It’s so funny I read this in my newsletters this AM.
I had just put up links in a blog to an OS program that I found through reading newsletters through here…
Yes, there are great commercial programs out there, and I use those, too.
One such program that creams the commercial - and bloated, in my opinion - competition is media player classic. I’ve used all different kinds of programs for video play… tweaked and tried to get them to behave the way I wanted. Even VLC player didn’t preform for me the way I though it would given all the hoopla over it.
Not everyone wants to deal with the development part of it. They just want something that does the job.
The cool this about Open Source is it is never packages with crap you don’t need. Like malware…

By Scott’s logic, I should forgo OpenOffice, entirely adequate for my needs — and then some — because Office 2007 (one of the buggiest, most exploit-ridden versions of Office ever) is more finished? Just because I don’t code?

Hello?

Couldn’t disagree more. It is usually the “average Joe” that wants to get all the toys and doesn’t want to spend the cash to get them. I can’t even begin to count the number of times that I have heard the statement “You’re a computer guy, can you get me a copy of {insert any commercial software package here} for free?”

I simply deflect that question and point them towards an open source package that they can use and get the results they require. Not only that, it gives exposure to those programs to a larger audience.

I’m an average user. I’m an educator, not a software engineer. But I love Lockergnome because it keeps me abreast of technical developments– especially freeware, and, more importantly, Open Source software.

Some have suggested that if we Joes don’t “take advantage of the opportunity to modify Open Source” then we should stick to commercial software. I suggest that some people have more money than sense. Open Source is great not just because you can develop it, but because it’s free–as in no ad-ware, no bloatware, no spy ware, oh, and no cost. And if enough people use it, programmers will be encouraged to keep developing it. Who wants to develop a program that only another geek is going to use because the average Joe is too easily duped by overpriced, bloated software that may even do damage to his computer (I’m thinking Vista as well as other masochistic software peddled on the unwary Joe). Don’t give up on us, please.

I support the concept of Open Source with because it holds hope that there are Lone Rangers out there willing to save us from the bullies. Granted, I may need three programs to do what one commercial program would do, but with every mouse click, I’m saying, “Thanks! Keep up the resistance!” This cannot be overstated. Remember there are people in the world who cannot–and will never be able to–pay. I foresee a day when I’ll switch completely to Linux (I’ve already started). And I hope one day, that not only does most of the world use Open Source exclusively, but that commercial software becomes relegated to such highly specialized tasks (read “only the big and powerful need it”) that programmers will write the code for them only if they are paid for it.

“But should Open Source software be considered when you know that you will not take advantage of the opportunity to modify it?”

It seems to me that Scott is saying that I should not be allowed to use Open Source software because I am not a software coder. I should not use Firefox because I haven’t contributed any code? Is that truly the intent of open-source? Is it just for geeks and ‘Joe Average” should not get to use it because he hasn’t contributed to its development or modified it? That seems like a pretty short-sighted attitude.

I spent 40+ years in IT (DP, MIS, IS etc, etc) but I never wrote a line of code (unless you count IBM’s JCL as code). I always worked on the infrastructure side. I was the guy who pulled the cables, made sure the power was correct, calculated the HVAC load, installed the patch panels, tested connectivity, fought with the telcos, monitored the system, and had to convince the software types that the problem really was with their code. Does that mean I am not qualified to use open source? Sorry Scott, but I use it all the time. I frequently browse through SF.net looking for software that meets my needs. I realize that in ‘commercial software ‘feature-rich’ is usually shorthand for “Bloatware”.

What I personally think is bothering Scott is that open source is free. And some people are taking advantage of his work. Well if that is what bothers you, don’t write open source. Sell it! I frequently try shareware also, and have no problem paying if it is useful to me.