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

Free as in Beer then Free as in Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Free as in Beer then Free as in Freedom

[ByOhTek]

Most users don't care about freedom, they want something that (a) works suitable for their purposes, and (b) doesn't require them to change their use habits, and last but not least (c) requires a minimum of extra work to get running.

Most non-free software provides this functionality as easily as free software.

Re:Free as in Beer then Free as in Freedom

[vertinox]

Most non-free software provides this functionality as easily as free software.

There are always two factors to choosing software:

1. Price of the software.
2. The amount of time it takes to acquire and learn to use said software.

Example:

Given the choice of purchasing the expensive Photoshop or downloading user unfriendly GIMP for free, which will the average user do?

The answer is they will pirate Photoshop for free and Win/Win!

But seriously, most people tend to go with what they can their hands on for the least amount of trouble. Most people think that Windows and or MS Office is free because it comes with the computer

Be careful with the free statement

[PinternetGroper]

And this point is worth reiterating: open-source software is free. No cost. Zero. Zilch.'"

Be careful with this statement. Some people consider software that costs nothing to be of lesser quality or to have something wrong with it. A coworker went to Staples and purchased a version of McAfee for home, even after I told her AVG would do everything she wanted it to, and for free. I got the impression that she didn't think something that didn't cost anything would be able to do what she wanted...

Re:Does this matter?

[betterunixthanunix]

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.

Free?

[Jake73]

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.

Rather Free AND Legal!

[mdm42]

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.

Re:Rather Free AND Legal!

[Tatsh]

Completely agree. The Windows-world is full of users who would just pirate any commercial software they need (no matter what purpose). Many also end up trying to use at least one open source app at some point, but it in some way fails (eg GIMP has a weird window layout that is a little bit hard to get used to, and on Windows there's no built-in "force windows to stay on top" function). They get rid of it, go back to the commercial software (pirated), and decide to never use free and open source software again.

It is unfortunate. I think this is one of the more overlooked problems in trying to gain widespread adoption of open source alternatives, even if it is on Winblows.

I am in university, and the attitude from many first-year CS students I have spoken with is that "Linux sucks", even if they have only used PuTTY on their Winblows boxes to program their small C apps to the server with GCC. And they are all asking "Why not Visual Studio?", which they all have pirated of course. It is ridiculous. They do not believe me about the crappiness of proprietary software, and some even choose to use Vista just because it is the "latest".

Re:Rather Free AND Legal!

[edwdig]

Many also end up trying to use at least one open source app at some point, but it in some way fails (eg GIMP has a weird window layout that is a little bit hard to get used to, and on Windows there's no built-in "force windows to stay on top" function).

That right there is the problem. GIMP isn't just a little weird. It's off in its own world. Most GIMP defenders write it off and say "use a better window manager", but the reality is it just doesn't play well with the normal usage patterns most window managers are coded for. And of course it's a much bigger issue on Windows, where you can't change the UI.

Don't blame the user for not understanding when you throw something at them that works totally differently than every other program they've ever seen.

And they are all asking "Why not Visual Studio?", which they all have pirated of course.

Why pirate it? It's free unless you want the high end editions. If you're the type of person who doesn't know why they should or shouldn't be using Visual Studio, you don't need the versions that cost money.

They do not believe me about the crappiness of proprietary software

Because to most people, especially home users, it doesn't matter. Most of them would never be able to do anything with the source code, nor would they have the money to pay someone who could. And they like having a company to call for support.

Proprietary data formats, however, are a completely different story. Those are bad for everyone but the maker of the software.

Re:Free Speech is Not Free Beer

[illumin8]

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.

I'm all for free speech and free beer. I'm a big OSS advocate, but seriously, you guys need to get off your high horse sometimes and realize that this is how you sell OSS to Joe Sixpack. Joe Sixpack doesn't care whether the software on his computer is free as in speech or not. He doesn't care about modifying the source code, or freedom to fork. He does care about cost though.

The free speech education can come later, but please, quit arguing semantics because all you do is give the entire OSS movement a bad name. Joe Sixpack will see some idiot blathering on about how free speech does not equal free beer and think we're all just a bunch of whining hippies. Then he'll never use OSS because he thinks there is a religious ideology behind it.

Show him good "free as in beer" software, then later on, if he's interested, educate him on why "free as in speech" is important too. Please do us all a favor and don't try to ram ideology down Joe Sixpack's throat.

Thoughts About Perceived Value and Open Source

[Anlace]

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.