why free software will never beat proprietary software.

[phuckphace]

"the year of the Linux desktop is just around the corner!"
--- The Internet

sorry Linus, sorry RMS. :( the vast majority of commercial software that people use is closed-source, and most software is closed-source in order to limit the supply, allowing programmers and developers to profit from their work. it is an elementary fact that people who need jobs to eat in a capitalist economy must seek profit in order to support their livelihoods. free software exists within a useful niche where it is practical but can't work everywhere, for the same reason that charity soup-kitchens exist, but haven't replaced for-profit supermarkets and restaurants.

free software nerds often make the mistake of assuming that most people care about "software freedom" or the ability to compile their software from source (they don't). because nerds tend to have an almost unlimited amount of disposable time, they forget the old adage that is still very relevant in the serious business world: "Time is money." most people, least of all professionals who use computers for a living, do not have five or six hours a day that they can spare to compile/recompile their software, bang out 50 lines of Terminal commands to make minor system changes, or search Linux forums in vain for a missing driver. closed-source, Windows-based solutions are attractive to most companies for exactly this reason: a large ecosystem, almost universal hardware support and dedicated technical support means that the company spends a lot less time troubleshooting and more time being productive and profitable. it's also worth noting that Red Hat Enterprise, an unusually popular distribution of Linux, also operates under a similar model. again: wasted time = wasted money. when I turn my shit on, it needs to "just work."

I know that MSFT Corp sucks. Windows is not without its flaws. but the reality is that the Windows ecosystem exists and is ready to go out of the box right now, no neckbeard required. it may even be an example of a natural monopoly, given that maximum compatibility and interoperability are highly desirable in the world of computing. I'm personally familiar enough with Linux that I can usually wrangle it into submission in under an hour, but I don't think for a second that everyone can.

[CosmicNoodle]

This just seems to be stating the blatantly obvious, as if people where to stupid to figure it out themselves.

[Sugaree]

"the year of the Linux desktop is just around the corner!"
--- The Internet

sorry Linus, sorry RMS. :( the vast majority of commercial software that people use is closed-source, and most software is closed-source in order to limit the supply, allowing programmers and developers to profit from their work. it is an elementary fact that people who need jobs to eat in a capitalist economy must seek profit in order to support their livelihoods. free software exists within a useful niche where it is practical but can't work everywhere, for the same reason that charity soup-kitchens exist, but haven't replaced for-profit supermarkets and restaurants.

free software nerds often make the mistake of assuming that most people care about "software freedom" or the ability to compile their software from source (they don't). because nerds tend to have an almost unlimited amount of disposable time, they forget the old adage that is still very relevant in the serious business world: "Time is money." most people, least of all professionals who use computers for a living, do not have five or six hours a day that they can spare to compile/recompile their software, bang out 50 lines of Terminal commands to make minor system changes, or search Linux forums in vain for a missing driver. closed-source, Windows-based solutions are attractive to most companies for exactly this reason: a large ecosystem, almost universal hardware support and dedicated technical support means that the company spends a lot less time troubleshooting and more time being productive and profitable. it's also worth noting that Red Hat Enterprise, an unusually popular distribution of Linux, also operates under a similar model. again: wasted time = wasted money. when I turn my shit on, it needs to "just work."

I know that MSFT Corp sucks. Windows is not without its flaws. but the reality is that the Windows ecosystem exists and is ready to go out of the box right now, no neckbeard required. it may even be an example of a natural monopoly, given that maximum compatibility and interoperability are highly desirable in the world of computing. I'm personally familiar enough with Linux that I can usually wrangle it into submission in under an hour, but I don't think for a second that everyone can.

The problem is that when people hear the word "free", they think gratis, not freedom. And while free software is generally offered without any price attached to it, there is no clause that says free-as-in-freedom software CAN'T be charged for. The only stipulations are that you give the users the four freedoms listed in the GPL. However, with the nature of free software users, there will always be one or two users who have to ruin it for everyone else by making their OWN version of the same exact program. It can be as simple as fixing a tiny bug that the original developer didn't catch and another user will fix it and market it as their own software (albeit, giving credit to the original developer and extending the same four freedoms they were given upon originally receiving the software).

I think the free software movement is a genuinely interesting movement. It definitely appeals to some common sensibilities of free market economics with little intervention from the outside. However, that doesn't make proprietary software the enemy. Proprietary software is often much better than free and open source alternatives because companies hold themselves liable to give the customer support for the product through EULAs. However, the added stipulations that concern me in most EULAs are ones where the user is told that they don't own the software they are using, but merely have a license to use it that can be revoked, at any time, for any reason.

A good example would be the EULA for the video game Killing Floor 2. In the EULA to that game - and I'm paraphrasing here - it states that if you, as a license holder, are found to be bullying users while playing the game, the developer will outright ban the serial key for your purchased copy and not refund you the money you paid.

Let's ignore the issue of what is and is not "bullying" in a video game and, rather, focus on taking away control from the user over the software. Does the user deserve to be given source code to something like a video game? If the developers want to give out source code to their assets (i.e, map making tools, level editors, art, etc.), then that should be left to the developers. Simply put, developers aren't able to completely open source their games because of license agreements they have signed with various companies NOT to share the sources they used to make various technical aspects of the game.

The larger issue, however, is giving a company control over your personal freedom. If someone gave you money and said you could use it for anything you want, but gave you an added stipulation that you only spend it on what they (the person giving you money) want you to spend it on, would you take that money and agree to those terms? No, of course not. Why would you say that you're ok with being treated like an irresponsible child that can't be trusted? By banning serial keys and not issuing refunds to people, the developers of Killing Floor 2 are telling their customers "We don't trust you not to behave while playing our game; therefor, we are going to treat you like a child that can't make their own decisions and decide what is best for you." In a nutshell, this is what free software is about. Giving a corporation the right to control the software you use is taking away personal liberty and freedoms from you.

The only thing I commend proprietary software, such as Windows or OS X, for, is that they have become standards for computer operating systems. They have made a multi-billion dollar industry out of something that, less than half a century ago, was merely a hobby for people outside of development labs.

[kev99]

A bit ignorant of realities, there.

First, "free" does not mean "free as a beer" - with zero cost. For software, it means "freedom". Freedom of choice. What does that mean? It means that software should rely on documented standards. It means they don't tie you with absurd arbitrary random conditions. etc. The goal of free software is to not lock the user into a single solution.

Now, free software can be sold. There is no contradiction. Many enterprise grade software both offer a 0$ and a paid version of the same program. Usually, the paid one is for commercial uses, or offer more support. MariaDB/Mysql is a good example of that. Service around the software is often sold as well.

Linux can also "just work". I have it on my laptop, and I have zero trouble with it. Sure, I had to install it and set it up, but that's not because the software was inferior, it was simply because it was no preinstalled by the vendor. Linux actually supports more hardware than Windows, because it doesn't drop "obsolete" hardware with every new version. I have an old 2nd hand hp printer that is about 5 years old. It works great, but since it got dropped in Win8, I have no way to get its ink levels displayed, for example. Linux has no issue showing them, on the other hand. It "just worked" better than Windows in that case.

The reason why Linux has not moved windows away from the desktop is simple: established standards are hard to replace if the incentive is not big enough. Most people simply don't care about the freedom of computer software they use, and since they have windows preinstalled, they stick with it. Replacing the operating system is never a trivial task. Most users don't have the skills needed to do it, and a lot of those who have are frightened of consequences.

Oh and no, you don't need to compile stuff by hand. Linux distributions all have premade packages that can be installed with a simple click or a single command. Compare this to Windows where you have to google for the software, manually pick the proper version from a random website, and hope it is compatible with your version of windows. The difference is that you *can* compile most free software if you want to. That is part of what it means to give the user freedom. And the 50 terminal lines is frankly bs. That's the equivalent of playing with regedit on windows. Few people ever need to do that.

In enterprises, Linux is very popular. A lot of the servers running websites are running linux and apache, php, mysql or node.js which are all free software. Most email servers are also running free software. My home dsl modem/router is running Linux. The Lego EV3 control brick is running Linux. My Bluray tv player is running Linux.
Note that it doesn't matter at all. Linux is the base system running Android, and given how popular it is, it shows the system is not that bad, after all.

So no, Linux is not a popular desktop choice. But the rest of your comment smells heavily uninformed propaganda. It is your right to prefer Windows, it is also your right to think closed-source is a better economic model, no problem with that. But claiming as facts things that are either unproved, or sometimes in direct contradiction of reality, is quite dishonest.