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.'"

Comments

Fluff

[rbochan]

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.

Bigger list

[theantipop]

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.

Re:Don't offer bad alternatives

[Synchis]

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. I'm having trouble with this comment... for a number of reasons:

1. You *almost* sound like you were paid to write that.

2. Your statement is inaccurate on many levels.

3. You provide no basis for your opinion. Care to back up your statement with some evidence?

Every experience that I've had with OpenOffice has been a good one. Its fast, provides all the features that I'm looking for without being too bloated, and sometimes handles the Microsoft formats better than even MS Office does. I hazard to suggest that if OpenOffice was as bad as you suggest, that Cannonical would not have picked it as Productivity app of choice for Ubuntu. And I believe a fair number of other distro's provide it as well.

Before posting a bash like that against an open source project on an open source oriented web site, you should probably have something to back up your statements. Otherwise, your just blowing hot air out your arse.