It is supported by simply looking at the free software that is available: GIMP vs Photoshop, MS Office vs OOo, Quicken vs GNU Cash, etc. In almost every comparison, FLOSS falls short yet fanboys such as yourself deny it.
The rest of your post shows you are nothing but a FLOSS fanboy who is in denial.
Funny, you "rarely" need to use commercial (what you call "non-free) software. I never need to use free software.
Measuring as a ratio of all the free software is silly. Sure, that ratio probably tilts toward commercial software, but that is a meaningless statistic.
It is about as meaningless as the signal to noise ration. I bet you can't understand that eiter, eh fanboy?
The question is simply whether with a reasonable amount of effort you can obtain the application you need -- thanks to the hard work of a lot of people, there are a number of reliable Linux distributions that make this a simple task for most ordinary software needs.
Assuming you can figure out which application you need, how to download and install it, and of course, that Linux supports all of one's hardware.
No, I haven't. You are apparently too stupid to understand that neither radio station nor TV station give away their product. Their product is your eyeballs, not the shows. The shows are just bait.
Yeah, why don't you support your statement. Oh, wait, you can't because you don't use commercial software. So, you have made a statement that is completely unsupported. Good going.
there's also an awful lot of good free software too
No, there isn't. There is a minuscule amount of good free software. Especially when compared to the total amount of free software. The good/bad software ratio is heavily in favor of commercial software.
One example would be broadcast television (or radio before that). You can turn it on and watch for free, but what you don't realize is that YOU are the product they are selling (cue Russia jokes)
Either way you look at it, the product is not free because the advertiser is paying for it.
They do not give the product away. If that were the case, then shows would not go off the air when groups threaten to boycott the sponsors.
Just because YOU don't pay for it, it is not necessarily free because, as you said, YOU are the product being sold to the advertisers.
You failed miserably by stating what the product was and to whom the product was being sold.
The seemingly innumerable competitors to the official "telephone directory book" aka the trademarked phrases "yellow pages" and "white pages".
Those are not free. Those are paid for by the advertisers in the yellow pages.
Broadcast TV and radio? Of course the product they are giving away is your eyeballs watching someones advertisements
Your own words show that the product is not free. It is paid for by advertisers.
How about church? Of course, conveniently, your soul won't be saved unless you donate, but technically they do not require it, and they are certainly a big business.
The "product" of the mass delusions that make up religion is "salvation" so, if you can't be "saved" unless you donate, you are not getting the product (salvation) for free.
If it didn't pay the bills, people wouldn't actually be doing it so much. My experience has been that free, gratis, and open source software has considerably more staying power and commercial support than most commercial software.
I have noticed that most "free, gratis, and open source software" is crap, is written by students or people in their spare time, and once the writer (because most of it certainly isn't engineered) has to actually make a living, the software stagnates.
If you don't believe me, head over to source forge or fresh meat and see for yourself.
considerably more staying power
Yeah, right. There is a difference between staying power and "hanging around like an ugly lamp no one has bothered to get rid of"
and commercial support than most commercial software
Apparently, you don't understand the words you are using.
The only problem with how you see the situation is the fact that most consumers wouldn't know "sub-par" content if it reached up and bit them on the ass. Most consumers believe that any content that does not exactly mirror their pre-conceived notions is "sub-par" regardless of the facts.
Yeah, that little screed will be appropriate when the arrestees are taken to concentration camps and never released. Until then, you are just trying to generate outrage over nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
The model is they make shows to draw eyeballs to sell to advertisers. The spirit of the model is make shows to sell eyeballs.
You are too stupid to understand that saying a fact is irrelevant neither changes the fact nor makes it irrelevant.
It is supported by simply looking at the free software that is available: GIMP vs Photoshop, MS Office vs OOo, Quicken vs GNU Cash, etc. In almost every comparison, FLOSS falls short yet fanboys such as yourself deny it.
The rest of your post shows you are nothing but a FLOSS fanboy who is in denial.
Funny, you "rarely" need to use commercial (what you call "non-free) software. I never need to use free software.
It is about as meaningless as the signal to noise ration. I bet you can't understand that eiter, eh fanboy?
Assuming you can figure out which application you need, how to download and install it, and of course, that Linux supports all of one's hardware.
Commercial software, dumbass, not poorly written custom applications which have more in common with FLOSS than commercial apps.
Maybe you should figure out what the conversation is about BEFORE you prove your ignorance.
If you believe that, then you really are an idiot.
No, I haven't. You are apparently too stupid to understand that neither radio station nor TV station give away their product. Their product is your eyeballs, not the shows. The shows are just bait.
Yeah, why don't you support your statement. Oh, wait, you can't because you don't use commercial software. So, you have made a statement that is completely unsupported. Good going.
Yet another claim that is not supported by anything.
No, there isn't. There is a minuscule amount of good free software. Especially when compared to the total amount of free software. The good/bad software ratio is heavily in favor of commercial software.
Subscribers, who get the stories early and advertisers pay for the product.
As so many people are fond of saying, RedHat's product is not Linux, but rather support for Linux, which they charge for.
Either way you look at it, the product is not free because the advertiser is paying for it.
They do not give the product away. If that were the case, then shows would not go off the air when groups threaten to boycott the sponsors.
Just because YOU don't pay for it, it is not necessarily free because, as you said, YOU are the product being sold to the advertisers.
You failed miserably by stating what the product was and to whom the product was being sold.
Those are not free. Those are paid for by the advertisers in the yellow pages.
Your own words show that the product is not free. It is paid for by advertisers.
The "product" of the mass delusions that make up religion is "salvation" so, if you can't be "saved" unless you donate, you are not getting the product (salvation) for free.
You failed miserably.
I have noticed that most "free, gratis, and open source software" is crap, is written by students or people in their spare time, and once the writer (because most of it certainly isn't engineered) has to actually make a living, the software stagnates.
If you don't believe me, head over to source forge or fresh meat and see for yourself.
Yeah, right. There is a difference between staying power and "hanging around like an ugly lamp no one has bothered to get rid of"
Apparently, you don't understand the words you are using.
Please demonstrate a successful business model that relies on giving away the product for free.
Tell you what, why don't I hire you and have you work for free and then I will pay you what I think the end product is worth, m'kay?
Or, maybe you can do work for me and seek a grant and donations to do it. That would work well for me too.
Super Columbine RPG == good and should not be censored
Six days in Fallujah == bad and should be censored.
Don't be silly, of course you can.
The only problem with how you see the situation is the fact that most consumers wouldn't know "sub-par" content if it reached up and bit them on the ass. Most consumers believe that any content that does not exactly mirror their pre-conceived notions is "sub-par" regardless of the facts.
Please prove your assertion that Windows 7 is not faster than Windows XP.
Why not just convert the National Weather Service or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration?
Fail. You obviously didn't read the legislation because your "similar one" would still fall under the definition P2P software and thus the law.
Because Windows is the market leader, the 600 pound gorilla, the team to beat in the world of desktop computer operating systems.
Point taken and noted. I should have put that better, but I am so fucking tired of the "OMG!!!1!!one!!1 OUTRAGE!!!one!11!" assholes.
Yeah, that little screed will be appropriate when the arrestees are taken to concentration camps and never released. Until then, you are just trying to generate outrage over nothing.
Basically, you are full of shit.