Converting Users to Open Source- Why Do You Care? 926
mack knife asks: "Here's a question for Slashdot readers: Why do you care what web browser/email client/etc people use? What do you care if Firefox catches on or not? Why do some people feel the need to convert others to their pet applications? Personally, I am a convert to Firefox/Thunderbird, but I understand that many users are happy with their Microsoft products; I'll mention what I use and why, but I won't harangue them on their apps' shortcomings, nor will I try to push an unfamiliar open source app on someone who is more comfortable with a 'mainstream' product. Some open-source proponents can be quite obnoxious about this, and I'm interested to hear why it is taken so seriously."
I care because... (Score:4, Insightful)
- Firefox -- remove the windows spyware problem. Extensions! Tabs
- Linux server -- better able to manage stuff
- Thunderbird/Evolution -- removes the email spam problem
- Openoffice - Adequate. Free.
Whichever way you look at it, it just makes sense for most individual users and some business users.Putting all the above stuff together for the typical corp so that it can be locked down and administered properly is not up to par with similar Microsoft offerings (Exchange, Domain controller, Active Directory) though.
That's what Microsoft just works better in the corp environment at this time. And no matter what you say, its not easy to convince others otherwise right now.
Re:I care because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I care because... (Score:5, Funny)
And you want someone to switch top open office because its "Adequate"? These are not very compelling reasons for people to switch to open source applications.
But the upcoming OpenOffice.org 2.0 will be more adequate than ever!
Ummm...
Re:I care because... (Score:5, Funny)
That's right, because it just went out and bought a huge SUV to compensate for its indequacies...
Open Formats (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Open Formats (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I care because... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I have been using Oo.org ... (Score:3, Interesting)
When the bulk of your "data" gets generated while running EDA software on remote Solaris cluster it is convenient to have an office tool to put together an IOC/presentation/whatener right there and then. After this I can continue to edit it on the Windows side, maybe off-line, WITH THE SAME PROGRAM!
YMMV
Paul B.
Seconded (Score:3, Informative)
How does this work?
If things break half as often because of what I've done, I do half as much work, I can charge half as much again for my work and the customer spends 25% less on me than on a competitor advocating less, um, safe software. The customer's machinery also works more reliably, so they get more work done and live in less fear of stuff vanishing from under their hands.
IRL, I "visit" a typical Linux server (I do mostly servers) by remote control about twice a
Spam (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I care because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I care because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I care because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, sometimes, their choice indeed affects me. Let's go with the tipical car comparations: It could be said that whatever car other peoples drive its their bussiness so why should I care if, say, model X brakes are known to be faulty, after all is them who will kill themselves against a tree in a curve... except when they don't crash against a tree but against myself, of course!
I do use Debian GNU/Linux so malware doesn't affect me... except by the ton of spam and mail worms I recieve from windows zombies; except for latency on my Internet connection when malware activity arises; except that some destinations won't accept mail directly from my computer since so much windows-based malware has made them block residential or dynamic IP blocks...
On the other hand, I have to take care about what hardware I buy (PDA, scanner, video cards and the like) since lots of them are not properly supported for Linux, and most of the time it is the cheapest ones; more Linux users would mean easy access to more supported components/gadgets.
Finally, let's return to the car comparation: even if there were no choice for the other car to crash against me I am a sensible person anyway, so it's my pleasure to avoid their pain if I can help to.
This is all from my "Linux fan" point of view. Let's put now my "professional hat": I do consulting for a living for soho and soho-like companies (a department within a bigger corp, for instance), and my client-base depends greatly on my own reputation. Specially with Microsoft, but it is extensible to privative software in general, there is so much I can do when things go wrong, but no more. For those that use mainly Microsoft environment I am basically an expends issue: from time to time, no matter what, a virus at some box, or an antivirus which hangs a computer, or an Office component which go nuts... for too many of these problems, once you applied the recipies there's not too much you can say but "well, let's talk to Microsoft" (and I am still waiting for the first time for them to resolve me an issue) or "time to reinstall". Not to talk about when they ask me "can [new feature] be implemented", and I have to answer "errr... yes, it will be some [big money here]". You see, mainly they pay me for things to stay the way they were. No surprise they don't see me with nice eyes.
On the other hand, when I can deploy open source solutions, I am on the drive site; there can be problems, of course, but they are resolved -and quite fast most of the time, never to return. I know I even have access to the source code if nothing else will do (and I restorted to that option in some ocassions). When they ask me "Is X doable", I usually can aswer them "Yes, open source solution X will do, at my standard hour fees". These people, quite on the contrary to the others see me as the friend that make their systems grow with time being always better and better and when problems arise, the one that always come with the solution.
Now, *I* am the one that makes things happen (so I take a merit that is not mine: obviously Wietse Venema merits much more than myself when I install Postfix and they have stable e-mail from that day on) in one case, but *I* am the one that fails too even when I say, "what do you want? Trying to correct a Windows 2000 problem is much alike to try to repair a car engine without the ability to open the hood, because in both cases I am the "human being" that they see around "doing things" and taking their money for that. So what should I do? It's funnier working with Linux and open source than with Windows and privative software, and my clients are more satisfied too, so no wonder I try to push open source on them!
Re:I care because... (Score:5, Insightful)
1 - People ask me all the time how to clean up their system. I tell them to switch to Linux or buy a Mac, knowing that they will do neither. I then tell them that they need to never use ie again and start using Firefox, and update it when the red arrow shows up. So in these cases I'm not telling them because I care, I am telling them because they cared enough to ask how to solve their problem.
2 - Network effects. The more people that are using a product, the better it is. Even if my mom and dad aren't going to hack on Firefox, their choice of browser will show up in the logs of the pages they visit. Smart webmasters will make sure their pages work well with popular browsers. It is to my advantage for the browser I use to be popular (assuming it is secure).
Re:I care because... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Microsoft's abuse of standards. Honestly, it's a bit frightening to think of Microsoft locking themselves a monopoly using DRM-encoded Word documents. Microsoft often seems to try to corrupt everything that they touch to try and make it something that only works with their own products.
2) Vendor support: the more people that use Linux, for example, the more effort hardware companies will put into Linux driver efforts. More games will come out for Linux, there will be less companies that refuse to take your support tickets ("Oh, you use a web browser in Linux to connect to our bank? Sorry, we don't support that..."), etc.
Re:I care because... (Score:5, Interesting)
Standards: It's amazing how many people send around Word, PowerPoint, and Excel documents. Why do they expect me to be able to read these? Do they expect me to cough up ~ $500 like they did (or didn't) for software I don't need other than to accomodate their whimsy? If they send me an OpenOffice document instead, there's no financial burden on me and it's an open standard which I am in some sense more entitled to use/interpret/read.
As for Firefox -- since this is now popular enough at my workplace, I basically don't need to test for compatability with IE (which is difficult to run in Linux), and I don't support it in my web projects. If it works in Firefox, Opera, and Konqueror (which almost tests Safari compatability), then it's good enough for me. I am also looking forward to more complete support for things like MathML, which will gradually make life much easier for me. As for IE support, I wish there was a web page that launches an ActiveX script that installs FireFox with little notification.
For an open-source project, the number of developers tends to increase with the number of users. I don't think it's a linear relationship, but it's certainly monotonic. And when talking about open-source, the distinction between developers and users gets wonderfully blurry.
Finally, I love the wide variety of open-source projects going on! I often find projects that are useful to me, and it seems like each year computing just becomes easier thanks to OSS. Better programming languages, more libraries, more complete hardware support, improved documentation, etc. The more people become aware of open source, the more they will get involved in it. This is of direct benefit to me, and everyone else too!
License keys are a PITA; vendors kill software (Score:3, Funny)
Properly typing in a 50+ character alphanumeric key is stressful. Managing a collection of dozens or hundreds of these keys is also very stressful. With BSD/GPL software, I can throw the keys away.
I have lots of Oracle 7/8 databases. Oracle would like me to upgrade right now (and send them a big check). If I was on an old release of Postgres or MySQL, I would have the option of contracting out maintenance of the code to a 3rd party. I have no options for code updates to Oracle 7 (apart from writing a pote
Re:License keys are a PITA; vendors kill software (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're using Oracle and you're not using stored procedures, PL/SQL, replication, load balancing, etc. you're just spending way too much cash when you could be using something cheap or free with the same capabilities.
Not to say you can't do fancy, proprietary things with Postgres, but if you're trying to be agnostic, might as well not pay extra.
Feel free to extrapolate this gripe to the use of Excel when a free alternative would work, or Photoshop when The Gimp would work, etc.
Re:License keys are a PITA; vendors kill software (Score:3, Informative)
Name one bug you were the first to find in either MySQL or PostGreSQL.
I have never ever found a problem that a minute with Google didn't explain and show a workaround or solution.
Re:License keys are a PITA; vendors kill software (Score:3, Informative)
Right. One cannot get support from MySQL AB or PostgreSQL Inc? Oh wait.....
Moreover, the fact that there is a new version, means bugs are actively being addressed and closed out. Many times, it's bugs you may not have hit yet, but someone else in the community has, and it's being addressed. With Postgres or MYSQL, it's not the same story. Most of the time, it's up to yo
I disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
I usually charge them by the hour and when they ask what can be done, talk to them about alternatives. More to the point, I explain *why* Windows is so vulnerable. Then I let them make up their mind. Remember, they are paying me by the hour.
There are a few times I will go out of my way to switch people to Firefox, OpenOffice, or Linux. These usually exist when it is the cheapest way to solve their immediate problem. Usually with Firefox, it is because IE
Re:I care because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I care because... (Score:3, Informative)
Go to command prompt and....
ftp ftp.mozilla.org
anonymous
cd pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases
cd 1.0.3
cd win32
cd en-US
get Firefox\ Setup\ 1.0.3.exe
There you go. Wasn't that easy? and all without using IE.
Re:I care because... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I care because... (Score:3, Interesting)
Open source projects, let's take Firefox as an example, are wonderful for the people who use the features contained therein. I love tabbed browsing. I love the extensions. Firefox is a wonderful product all around, but I take advantage of what makes it great.
On the other hand, I know for a fact that my mother, a ve
Re:I care because... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's funny what I have noticed is that the average computer user wants an open system and in fact will turn down an easier to use turnkey solution if they have an harder to use open system if it costs a little less.
Maybe it's because my perpective is longer then yours. I lived through the "golden years" of the computer revolution from the eighties, nineties and today.
Time after time I have seen more integrated, easier to use, turnkey systems fall by the wayside while systems that were perceived to be open and cheaper won. Here are some examles.
CP/M vs dozens of other long gone 8 bit computer makers.
Apple II vs Atari, TI, HP etc.
IBM pc vw Mac.
DOS vs OS/2
Windows vs MacOS
IBM PS2 vs Clones
Microchannel vs ISA
PC vs Amiga
Compuserve vs Internet.
AOL vs internet
The list goes on and on. If users truly prefered a cohesive, turn key, easy to use system we would all be griping about Apple instead of MS. In every single one of my examples the better, easier to use, more performant solution lost to a cheaper and more open one.
This dynamic is still going on today. Look at windows/PC vs the Mac. With a mac you get a compresensive turnkey system with windows you get to cobble together the software and hardware. But it's considered more open and costs less so voila, apple still can't gain significant traction into the PC market.
There is one more factor I should mention. Corporate adoption drives home adoption. If you are watching keep an eye out for corporate adoption of linux and other open source technologies. The minute you see corporations embracing linux on the desktop sell your MS stock.
Re:I care because... (Score:4, Interesting)
Integration is today's buzzword and need.
Uniformity in all programs is what caused MSFT Office to succeed beyond its dreams.
Corel Wordpefect Office, Lotus Suite, etc., could not succeed for two reasons:
a) They thought they knew how to design products better than their customers. Companies which think they know more than their customers become extinct very fast. Irrespective of what people might say, Microsoft actually listened to people while building new versions of Office. They cared and actually respected customers instead of deriding them with a "i know all" attitude.
b) Word works with Excel, which works with Powerpoint to MY advantage. Iam sure COM was the result of Bill gates shouting at his Uber army of geeks as to why he must keep retyping his letter in another Office program.
Implementing O/S programs may give a warm heart feeling that i have fought and won against the "evil" empire.
The fact is the "evil" empire was not built in a day, and it was NOT evil all along. Somewhere it continued to listen to customers and aimed to give them what they wanted, instead of pushing what MSFT thought they wanted.
Companies like Corel (wordperfect), Lotus (Suite) stopped listening to customer once they started believing in magazine articles that stated they had "won" the desktop war or Office war. They had a stable income line and stopped support or took a "Holier than thou" attitude.
No wonder Lotus and Corel are nowhere today (except for Notes, Corel Linux), while Microsoft continues to win with its Office suite.
Keep it Simple, Keep Listening to customers and Keep it wickedly fast.
I have run Office on systems ranging from 64MB to 1.2 GB RAM and i have always felt MSFT made best of system provided and actually was faster than O/S on same systems.
Re:I care because... (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, that's rich. Fire up a copy Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access. Use Windows' nifty "tile windows" feature. Then compare the menu bar, menu layout, and toolbars in those 4 windows. Yeah, real consistent. If you think chaos is consistent.
Now fire up 4 different versions of Word. Notice how very little stayed the same in the interface across versions.
MS has not listened to their customers. Otherwise they would not be changing menu layouts and file formats with every single point release of Office. Adding features is one thing. Changing the placement of icons in the toolbar or items in the menus simply to make it seem new is quite another.
Until you can open a Word 2003 document in Word 97, you'll never be able to convince me that MS is listening to their customers. If Corel can figure out how to keep the exact same file format across 6 versions of WordPerfect (create a doc in WordPerfect 12, you can open it in WordPerfect 7 without losing formatting), then why can't MS? They've got how many more programmers and customers than Corel???
You obviously have not used any version of Office other than 95. Because trying to get Office 2002 or 2003 to work on anything less than a P3 1 GHz is not fun. While WordPerfect Office 12 runs quite nicely on my P2-333. Hell, the minimum system requirements for Office 2003 are simply mind boggling. If would really be nice if MS understood the phrase "keep it simple".
Re:I care because... (Score:3, Interesting)
Given that criterion, however, I find it hard to recommend ALL open source to ALL people, even myself ; given that different needs and ability levels will make some software/OS more appropriate than another to any given user.
Re:I care because... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, I have failed at getting OOo in use at work because it has a heck of a job with the templates we've got in use. Those templates use a heck of a lot of macros and also make heavy use of sections and numbering... needless to say, I would have to go to the trouble of re-doing every single template doc from scratch to be able to successfully use them with OOo... and all the hassle of getting the new versions past the Quality department as approved documents for our iso 9
Interoperability (Score:5, Informative)
In short: It isn't so much that we really care what software you use, it's that we care about your software playing nice with our software. If everyone in the world used software that supported truly open standards then we would all be more free to choose what software we want for ourselves.
We are the front lines in informal tech support (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of us are also the first tech support contact for many of our family and friends. It is super frustrating to get problem reports for things like:
I don't have any of these problems on linux/firefox. Its hard for me to figure out what is wrong with software that I don't use and don't care about. Usually my solution is to upgrade them to the stuff I'm using.
--
Currency Exchange Calculator [ostermiller.org]
Sure thing (Score:4, Informative)
Popularity is not a function of hackability. Being poorly written and stupidly integrated into the low rings of the OS is.
Re:Sure thing (Score:4, Informative)
That's exactly what Apple does. When you fire up a new Mac, one of the things it asks you is whether you want a web server. If you click "Yes", it sets up an apache server on the machine. You have a "Sites" directory that is your web directory. You move files into that directory (or subdirectories). They're on the Web, at least if your machine is on the Web. If not, it's still a live web site which you can test locally to your heart's desire. When you have it like you want it, you can copy the whole thing to a machine that is on the Web.
I have a Powerbook on which I do this, though my actual Web sites are on linux and FreeBSD boxes. It works fine, and there's no history of novices' machines (or mine
(There is a serious problem with running rsync between OSX and other unixoid systems. But that's a different issue, not related to security.)
Of course, you can still endanger your machine by installing CGI programs that violate security. But your typical Joe Sixpack isn't gonna do that. Programmers will, but they're not "people who know nothing about computers".
No, apache is the poster boy for debunking the claim that being a market leader automatically makes you a hacker/cracker target. Apache has nearly 70% of the web-server market now, but it isn't a security threat. Your CGI programs may be, but apache isn't.
You'll have to find a better excuse for why IE is such a security danger. The real reason is that it's written to be insecure, and MS has no motive to fix its problems. After all, it's the market leader, so people must like it the way it is. Why change something that's so popular?
Re:Interoperability (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Interoperability (Score:3, Interesting)
I actually agree with you completely, I'm just pointing out that to the user that's still using the old software, and who doesn't have a political or philosophi
Re:Interoperability (Score:4, Insightful)
It is neither person's fault. The blame lies with companies like Microsoft that refuse to play nice with the rest of the software world. There really is no reason that both types of users shouldn't be able to use their different software. This is the whole point behind having open standards; we all get to choose our own tools while still being able to communicate with each other.
I'm just pointing out that to the user that's still using the old software, and who doesn't have a political or philosophical disagreement with that software, and who isn't techie enough to care about how "under the hood" their software is junk, your argument isn't really going to convince them of anything.
My argument isn't intended to convince them of anything. If I had my way, they would still be able to use whatever software they find most comfortable. The point is to allow this freedom for _everyone_ including the minorities.
Re:Interoperability (Score:3, Insightful)
Open formats are mandatory, an
Re:Interoperability (Score:3, Insightful)
Much more importantly though, I don't feel safe using products such as IE, and I fear for the safety my family and friends on the internet. I gave my fiance a computer for christmas - I built it myself and installed Fedora Core 2 for her; she's very happy with it, and I am relaxed since she has a reliable, secure computer.
Plus a lot of F/L/OS software is just better than the alter
Re:"Text" (Score:3, Informative)
With a little luck, yes... Things have been improving in this area lately but I might point out that often times even Microsoft can't properly support all their different versions of the
Re:Interoperability (Score:3, Insightful)
Using open standards would not change this. What will change is the number of choices that we have to get a particular task done as well as the number of choices for jobs themselves. Technology jobs are not going to decline. We just might start seeing more opportunities working with a wider variety of software. It would be a big win for everyone. Also, if Microsoft all of a sudden st
Re:Interoperability (Score:3, Insightful)
Call me crazy but I think that if companies found that IT spending paid off more (because it meant actually getting something accomplished rather than spending all this time for maintenance of poorly written software) that they might pay more for it.
IT budgets aren't that flexible. People will find ways to spend the money that will help their business. If you are not spending all
I do it for the ladies (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I do it for the ladies (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I do it for the ladies (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I do it for the ladies (Score:5, Funny)
That's easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do people try to get other people on their side in an argument instead of just arguing alone?
Re:That's easy (Score:3, Insightful)
Mozilla/Firefox is successful because they actually had some financial backing to PAY a staff to keep things running (in addition to a really smart group of core dev
Re:That's easy (Score:3, Funny)
My project is a one-man-when-I-have-time project. It's more like quarter-ass.
Re:That's easy (Score:3, Insightful)
she visits. This will encourage web developers to make certain that their
sites are compatable with Firefox. Therefore, just by using Firefox when
she browses, your mother helps improve the browsing experience for all Firefox
users.
It's a subtle effect, but a very real one.
Open Source shouldn't be sole criterion (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't recommend Open Source software unless I think it's good software. That said, Open Source has an impressive track record for quality software when compared head to head with commercial software. (I couldn't IMAGINE using any of the standalone IM clients when I look at what gaim offers both in functionality and in ease of use.)
Especially in the last few years Open Source software has made great strides (Firefox, OpenOffice, Gimp, Gaim). Still, while I'm a great fan and advocate of linux, I keep my Open Source recommendations safely in the Windows realm... not what I'd like, but people are definitely reluctant to learn a new "system", and I do enough support without having to be the ONLY linux person they know to go to. (While I still have to field LOTS of Windows questions from friends and family, at least they have other people they go to when they can't find me.)
But, finally, in the Windows world there are many great Open Source options and I've found people quite receptive. For example, again and again I get thanks from converted Firefox users -- which is nice (though I cringe at the thought of Microsoft finally responding with IE7 and features stolen to match Firefox).
Bottom line: having learned from experience I only recommend Open Source alternatives when I'm completely confident the alternative will be:
For myself, I try to use Open Source alternatives whenever possible, but for the unwashed masses the above criteria apply.
Re:Open Source shouldn't be sole criterion (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say Open Source has an impressive track record for powerful software, and an abysmal one for polished software. I use and like a lot of OSS, including the stuff you mention, but seldom recommend it to non-geeks. I like power, they demand polish.
For example, I really like Gaim (on Windows), and as one of the most polished Open Source programs I've used, it's an exception, I do reccomend it to non-geeks. Yet even it is not as polished
Re:Open Source shouldn't be sole criterion (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty much exactly my point. Technology is what I do for a living, so not only do I "do" linux even when it pisses me off, I consider it part of my job, even when I'm not on the clock. I do think today linux is close to being a viable candidate for more savvy and adventurous users. Certainly it is more stable (for me) and offers myriad options. Most Windows users don't want that (options) but I've found once users have gotten in deep enough with linux (at least above their balls) they readily take the
Actually, I don't care. (Score:2, Insightful)
Umm.. duh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Because Microsoft's E-mail client and web browser are unsafe and insecure products. People using software with default security profiles that ensure arbitrary code does not run is in everybody's best interest.
Re:Umm.. duh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Especially when these people are your friends and family, and you do not want to see them get hurt by a virus or identiy scam.
Re:Umm.. duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Much like, when somebody drives with an automobile that is a gross polluter, everybody has to breathe the air that is tainted with their car's smog. Cumulatively, this adds up to a real problem in a hurry.
Re:Umm.. duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll second that, and go one further. As the person my family and friends beg for help when their Windows systems have been crippled by spyware, as soon as I'm done cleaning up (or re-installing), I always install Firefox and suggest they use it. I warn them that they might come across some pages that do not work correctly in Firefox, but I also remind them that there are some pages IE was not displaying correctly either, and suggest the effort and frustration saved by using Firefox most of the time would be worth it.
It's a 30 years old problem actually. (Score:2, Interesting)
Homebrew club, people that got together for fun but also for finding
solutions to many problems the early PC had.
They were a bunch of hippies of the 70's, sharing everything, every ideas,
every solutions, every new concept together. It was so creative, so
powerful that it generated one of the biggest industry on the planet.
When enough problems were solved this way some (especially one that called all
the others "thieves") stopped sharing
Re:It's a 30 years old problem actually. (Score:5, Insightful)
Closed Source Solution = Cannot be a good solution.
You have the "I don't own a TV so you shouldn't either" or "I am a vegan and you should be too" type of attitude this guy is talking about.
Re:It's a 30 years old problem actually. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's nice and all, but you're missing the part of history in which PC's became ubiquitous because of companies like Microsoft and Intel.
Re:It's a 30 years old problem actually. (Score:4, Insightful)
Brilliant reasoning.
All of these closed source companies making software out there are producing bad solutions? That is patently ridiculous. Blind zealotry, as illustrated in myopic statements like that, are not helping promote your position in any way.
To assume that companies like Microsoft, Sun, Adobe, Oracle, SAP (all "closed-source") are not producing ANY good solutions is retarded.
This sort of inane "spread the love, give away your work for free, and make the world a better place" is so unrealistic it is laughable. What color is the sky in your world?
I like making money. It helps feed my family, among other useful things. I have no problems at all taking money in exchange for writing software. We live in a capitalistic society. Money is exchanged for goods and services. That is how life works. If I have a kick ass idea, do you think my first thought is "hmmm, I should give this away and get good Karma!" or "Hey, cool, I could sell this and make a million bucks!". Hmmm, lets see.... Karma.. or .. A Million Dollars? I'll take the $$ every time. Screw Karma, I need to live in the real world.
Re:It's a 30 years old problem actually. (Score:5, Interesting)
Services are rendered, goods are exchanged. Software is copied. Therein lies the difference. In order to give something away you have to lose whatever that item is. Remember, the meaning of life is not "get as much as possible, enjoy as much as possible, and do as little as possible", it is to further the SPECIES. You further the species by contributing to it.
Re:It's a 30 years old problem actually. (Score:3, Informative)
It's not an either/or proposition. It's possible to write software for profit and contribute to open source software.
Various reasons... (Score:3, Insightful)
I generally do it for a mix of the three.
For the most part... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:For the most part... (Score:3, Interesting)
Troll? "Funny" was a better moderation. Heck, I would have modded it Insightful.
Everybody here's acting like their intentions are pure, but there are a LOT of posts here touting OSS as a form of middle finger in the direction of Redmond. I'm not saying their hatred of MS isn't justified, but it is tainting their judgement.
It helps me, too! (Score:4, Insightful)
(And then there's all that other stuff about improving the products I use more as a result of a broader user base.)
Why I care: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, it's usually free.
-Jesse
Simply economics (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, as a working programmer, I'd much rather work on a sane system like a Unix variant than the damn Windows API I am forced to deal with. The more popular Linux (and/or OS/X) becomes, the more likely I can get a job doing so.
In other words, simple self-interest.
Re:Simply economics (Score:4, Insightful)
The time (time = money) spent by a couple of guys in open source might as well be the equivalent of the price paid for commercial software.
But since they already got their software running, it's not a waste, but an investment. Sure, they might have bought the expensive solution - but here's where things get interesting: They not only GET their investment back, but thousands or millions of people get the benefit.
In other words, Open Source is creating riches. For the masses. Just because the riches aren't in dollars (but in software) doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact, these riches save time (time = money).
Which leads us back to the beginning: The more free time, the more of it people can invest into OSS. It's a virtuous circle.
Why I take it seriously: (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I'm the one that has to clean up the mess that's been made, and I'm lazy.
My reasons (Score:2, Insightful)
The Best (Score:2, Insightful)
Spyware (Score:5, Insightful)
For my own safety (Score:2)
Whether they go 100% open source or not doesn't really matter to me.
Multiplicity (Score:3, Insightful)
But I fully admit to not understanding the "hate Microsoft at any price." I think there is just a drive among some people to hate the leader. In computing that's been Microsoft. In MP3 players it's now Apple, and you hear a lot of that there. People ought just be able to pick the solution they like. So long as that's possible, who cares?
Have you... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever done it multiple times in one week?
I describe the above as a 'repetitive stress injury on the brain'.
Sure, the time's billable, but still. I hate MS as much as the next guy, but when it comes right down to it, I recommend more useable solutions, and useability includes not being infected to the gills.
By the way, nice troll for clickthroughs. Amazon would be impressed.
Because... (Score:2)
I care about the world avoiding vendor lock-in because I have to live and work in the world that results from everybody's choices.
Freedom baby, yeah (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't. (Score:3, Informative)
Having 10,000 or 10 'ordinary' users makes very little difference to my projects, if those users are not contributing code or at least bug reports. On the contrary, they might beg for support or make nagging requests for features.
Now I do try to give support to an extent (just being a nice person), but hey, I can't teach the whole world the basics of computers, can I?
There's nothing wrong with someone asking for a feature either, but if you get 200 emails asking for a feature, you're just annoying me and wasting time I could've spent implementing it.
So there are upsides and downsides to popularity.
Apart from that; I expect people to use whatever is the best tool for the job. It might be free software, but it might not be either. I'm not on any personal crusade to save the world or crush Microsoft.
But hey, that's just me.
Duh! (Score:5, Funny)
Because I want to look good in my fellow Slashdotter's eyes.
Weird, I was just thinking about this... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are very good reasons for people to use Free software, no matter who we're talking about: adherence to standards, the ability of the community to improve the software (and vouch for its security), knowing that it won't just disappear because a company goes out of business, or become obnoxious because of a licensing change. You know the arguments as well as anyone here, I suppose.
But my zeal is harder to explain. Those are important things to me, but I really feel sometimes like I've got religion. It's great: black-and-white boundaries (well, sort of), good guys (Saint Linus, Saint RMS) and bad (Bill Gates, SCO), a nice sense of everything-has-been-building-up-to-THIS-MINUTE!, apocalypse (in the original sense of the word: a revealing that behind the petty, mundane battles of day-to-day life are huge, cosmic battles between Good and Evil)...everything a closet drama queen could want. (I'm serious about that; anyone who likes Sisters of Mercy songs for the lyrics would looooooove discussing Free Software.)
I try to keep it in check; I'm a sysadmin, and in my job it's most important to make sure people can do their job. But it pains me -- O! How it pains me! -- to see the growing number of Windows desktops here, and it's not just because I miss a decent command line.
Open Source depends on users.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am constantly trying to move friends and family to open source products... not only for their benifit but also for the benefit of the projects themselves. Whether or not this is "the right thing to do" is up for grabs... but it makes me happy to see my wife using Firefox and (on the odd occasion that it crashes) clicking the "Submit" button on the crash reporting screen. That is enough reason for me to evangelize.
Friedmud
Several reasons (Score:4, Informative)
Epidemic control - I want people to use more secure software on network connected machines for the same reason that I support mass immunization programs. Such steps reduce the number of vectors and, therefore, the rate at which harmful data can spread.
Support - I'm a geek, and my friends know it. they call me for help. I urge them to use free software (or Macs) to cut down on the number of support calls I get. (Or at least to make the support calls a bit more interesting.)
Politics of Open Societies - I want all information produced by my tax dollars to be made publically available. (I'm willing to accept some reasonalble limits on militarily and diplomatically sensitive data, but eventually everything should come into the public domain... even if it's 100 years later.) When it does, that data should be in formats that are not proprietary.
Pragmatism (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple fact: My parents have managed to pick up spyware and an email worm or two using Outlook/IE. I installed Firefox and Eudora (running in lite/free-as-in-beer edition) on their machine, and in the last two years they haven't had a problem, and claim that both are "easier to use" than their previous counterparts. One is open source, the other closed source but still free-as-in-beer. Since then, they've been more productive and have had exactly no spyware/worm/virus problems.
Would I switch them to OO? Not likely, even I can't make it do some of the things I want, and the training to convert them from MSO to OO would outweigh the gain (none?).
In a business environment, though, I will often advocate using open source. I'm a firm proponent in not relying on vendors, but being able to open up the code when something goes wrong and fix it quickly. I've just seem too many cases where my own company was worried about having a vendor to blame rather than concentrating on making things work.
Altruism and idealism (Score:5, Insightful)
As a more savvy user, I just have and urge and a duty to help people I know and like. And as most friends, even the most technically unsavvy, ignorant and technologically careless people use their Mozilla or Firefox and *never* switch back and even install that thing on their own on the next machine or at the office, I feel I helped them. Most are thankful the popups are gone, the tabbed browsing is easy, Google is fast to reach and their computer breaks down less often - I don't have that much support issues for my friends, there's less malware to bust and less systems to reinstall for them. And to be honest, it was quite a burden sometimes when another PC was infected *again* and they'd called me in panic to make that thing usable *again*.
And then, it's ideological. Fight monopolies, for the betterment of society as a whole and my own cheaper and better software environment in the future. And then you see people thanking you for showing them alternatives. Not all people are happy using an infringed copy of Office XP and even less are ready to shell out 300 bucks for a legal one. So give them OpenOffice, they are happy, society is a small bit better and it doesn't cost more than a few cents.
So in short: I've seen my friends and colleagues quite happy with their Mozilla enough times to know I've got to convert some more to that browser. And I know exactly the internet and document world would look like hell and be useless when open standards and free-as-in-speech software weren't there. I hate it when people are exploited or hindered and that's why I try to make open and free standard software popular among my friends and relatives.
Productivity, Interoperability, and Funding (Score:4, Interesting)
I've recently helped a few people obtain new computers. MS Office Small Business (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Outlook) adds $279 to a computer that costs less than $400 without it. I've been able to introduce OpenOffice.org to these people because it makes financial sense, and because it is interoperable with documents created on or transferred to their MS Office systems on the job.
I currently work for a US government agency that is dealing with layoffs and cutting of entire areas of research due to funding. Idealistically, I like to think that a shift to more free/open source solutions would allow us to shift the money that goes to new software and maintenance licenses would free up funds to keep the intellectual resources we have, or at the very least allow those of us left to have more funds available to attempt to carry out out research. I try not to be a zealot, but whenever I hear complaints about proprietary software or formats or when it comes time that we are looking to renew maintenance licenses or get new software, I make sure to point out that there are other solutions available, and that I have been using them since I started.
One shouldn't be obnoxious about these things. As these products improve over time, and as we are able to point out sensible adoption strategies for them at the right time, I think the shift will occur naturally. I've noticed more and more coworkers using the software or coming to ask me questions about it over the last 6 months or so, and those I've gotten to use OpenOffice.org on their new computers have been ecstatic. Switching to new software without a directly observable financial or productivity gain can be hard to sell. Deciding to spend the time to learn a few small changes in office software instead of doubling the price of a new computer is easy.
Freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
While I take issues with some of the ways some countries have decided to "protect democracy" I also take issues with the way some people have decided to "spread opensource". That is, Zeolots of any nature are to be discouraged.
I don't think people should be yelled at shouted out or otherwise badgered about their choices of software. I do however think that there is a lack of education about opensource alternatives, and a great deal of FUD (dis/mis information) that's spread out and about and that fighting that is important.
But how do we fight FUD? but through the continuing open of discource between people about the alternatives and the freedoms (and the consequences of that freedom) that are available to them.
--Anders
Because Tech Support is sick of this crap (Score:3, Informative)
I have worked tech support for a few years now while I attend school. Having been on the wrong side of too many "My computer crashed and what do you mean you can't fix it sight unseen over the phone for free?" conversations, I can easily answer why some people are adamant about switching.
Simply because we are tired of hearing about all the problems people have out of something. We have suggested to our customers for a long time that they switch to various applications. Why do we suggest Firefox? Because people who use Firefox don't call every week when it is jampacked full of spyware to the point where they can't get anyway. We only get those calls from IE uses. Why do we suggest Mac or Linux? Because those users don't call every week with another computer crash. Why do we suggest any switch? Because the switch will make our problems less.
You may be happy with what you have, and in that case carry on. But for those who call every day with some sort of problem, please switch.
When it's better (Score:5, Insightful)
As for other programs, it really depends on the person and the needs. If they can't afford Microsoft Office, I recommend OpenOffice, but I warn that there are still a few compatibility problems. I tell people that Gimp is pretty cool, nowhere near Photoshop, but about seven hundred dollars less. I mainly recommend it for people that haven't gotten around to pirating Photoshop yet.
Then, of course, there's Linux. I love Linux and have a pretty awesome setup here at home. When people see it, a lot of them end up wanting to switch. Most of the time, I tell them not to. The thing I love about Linux is how you can get into the guts of the system to configure, troubleshoot, or build on it yourself. That's also why it's not so good for most people. I love being able to dig through text files to tune it just right, or add the right code to make it do something really obscure. It's really awkward when a non-techie ends up having to do the same. For instance, I just set up Debian on my new computer and gdm isn't coming up. I don't care, I just disable gdm anyway. I'll jigger around with XF86Config later on, but X isn't a big priority for me. The normal user, when thrown back to a text console, would have no idea what to do. If they want to learn, I'd be glad to help, but I know a lot of people that don't want to spend hours editing text files and reading through man pages to be able to use their computer.
The main point is, as far as day-to-day usability is concerned, proprietary software is often still way past open source. I'm not bashing it. It's made for different purposes. But the complexity and adaptability I'm so fond of will likely keep it from being embraced by the population at large.
What an interestingly one-sided view. (Score:4, Insightful)
Throughout the question, we can see that letting people do things which can be shown to be unethical, costly, and dismissive of freedoms we ought to cherish (such as freedom of speech) are considered "harangu[ing]" or "obnoxious", and yet nothing proprietors do is framed in that way.
I hope this doesn't mean that it's okay for them to deny me the freedom to share and modify. I hope this isn't yet another attempt to frame the debate so that the onus of responsibility is on me to justify myself without requiring business to justify treating me this way. Sharing and modifying is how computing worked since long before the free software community began, proprietary software is actually rather new, but that zeitgeist has been lost in large part. If it weren't for the free software community, we wouldn't have wonderful things like GNU/Linux systems.
I don't teach people about open source because that movement was built to cater primarily to business [gnu.org], and I'm interested in speaking to all computer users, not just businesses. I teach people about software freedom and related matters on my radio talk show (Digital Citizen, every other Wednesday on WEFT 90.1 FM [weft.org] from 8-10p) and I take calls. If you're in the Champaign, IL area then, I invite you to tune in and join the discussion. I don't think of open source as an enemy, I think of open source as a newer spin-off that loses a great deal of power in its argument by dropping any talk about freedom. One practical freedom that movement doesn't push for is private derivatives (making a copy of a program's source code, changing it to meet one's needs, and using it privately without telling anyone else it exists), something I've used a lot to solve my own computing problems.
I do this work for my radio show because I take threats including DRM, software patents, and so-called "trusted computing [gnu.org]" (which the FSF refers to as "treacherous computing") seriously. The mainstream media never discusses these issues from the user's point of view, if they discuss them at all. Their focus invariably encourages the user to take the business perspective and ignore what these ideas mean for them. I think these topics deserve serious inquiry and challenge. Software freedom addresses these issues head-on and provides a viable path for us to be able to compete on the quality of the good or service provided, respecting the idea that what separates us from a dog-eat-dog jungle is working together and helping each other when we need help.
Many reasons (Score:3, Informative)
I encourage people to use something other than Outlook for the same reason.
For the rest, its less consistent. I got my cubicle neighbor doing documents in laTeX when Word kept choking over and over and over. Curiously, that's when I started using TeX as well.
For the OS kernel, I don't encourage people to change. However, I think it is self-evident that a much better kernel comes from open source development. I enter in as evidence Windows, linux kernel, and Mac's Darwin kernel. The open source kernels just catch more bugs and are easier to develop over. Here's an example.
I was developing a text editor (customizing, really) on linux. I also used DEC workstations, so I ported it to work there too. There was a problem with the POSIX function glob. It worked fine under linux. I downloaded the glibc code to look at it. Very straightforward. Then on Digital Unix it failed. I asked Dec for help. I sent them the code, explained it failed. No feedback. They coulda cared less if glob worked or not.
It was actually trickier. I later discovered glob calls ksh to execute under Digital Unix. It actually forks a process to do a glob. Ksh would either work on not depending on whether it thought it was calling glob from an interactive process.
So I talked to Dec again. Again, they coulda cared less. And, without having the underlying source code, I couldn't send them a patch - stuck with a broken system. So, I re-wrote the function glob so it would work under Digital Unix instead of using the POSIX library call.
You know, this happens all the time programming to closed systems. Little intricacies about what makes the system functions work or not are locked up, and the company could care less about your needs as a programmer. You learn to simply program around those OS and library bugs.
In an open source system, you learn to report them to the code owner and/or fix them.
I prefer the latter enormously, and it is my main reason for preferring open source systems for programming.
it's like smoking (Score:3, Insightful)
however, when i have to pick up the bill (increased taxes (in countries with universal healthcare) and/or increased insurance premiums (in the US and other third world countries)); when i have to come home from a bar reeking of smoke; or when my aunt dies of lung cancer after a lifetime not smoking but working in the casino industry, i start to see your 'private behavior' as impinging on me, and take an interest in limiting where and how you smoke, as well as how much of the resulting mess you pay for.
likewise, when my network access goes to shit because the latest melissa virus is chewing half the worl's bandwidth; whe i keep having to fend off relatives begging me to come and de-infest their windows boxes; when the 'network and IT support' indirect charge on the grants my (all linux/mac) department receives in effect subsidizes the high-support requirements of the other, windows-running departments at my research institute, i start to give a shit what other people have running on their boxes, and take an interest in sandboxing your shitboxes off frm my network, and in making sure you bear the full financial costs of your stupid IT decisions.
Speaking as an open-source agnostic... (Score:3, Insightful)
The open-source plaintiff stepped forward and said, "You cannot trust a heartless and soulless corporation to care about your needs!"
"I believe you are right!" cried Nasrudin.
The closed source defendant objected, "You haven't heard our side of the story yet!"
Nasrudin nodded. "Then let us now hear the defendant."
The defendant stepped forward and said, "You cannot trust strangers to help and support you out of the goodness of their hearts!"
"I believe you are right!" cried Nasrudin.
The bailiff coughed, and said "Your honor... we can't decide the case if they are BOTH right."
"I believe you are right!" cried Nasrudin.
Most respondents seem to be dodging the question (Score:3, Insightful)
The question that people seem to be responding to here is "why I recommend non-Microsoft software solutions".
Me? I prefer (and recommend) the best tool for the job, whether it's open source or not. I love Firefox, but I also love Photoshop. My OS is OS X because "it just works" for me better than desktop Linux ever did - although both of them helped me to be more productive than when I was a Windows user.
Because I'm their default support guy (Score:3, Interesting)
But if they're running Windows, I tell them they're on their own. First of all, a typical Windows machine has far more than its share of major problems. Worms, viruses and spyware are almost entirely Windows afflictions, and most people just won't pay attention to my repeated lectures on proper network hygiene until it's too late.
Second, I find it quite painful to debug a Windows machine even when it's in front of me. Time really starts to drag after the first ten or twenty reboots. Trying to do it over the phone from thousands of miles away, unable to see the screen or type some complicated command without having to spell it out verbally several times, is just beyond my patience. VNC is sometimes useful, but it's painfully slow even over cable modems or DSL, and you still need local human intervention whenever a reboot is needed -- which is all too frequent with Windows.
Self-interest (Score:3, Interesting)
Example 2: Another of my customers was using a Debian based PC that I made for them, until they asked me to fit a cheap Vivitar digital camera to it. Which doesn't work, because the camera doesn't properly support USB Mass Storage. Goodbye, Linux. Hello, Windows 98.
Conclusion: I hope that popular open source will help people keep control of their computers. I also hope it will help manufacturers stop producing broken hardware.
Parable of the school teacher (Score:3, Interesting)
Janet buys a computer for herself, but doesn't buy a copy of Office. Later she finds out that Wordpad isn't really what she needs in a word processor. She visits one of the local appliance shops which also sell PC software.
Discussing the situation with the sales person she finds she will be paying $200 for a copy of Office. Now $200 is much better than the full price only because she can get the academic pricing, but it is still $200 she can ill afford.
Just then a young man comes up to her and asks her what she needs the word processor for. Does it need to run Macro's etc. She answers that it will be used for writing letters, looking at the childrens homework etc. The young man then suggests that she take a look at OpenOffice, which can be purchased at another store thats only a few minutes walk away.
Intrigued she walks down to the store and buys a copy of OpenOffice for $10. Getting home she pops the CD into the computer and with littlw effort has OpenOffice up and running. How, she wonders, can such excellent software ge so cheap. She begins tgo read the front cover describing that OpenOffice is open source, and what open source means.
Three months later the entire school has changed to OpenOffice, as the idea of freedom that Janet brought to the school caught like wildfire with the teachers that saw the quality of open source. Janet was now used Linux at home, but her journey into open source was just beginning.
Re:Easy. (Score:3, Funny)
Well, what do you expect if they're using Windows?