Slashdot Mirror
Promoting FOSS to People Who Don't Care
MarcoF brings us his take on how to cultivate interest in open-source software to casual users who aren't interested in or necessarily aware of its existence. Many people simply have trouble leaving their comfort zone of older proprietary software; what's the best way to get them to look at an open-source alternative?
"Since most people would rather die than write or study software source code, it is actually counterproductive to promote software 'because you can modify it yourself and be part of its community'. Look for really practical advantages which can be enjoyed every day by the person you want to convince. Start from the actual deep passions, beliefs, interests and practical needs of the people in front of you and go backwards from there, delaying the apparition of terms like 'source code', 'the four software freedoms', GPL, Gnu, Linux, etc."
"Uh, just download it again, it'll probably take 10 minutes or less on a good internet connection"
"You can put it on as many computers as you like, for free, have fun."
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
I tried persuading all my friends, citing the freedom argument, the security argument, the stability, community etc. Nothing worked. Then I learned how. Show them the spinning cube (With my heavy metal friends, I go for a pentagonal prism), and shout 'It's free! It's free!' Over and over.
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
That way of they don't like it, they've lost nothing. They can always go ahaed and buy some stuff.
As the article says, this is about people who don't care. All they want is to get stuff done. They're not interested in discussing your personal philosophy so just give them what they want - without the sermon.
[1] yes, yes, I know free beer or speech. Don't forget we're still talking about people who don't care
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
seems to resonate a lot with most people. Of course, this assumes that installation etc does not involve a command line. But given a MSI like installer, I think that free would be a big selling point, followed by be able to do what you usually do.
Here's what I do: I lead by example. Then, when someone comes to me with his IE problem, I (honestly) tell him that I'm sorry but I can't help him with that because I use a better browser instead and point him to Firefox.
I don't evangalise, not anymore. But if you come to me with a question or a problem, you get to hear my opinion and very often that is "sorry, that sounds like it's a windos/IE/MS-Office/whatever-specific problem. I don't do windos/IE/MS-Office/etc anymore, can't help you with that. I can only recommend you check out Apple/Firefox/OpenOffice/etc as an alternative, it works for me and doesn't have that problem."
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The biggest advantage of Free Software is freedom from vendor lock in. Ever found a bug in a program and been told 'yes, we fixed that. Pay $100 for the new version if you want the fix?' Ever wanted to run the software on another machine and discovered you have to pay extra for another license? Ever wanted to send a file to someone else, found they don't have the software to open it, and wanted to send them a copy?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Answer those two questions and you will know if there is any point trying to convert people who don't care. There's no point trying to convert them if they aren't going to like the experience anyway.
I have a co-worker who absolutely loves open source software and uses every opportunity to lobby for its adoption in the office. Anytime Microsoft is mentioned or some MS software is causing him problems, he gets extremely upset and says that it's a perfect example of why we should switch our workstations to Linux.
He always loves to talk with me about how he used to do a lot of "scripting" back in the day and that I need to train him to administer our server someday so he can "know everything that's going on" in our operations.
During one of his sermons, another co-worker asked if he was using Linux at home, at which point he paused for a few seconds and started mumbling something about his router and "any day now".
It's about who owns their computer, them or the people who write the software. I point out numerous instances where various bits of proprietary software cause their computer to act in the developers best interests and against their own. DRM is one such, but there are others. I talk about how having the source code available allows 3rd parties to check up on the code and hold the original programmers accountable.
This is a complex argument, and hard for some people to grasp. But when people do it's pretty effective. Some people still don't care, but it's a much smaller percentage than the ones who think they don't care whether or not they have the source.
I think, maybe, I could refine it by linking it to voting machine issues and more people might get it then.
I also talk a bit about how they can give any software they have to friends for free and that it's perfectly legal and everything, and really that's how it should be. But that's a minor part of my little presentation.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
- When people are having problems with IE, I promote Firefox.
- When people are buying a new computer, I encourage them to try OpenOffice before buying MS Office. I've had several people try it and stick with it.
- When people complain about the loud ads in AIM, or having to run 4 different programs for AIM, Google Talk, MSN and Yahoo, I promote Pidgin.
- When someone wants to do some photo editing, but can't afford to shell out the cash for Photoshop, I suggest they try the Gimp. Nobody seems to like it, but they get their work done.
- When somebody can't get a media file to run, I suggest they try out VLC.
I have portable versions of all of the above (and then some) on my flash drive, so I can show people what I'm talking about if there's a computer nearby.
Once somebody is using most of the above software on Windows, I might suggest they try Linux if they voice a complaint about Windows (viruses, activation issues, slow boot time, bogged down system, etc.). I've gotten two people to try it out, one stuck with it, the other got a Mac.
There may be better promoters than my self, but I've found that if you're trying to push software (Free or not) on people who don't want it, they'll resist and you'll end up looking like an ass.
Don't try to convert them to a user of a complete system. Start with firefox. Then try thunderbird. Explain to them about tattle-ware, DRM, and bug fixing. Get your prospective users use to the idea of open source.
I have been using FreeBSD for years running only servers and few clients. I recently switched from Windows to XFCE primarily because all those little client applications filled up my computing experience. Windows is needed only for a few apps now.
And BTW, Mac OS is Unix and based on FreeBSD. That would be a good OS to advocate too. It's the next OS I plan to try.
Later,
Jason
This implies that the advantage that open source offers is lost on the common man. The best arguments have little or no value. I might be missing something, but open source has no advantage to the common man that does not understand it. So you have to play the game and forget the fact that it's open source. Open source alone does not improve a product.
To win the common man, you need to provide the advantages that a company currently offers. You need a nicely boxed product that has a support number. You need an intuitive install and a polished GUI. You need good marketing that sells the product and not the fact that its open source.
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
Just hire a spokesperson with really big tits. Like, really big.
You shouldn't have to promote anything. It's counter-productive, and you'll get blamed when stuff goes wrong. If FOSS solves a problem people have, make them aware of that. Then keep your mouth shut.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
Do they have current problems with the software they're using? If so, explain how a different piece of software will be able to alleviate those problems. If you're trying to get them to switch software just because its proprietary vs open source, well you should probably just leave them be.
Firefox is an easy sell. Get a stop watch, load any website in IE, then load the same page in firefox. On average, its a few seconds faster. Then I show them adblock. That has worked for me every time so far.
For the longest time, I resisted Linux. I had used it briefly in 2002, found it too difficult for everyday use.
Ever since then, I was under the impression that "Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing"
But what got me using Linux was Vista's crappyness.
I got my brothers using Open Office when one of them used an MS Office 2003 CD as an ashtray.
"How do I download it?"
"you go to the store, shell out a few hundred bucks, and buy a new copy, or download this free thing called open office"
"get me the free thing"
VLC media player is really easy to get people using, it plays just about any kind of file, and loads faster than the big programs.
I find convincing people to switch their OS is nearly impossible, but getting them to use other FOSS programs is rather simple: just deleted the propriety stuff and install the FOSS equivalent on their machines.
-I only code in BASIC.-
I just tell them to use it because it comes with free beer...Or something like that...
Someone I know gets a new PC, and very soon they ask "Do you know where I can get a copy of program X?" Generally, they're implying cheap or bootleg. I give them a DVD of a bunch of Windows apps that I've collected. Some FOSS, some not, but all legally free. Somewhat similar to the (now un updated) OpenCD project. "Try these". Paint.Net(which I find to be MUCH better than GIMP), OpenOffice, T-bird, Pidgin, IrfanView, audio editing, video editing, antivirus, etc, etc.
No evangelism, no preaching. Don't go on about the source code availability, 'giving back' to the community, just let the apps stand on their own. Their eyes will glaze over if you try too hard, because they don't really care. Yet.
They won't understand the underlying FOSS concepts, until they play with it for a while.
It seems to me that for open source to advance, we need to get past this notion of FOSS as a "liberal" thing. There are plenty of us conservative neo-nazi fascist trying to take over the world Republicans that love Linux and it is incumbent upon us to communicate that using Linux is not an endorsement of Joseph Stalin.
a) Open Source is not communism and its not socialism. Socialism and communism are centrally planned, whereas, an open source system consists of thousands of voices, each operating with their own agenda. If any system is more like a communist system, its a big corporate system, which has all of its components centrally planned and designed. It's not like Linus Torvalds writes all of Linux. He's just famous for writing a very important piece at the center of things. While its true that you are not going to make billions of dollars writing that one thing and selling it over and over again, there's nothing to stop you from building a consulting firm offering open source solutions that makes billions and billions of dollars, if you want.
b) Rugged individualism. Open source is software about the inventor, without all of that unproductive fluff of corporate programming. You make something yourself, and then you publish it. If its good, people will use it. If not, then the project quickly dies.
c) Honesty. Open source systems are brutally honest. Whereas a system in a store will be filled with hype and lies, by contrast, an open source system tells it like it is. One of the things that I love about Linux is that the documentation with most of the software package clearly and immediately lists things that don't work or haven't been tested enough.
d) No spying. These days, using a copy of Windows makes it almost seem like you might be a criminal just for using it. And Windows is completely sealed up, and who knows what sort of deals that Microsoft cuts with the government. Because there's no secret codes in open source systems, everyone would know right away if something was wrong with it.
e) A real community. Every program these days has its communities, but with open source, you have a genuine interaction between the people that write and the people that use the software. Working in an open source community is like working in an old rural town, where everyone chips in to build that neighbor's house. Open source lets all of its dirty laundry out.
This is my sig.
I was a guest speaker in a 4th year Engineering Management course earlier this year where I gave an hour long presentation on open source, including its history, the principles of community development, licensing, business models, and a class discussion.
During the presentation, I was discussing the motivations to use open source over proprietary software. I explained that one of the largest drivers was that it was free (as in liberty), and often free (as in beer). Very few of the students were programmers, so only the free as in beer resonated with them.
One student put his hand up and asked, "So what's the big deal with Firefox? I already get Internet Explorer 'for free' with Windows. Why would I bother going to the trouble of getting Firefox and using it? The 'free' principle doesn't seem to apply here?"
I thought about his question for a moment and responded with two points.
1) Internet Explorer isn't really free. It's disguised in the price of Windows.
2) The motivation with Firefox is more about preserving open web standards. Here the traditional motivations of using open source are secondary. It's a long term discussion about making sure the Internet doesn't become the Microsoft Net, populated with broken, half-standards.
The students who knew anything about web development (about 3 of the 40) all nodded in agreement. The rest of the class gave me blank stares. It is really important to find a perspective that the listener will relate to.
Suggestions on how to improve my presentation for next term's class would be most welcome.
My main argument for free software in general is that you are not dependent on a single supplier for support and upgraded. Let the suppliers compete on provided the best value for money, rather than lock yourself into a single vendor.
To gets more specific than that, I need to consider who want the software, and for what purpose. Often my advice will be to go with a proprietary solution.
(If all your friends are using Macs and you have no particular interest in computers or specialized needs, chance is that you will also be most happy with a Mac).
Our office was doing a major expantion, double the staff. The accountant was driving herself nuts trying to source Office CD's for everyone.
Then I installed OpenOffice on my machine. She walked by, and went "you didn't install Office without a key did you, because that's against the rules." I then proceeded to show her OO, how it works, what it was. Then came the big sale, "..and best of all, it's free."
Our office is MS Office free now, altho one holdout refuses to go OO, so eventually I installed the beta of IBM Lotus Symphony and all is good.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
I try to promote FOSS projects as much as I can -- however it is the community that often kicks themselves in the butt. Often times I have received calls from friends or co-workers that installed a one-off OSS project that I recommended. Usually when they took the time to find the proper support for something that is broken, people's responses are "Well, go fix it!", or "Download the latest code from the SVN, change XYZ to file ZZZ.cpp and compile." They have no idea what an SVN is, let alone an idea of how to use it, or compile the results.
Lots of these people just want to use their computer. Paying some company $50 is no big deal if they can call them up and complain about a bug or mis-guided feature. Heck, they don't mind paying the $150 for Office because they know it is a well-supported community, and just about everybody can help them. (OpenOffice is making great strides in this area too).
[Note - not trolling nor taking the piss, long term Free Software user, advocate and author]
For people who care about such things, when you first really realise what Free Software is about, it can be overwhelming. You can believe how you ever coped without it; and can't see why everyone doesn't make the switch. The resultant desire for evangelising is strong, and can be positive but the key thing to ask yourself is: "who are you doing this for - you or them?". If they don't care about software, by trying to persuade them to switch to Free Software are you actually helping their life in a way which is meaningful for them or are you helping fight your own sense of (rightious) indignation about what commercial software companies have done to them.
So the question is - why bother? If people ask; I will tell them about Free Software, why I use it and what the benefits are. I may point them in the direction of the relevant alternatives but after that it's up to them - if they want to start caring about software then I will answer their questions and help where I can but they have to make that choice.
Each new version reveals the weaknesses of proprietary software. Vendors need to sell software to keep going, and they need to provide a reason for people to upgrade. Until very recently, the continuous increase in computing power and the availability of new features made this a no-brainer.
Now, well, the "expansion areas" that software companies are looking involve turf wars with other "content companies", so any features they add are basically worthless (woop-dee-do, a home theater system that will sometimes do what I want). Meanwhile, they have to make it "like new", so they change the interface, and hope that establishing "Software as a Service" will solve their problems.
People don't like giving up their experience at something unless there's a significant reward. So, bang, here they are, forced to pay out for the supernew version of whatever, which runs slower, has an unfamiliar interface, and does less for them. Heck, if you want that, why spend money on it when you can get OpenOffice for free?
When people see their old files become useless because of a software upgrade, they start to listen about open formats. When Qualcomm drops Mac Eudora support, and the adserver runs a general but anonymous alarm every two minutes, why not take a break from setting those addresses to 127.0.0.1, and explain how every bit of proprietary software on that glorified fashion accessory could potentially have the same problem? That somewhere down the line, the company may fold, or simply decide to cease support, and that program (and the data it accesses) will become useless or worse, screw up any other task you're trying to perform. Software as a Service might be good on a yearly basis, but your data needs to last a lifetime.
There's no sense evangelizing: people are having very real problems today that could be solved by F/OSS.
If it doesn't work out for you, then go buy that program you were planning on buying in the first place.
This is one of the strongest arguments I've used to get individuals to use OpenOffice.org
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Free as in freedom is great and all, although a little high minded for the average computer user. But 'free as in beer' is the real crowd pleaser.
You think anyone would have given a hoot what Patrick Henry was saying if the Brits had not tried several unpopular taxes?
FAQs are evil.
Good idea.
I've actually done this for family, friends, and even a customer who was insisting on 'borrowing' a CD with a particularly well known application after I helped him reinstall Windows. I replaced his application with OpenOffice, saying "While you decide on how you're going to acquire [application], I'm going to put this free alternative here on your computer, so you can at least have a legal way to open and edit your documents. What you do when you get off the phone with me is up to you, but..." and left it at that.
If as many people got sued for using pirated software as got sued by the RIAA/MPAA etc. for alleged copyright infringement of music and video, Open Source and Free Software would become very popular over night.
Big software companies will never do this since they know that the grass roots user base, who often "borrows" software from work and friends are vital to keeping interest in their products.
How many home users have ever been sued for having a non-legitimate copy of Windows, Office or Photoshop?
Stick Men
Just tell them its free, that will at least get their attention.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I tell my friends that I get special disks from the manufacturer that don't require activation. That it's normally very expensive software but, as a promotional deal, they can install and use it on as many machines as they want and not get in trouble.
For some reason when people think they're getting some kind of special deal, FOSS gets a better reception.
The other promotion for FOSS that works is using Knoppix to rescue a Windows box with a virus. It's like magic to them.
I'm not worried about F/OSS becoming the defacto commodity desktop and specialty OS, that's already a given. I'm more worried about F/OSS after it becomes the defacto desktop standard. Success is two-edged sword.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Tie them to a chair in your basement in front of a PC with no OS on it and a Slackware CD, and tell them no food or water until you see a nice KDE/Slackware install...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
For people who don't really care about this 'freedom' thing in software, the normal economical arguments still apply. If you can show somebody that he can have a qualitatively good progam that does what he needs, he'll be glad with it. No ideology required.
"Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks
People who don't care about free software may do so because they don't know what freedom is. So we need to link software freedom with other broader freedoms and educate people on general freedom issues as well. If a person doesn't care about their freedom of speech, for example, there is no chance they will care about free software either.
Most people aren't aware of alternatives, because they got used to going online and downloading "shareware" or "freeware" They don't realize that there are full-featured Office alternatives out there that are much more than just some little shareware program. My coworker (at a software company) has never even heard of Firefox either! Making them aware of the alternative is step #1. But I would suggest not making step #1 until the FOSS is ready. As long as it is free, EASY TO INSTALL (cough, not GIMP, cough), and "almost" as good as Microsoft Office, people will start using it in droves. Right now, though, people see too many glitches and quirks that make it not worth their time.
Businesses are mortified by the idea of software that is zero-cost. They know it because it's unrealistic to assume they're getting something for nothing, and just telling them those costs are in consulting or hiring instead doesn't make them feel any better.
Instead, I focus on avoiding lock-in, where lock-in is if you pick a vendor, and they go south, (or you do), you're shit out of luck; Whichever vendor your chose is going to make it as difficult as possible for you to ever use another vendor, but if they go out of business, then so do you.
Free Software means if you don't like it, you can hire anyone to fix it. Non-Free software means if you don't like it, you only have one choice as to who to hire-and you'd better hope you can afford it.
In the past 12 months, I have had many occasions when freinds or family have been unable to open Word files (possibly because they are old, we dont know) or edit tables with newer versions of Word, and the answer is OpenOffice! Files open, and tables edit. MS products are becoming so annoying that even Joanne Sixpack is ready to jump ship.
Anyone bringing me a 'puter with a virus is told their options are
A) Go an buy a new computer with Windows, and dont bring it to me when its reinfected
b) Buy a Mac (Free training available from most teenagers in the family)
c) I will install the Linux of their choice (Thir choice is Ubuntu :-) or FreeBSD - if
all they want is to read e-mail and word files, then as much training as they want - one
bottle of Henessey brandy per evening.
d) Take it to someone else who will charge the price of a "new" (ie second hand) computer to reinstall Windows, whereupon, in all probability, it willl immediately get the same virus from the same place, since none of us know where it came from .
No further options availaable.
We all known it was the teeenagers accessing pr0n wot done it, but experience shows that even if they dont do it twice, and they mostly do, the preteens will be teenagers in a year or two. Some people never grow up.
It does no harm to explain that the problem is IE, and they should have been using FireFox if they dont want this kind of grief.
All teenagers are allowed to get the hint that viewing pr0n via Firefox is safer because it will reduce thee risk of parents being able to check their viewing history. Using Linux will allow them to learn where the hidden histories are and delete them with certainty.Once they hear it will also allow them to be confident that their siblings cant view their "secret" data, generally they don't need this hint repeated.
On hearing the list of choices, they have only one question: "which would you recommend" to which the answer is obviously "Buy a Mac". Most look at the prices of Macs and then elect for (c). Some buy a Mac. Some go and get someone else to reinstall Windows, and then gome back for (C) a few months later.
If anyone brings me a computer for devirusing a second time, it joins the others in the cupboard under the stairs.
If they want a demonstration of Linux, tough, but I have three machines running FreeBSD in the front room, and I dont expect they can tell the difference.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
We have enough technological evangelism out there. Usually the people at the forefront are idiots because they take it so seriously. This isn't a zero-sum game where one side must totally win and the other must totally lose. If a free program meets the user's needs in a better way than a proprietary program, then mention it. This notion that you must evangelize the programs really lends credence to when people suggest OSS is a religion to some people.
Want to find out how much zealots believe in choice? Don't go along with what what they're advocating, and see how they react.
When i tell people that my computer never gets a virus because it has Linux on it, it seems to peek peoples curiosity.
Crisis is the rule, not the exception.
Computer users are already using software they can continue to use for free, and secondly most average users are pirates. Even people who can't figure out how to use bittorrent can borrow discs or ask someone to make a copy. I work in a lab at a paint factory and piracy (especially movie/tv) is rampant. No one netting less then 500/wk is going to drop hundres on MS office. That's beer, weed, and child support money.
The people who don't have computers or skills (ie the production dept) know who does and who to harass. Once you've burned something for someone it's hard to say no to someone else. I don't really mind though because they appreciate it so immensely and it's so little effort on my part. I could probably make a killing at work selling dvds for a few bucks. I'm usually offered $5 at least but I just tell people the blanks only cost me about 20 cents and decline.
I would say the best way to spread open source software is at work on dvd's. The next time someone asks you for a copy of office tell them you have something else that's even better. If they protest provide both. Or when fixing a computer for someone install open source on it (with or without permission depending on the person and your relationship). I forced my entire family to use firefox simply by removing all the IE shortcuts on their computers and replacing them with Firefox. Then I just informed them that's what you use for "the internet" now. It works so similar and they do such basic things there was really no difference.
I don't think promoting free software to users who don't care will do the free software movement any good. A big market share is not necessary for free software. A significant market share will help increase driver support by manufacturers, but I think a significant market share can be achieved without people who do not care.
After all, free software is about freedom, so what good is it to a person who doesn't want that freedom? When somebody choses to give up their freedom, you can try to tell them about that but if they really don't care, I don't see the need to persuade them.
I prefer having people involved with free software that want to make the ideas behind it work. If free software were merely free of charge, then there would only be a small difference, because the functionality is not always better than that of proprietary software. The real difference is the freedom you gain. You control your computer, not somebody else. If somebody doesn't care, what's the point?
The strength of a civilization is not measured by its ability to fight wars, but rather by its ability to prevent them.
It really depends on what the person wants out of his/her computer.
;) (despite the fact that it had me hooked for almost a year)
* An uninformed computer nerd (I know a few at work) needs to know how easy it is to look inside the hood of the OS and various programs. Also, the fact that *nixes (not just Linux) are almost always just *ready* for programming is really very appealing.
* Eyecandy lovers can be easily lured -- Compiz/Beryl.
* Small businesses will find the cost aspect appealing -- especially the typical ones where major usage is only email, surfing, spreadsheets, presentations and document processing. Another appealing factor could be that one can simply "Save as PDF" in OOWriter
* A gamer is the most difficult to get aboard. Anyone know a killer game that only runs Linux? No, not Nethack
>1) Internet Explorer isn't really free. It's disguised in the price of Windows.
Firefox is not really free its disguised in the price of a computer...
Seriously think hard about this. If I buy a computer preloaded with Windows IE is free. Sure somewhere there is an included cost of Windows, but I don't see that price.
If I buy a computer with Linux preloaded on it then disguised in the price of the computer is some person who went through the configuration of the computer and installed everything properly so it works.
What the Open Source community really has to begin understanding that Free or Freedom that Open Source gives you is not really an argument that most people want. People want to get their jobs done, and if that means buying higher priced hardware (eg Apple) then they will do it.
I think this worked on the server side because freedom to configuration, twiddle and manage is actually very important on the server.
The way I compare it as follows. Most people could not care less if their hoods were welded shut because they would rather not want to look under the hood. They just want to drive from point A to point B.
Yet a farmer who uses vehicles wants to be able to take apart and reassemble their vehicle because they need to get things done right away. A Farmer has special needs from their vehicles and thus wants complete control or the freedom...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I'll join this one.
Elsewhere, we determined that certain OldSchool types would say "Gee, the software is 'Free', so I'm confused".
The answer is, "That's right. The professional companies make the living with customized personal support."
Having thought about this for a few minutes, our User comes up with "So, what are *you* going to charge me?"
"Nothing. My time today is a gift so you can get started like a demo. If you want me to manage your company's switchover, we can talk about a contract."
In Business Terms:
The accounting term is called "goodwill". That's what the single user-demos are building. Let the new user get started, and dig him out of a stray problem or two. The message slowly spreads that if the newcomer tried a little research, asks an intelligent question nicely, he/she'll get an answer. Then when he gets his project Out The Door, there's time to sit back and think deeply.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
What's with this fucking spam all of the sudden.
Isn't is possible to add in a layer orso that blocks all those IP addresses that are used for this crap?
Anonymous Cowardness is good and all to be able to talk about a company acting (illegal|immoral), but isn't it possible to just add a spamfilter of some kind?
Talk to Google or something, see if you can make a deal and have a spamfilter inserted somewhere in your rackspace.
For the meanwhile, I've just set my browse level to +1, for the first time since I registered on slashdot.
Manuals are your last resort only
... is for there to actually BE FOSS alternatives.
.obj seems to be pretty useable, and interchanges between Blender and Max, so (for modelling, anyway) it's down to learning curve and individual application features.
Currently these exist for Office, web browsers, IRC clients, and a wealth of programming language, server functionality, networking tools, etc.
Where FOSS fails and fails hard is in the creative space - and I don't mean grammar checking or forty different ways to parse text. I mean, ultimately, FOSS alternatives for applications like the Macrodobe MX and CS suites, the Final Cut Studio suite, 3d Studio MAX, etc. The areas where the major ISVs are still raking in buckets of money.
The natural response to that statement would be to extoll the virtues of The GIMP, Blender, etc - which is ultimately missing the point. I'm not talking about basic funtionality (for which both apps are perfectly useful!), I'm talking about the hard, nasty, horrifying shit that nobody wants to program without a fat salary and plenty of fringe benefits. The kind of functionality that keeps creative art nerds who can't program paying thousands - or tens of thousands - of dollars a year for the aforementioned applications.
Beyond that...
Your grandmother will care when it's as easy to use as the Mac you insisted she get.
Your 3d modeling geek friend will care when something MAX or Maya compatible comes around. Fortunately,
Your video editing friend will be a real challenge to convince. FOSS is not renowned for being user-friendly, and it's really, really hard to top Final Cut Pro and its interaction with the Quicktime API. For what it does and the users it's aimed at, the Final Cut Studio is cheap.
Your gamer geek friend wouldn't care either way, so long as it runs all of his games.
Joe Average - who doesn't play games, doesn't use photoshop or big 3d suites, doesn't use AutoCAD.... if it looks like and functions like whatever he's used to, you could probably switch his computer, change the desktop wallpaper on the new box to whatever he's using.... and see how long it takes him to notice.
The 'duh, it's free' or 'you don't need to have a serial' card might seem perfectly obvious, but is in fact largely redundant. In most of the world, FOSS is not competing with free. People don't understand the difference between free beer and free speech and it doesn't matter anyway. Pretty much all software is considered free in all possible ways.
Granted, this may not be completely true for transitional countries like the United States, where the ecosystem still supports packs of hungry lawyers prowling the inner cities, and roving bands of thugs led by software robber barons might beat down your door at any time, sometimes even backed up by what passes for law enforcement agencies over there.
However for the rest of the world 'free' is not good enough. So even though the chances of getting prosecuted for copyright violation are slimmer than being struck by an asteroid, point out to people that they're doing the right thing by using software that is legal to use. This is not quite as easy a sell, and it will take some explaining. But at least it is just a little more relevant than 'free'.
Thanks for all your comments. Just one note: the actual, complete title of the piece is "How to turn into Free Software supporters people who couldn't care less". Please notice the difference: supporters, not users. The first paragraph is "Focus on making people support Free Software, rather than using it". Make them ask to their representatives, school boards, whatever... that Free standards and software are duly protected and preferred in some institutional settings. That is more urgent and necessary than converting everybody and their cat to _personally_ using Linux. Once you are sure that you can use only FOSS in any possible situation, because websites follow standards, Opendocument is preferred to OpenXML and so on, then you can concentrate on making more users, even if it will take decades, but only then.
Who did you have in mind, Daniela Cicarelli?
I quit doing win32 tech support for free sometime in the early '00's. I will, on occasion, setup a new computer, or rebuild one.
When that happens, I load it up with Open Office, etc... and explain the new and free stuff. I also explain why their computer got all hosed up, and that lots of shovelware, freeware, etc... can cause them lots of problems. OSS is reliable, free and useful.
From there, they get to make their own choices, knowing they are largely on their own. (I'm not likely to rebuild again, if they've done that crap.)
If possible, I'll answer the how to question, with an OSS application, as well.
As noted elsewhere, the no license key bit is getting powerful these days. I leverage that a lot.
Blogging because I can...
The zealot never considers the possibility the proprietary alternative may simply be best-of-breed. He inflates the cost by quoting retail list for the most expensive version on the market.
If your employer has a volume licensing agreement with Microsoft, you may be able to get a full version of Office for the price of S&H. Home Use Program
MS Office Home 2007, with a three seat license, sells retail boxed for around $125.
The price of five replacement inkjet cartridges.
The software is essentially a one-time purchase, it's the price of consumables and services that will eat you alive. It is calculations like these that help programs like Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop Elements to compete against the GIMP.
Microsoft Office Home is a handsome and accessible site that consolidates resources for both amateur and professional users. OpenOffice.org plain text, pure Geek, circa 1992.
This is inexcusable for a marquee open source project backed by powerhouses like IBM and Sun.
It does not invite users to dig any deeper into FOSS. Rather it will have them running - not walking - in the opposite direction.
____ God help you if a problem with a FOSS app leads your potential convert to Slashdot and an encounter with the GNAA.
People have no idea that a thing, software, can be "free as in speech." I don't even go there.
But when I tell people the software is free as in "you don't have to pay any money, you can copy to as many computers as you want, you can pass it along," they tend to look at me sideways. They are deeply suspicious. They just don't believe it. Generally, they voice two objections. The first is "If it's free, it must be crap." The second is "What's the catch? It can't *really* be free."
At that point, it's easy to reel them in. I just appeal to their natural skepticism, make them think their view of the world is especially insightful, and feed their greed. Here's how: "No, actually, it's not crap; it's better than the stuff they charge money for. Ya see, the people who write this free software give it away to everyone so that people will use it. Every once in a while, the head of I.T. in some big company tries it, likes it, and installs it in the company. Then the company will need some customization or training or other support so they'll call the people that wrote it and give them money to help out. The software writers make big money providing support, the companies save a lot of money because free software plus paid support is still cheaper than paying the ungodly cost of MS Office for every employee, and as this sort of minor, unintended side effect, regular folks like us get to acquire and use really high quality software for no money at all. Ain't that cool?"
The light bulb clicks on over their head. Their eyes furtively dart from side to side. Suddenly, they act like they just found a Rembrandt accidentally thrown out in the trash. They join me in the conspiracy to rip off the man (or so they think) and gladly take the CD that I'm offering.
No, it's not 100% accurate and it does tastelessly appeal to the base instincts of the mark. It's even comparable to an end-user marketing strategy commonly used to push crack. But it gets people to use (most often) a free AV product or (occasionally) OpenOffice, AbiWord, Firefox, et. al. They can learn more deeply later; I just want them to start using the stuff in the here and now. I want them to get used to the notion of not paying for software. This approach has had the most success for me.
sigh I hate to nit-pick these things, but "goodwill" in an accounting context means something completely different. Specifically, when one company acquires another, they pay an amount of cash, often (usually) well above the value of the other company's assets. To balance this difference, the purchasing company is said to have acquired a fictitious asset called "goodwill" that accounts for the difference in value between the company's assets and the paid value of the acquired company. So if you pay $10,000,000 for a company that has $2,000,000 in assets, you've acquired (in accounting terms) $2,000,000 in assets and $8,000,000 in goodwill.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
A couple of friends have then gone and purchased Ubuntu from Amazon...... ARRRHHHH! Three things:
I'm having trouble understanding some of the earlier posts; should I have my grandma use Foo v1.0 because it's free, and ethical, and she doesn't have to click "OK" to activate the product, and it wasn't written by an evil greedy corporation, and she can change the source code and participate in the Foo community (as if)? Are those the only reasons? Has anybody considered she might not even need to use the Foo v1.0 software to begin with? Maybe she's using EvilCorporateFoo v1.0 and she's used to it and happy with it, or maybe she doesn't use either and has no plans or intentions to do so. In that case, from her perspective, Foo is just a solution looking for a problem.
...", and you find an FOSS solution, then you can hit them with "This is also FOSS, and free/easy/useful of course. Isn't this FOSS stuff cool?"
The points raised already should not be the primary reasons; they should be secondary. Primary arguments need to probe for dissatisfaction with existing software, or a problem that can be resolved by using a new software package. Ask yourself "Does Foo v1.0 remedy the user's problems, and not introduce any new problems that can't be resolved?" If you can answer that, then tell the user about Foo v1.0...and pepper your conversation with the advantages of FOSS (they'll love the "Free" part).
If the user gets Foo, and they're happy with it, and they come back to you in a month and says "I need a program that can
Anybody else notice this? I have not done a scientific study, but it seems to me that when an article is not msft friendly, there are a flood of the "N" word posts.
Already large groups of people believe that software is "free" - they download it, install it and use it. They never paid a dime for it. They aren't going to, because someone made it available to them for free and you can count on people continuing to do so. Regardless of any laws to the contrary.
They have been doing this for years, since before the "Internet", although it has really taken off with the advent of warez web sites, P2P downloading and other stuff.
You are never going to convince someone that "vendor lock-in" is bad when they consider they are shafting the vendor just as much as the vendor is shafting them. Excessive costs? What cost? They are getting this stuff for free.
Does everyone do this? No, but it is a sizable group. Certainly enough to make a dent in overall statistics of revenue and use. The folks "in the know" about this consider the people paying to be losers and dummies, so you need a "guide" to get in with the right crowd. Information like this isn't free, especially for the people that are just graduating from AOL U.
Arguing about "free" software is pointless to these people. They aren't going to listen because to them all software is "free". There are no "vendors", there is no "support" and there are no costs.
I spent a few hours today promoting FOSS at the Bracknell Computer Fair (UK). In general, we are getting a more and more positive situation and recognition of Linux and FOSS in general. We probably distributed more Ubuntu/Kubuntu live Cd's today than ever before.
However one person today accused FOSS proponents of being Leeches. He stated that he worked(retired now) for a now defunct British computer maker that was taken over by a large japanese company and that we (FOSS proponents) were nothing more than leeches buy using the R&D of his former company and giving nothing back. His venom was only to obvious to see so I didn't try even think about arguing with him. It was not worth it. However he go me thinking about his statement.
After some reflection, I have to state that he is 'barking mad'. Why would the likes of IBM, Sun, RedHat etc put lots of R&D $$$, Yen, GBP, Euros etc into Open source and actually want to get nothing in return?
It simply does not stack up unless, you follow the Microsoft business model.
But, the question remains though, how do we get this sort of person on our side?
As an aside, many schools seem to be giving two fingers to Vista. Not through ideology but simply expense. Many schools just can't afford the hardware upgrade costs even if M$ were giving away Vista for next to nothing.
I expect that some people simply can't or won't be persuaded.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
"they basically won't even notice the difference with switching to Linux and KDE."
I respectfully disagree.
You might mean that "once they use all these apps, making the final leap to Linux is far less burdensome". But it definitely is noticeable.
However incomplete, by now all Windows users have learned certain basic concepts at a visceral gut level they don't have the language to describe. They "just do this and that".
I have a nice friendly little Dapper Drake to my right. He's only seeing 10% usage right now, because I keep discovering these little unnerving differences. It feels like a visit to Britain where everyone drives on the left.
My newest discovery is that apps apparently don't put shortcuts onto the desktop (at least in Gnome). So where do I find the new programs I just downloaded? (The package menu didn't clearly indicate where it went.)
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Free software is often associated with illegal, or spyware loaded, or trial-ware, or beta-versions, or god-only-knows what.
No business wants "free" software that is loaded with problems.
"If any system is more like a communist system, its a big corporate system, which has all of its components centrally planned and designed."
They are competing against other such corporations for market share. Why should it be otherwise? I'll have none of your liberal do-gooder attitude.
"Open source is software about the inventor, without all of that unproductive fluff of corporate programming. You make something yourself, and then you publish it. If its good, people will use it. If not, then the project quickly dies."
If you don't get paid for it, the project dies anyway. If the developers aren't receiving money from you, what incentive do they have to cater to your needs?
"Whereas a system in a store will be filled with hype and lies, by contrast, an open source system tells it like it is."
In a free market, companies that lie will die out, while honest ones thrive. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
"These days, using a copy of Windows makes it almost seem like you might be a criminal just for using it. And Windows is completely sealed up, and who knows what sort of deals that Microsoft cuts with the government."
If it aids the War on Terror then it's worth it. Privacy is NOT a guaranteed right in the constitution but has been used to justify abominations such as abortion. Besides, you can't blame companies for what the government does.
"Every program these days has its communities, but with open source, you have a genuine interaction between the people that write and the people that use the software. Working in an open source community is like working in an old rural town, where everyone chips in to build that neighbor's house."
It's more like a commune where everyone is provided for, despite their laziness. What are the users doing to earn their keep?
I hate to piss on the parade here, but OSS will sell itself when the software is seen as better quality enough than the paid edition for the learning curve to be worth it. Consumers engage in a cost/benefit analysis when choosing. "I know Windows, so I'll have to learn Linux": cost. "Evolution is an almost-but-not-quite as good alternative to Outlook": cost. Whoops, where's the benefit? "But it's FREE!" Not good enough.
How about:
"I know Windows, so I'll have to learn Linux": cost. "Evolution does everything you want to AND does this new cool thing": benefit. If it's a cool enough new thing, people will go for it.
I'm talking desktop software here. Linux and OSS is wildly popular on the server side because its benefits in that area are obvious and the benefits wildly outweigh the costs. Abiword is a much harder package to try to "sell" to a potential user because its benefits are not quite good enough and the cost is too high (ie the learning curve, not the price).
I love Linux on my desktop but I use it for writing, text processing, and a whole slew of CLI apps, since I'm not much of a GUI fan. But I'm not the kind of computer user you have to convince to use OSS. Those people need software whose benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Sadly, OSS software continues to be in catch up mode on the desktop. Had the OSS folks come up with Apple's Expose and compositing desktop first, or if Abiword did some of the cool stuff that Apple's Pages does, or if Evolution did some cool Facebook/Myspace/whatever (I don't use the stuff) tie-in thingy, you could say, "why are you using that tired old software, when [OSS product] does THIS?"
And it would promote itself.
If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
So then your solution is to focus on the "I have Alzheimer's" demographic?
There's only one CD... how hard could it possibly be to keep track of? Or if you need them laying all over the place... just make a copy. It's not illegal to make copies, you only get in trouble for having one licence and putting it on ten computers. In fact, if you want to Slipstream the service pack into the install disk, you actually HAVE TO burn the CD.
Or.... you could just copy the files onto a file server.
So this is a really bad FUD point, since it doesn't stand up to reality. Which is not to say the other, more established FUD points are any more realistic (like the FOSS is more secure FUD point).
You have to convince the PHB that other businesses are using the F/OSS software successfully. Very few businesses want to go out on a limb just to save a few bucks. But, if the PHBs think they are burning up their budgets unnecessarily, they may give F/OSS a chance.
The easiest way to get people to start using OS products is to figure out thier week spot, then next time you mention firefox/linux/gimp/thunderbird you can go, "oh and it can...."
e.g my mate liked cute animals, so i offered her amor ( a little pointless animal that talks rubish (alot like paperclip)
Read this http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FLOSS_Concept_Booklet
With Microsoft's new version of Office, my coworker is
Then when it came time to buy a new computer fleet, that hit for MS Office suddenly racked up. We went with it anyway, but the price tag earned a Frown.
Frowns at price tags are the seeds of FOSS conversion.
The only sales barrier I run into is that it's "okay" for people to be erratic on Windows, but it's "not okay" to show the efforts of learning Linux. That's why I'm reserving my initial Thundering NewBirdy questions for the slightly-more-forgiving environment here before I take a stab at rolling it out at work.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Not anymore.
We ended up getting Office on our machines anyway, but only after carefully discussing software unity and advanced feature issues. To win the day, there had to be a reason to usie it when placed opposite the zero cost Open Office I am happily using on my personal machine.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The guys moved project and the OpenDisc is built on the OpenCD codebase. You've also got the OpenEducationDisc for the kiddies and students.
Show them something from FOSS that solves their particular problem more elegantly and easily than the closed (or perhaps nonexistent, better yet) solution. Otherwise, why *should* they care if what they have works well for them and causes them negligible frustration? If the free alternative doesn't do what they want, people will spend money on something else. Everyone's time, as well, has value to them. If the OSS (or the commercial, it goes both ways) takes too much time, they will look for something else, or just forgo doing that particular thing with their computer.
Not preaching, just serves as a nice gift that meets a lot of needs and lets your friends discover FOSS at their own speed. Try out the OpenDisc and OpenEducationDisc projects at www.theopendisc.com The OpenCD is dead, but the main guy is working on the OpenDisc now.
"all through my house i set up traps, it seems like the rats have a map, so now i feed the rats crack" - Donald D
http://f8d.org/?c=91
The problem with slashdotters promoting FOSS is that they, themselves, don't practice what they preach. Slashdot is full of Apple fanboys and fangirls who preach the virtues of iPhone and iPod, which are completely closed platforms, and Macintosh, which is a largely closed platform (I don't hear many fanboys/fangirls replacing their Mac OS X with Darwin to be FOSS).
You can't be simultaneously an advocate for both FOSS and Apple products. That's like being simultaneously an advocate for FOSS and Microsoft products. It's all fine and good to ditch the evil empire, but choosing Apple over Microsoft is like choosing the Romulans over the Klingons.
There are alternatives to Apple, and most of them are cheaper. Instead of Mac OS X, choose Ubuntu. Instead of a Mac laptop, buy a generic. Instead of iPhone and iPod, get a Nokia N800 or N810 and use a free phone with Bluetooth to make your calls.
I submit that the best supporters are impassioned users.
Suppose you call me a Linux Supporter... I'm all for the philosophy. That's why there's a nice little Drake sitting next to me.
But a supporter has to be knowledgeable and fluent to succeed in presenting a new idea different from the status quo.
By now I'm passably fluent with Firefox, and I can at least get what I need out of Open Office. But I still haven't learned enough Linux to be able to *present* anything.
As for "people who don't care"... all people will begin to budge by microscopic degrees simply upon hearing that a true choice exists. They may decline for all the usual spectacular reasons, but they can't completly forget.
Anyone I have ever had to present something to asks one question. "Does it do X?" If not, *or if you flub the presentation*, they settle back into their safety zone again. The decision zone to keep them interested is about seven seconds. If you can get past the "does it do X" question, they tend to open up for at least a few more minutes, and really spend a little effort starting to think about the brave new world.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
How many customers had help?
If they just plugged it in for five minutes, by themselves, and didn't like it (couldn't figure it out, etc), that's absolutely something we need to work on, but it's not a reason not to talk to people who you can actually support at least long enough to get them running.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Free isn't free if it means spending more time learning my way around a new system (and compensating for its limitations) than the time it takes to make the necessary safeguards to run Windows smoothly (which, granted, is way too long).
Just something from the point of view of someone has has voluntarily not switched to open source...
Nobody's telling you what to do, it's about pointing out the benefits of the alternatives. If the general population drove $10,000 Nissans, and you could get a Bugatti Veyron for free, why wouldn't the kindly Veyron enthusiasts point this out to their benighted counterparts?
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
It's all about education.
I have never heard of VLC, and as remarked in a post farther below, I too had the question "does it do X"?
For me, the killer feature is the ability to play Tracker files. Undiscovered glitches aside, I am pleased to note that VLC does play tracker files. It now joins DeliPlayer as a music player.
WinMedia11 thrashed how my machines handle my army of 3rd party music players. Their whole point is that they double as flash drives that can handle a few tunes as well. WMP11 locked them down in some weird way. When I uninstalled it, the players returned to normal.
Later I will examine VLC to see if it can also adequately serve me for video playback. If so, then this is one more successful FOSS conversion.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I agree. The Goodwill realized in the sale is merely the final monetary valuation to the growing intangible value created.
FOSS defines the value of the software itself as zero. But the organizational structure connected with a particular project becomes a joined part of the holistic endeavor. When a successful FOSS project acquires money while changing hands, it is through the built up intangible value.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
"I submit that the best supporters are impassioned users."
Sure, no question about that. The point of my article is to just say
"such supporters aren't enough to guarantee FOSS survival, so it is
urgent that they find ways to convince others to support (which is
not necessarily equivalent to "use") FOSS and open standards by governments.
Marco F.
I'm a Mac user myself, so maybe I don't have the right outlook. But I think for most users, a computer is just another machine: they don't care, as long as it looks the same and does the same boring stuff. So, most of the time, Windows, MS Office and Internet Explorer (or maybe Firefox) make up "the computer", teh "enabler". Maybe that's what Linux needs to become: a generic appliance that people associate with a particular activity: "the thing that does that", so to speak, if you know what I'm getting at. Just like the Mac is "the thing that does what I want to do", Linux in its many guises and shapes needs to be something you just turn on, like a TV or radio, and just use. Mu wife has that relationship (!) with her computer, an iMac 20" Core 2 Duo (oh yes, I am in the Mac business): she never turns it off. It goes to sleep and she just uses it. It had been three weeks since the last restart when we had some people over the other day and I felt I had to look for software updates, which prompted a restart... It's an appliance that does text editing, a little coding, photo editing , records and plays music, and so on. It's no longer a machine that's a great mystery: its just works, like a hi-fi system or TV. And that's part of the beauty of good software and hardware design, in my opinion.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
Sure, FOSS has lots of good things about it. Free as in beer, Free as in speech, More eyes on the code, Lower cost of ownership, on par or better performance than the alternatives in many cases...
But I don't think that's how you will get most people to support it. Instead, you need to change how they think about FOSS... So, I propose that we use this way of thinking:
FOSS is the software world's Standard of Living.
I'll take a very strong computer software industry with a lot of competition and that many users are willing to pay for: AntiVirus software. There are many players here willing to compete for this market. Now, what of the open source solution? ClamAV is an excellent anti-virus solution. It's able to catch and clean most of the viruses which appear in the wild. It's not the best, but it's awfully good. Sure, it has its drawbacks (in particular, the inability to check in real time on a Win32 box) but that hasn't stopped it from being used in many products like Firewall, mail servers, file servers and others.
So, this means that ClamAV is available to everybody, no matter what platform or price point. Not made for your platform? Port it yourself. You can't do that with the proprietary options.
If we promote FOSS as the standard of living, then hopefully people will want to contribute to the standard of living. Thanks to the "Standard of Living", nobody will have to go without an Office Suite anymore. (Thank you OpenOffice.org, and the others like KOffice and AbiWord!)
This is Just how I would promote it.
--Pathway
Part of the problem is: how does someone know it's free? Certainly the fact that it comes affixed with such a label doesn't tell you that--how do you know you're getting it from someone who is reliable if it comes in a free pack from anyone. If a van pulls up on the street and offers you something that looks like a consumer item at radically reduced price, you're already on alert... is the stuff stolen? You can get a lot of nearly free versions of DVDs of movies off of the net, too, but they turn out to be bootlegs. If people are charging media cost for disks of so-called free software, software that obviously took time to produce, how is that not going to look the same to someone who isn't technically savvy? Sure, to someone who is comfortble browsing Sourceforge it might work, but to that person's mom?
The trust issue is a serious one, and the open source community deals with that by a set of mechanisms that involve finding trusted sources. But just handing someone a disk and saying "you can use this" is not it. It requires technical and legal sophistication to know you're not becoming (or just paying) a criminal by buying. It also requires fair technical sophistication to know where to get updates, etc...
You're not necessarily doing a non-technical person a favor by getting them into this. It's like getting someone to buy a car that has to be maintained oneself instead of getting them to buy a name brand with people that can maintain it. That's great for people who like being tinkerers, but not for everyone. And I'd think most people who can't fix their own car would be pretty suspicious of buying from folks who give away cars for free and said "don't worry about the cost, I'll make my money on the maintenance."
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Then when you are telling someone that what is Open Source community and what is GNU/Linux and why it is called Linux and what really is Linux as kernel and what is Operating system, what does mean "Distribution". Somekind troll comes out yelling that "Distribution" is meaningless because distribution = Operating system and there is currently over 400 different Operating system what just use Linux as kernel and normal user cannot install applications by same way to fedora as to Ubuntu and how Operating system really is everything what comes with that installation media (on CD/DVD) and Operating system includes support, brand, different installation method (via RPM or DEB files). And then troll starts telling that how open source has nothing to do with different "Operating systems" (Distributions) and even that GNU/Linux is very modular, operating system is everything and operating system includes web browser, office applications, multimediaplayer etc etc.
And then there you are trying to tell for user who dont know a shit about computers, what really is operating system (linux + libc + bash + few others) and what difference is Microsoft Operating systems and different GNU/Linux distributions.
And because it is much easier for new user joe to believe troll because he gives good examples like "diffferent OS is with different interface and different support by different companies" and game is lost. Then "new user joe" sees over 400 different OS and not whole community working together, but against each others and then joe installs windows because it is so easy to know what operating system you have and you get support easily.
"At this point you can point out the billions of dollars being made by IBM, Red Hat and others who provide services for what they give away."
Sure, it's not as if IBM was making any money until FOSS came along. And all of Red Hat's original proprietary applications weren't selling that well, so they adopted the "let somebody else do the work" model and the rest is history.
... it's patriotic! That marketing ploy seems to work well in most other places.
No, you're letting your own bias get in the way. There's plenty of those posts on every article.
Why do people feel the need to find a conspiracy in what is really run-of-the-mill trolling?
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Slashdot spam content is like the tide. Sometimes it's high, sometimes it's low, but it's always there.
Later I will examine VLC to see if it can also adequately serve me for video playback.
Dude. V is for Video. HTH
Hello,
On the argument "IE is free as beer", no need to say "it's in the OS price" because anyway, they will have paid for it so you'll be answered "as I paid, I'd better take profit".
On that point, FF has an added value that anyone can understand: the thousands of add-ons. I use 6 or 7 like weather, mouse gesture, gmail bookmarks, download managers, signature manager... Something else: I don't understand why, but I know many people who have at the same time Google toolbar, MSN toolbar + yahoo + AOL + unknown toolbar which is very stupid. I think FF users are more prone to avoid that. The Community is and will ever be the biggest strenght of FOSS, whether you are part of it or simply "leecher".
Further: they are not coders so they don't know what free code is. Ok. Tell them that in their future company, they'll have some proprietary specific-database. If one day they wish to quit the supplier, they might lose their database. It's like an Iphone : you're AT&T and you can't change. But if they have the hum... "free" Iphone, they could go Cingular and else. Could say the same for AAC or DRM music.
At last, for the free as beer, they could save money on their OS, their Office Suite, their Antivir and Firewall (if they switch OS), their burning apps (no Nero or Easy CD Creator), and save the annual fee too.
hope it helpedOffer to loan them a spare to run along side their legacy system. Walk them through it on a spare, start with the full installation all the way up to adding packages with the package manager. Fedora KDE or Kubuntu are recommended. By then most fears are allayed. They'll see how darn easy is to install and configure. They'll see how darn easy it is to install programs and ask why it can't be so easy on the legacy system.
Usually what happens next, at least for the power users, is that they go out on their own and set up their main computer as dual boot during the next "reformat and re-install" phase. After that, they'll be looking for open source programs almost exclusively.
There are many examples of FOSS solutions that are widely used, some even more widely than their close-source counterparts. What these solutions have in common, is that they outperform their closed-source counterparts. Think LAMP-stack webservers, compared to IIS and SQL Server-based ASP platforms. Think Perl, compared to other rapid-development, scripting, or reporting packages. IMHO, it's pretty simple to most people:
if((Benefits(FOSS) - Cost(FOSS)) >= (Benefits(closed-source) - Cost(closed-source))) {
use_open_source;
} else {
use_closed_source;
}
FOSS advocates have to realize that closed-source products benefit from the marketing muscle behind them. Perceived benefits are real benefits when it comes to purchasing and deployment decisions. To come out on top, then, FOSS has to deliver benefits (both real and perceived) to the user that are GREATER than those from closed-source solutions. This seems counter-intuitive at first. To the untrained eye, an equally functional "free" product should beat out an expensive solution everytime , but ultimately, the marketing effect adds to the value consumers derive from closed-source software, and that means FOSS solutions have to do more than match their counterparts, they have to outperform them.
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
Never fear! Just tell your friends to pay me $150 and they can ask me as many questions as they want. Hell I already do it for free, I might as well get paid for doing it.
It's not that people don't care, it's just like any product. You have unknown product X and known product Y. Most people are more likely to go with Y because they know it better.
If you want to get people to understand FOSS better then run some advertising, setup some laptops that people can play with at product demonstrations, get your brand out there so when people see your logo they immediately think about your product.
Getting people to change their mind about religion or politics.
Fact: most people, as is the topic of this thread, Do Not Care. Are there problems with closed source software? Sure. Are there benefits? Believe it or not, yes. Are there good things about OSS? Of course. Are there problems too? You bet! So even if you "solve" one problem by moving to an OSS package, you're likely to be creating another at the same time. And since you're the one pushing it, you'll likely become the 'de facto' support person at best, and the person whose fault it is that things don't work at worst.
Not that I don't love OSS. But pushing it just because is just as bad as, if not worse than, arguing about religion or politics.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
It's the wrong approach to make closed-source users look at open-source alternatives and vice-versa. Instead, give them a list of available tools (both open and closed) that might meet their need. Let them make the decision based on the best tool for their need. Best tool for the job is the way,not good to bring politics into the mix.
...needs to be promoted to people who "don't care". If Linux is so great, free and open, how come only 5 percent of all computer users utlilize it as their main operating system? I don't have the answer, but I suspect it has to do with the fact that there are at least 10 major distributions that each work slightly differently, and virtually no brand awareness to speak of in the market place. Also, maybe Linux (and by that I mean the various distributions, not the kernel or underlaying systems) has a way to go yet before it can be an operating system for "everybody".
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
Yes I know that might be BS, but that's the way many people look at it: If you a Panasonic TV then buy a Panasonic DVD player because they will work better together. Have Windows? Use MS Office. Have a Toyota? Install Toyota branded spares.
Regardless of the facts, PCs are seen to be Windows machines and anything else is "aftermarket".
Engineering is the art of compromise.
"I guess Google can't be any good, either, since they let you use that as much as you want for free. Just curious: how much do you pay per month for your search engine?"
"And stop calling me Shirley."
Thanks for all your comments. Just one note: the actual, complete title of the piece is "How to turn into Free Software supporters people who couldn't care less".
On the DVD's I give out (referenced above, similar to TheOpenCD), I'm going to start printing "Give a copy of this to someone else. It's legal".
But first you have to make them users.
What's the "N" word? Do you mean NIGGER? Or do you mean NOLDEMORT? Why are there words we can't say? Thinking that words intrinsically have power is a pre-scientific idea. It's superstitious.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
How about, the biggest disadvantage with Free Software is being locked in or limited in changing vendors...what about from he perspective of service and support. Good or bad, ms (and apple to a lesser degree) has done a great job of marketing "ms professionals" and has created an industry around/for people who know their products and then support them. Now if you are mom, pop, or the smaller business you might be able to get help with your OSS by looking in the phone book or you might not. Now try getting help with an ms based product or find an apple store and while competency will vary, you'll find a pro right away and that to many is not locked in to a vendor. Being able to call any PC shop up for help, that is another kind of freedom that the OS community has to conquer and can't claim on the same level as most proprietary products. I do think this will change with time and Canonical, RH, Suse, are examples and perhaps exceptions but it's nothing compared to the other guys. I think this is changing of course. Much in my family have been running Unbuntu for a few years now and the young ones will be just as comfortable with it as anything else but you can't ignore the barrier of familiarity and easy access to support.
Even the attitude of some already posting here are great examples of why people feel locked in if they go OS. "I won't help them if it's not OSS..." IMO it's the wrong attitude and does nothing for the cause of OS. If you don't want to help then don't but don't make blame it on OS or not OS. Without starting a flame war...some of the time the OSS isn't solution is not near as good as others available.
As for AutoCAD, I heard from a friend that he really loves this CAD software on Linux.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
A buddy and I came up with something that makes sense. Charge money.
Installation and support of propriatary software=1/2 of the geek squad price. Charge for the time taken for the customer/buddy/sister to find the norton cd or the windows key.
Installation of FOSS= 1/4 the geek squad price.
It's actually very simple: "Open Source" is the concept that information wants to be free (tm) - much in the same way as you'd obviously agree with me that beer, too, wants to be free. Add to that a hint of free speech (i.e. "I'd like to voice my opinion about free beer anytime and anywhere I want!" and "Nobody should tell you what beer you're supposed to buy or brew, right?") and there you have in essence of what open source stands for.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
I'm not sure where things stand now, but originally "goodwill" in an accounting context was anything but a fictitious asset. If I were to buy a business called "Dave and Sons Whatevers" that had been providing great service to the local community for 30 years, I'd pay extra to keep the name and the good will of the community that went with it.
Not everybody is going to know that Dave and his kids have retired, so they'll keep coming back, expecting the same high level of service they've been getting. Even those that do know the facts also know Dave would have a huge sign in his window saying "We're out of here" and sure as hell wouldn't allow his name to stay on the store if the new owners were crooks or idiots. If I started a new Whatevers business, even in the same building, just as D & S is shutting down, I'm going to have to prove myself to a skeptical community. Even if I do pretty well, there's going to be stories going around about how much better things were back in the days of Dave & Sons.
So I fork out extra bucks for the direct or implied blessing of Dave and the boys. By accepting the extra money, they're in effect saying, "This guy's OK. You can keep coming to our old shop and he'll take good care of you.
That's "Goodwill", and it's definitely worth some bucks.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Much of the good that FOSS applications do is in the changes that proprietary vendors have to make in their applications in order to remain competitive.
I'm actually finding that more of my friends are really starting to think about moving over now that Windows (in particular, esp. Vista, but also XP) is starting to become buried by its own limitations (authoritarian updates, security vulnerabilities, etc.) at the same time distros like Ubuntu make desktop usability on a FOSS platform very comfortable.
So the freedom aspect is vital, in the sense that vendors and developers need it in order to have the freedom to produce applications that software markets frame as "competitive". Only when they do can users without a desire to get into the guts really see the benefits, but that doesn't mean user freedom doesn't matter. But as we see shrinking market shares result from growing user freedom, market demands will only force proprietary software (and media) vendors to lock down their applications making them, ironically, more difficult to use and thus less desirable.
We've reached a tipping point where, now that usability of FOSS platforms has matured, licensing serves as a more prominent basis for differentiating software products.
Great Article. Unfortunately the site owner didn't turn caching on and the server can't handle the slashdotting. So I set up a couple of mirrors of the article content: http://lucion.co.nz/files/digifreedom.html.gz http://drupal.geek.nz/files/digifreedom.html.gz
I'm not doubting the value of goodwill, as it's central to acquisitions in the first place. But accounting usually only deals with more tangible assets, with "goodwill" as a notable exception.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
If you are essentially giving away your products and the vast majority of consumers choose to buy something else, you need to do two things.
First, make a better product. Don't just be competitive, be overwhelming. Don't emulate other products. Be better.
Second, be sure more people know you exist, i.e., better marketing. You aren't trying to build a community. You're trying to get people to use your product.
Get off your high horse. You may decry how Microsoft and Apple market their products. So what? It seems to work.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Yep, there is no FOSS alternative to creating a proprietary file format used for animation. But that would be a really ironic piece of software if it did come into existence.
.psd support? Apparently .doc's proformat is worth reverse engineering with open office, but if you're a creative professional then you're an asshole for using .psd and deserve to be berated.
:P You're probably the kind of guy who'd insist on a complete point-by-point list of every single difference between Word and Emacs, then piss on any of Word's hypothetical advantages because it uses a proformat. Which the FOSS community has already gone to great hassle to "support" Both Word and Emacs are fully capable of spitting out text files, and when you need a text file, that's all that really matters.
Right, because proprietary formats are WHY people keep using proprietary software.
Stop focusing on the format. Start looking at what people are getting out of the prosoft that they aren't getting out of the FOSS.
which is the only issues I ever hear about when it comes to the Gimp compared to Photoshop
You don't hear them bitching about gimp's lack of
As for Blender.... some people find it moderately useful. However, most people I've talked to that have gotten anything done with various forms of prosoft can't stand the thing. The most frequent hangup is the interface - which, to be fair, is the most frequent hangup with every 3d application, regardless of price. All the powerful ones have high learning curves, and they all function in different and often counter-intuitive ways from each other.
As for "what features exactly," don't be an asshole.
Anyways, some people don't like to learn how to use software they just want it to work the way they are used to (part of the problem with Office 2007 IMHO). If they are willing to try it I let them know there are free alternatives, but if they want Vista they can go out and buy it. It's up to them and what they are comfortable with.
The free arguement (free as in speach or as in beer), doesn't work. If that was the way people thought everyone would be brewing their own beer because it is cheaper and they have control over it. Saving money for money's sake is stupid. You have to have something better to spend it on (or save it), if the good feeling you get from buying something that everyone else uses or the savings of time learning new software is worth it for you then that is where you spend the money. If it's not then spend it elsewhere, but no anwser is "right" in an absolute sense.
Freedomware is a term that is being used to communicate and market Free and Open Source Software to people new to the ideas and realities behind it. It resonates well with those who are not software developers and who are using computers in their everyday life. More than likely these people will never touch a line of code. Which means that the current paradigm of marketing behind FOSS is lost on them. I have found that for some reason people seem to just get it when I use the term Freedomware instead of FOSS or even Free Software for that matter. It is a very effective term, it is very marketable as well. This is just from my personal experience anyway. There are others around the world who are starting to use the term Freedomware in this way as well. Give it a shot and see what happens the next time it comes up. I usually explain that "Freedomware provides you with freedom from all of the high priced relicensing fees." Gives you the freedom to do things that you might not be able to do otherwise. Most importantly you have the freedom to run it on any operating system you like. I also introduce them to freedomware based operating systems like GNU/Linux as providing them the freedom to use the hardware they already have. There are more but you get the idea. If you have success with using the term go to www.freedomware.name and let us know.
OMG!!!11!!! The plastic... it is so shinny... and white... and smooth... ohhhhh.
Sorry, your entire thesis is just wrong. The choice between open and closed source should be driven by the needs of the project, not the desires of the people that want to flog one solution or the other. While I happen to think that most projects would be better served with open source software, it doesn't blind me to the advantanges some closed source has. Sure, mod me into the dirt because I dare to say that sometimes open source doesn't hold a candle to closed source software. I hope that in two, five or ten years, this will be true as a spinal reflex, but for today, not all software needs are best met with open source. CAD is one field, and complex accounting (with a General Ledger using 56 digit GL codes) is another. (I grant that using a GL code that large is just nuts, but face it, many government sub. do). I support FOSS, I'd rather use FOSS. However, FOSS isn't the end all be all, solving the real problem is.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
I was in the same group of software mavens, the FOSS crowd, and ran into the same issues everywhere from home users to big businesses. That is I did not understand why it was hard to convince people otherwise with my beliefs on open source. Then I started taking business classes and I got into a few meetings between the managers about large software purchases and I finally began to understand the whole picture. The problem is, we geeks do not understand people adn their internal perception of risk. As I scroll through the comments here I see some stuff that I can already see not working and some stuff working (but the author does not understand why it works).
The reason why people are so ready to throw money at a problem (and a lot of money in some cases) is by throwing money at the problem you are at least assured that you have entered into some sort of contract where whatever solution you get will come with some sort of support service. They don't care that you have the solution. For all they know, you could just be trying to con them out of their money or trying to waste their time. Instead, they want assurance that your solution will work as advertised after the transaction has been made. In otherwwords, they want assurance that the perceived risk they have in there minds can be mitigated by the money they give. And they will never state that either because they are acting based on experience and emotion. People don't hand over money knowing full well that it is really just there to eliminate the risk. They will say that they agree that they are handing over the money because it makes them sleep better a night or they feel like it (what they get in return) will probably turn out as expected.
So when you, a FOSS geek, comes along and says, "hey, this free stuff works better than what you paid for" they are not going to believe you and will turn down the offer. That is not because they don't trust you, that is because they are not offered any assurance should you happen to be wrong this one time. And if you happen to be wrong, now they just lost an hour or so of their life (time is just as important as money).
How can you convince them otherwise? Easy, mitigate the perceived risk in their minds. They want assurance, the safety in knowing that even the 5 or 10 minutes you're taking from their life is going to be worth it.
So one particularly easy way to do that is to make them a deal: if they try the FOSS software for a day, and they find it does everything they need then they will buy you a drink, but if at the end of the day they think it does not work as you claimed then you'll buy them a drink. Besides getting you an easy free drink, this offers them the assurance that their time is not wasted: if the software works (there was no risk), then they save money (minus the drink), but if the software does not work, they get a drink for the invested time/effort. Without the drink it is a win-lose situation (if they win they win free software, if they lose they lose time and effort) and suddenly their perceived risks in losing take over. By introducing the drink you take their mind off of focusing on the risk involved and offer them some assurance that the risk they think is there is actually not there.
Others here have claimed selling the software by advertising features and "bling" that they have not seen before. While this works, the problem is now you have people spinning cubes and not exploring other things that the software is capable of. Instead you've sold them a "shiny object" and they'll use it just like a "shiny object." That's not what you want, you want them to use it as a replacement and you want them to gain confidence to eliminate the perceived risk they associated with FOSS.
Finally I want to be clear that offering a drink will not always work because people are different. Some people are more conservative than others and some people will take quite a bit more social effort to get moving along. But I assure you, the problem always revolves around ri
Ten years ago, I was running Linux, X, fvwm, ssh, xclock, screen, pine, bash, emacs, and netscape (only for web). Today I'm running Linux, X, fvwm, xterm, openssh, xclock, screen, alpine, bash, emacs, and firefox. All of the programs I used in '98 are still maintained in '08, with the occasional name change and slight changes to appearance and behavior, except for netscape. All of these programs were open source, except for netscape. I hear that Windows 95 and Office 97 haven't gotten any updates lately. So if you want to keep running the same software for over a decade, you'd do better with open source software.
Although they know about going to Limewire for music and YouTube for videos, I would bet that most users still don't know where to go to get infringing downloads of software. With the exception of some tech savvy college and high school students, most people who haven't heard of "Linux" probably haven't heard of "The Pirate Bay" either.
do people feel like they're wasting their time? a few do, most don't - unless it's football season, and that seems to be twisting to support the american theocracy ideal.
Even if Slashdot was bot-proof, the trolls would still post the old fashioned way. And IP blocks aren't going to do much with Tor and dynamic IP addresses available.
this is the problem with open source, the fake "we care about freedom" crap. when infact, its all hidden communism, trying to force people to switch in new creative ways, just because you think they should.
there is another way to go about this, leave people alone, and allow them to live their lives. and stop forcing open source on them. just because you can see the source, doesnt make it good, and nobody apart from developers care. and being able to see the source doesnt make it open or free (GPL isnt a free licence if you actualy read it, and contradicts its self, thus invalidating its self).
portfolio
Yeah, that's sustainable...
... and then they built the supercollider.
If he's not taking your advice or wants to spend money, let him spend money on Geek Squad or on antivirus or whatever. You've tried to get him to change.
He will have done the same thing for you over SOMETHING. He will have tried to get you to work out how to fix your car or do your own gardening or something and given up because you don't WANT to or the money you spend on someone else doing it is in your estimation money well spent. And so he's given up trying to get you to do what you "should" be doing.
Sorry, I really doubt anything similar to Adobe Flash MX for Flash only will ever be created as FOSS software for these very reasons.
That said, there is a few pieces of software out there that supports exporting to Flash as a alternative format, using what little documentation there is out there, such as openoffice.org.Why would I? Gimp supports
Saying "Ohhh, this software is not as good as X" with no explanation is in most cases useless.
You also don't know me very well, because I am not a FOSS advocate. I don't believe any particular philosophy when it comes to software beyond weighing the cost (although cost rarely comes to play in my decisions) and technical superiority for my needs.
I have likely more proprietary and commercial software on my Linux desktop system than other people do.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
It's communist in the same way as a barn-raising was communist.
So instead of downloading, burning, etc., only to find out they grabbed the wrong file and/or did something wrong, they spent a few dollars to get the program from Amazon. Accordingly to Ubuntu's website, Amazon is the US Retailer of authorized CDs. So getting from Amazon and they got the full, authorized Ubuntu CD for not much. Why on earth do you care?
It sounds like you only care about not paying for software, you seem really bothered that someone would pay for software, even software that you approved of licensed under a Free Software license. You are not a good evangelist for FOSS, because when someone not only adopted the software but spent money (some of which goes back to the project), you got upset. The FOSS world needs contributing programers that provide code, and bigger projects need customers that spend money (or corporate sponsorship). It doesn't need freeloaders that try to STOP people from supporting projects, although the nature of Free Software is that freeloaders, malcontents, enemies of your country, etc. can use the software just as legally as the upstanding citizen that buys/downloads it, uses it, and tells others, that's the point, everyone can use or modify it.
But don't pretend you are "supporting" FOSS OR Ubuntu when you tell your friends to A) get it, B) download instead of buy, then C) be annoyed that they buy it.
When I rolled out OpenBSD Systems before, I used to always buy a CD (way easier install). Not only that, if I wanted to install 5 computers, I bought 5 CDs. Why not just donate the money? It was a business purchase, and easy to justify paying $50/machine for software. A lot harder to justify writing a check out personally to Theo for no deliverables that wasn't a business expense. Some projects should consider the Radiohead model. Donations are well and good, but for business use, a business purchase is just as deductible as a donation to a 501(c)3 (either in that year or over time, depending on costs, business size, and depreciation schedules), and a CD is a clear consideration for money spent.
The "Open Source Community" of itch scratchers writing software is mostly the minor projects of questionable value, like the 8 million free front-ends for MP3 players and non-sense like that.
The serious software of the Open Source World is all written by commercial entities or Universities, often with tight reigns on the system. Linux has most of its core people on the payroll of various Linux companies, Apache started as a project of systems guys that were sharing patches to the University written web server, that evolved into its own project. All those people were using the software professionally and just collaborating with others on an area where the company wasn't looking for a competitive advantage (and lots of them were in jobs at Universities, not corporate jobs).
The substantial Free Software is largely written by official groups that put it under the GPL for political or business reasons. Universities because there isn't a real alternative other than going through license offices at the school, and corporations when they can't earn a reasonable return on the product without the GPL but can accomplish some other business goal with it. Sun bought Star Office to create Open Office, because they could use it as a tool to deprive rival Microsoft of some revenue from the Office division. It's definitely worked, site licenses for Office are routinely negotiated lower.
Firefox: Mozilla project, funded by Netscape, then later AOL (Time Warner is #48 on the Fortune 500), still with substantial funding from AOL or AOL provided Revenue
Open Office: Sun Microsoft Systems (#187)
AbiWord: Started by SourceGear as an idea of developing a software suite, when they moved on it became a community project (with an existing product) with University supplied resources
Universities take public money and private grants, pay for stipends, tuition, and 65% "overhead" rates to the University. These grad students are seen as free labor, and it becomes easy to put them on a project that you'll GPL. The fact it, most of the popular stuff was written by professionals, some of which is still maintained by them. The itch scratchers exist, but have never been a substantial part of the high end of the Free Software world, even if they capture the imagination of evangelists.
Perhaps by the time your wife tried Photoshop she had already spent time training herself how to use The GIMP, in which case had she been using an illicitly-obtained copy of Adobe Photoshop she'd reject The GIMP.
Your story seems to me to be more about initial exposure, training, and avoidance of cost (free as in cost not free as in freedom) than anything else. It seems to me that where there is no explanation of the ethics of free software, one throws away the one thing free software has over proprietary programs regardless of cost: free software can be dealt with freely, treating people as equals and friends. Free software can be shared (which almost all computer users can do, certainly the number of 12 year olds doing this seems to bother SPA clients) without having to hide one's activities. Proprietary software can only be shared sub rosa. When you share free software, you're sharing software a lot of people can (and do) inspect and modify to remove problems, even if you don't do any of this programming work yourself. When you share proprietary software you could be helping someone install spyware; you'll never really know because proprietary software largely defies inspection. So free software puts you in a position more like you are with your house or your car; if you don't do the work yourself you can get someone else to do what needs to be done. Proprietors often don't take requests and their work is unverifiable even if they claim to have done what you wanted done to a program.
As for making people feel the financial burden of commercial proprietary software, there are plenty of people wealthy enough to pay for it (apparently) including students who can afford the reduced-priced versions of the same program. At this point your rationale runs out of steam.
Finally, The GIMP is commercial software. As long as it is used for business purposes or distributed for a fee, it's commercial software. We can't confuse "commercial" with "proprietary" nor can we dodge the ethical ramifications the open source movement (but not the free software movement) would have us push aside.
Digital Citizen
get the person to buy a resonably fast flash usb drive and put the portable apps swuite with open office and firefox. Maybe thunderbird if they do not just read email in their browser. Show them how they can run this at home, at the library, at work or on any windows machine (and yes any linux machine with wine installed). They will never go back.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Proprietary vendors usually get their victims, er um... I mean "customers", on the upgrade treadmill. Obsoleting and pulling support from software packages just as they are maturing and getting good to force an upgrade to a newer buggier version to drive sales (see XP vs. Vista as a classic example). It is questionable if the customer gets any ROI at all in the face of upgrade costs, retraining, lost productivity due to bugs, etc.
OSS on the other hand is not driven by this impulse. Therefore it generally follows a path where it is allowed to mature.
Closed source software is therefore a worse capital investment.
Also closed source is riskier. If company A has a really good package that supports your business well, but then is bought out by company B; company B can force you to switch over their competing package which may be more expensive (hey, someone's got to pay for purchasing company A), buggier and less well supported. Closed source is therefore a riskier investment.
Just 2 ideas.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Problem with FOSS and trying to promote it... And who we need to promote OSS to... The major problem is that both the Business world and the PC Gaming world Cater to MS Windows... I would guess 90% or higher of the main stream Windows Games are windows based only its probably a higher percentage... Yes there are ways to get emulators to work but even being someone who's worked more with computers than your average gamer its still difficult to get those emulators to work properly.. And on the business side... Companies are using apps that run database apps that run on windows... or other proprietary apps that work on windows... some you might be able to get by with an wine emulator others it just doesnt work at all And if it does work good luck getting support company i work at is looking at new DB software and i made it a point to ask if it would work on a linux box the person told me that i was more than welcome to try but there would be no support if any issues ever arose not very comforting when you work on a mission critical application and when you work with limited budgets and have specific needs also get limited in choices... What people need todo is start promoting OSS to the Game makers and the proprietary apps makers for businesses... In the meantime its always nice to introduce OO.o & firefox to users here and there.. I've converted a few over...
Free software is not something that most people are resistant to, where free means you don't pay.
Free software as RMS uses the term is, indeed, something most people don't care about.
There are basically 3 kinds of software users:
1. 99% of software users don't know what source code is, wouldn't be technically able to use it if they had it, or are technically able but don't actually want to spend their time hacking their software. For these people GPL software is indistinguishable from free as in beer software, like Apache licensed software. Insisting that these people care about something that makes no difference in their lives is nuts.
2. Some fraction of software consumers actually write software for sale. Also includes people who write software for their own use but think they might potentially license it or sell it in future. Unlike category 1, where people are indifferent to what the source code license is, many people in this group actively don't want anything to do with GPL software, because making use of it can lock them into an open source business model that restricts their rights and limits their income opportunities. Yes, it is possible to make money with open source. But people have made a lot more money with closed source. Hugely more money.
3. The remaining small fraction of the software population who actually want source code and have the religion. These people care what the source code license is (unlike group 1) and actually prefer GPL or a compatible license (unlike group 2). But they don't need any convincing.
If they don't care, perhaps you need to take a moment to see why it is they don't care?
Perhaps they only use two or three apps and they work fine for them.
Perhaps they've never had a problem because they don't tinker much and don't install random junk.
Perhaps they use their computer an hour a week.
Perhaps they don't feel like a new learning project.
Perhaps they're turned off by the FOSS culture.
Seriously, get to know your audience, and stop preaching at them.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
From a business perspective, this looks like a one-banana problem and solution. Maybe I haven't looked, but I haven't seen that kind of attitude from other distributions or the rest of the community.
Microsoft put the "sucks" in "success".
I'm done trolling and troll-feeding. Let's talk about something useful.
So, what does this mean? Blender is fine as it is?
As far as I know, it is. Like anything else, it could probably stand anything from some to huge amount of improvement. I personally find the interface unuseable, but I also find Maya and Rhino to be a real pain to use. It can import and export a variety of fairly common formats, which means it's relatively easy to interoperate between Blender and other applications. So long as it doesn't do anything "special" to the files it exports, this means it's possible to - if it suits your needs - integrate Blender into a production toolchain. I don't do (much) animation, so I really can't speak about its effectiveness in that regard.
Then of course, is the fact that, having gotten that change done, they can distribute the modified (or unmodified) code for the cost of the network bits. (read: zero, if it's on the internal network).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I see a lot of comments here advocating that we gloss over the freedom. That doesn't work, and even if it did, it's a disservice both to your friend and to the community. In short, it's not helping. The first time something cocks up on their shiny new open source program, it's gonna be "why'd you give me this freeware crap anyway?" FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM, tell them about the FREEDOM. Here's how. (And this does work, I use it a lot.)
1. Show them something that Free Software can do that proprietary software cannot and never could, because of its very nature. My favorite example is package management. Once you show somebody how to install 10,000 programs safely, easily, legally, from their chair, with their mouse, for zero dollars and zero cents, they'll listen to whatever you have to say.
2. They will ask you how this is possible. They will ask you where it comes from. They will ask you who made it. And that's the moment. (To quote Eben Moglen) "That's the moment, all right, that's the moment, that's the one where that annoying Stallman voice should enter the mind, okay. Free As In Freedom, Free As In Freedom. Tell people it's free as in freedom. Tell them that if you don't tell them anything else. Because they need to know."
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
I advise on http://freedomdrive.org/ to give your friends in need of a Windows re-install a liveCD "use this till i have time, call me with questions".
If you think Google is free, you don't get it.
Search isn't Google's product, you are. They sell your eyes to advertisers. Search is just the honey pot to get you there.
Why are people so blatantly naive?
They're pretty smart, and they intuitively get that Google searches are not a zero-sum game, as you characterize it.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
You know twitter, now that both your sockpuppets are in karma hell I'm actually enjoying *reading* Slashdot a lot more than I used to. So thanks. Maybe one day you'll get over your obsessive compulsive, maniacal belief that Microsoft is out to get you personally and you'll become a member of this community again. The first step would be to understand that no one here dislikes the message. Not even people like me, who you so amusingly accuse of working for Microsoft. They are just (rightly) shooting the messenger because he's so incredibly annoying and dishonest.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo