software? You need a better icon for "Open-Source". You could have used the FreeBSD logo. It would have made as much sense.
Scott
©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
CNet has been promoting open source software for Windows for quite some time.
Open Source Windows programs have been offered on Download.com for the past several years.
Scott
©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
Most users, when told about freeware the first time, say "So you mean, I can have a little man-ape-gone-wrong-thing[1] to give me weather and stocks? Cool, gimme!"
The second time, they've just had a geek reformat their hard drive, lost a bunch of stuff, and are now slowly learning about Internet safety. This time, their first question is "So, it's free. Doesn't that mean it's spyware? How do I know what's spyware and what isn't?" Also, often, you hear things like "How can they afford to give stuff away for free? Who makes this stuff? What's the catch?"
To explain that there is no catch, beyond that the software might just not be particularly good, you really have to explain the concept of freedom.
To answer your points:
a) If they don't yet have anything that works for their purposes, free software can fill that gap.
b) If they don't yet have habits...
c) What requires more work, a free download, or a paid download? (Or, if it's "freeware", maybe it comes with spyware...)
Given an equivalent piece of free or non-free software, free seems the clear winner, but you kind of do have to explain freedom. I realize that they're not always equivalent -- for instance, Gimp is not yet a replacement for Photoshop.
[1] Apologies to Joss Whedon. Comparing Jayne to Bonzi Buddy is unfair. (Unfair to Jayne, I think... or maybe Bonzi Buddy, who knows.)
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
GIMP is simply great. GIMP is an elegant inspiring software. Why should it be always compared with a pile of features?
My point: I work with GIMP daily. I like it. And, yes, I detest Photoshop. Just no need to tell me tat it is better.
...aimed at lusers who are mired in Windoze-land.
:)
Wake the fuck up and smell the REAL world of good software on OS X.
I will agree that VLC is good because of its format support, although the UI is a mess. Otherwise? Gimme a fucking break! How about promoting something decent instead of inspid ugly PC crap?
Safari beats Firefox's ass up down and sideways. Third-party IM client? Adium rules. NetNewsWire Lite if you need a free RSS reader. The GIMP? No no and NO. CD burning software? Uh, couldn't Microsoft do a decent job bundling that? Apple's disk burning software is efficient and dead-simple to use. OOo? Well its an X11 pig on OS X, although NeoOffice is almost usable. Of course they left out Inkscape and Apache.
Not being a F/OSS Nazi, freeware is as good as OSS to me. FontExplorer X, Google SketchUp and Google Earth, TextWrangler, MacTracker, TinkerTool all kick ass
And the captcha is "quality"
I _like_ The GIMP's UI.
Kudos to CNet for promoting FOSS. Lots of good programs listed. A link to http://theopendisc.com/ would've also been nice. More programs, more alternatives.
> The company is buying a product from YOU who is making PROFIT via your wages.
Yes, that's true, but it is not quite what I am talking about. In my journal entry on the subject I was talking specifically about open source software, rather than about making a living, so I really was concerned where the money was coming from. I do not intend to argue against the obvious fact that it is possible to be writing open source software, and be paid for it. What I would like to point out is that there is a subtle difference between being paid and making money. You see, when you are employed by a company to do something, it is irrelevant whether the product you are working on is open source. Whether the company choses to keep the code to itself or to give it away, you will still receive your paycheck. It is true that you are producing, but you do not own the resulting product; the company does. When I say that there is a difference between being paid and making money, it is this ownership that I have in mind as the distinction.
> The difference is I can see where the money is coming from.
Money is the symbol of production, and to make it you must produce and sell something of value. An employee does indeed produce and sell something, but it is not the product; it is his effort in making the product. The company purchases this effort and uses it to produce a product, which it then sells to make a profit with which to pay you. The reason we are talking past each other is that I see the situation as an entrepreneur, someone who makes money from a product, while you see the situation as an employee; someone who makes money from his efforts and does not care where that money comes from. Take Google for an example. Its profits are almost entirely derived from the advertising revenue on its search engine. Nothing else it does makes money, and must be funded with the search profits. Google can do this because its search profits are enormous, and it can continue to do so as long as the search engine brings in revenue.
When Google, or Microsoft, or some other company purchases your efforts in order to make open source software, they are not making money from the product, they are spending money. In this relationship, Google would be a consumer, not a producer, since no sellable product is produced, and thus no value is created. Note that I am not speaking of utility, for an open source product may indeed have that; I am speaking of value, as is measured by its market.
Value is necessarily a relative measurement. The things that are of value to me, may not be of any value to you. A collector may treasure a record signed by Elvis and pay $10000 for it, while another man might consider it worthless junk and choose to spend his money elsewhere. How is this value determined? By the laws of supply and demand. Elvis memorabilia may be worthless to many, but it is finite and is becoming rarer by the day due to wear and loss. As long as demand remains high, the price will remain high due to the tightness of supply. You can see the results of a tightness of supply in today's oil market. But what is the result of excessive supply? Falling prices. Which you can see today in the US housing market.
> You think all those companies are doing it as some sort of charity to counter MS or whatever it is you are thinking.
In the open source world, supply is limitless, since copies can be made at no cost, and, unlike for commercial software, they can be made legally and openly. Because the supply is infinite, the price necessarily falls to zero, and nobody buys open source software. So why would all those companies pay open source developers? Because it may be cheaper than buying commercial software. "Aha!" you'll say, "so you admit you can make money from open source!", but I do no such thing. You are making money from being employed, since you are not directly selling the product. The company is not making money by paying you to hack your project. It is saving money, which is a very di
to totally demean and slander the hard work of the OSS community? I've read all of the comments for this article and while I'm a staunch supporter of the OSS movement, I cannot believe that there are still people out there so stuck on MS products that they will demean the OSS community to prove their point. I've used OO since it was first introduced and allowed to be distributed and I've used it quite extensively. I updated, as you often have to do, the software whenever there were updates. Guess what, MSOFFICE requires updates too. I've used Firefox, Thunderbird, GIMP, and a whole shitload of OSS programs because I love the fact that I can and the fact that if I need any help with any of them all I have to do is visit the sites forum and get help. All M$ offers is their FAQ knowledge base and then want you to rank the answer they give you, right or wrong or no frigging help whatsoever. I can go on with the many downfalls of M$ products as much as the M$ cronies can bad mouth the OSS products. However the one thing they can't say about M$ products is the cross platform capabilities that a lot of the OSS products have. You can only seem to run M$ products on a Linux machine with WINE installed. So what I have to say is if you're stuck on M$, FINE! Stay there and continue making King William richer. The OSS community does not need your ilk. And now a word from our sponsors..Purchase your next box with Linux installed and all sorts of various OSS programs from a local Computer shop and not the Big Windows Retail Store outlets. Thank you and have a good day.