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.'"
"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.
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
No, but there are plenty who click on links, so whenever CNET can create a 10-page article with 10 lines of actual content, they will.
Palm trees and 8
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
The same can be said conversely. I've used GIMP for 3-4 years and just looking at Photoshop makes my eyes bleed. We've used our preferred software so long the "opposition" looks ugly and unintuitive by comparison.
Excuse me while I gather the virgin sacrifice and assemble the pentagram required to solve your problem
time is money.
Yes; but if some big company is selling a piece of GPL software for £5000 a copy, there's nothing stopping me and 999 other people each stumping up a Lady Godiva and buying one copy between us all. The licence, which comes from the author and not the vendor, allows all 1000 of us to make as many unaltered copies as we want of that software; so we can quite legally install it 1000 times. And then each of us can install it on five other people's computers, charge them a quid and recoup our initial outlay :)
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I think that is a failing of source forge and not open source. Anyone can register an open source project on source forge. It will get deleted after a while if you let it completely stagnate. The problem is, in generally, everyone forgets your failures and remember your successes. If you search sourceforge, you have to wad through everyones failures.
There are a million closed source failures. There is just no way to search for them all. They either are on someone hard drive or deleted. If you have trouble wadding through the open source failures, I would suggest you use Google as it will rank the results better and you will get non sourceforge hosted projects.
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
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.
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.
Yes, but they don't have to provide the Source gratis to anyone who hasn't already got a binary from them -- they could legitimately demand to see your purchase receipt before they gave you the Source Code. Or the £5000 could be for a disc (or set of discs) containing the binary and the Source.
What they can't do is charge £5000 for the binary and then another £5000 for the source -- additional charges for the Source Code are limited to covering cost of media and delivery.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
...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
Ever hear of THUNDERBIRD?!??
It doesn't have the scheduling capabilities of Outlook and doesn't automatically set up Exchange accounts like Outlook, along with a number of other useful corporate features. Most of which would have to be provided by other programs.
The point of the article is an intro to free OSS for average computer users or corporate environments. CNet is trying to make the transition as smooth as possible. A business isn't interested in replacing their relatively inexpensive multi-user Office license with 3+ different programs and investing the time in retraining and support. It's simply not a cost effective way of doing business. And that's the bottom line for most businesses.
Wow, what an astounding example of misinterpretation of the given information. A low-cost course in MS Office is quite a success, so you interpret that to mean OpenOffice is "a ticket to nowhere" to "most folks." So if a course in OpenOffice has good attendance, would that be a sign that MS Office is "a ticket to nowhere?"
Whether you like to admit it or not, there is room in the marketplace for more than one office suite. And OpenOffice is growing in popularity as more people become aware of its existence. Most folks aren't even aware of OpenOffice, and I would say that is the main reason its uptake hasn't been faster. But as I noted, its usage grows nonetheless.
The same argument holds for FOSS applications in all of the other categories. You may not like them, but there are plenty of others who have embraced them wholeheartedly and are introducing them to friends and family at a growing rate.
Open Source: I'll show you mine if you show me yours.