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."

Comments

Here, try this DVD

[YrWrstNtmr]

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.

Conservative Arguments for FOSS

[tjstork]

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.

Re:Easy, no Licenses/activation key

[russ1337]

Thanks, but you didn't help me explain how simple it is for a Linux user to add applications. I recognize how easily this is done through repo's, but HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS TO SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT A REPO IS... (which was my original question.)

My best effort is say "To add applications there is a little 'add applications' menu, which has a list of all the applications available with a summary of what they do. You just select which ones you want and click install, and it gets it from a trusted place on the internet and installs it for you."

As for your statement about 'the average user doesn't want to learn about repo's', I agree. But, they DO want to learn where they get applications, manage updates, and where these come from. If there is a way to explain this without describing repositories then tell me about it.

Re:Easy, no Licenses/activation key

[kent_eh]

I've found that people often have that cynical view of Open Source, and I typically have a hard time explaining why quality software is free.

I usually describe OSS programmers as volunteers.
Most people get the concept of volunteering.

At least it gets them away from the image of "giving it away 'cause it isn't good enough to sell"