Why Users Drop Open Source Apps For Proprietary Alternatives

maximus1 writes "Hard as it may be to imagine, 'free' is not always the primary selling point to open source software. This article makes some interesting points about subtle ways Open Source projects might lose to the competition. Lack of features is a common answer you'd expect, but the author points out that complicated setup and configuration can be a real turn-off. Moreover, open source companies may not do enough to market major upgrades. If they did, they might lure back folks who tried and dumped the earlier, less polished version. This raises the question: what made you dump an open source app you were using? What could that project have done differently?"

Comments

Stability

[Ada_Rules]

On the verge of dumping firefox after years of use. 3.5.2 was horrible. 3.5.3 crashed within the first 5 minutes of use. The #1 reason I would dump any SW product is stability. If it can't perform its intended function without crashing then nothing else matters. Lets just hope I don't need to switch to Chrome to get this to post.

Re:Stability

[MrNaz]

Stability isn't the only issue. GIMP and Cinelerra under Linux are heaps more stable than Photoshop and Premiere under Windows, but that doesn't draw me away towards the open source side. In that case, as mentioned in the summary, feature set is high on the priority list there.

I have done my best however to stick to FOSS as much as possible. I do prefer MS Office over OpenOffice, but I've stuck with the latter nonetheless, more because I *want* to like OO more than MSO. However, in the office, I've *had* to stick with MSO because while OO can read MSO originated files, doing a save/send in OO and then again in MSO and back again results in badly broken formatting. This isn't even MS's fault.

Try creating a file in AbiWord. Save it. Open it in OO. Edit and save it. Open again in AbiWord. Broken formatting. ODF is not the panacea of perfect cross compatibility that it could and *should* be, and you can blame the elitism in the ODF committee for sticking to a misconceived notion that they should only set the semantics of the file and leave the syntax up to the implementers. The result? ODF implementations that, while semantically compatible, break each others' formatting syntax.

Point? Oh yea, I have one. The reason that I moved my workplace away from open source software was because my illusion that ODF was the perfect answer to cross compatible documents was shattered when I accidentally opened an ODF file in AbiWord on another Ubuntu box, edited it, saved the changes, and found that it had made a mess when re-opened in OO. For me, the biggest draw away from MSO was destroyed, and my incentive to push upstream for ODF use was stymmied.

This is an example where a community effort concentrates on solving the *technical* problem and forgets that there's a real, on the ground problem that needs to be solved as well, that may or may not be totally technical in nature. It represents for me the largest endemic problem within the open source community, and it really needs to be addressed if we are to present the open source model as a serious alternative to the proprietary/patent/copyright system.

Re:Stability

[Timothy Brownawell]

Free software is free as in there are four freedoms that it is guaranteed to provide.

Which are completely useless to the vast majority of people.

This often translates to lower cost - especially in the long term as it makes vendor lock-in effectively impossible, but it doesn't have to mean no up-front cost or even no support cost.

I'm not sure I buy this argument... lock-in only requires that nothing else can open your files. You can never be locked in to a particular plaintext editor, no matter how closed it is.

Re:Stability

[frisket]

Stability isn't the only issue.

Indeed not. Cross-compatibility is a pain, for sure; I don't know if OO and Abi talk to each other, but they shouldn't be making life hardes for the users by pursuing different models.

For me, it's two things:

• Documentation: it's written by developers for other developers, not for end users. A lot of it simply lists the menus and menu items, explaining the File|Save can be used to save your file. While this is needed at some level, it's not useful when you're looking for a function that is probably in there somewhere, but unfindable. I write tech doc; I'd love to contribute to the FOSS material, but I cannot do this while the interfaces are so broken...which brings me to #2...
• Interfaces: Interaction design is one of hardest tasks around, and without substantial sums to do testing, releasing it and getting feedback is the only solution. Unfortunately, while the feedback on bugs and breaks seems to function, I don't see a whole lot about ease of use. GIMP (originally quite unbelievably bad) did eventually make a few small changes, and OO/Abi aren't bad now either, but far too much else has all the much-sought functionality buried levels deep in menus, and all the rarely-used stuff at the top. Worse, there is still very little consistency between apps, because freely contributing developers understandably want to push their own idea of what the interface should be like (for them) rather than following the prevailing guidelines and expected methods of working.

I hardly use any proprietary or commercial software these days, largely because the FOSS offerings do almost everything I want -- at the cost of some effort and the occasional cuss. But I would hesitate to recommend it to the averagely naive user simply because it's not as self-evident as it ought to be. That's not to say the commercial stuff is much better, but they have the money to polish the turds -- we don't.

Support

[garcia]

The biggest reason is the fact that there weren't expensive support contracts available for purchase. Employee turnover always exists and generally only one or maybe two people knew how to operate any particular system in the places where I have worked. Expensive support contracts allowed for someone else to do deal w/the turnover problem and kept it out of the hands of the on-site departments.

Re:Support

[quixote9]

Same where I work. It's a college with about 6000 people, and an IT department that isn't merely useless. They make our jobs *more* difficult. They just recently talked the higher-ups into switching over to M$ server software (from Apache, etc, which was great) at a cost of hundreds of thousands per year to a cash-strapped district, because then they could outsource support. They talked the higher ups into going with proprietary course management software, more hundreds of thousands per year, again, because then somebody in Pennsylvania would be so-called "supporting" it.

There are several people on campus who use Linux. None of us has ever considered switching back to either Windows or Macs. Sure, there's a learning curve. As someone who had to learn DOS in the Good Old Days, it's no worse than that. Easier actually, because these days there are forums. I can't remember when I heard a useful answer from tech support for a commercial product.

The other massive advantage is software repositories. When something comes up and I need some new program to solve that problem, I google to find out what can do the job, download, install, and some five minutes to half hour later, I'm ready to go. No credit cards, no registration codes. When I have to use Windows to help out a colleague, I can never understand why anyone puts up with the inconvenience of it now that Linux has distros like Ubuntu.

So, anyway, this is a longwinded way of saying that, yes, support is the big issue in getting people back to proprietary software. But that's not support as a non-IT person understands it. That's "support" in the sense that there's someone else to blame when things go wrong.

Really?

[DewDude]

Maybe I'm entirely different than most people. I used to use a bunch of propritary applications...Office, AIM, Yahoo, mIRC....I switched to the open-source alternatives and I never looked back. For me, it was being able to jump between Ubuntu and Windows while maintaining the same "feel" as the other apps. Market major upgrades are lame. How many times does someone make a major upgrade that's really just more annoying features....didn't AOL just "upgrade" ICQ to use the same rendering engine as AIM Triton...quite honestly, AIM Triton was enough to make me switch to Pidgin full time. Obviously the windows people will stick with the applications that they're used to.

Mortgage on my house

[TheMidget]

With a huge mortgage on my house, and the bank breathing down my neck, any influx of cash into my personal finances is welcome. And who'd really stayed true to his principles if offered $75000 to move my employer's mail system back from dovecot plus sendmail to Exchange. Yes, Micro$oft is really paying that much (as long as your company is big or well-known enough). I've heard Adobe offers similar deals (for moving from the Gimp to Photoshop). A couple of well-placed flash animations also pay, although far less.

If you aren't getting the same kind of coin, you aren't negotiating hard enough. Hint: know the selling points of the open source alternatives, and (obviously) arrange for a private after hours meeting with the sales guy, but without your colleagues.

Re:Security

[LaughingCoder]

First, it was not a bug ... it was a design flaw that was spread throughout the whole source tree. The code was awful, beyond repair. If it were a simple bug I would have just fixed it.

Second, you conveniently ignore the fact that I was hacked through this hole. So, that means the breach is known and actively being exploited.

Sure, the new application I chose *may* have a security hole as well, but the one I dropped *did* have a hole (and a big one I might add). Which would you choose given that knowledge? No, my logic is completely sound. It is yours that is suspect, perhaps influenced by ideology.

Users "Graduate" to Proprietary

[RobotRunAmok]

I've lost count of the number of "casual" graphics designers to whom I have introduced to open source tools... they want to "do stuff," either within a web site or with their photos, but the name brand graphics tools are too expensive, so... they'll try anything, even something with a name as ridiculous and off-putting as "The Gimp." Then, once they become proficient, once they start to understand "layers" and "filters" and the like, they understand the required reading a bit better, and wonder what they are missing with the Adobe software. Well, they don't wonder, it's very clear: all the web and design magazines each month provide specialized step-by-step tutorials on how to do neat stuff with the popular tools, and never once mention open source beyond the "Annual Condescension" summary article about the "other" tools. These people take a stroll down the aisles at B&N and see tome after tome designed to help the Adobe user, and maybe -- in a particularly well-stocked store -- a copy of "Beginning GIMP, which just sounds icky. I've seen the same scenario play out with Audacity and Pro Tools: people learn how to edit with free Audacity, and then when they become savvy enough to realize what they are missing with the proprietary stuff -- either in the form of missing features or widespread community and commercial support -- they step up.

The pro creative tools have great "wannabe" appeal: working with Adobe and Pro Tools, the amateur wannabe artists feel like they're "more connected" to that professional world to which they aspire. Using the free open source tools just underscores -- in their mind -- that they are second tier. This is not to say that the open source tools are second-rate technically, just that -- in the eyes of the latte-infused graphics and sound editor pretenders -- they may not be quite as "fashionable."

Re:UI polish, documentations

[gilgongo]

For many FOSS applications the UI isn't nearly as polished as the commercial alternatives. This might be partially because UI designers want to get paid for the work (perhaps not a dedicated to the free community as sofware developers).

I am a UI designer, and the couple of occasions when I've tried to offer UI design improvements for FOSS projects have been pretty depressing. Both times I tried, it seemed that one of the coders on the project doubled as a UI designer and resented anyone who would challenge their ideas. Their contribution of code to the project meant that others then close ranks around them, so that any real discussion of UI improvements is killed off and anyone not a coder was frozen out. You could see why Alan Cooper wrote The Lunatics.

Other projects may of course be different. This was just my somewhat bitter experience with two fairly well known web apps.

Mostly free software is exploiting programs to give their work away for free--designers, editors and proofreaders don't fall for it.

I strongly disagree with that. If I could point to a FOSS application and say "I did the UI for that", I would probably double the amount of commercial work I could get (assuming my work was any good!). I would also think that being the only UI designer on a FOSS project would be wonderful - think of the freedom!