Ship of Fools: Why does anyone pay for software?

Thread: Why does anyone pay for software? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026726

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The UK government plans to stop: UK government plans switch from Microsoft Office to open source and so is Germany, though the Germans will consider German that you have to pay for.

But the point that is made, is that no-one actually must pay for any software, and no-one has to even bother. Everything you buy software to do, can be done by free open source programs. This includes the operating system and all applications. All free, all legal.

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

I'd guess it has to do with the existence of support and security updates. That, plus the costs of training the work force for the new systems might exceed those of the old software.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I think most people pay for compatibility or because they need to look 100% professional. For instance, what freelancer wants their product to look like they were too cheap to use the version most people use? Even if the other version is just as good and free, you won't be thought professional if they can tell you used the free version.

Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :

Compatibility and concerns about compatibility are probably reasons too. Do the operating systems support the programs we need such as specialist software and if we send files to other people we need to know they are widely supported so they can read them too.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

There is no training cost. Users train themselves.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

But the point that is made, is that no-one actually must pay for any software, and no-one has to even bother. Everything you buy software to do, can be done by free open source programs. This includes the operating system and all applications. All free, all legal.

Well, depends. I use photoshop. GIMP is a free alternative. It is powerful, but quirky. Were I making money with my usage, Photoshop would pay for itself in time saved.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

At work I use MS Office. Not being rich enough to cough up, on this computer I installed Open Office. For personal use Open Office is fine, the sermon for Sunday was typed out on it (but, then WordPad would be fine for that!). But there are some things Open Office simply sucks at. Try putting equations into a document for example (actually Word isn't all that great for that either, but it can be done). Or import data from a file that's using something other than a tab or comma delimiter (or, even worse, multiple delimiters).

Posted by Jenn. (# 5239) on :

I pay for office because it has the features I need for uni work. I haven't been able to find those features on free software. The time I save with those features makes it completely worth the outlay. For sermons and similar, I wouldn't bother with paid for software, but for some tasks paid for software really is better.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The UK government plans to stop: UK government plans switch from Microsoft Office to open source and so is Germany, though the Germans will consider German that you have to pay for.

But the point that is made, is that no-one actually must pay for any software, and no-one has to even bother. Everything you buy software to do, can be done by free open source programs. This includes the operating system and all applications. All free, all legal.

Bought desktops/lab tops/tablets often come with a Microsoft/Android os already installed. People just accept that: 90% probably don't realise they have a choice. The first time you set up a new system - even dual boot - it's scary and often you are invalidating the H/W guarantee.

Why would a private individual buy Microsoft Office rather than LibreOffice? Support, availability of non-geekish manuals, amount of online support available (support which doesn't assume you know how to find /usr/share/applications or whatever) and so on.

But if people like to explore, aren't computer phobic, and want to save money, I'd say give it a go. But beware, you'll encounter a lot of odd people muttering "^X^C q quit :q ^C end x exit
ZZ ^D ? help killall logout ^X^Z bye".

(Written on machine running Mint XFCE).

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Try putting equations into a document for example (actually Word isn't all that great for that either, but it can be done).

Mad scientists are suppose to use LaTeX which is also a wonderful time waster. I think the amount of time I've spent tinkering with it exceeds the time spent on Solitaire.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I've never taken any computer training. I am using discarded/recycled computers and free software. I guess I kind of feel if I can do it, anyone can. All free all the time.

As for "you can't do this with that program", well, if you're experienced in using a particular paid-for program, sure, an open source program will not work quite like the one you used before. Neither would it be possible to travel UK to North America or vice versa and not have to think about how you're driving on the other side of the road. You kind of have to get out of the Windows way of thinking.

Comments about The Gimp* for photo editting, I would suggest I could call Photoshop quirky, mainly because I've only ever used The Gimp. Not sure about OO and equations, I suspect it may be similar to different ways?

*graphical image manipulation program

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I can't make OpenOffice, which is otherwise fine, do nested stuff, as in things identified as A, B, with other things inside numbered, and then lower case letters, and then numbers as i,ii and so on. Hair tearing out stuff, needed for meetings.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Just because you can do it without training doesn't mean everyone else can. I regularly figure out computer things on my own while my mom who is no less smart tends to have more trouble.

Re Open Office, no it definitely doesn't do everything Microsoft Office does. It's not just quirks. I get Office for free from work, and I used OO for a bit until I got the Microsoft suite. I discovered that I can't use macros in OO unless I pay.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I've never taken any computer training. I am using discarded/recycled computers and free software. I guess I kind of feel if I can do it, anyone can. All free all the time.

What that tells me is that you have little need to do more than read documents sent by others and that the same applies for any you send out - people aren't needing to edit them.

As a freelancer, I could theoretically choose to use whatever I liked, but the reality is that the vast majority of my clients use Office, so I do too, since a big part of my job involves sending them back the translated documents in an otherwise identical format. This kind of logic probably applies to many others using IT on a professional basis.

[ 30. January 2014, 20:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :

It's not just that we are used to some programs that won't work the same on open source, some applications wouldn't work in other OS's and there aren't free alternatives of the programmes.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

The computer comes with Windows (though I made sure I got the odd-numbered version with the new computer). I pay for games.

For everything work related, OpenOffice. No one at my publishers cares whether I'm using that or MSOffice - it handles correction tracking just fine. For graphics, I use Gimp. For videos, Movie Maker.

I'll probably move over to Linux at some point, but inevitably, that'd mean training the other Tors to use it, and frankly, I don't have the energy at the moment...

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I can't make OpenOffice, which is otherwise fine, do nested stuff, as in things identified as A, B, with other things inside numbered, and then lower case letters, and then numbers as i,ii and so on. Hair tearing out stuff, needed for meetings.

Does the option in format "Bullets and Numbering" work?
The options tab in it seems fairly powerful.
(tab) goes in a level
(enter) continues on the same level
(double enter) exits
(shift tab) goes back

(mind you I have problems getting it to work nicely in MSWord, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's not easy when actually trying to do stuff in either Open/Libre)

Also appear to have macro's though I've only just put it back on so again not tested.

--PS at what point should we move to Geek support?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It's a MAN'S operating system! Steam driven.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I've never taken any computer training. I am using discarded/recycled computers and free software. I guess I kind of feel if I can do it, anyone can. All free all the time.
What that tells me is that you have little need to do more than read documents sent by others and that the same applies for any you send out - people aren't needing to edit them.

Actually not true. We use the actual open source Libre Office over OO, and do 3 to 6 reports per week involving that number of people. People want docx documents, and we do that. I've actually gone to an "any platform" model with any programs possible as much as we can, though we use ourselves open source on mixed Linux and currently Windows7. It saves my company thousands each year. One of our partners is exclusively Apple, so we deal with their things too. It is clear that Libre Office opens MS documents fine and that MS may not always do this properly.

OO and Libre Office are not the only alternatives; I've used Abiword and KOffice in the past . We publish stuff using Scribus and then print, usually, to pdf.

--But-- moving away from debates about the merits of specific programs:

What I wonder about is why wouldn't we have a situation where all software is free and available? The IT people make their living doing service, not by reselling software. It's only big corps which want to make money that way.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
But the point that is made, is that no-one actually must pay for any software, and no-one has to even bother. Everything you buy software to do, can be done by free open source programs. This includes the operating system and all applications. All free, all legal.

Well--no.

There's a reason no architect building anything larger than a garden shed uses open source software. Just for grins, I did a web search for "open source alternatives for Vectorworks". That's the phrasing that google suggested when I started typing it in. I was able to come up with three programs fairly quickly, but their definition of "alternative" was pretty loose. Two of those programs were 2D only.

Vectorworks is the program I use almost daily. It's not the most powerful CAD program out there, but it's good for anything up to medium-size skyscrapers, so it's quite powerful for organ design. It's fast, it has the tools I need (all in one program) and it can import or export in multiple platforms--including those which can be read by the CNC router. I can do 2D, 3D, rendering, and project management.

We pay for the software because the free drawing programs simply aren't powerful enough and won't do what we need them to do. (I'd be better off going back to an old-fashioned drafting table than using most of them). The professionals who designed the program deserve their remuneration for providing a program which makes my job easier, not harder.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Try putting equations into a document for example (actually Word isn't all that great for that either, but it can be done).

Um... I teach maths for a living and long to have Libre Office installed in place of MS Office - primarily for the quality of the equation editor. Yes the editor in MS Office has improved somewhat, but it's still not as quick and easy to manage, particularly for complex equations, as Libre Office Math. Are you just not comfortable with using a markup language?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I can't make OpenOffice, which is otherwise fine, do nested stuff, as in things identified as A, B, with other things inside numbered, and then lower case letters, and then numbers as i,ii and so on. Hair tearing out stuff, needed for meetings.
Does the option in format "Bullets and Numbering" work?
The options tab in it seems fairly powerful.
(tab) goes in a level
(enter) continues on the same level
(double enter) exits
(shift tab) goes back

(mind you I have problems getting it to work nicely in MSWord, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's not easy when actually trying to do stuff in either Open/Libre)

Also appear to have macro's though I've only just put it back on so again not tested.

--PS at what point should we move to Geek support?

Have tried that sort of thing, but it usually fouls up the stuff I have already entered.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Try putting equations into a document for example (actually Word isn't all that great for that either, but it can be done).
Um... I teach maths for a living and long to have Libre Office installed in place of MS Office - primarily for the quality of the equation editor. Yes the editor in MS Office has improved somewhat, but it's still not as quick and easy to manage, particularly for complex equations, as Libre Office Math. Are you just not comfortable with using a markup language?

I might just have to try Libre Office then. The equation editor in OO4 is very limited, or totally non-intuitive.

Markup languages are no problem. My (rather dated as I've not touched it in about 10 years) was produced in Notepad typing HTML, and I'd use LaTeX a lot more if it was easier for those without any TeX experience to insert comments, track changes etc in documents bouncing around between different people.

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
There is no training cost. Users train themselves.

Clearly you've never had to sit down with my mother to teach her Facebook. Frankly, I'm not that quick to relearn program layouts myself. I'm still annoyed with MS Office's changes in layout for Mac that arrived 2-3 years ago. Things are just not where they ought to be and finding them takes time and energy, which is in itself a cost. Imagine redoing that for every single program and you get quite steep a cost in a major organisation - especially if those who are not very comp(uter)atible/quick learners fill important administrative roles. To me, there seems to be a lot of computer elitism going on at times in the open source community (leading to the support being less functional than it ought to be for professional purposes), and frankly, I'd say comments that "everyone should be able to do it", also implying "everyone SHOULD do it", seem to me to bear traces of that as well. The iPhone is the most successful (and expensive) smartphone model there is because it makes what's not that difficult and could be helpful in everyday life ridiculously simple, neat and intuitive. That's why it has mum's approval but OpenOffice has barely got mine.

Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on :

I'm in the GIMP sucks camp. Can't do half of what I can do in Photoshop. As for InDesign or Illustrator? Nothing can even come that close. And I'm including Quark in that assessment. [Razz]

I do with there were reasonable alternatives, though, since Adobe shouldn't be the only option.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

What I wonder about is why wouldn't we have a situation where all software is free and available? The IT people make their living doing service, not by reselling software. It's only big corps which want to make money that way.

IT make very little money from the average user, IIRC. They can make it from corporate clients, but is this enough to sponsor development and fixes?
You know who pays for development? You do, if you run a company with technical people. Who's computers do you think they write the software on?

quote:
In fact, 67 percent of developers polled by Evans Data Corp reported that they spend some time developing open source software while at their primary job. This means that some portion of the salary paid to the developer is allocated to work not related to their job.

Why is it OK to expect someone to work for free so that you may profit?

quote:
People assume that the primary way to pay for open source projects is to charge for support. Early commercial open-source vendors like MySQL and JBoss were able to earn significant revenue from the support-only business model, but over time the approach is difficult to grow. Corporate customers are generally willing to pay for support, however most consumers are not with only 3 percent of users actually purchasing support subscriptions.

So, what most people assume is wrong. 65 percent of developers make US$ 100 or less annually on their open source projects. Support contracts are not making most developers rich or even paying for their World of Warcraft subscriptions.

I use a mix of proprietary, Open Source and charity ware. I support, both philosophically and financially, those who offer alternatives to those who would otherwise hold us in their grip.

Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :

I was clueless but hated when MS changed from excellent Word and at the urging of my techie friends moved to Linux Ubuntu, I use that and LibreOffice and I would never go back. I can write a document in OO and then send it as Docx, rtf, anything at a click, it is that powerful.

As a continual computer newbie I just roll over to the Ubuntu forums and get tons of help at my simple level. My 80 year old father after his computer died due to a virus switched happily to Ubuntu.. I love Mint as well.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The UK government plans to stop: UK government plans switch from Microsoft Office to open source and so is Germany, though the Germans will consider German that you have to pay for.

But the point that is made, is that no-one actually must pay for any software, and no-one has to even bother. Everything you buy software to do, can be done by free open source programs. This includes the operating system and all applications. All free, all legal.

An organization that uses open source software will need to consider that while the software is free the support for the software is not. There is a burgeoning industry of companies that offer support services for open source software. Otherwise, as mentioned up thread, someone within the organization would need to be trained to support it.

In addition, companies can be reticent about using such software because of the restrictions that come with using such software. Often any derivative works or modifications to the software would need to be shared with the wider community otherwise known as
copy left.. That would mean sharing their intellectual property with existing or potential competitors.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

Sorry for the double post.

Another thing to consider is that if you are a medium sized or larger organization moving off of Office products to something else can be difficult when you have so much documentation already in Word, Excel, etc. The cost in terms time and effort to convert them to something else, even if that software is free, can be daunting.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Actually not true. We use the actual open source Libre Office over OO

I stand corrected. What your reply shows in that case, though, is that like me, you are essentially adapting to what's in use around you (unless it was your decision for your office to adopt Libre Office).

quote:
What I wonder about is why wouldn't we have a situation where all software is free and available?

Because there is no such thing as a free lunch, as prester john for instance has pointed out.

I may need to be corrected on this too, but I think you'll find that behind some parts of the open-source movement there is a huge battle for standards. Standards are not the neutral things one might suppose, they have lots of commercial interests behind them.

More broadly speaking, I think this debate highlights one of the murkier aspects of the technological revolution. A lot of traditional business models have collapsed or look seriously obsolete eg copyright), and have been replaced by what looks like freely available stuff. However, either this is not viable in the long term, or people are still making money out of it, just in much more devious ways (eg creative commons). As the adage goes, "if it's free, you are not the client, you are the product".

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

OO cannot create a true docx. I discovered this the hard way when I tried to publish on Lulu. It was a nightmare. It couldn't take it straight, and converting the file to PDF was something between a joke and an invitation to murder.

People buy software because paying someone to write software results in a superior product. the first time I tried to switch to Linux, and I bitched about one of the applications, I was told to suck it up and deal because these people were writing software out of the goodness of their hearts and I couldn't expect that my measly stupid selfish needs would be met by these busy, selfless people.

Fuck that. Give me professional software.

Posted by Philip Charles (# 618) on :

I was a Debian Developer for just under ten years (Debian is the largest GNU/Linux distribution) so I know something about Free Open Source Software (FLOSS)
FLOSS is free Libre. It is Free Gratis because people choose to give it away.
FLOSS has an absolute dominance of the super computer field - 95%.
FLOSS is the major player in the internet infrastructure. Its security is very strong.
FLOSS can be found in washing machines, fridges, TVs etc. I suspect that my defibrillator runs on FLOSS.
Android uses a Linux kernel.

Given that only 30-40% of software is written for sale, FLOSS fits neatly into the remaining 60-70% where the existing code can be modified and extended for other purposes.

The above rambling has a point.
FLOSS is not a toy, but a (the) major contributor to Communication and Information Technology, CIT.

FLOSS development takes place in a functioning anarchy which cannot be tied down by corporations or governments. Software that is illegal in the US can be downloaded from Ireland or France. Long may the anarchy continue! Imagine what the world would be like if the 'authorities' controlled software development. Preservation of this freedom is the most important reason for supporting FLOSS.

I started to switch from DOS to Linux about 1995 and now use Libre Office,the GIMP, Firefox, Evolution, GNUCash, and VLC. I get highly frustrated when forced the use Microsoft alternatives.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Most people who write serious "open source" software are (self-)employed in the IT industry, and again most of them do programming (rather than other computer-related things) as a main part of their paid job. If all people stop buying commercial software, then the "open source" community will basically collapse together with the enterprises.

Perhaps all this can move to a model where people just pay companies for "service", whereas the programs as such are for free. That would be a kind of Gillette commercial model for IT (the razor is "given away", make money on the razor blades). But we are a fair bit away from this.

Posted by Trin (# 12100) on :

I tried to switch from windows to Ubuntu about a month ago but it just isn't quite "there".

I haven't quite given up yet but I'm dissapointed.

The biggest problem for me is that there is no MS Access equivalent. The Libre Office database is years behind. A game ender for me. You can't even open ms access databases.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Our church secretary has OpenOffice on her home computer; we have the presentation program WordPress on or church laptop.

Both have compatability issues, the first when people send her (some) Word and .dat files, the second when one tries to show PowerPoint slide-shows with any animations or fonts that it does not possess.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Perhaps all this can move to a model where people just pay companies for "service", whereas the programs as such are for free. That would be a kind of Gillette commercial model for IT (the razor is "given away", make money on the razor blades). But we are a fair bit away from this.

It is already happening, and not just in FLOSS. You don't pay for google unless you want advanced features. Ubuntu is free because Canonical (the parent company) provided consultancy. These seem to be the two common models: a free version (though not necessarily open source) and you pay for extra features or to provide the product free and make money from consultancy/customisation work. And of course, in Google's case, using the size of your customer base to make you attractive to advertisers. Mozilla (Firefox/Thunderbird) apparently gets paid $200,000/year by Google to have it as the default search engine (of course you can change it but most people don't bother).

The IT version of Gillette is the printer market.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
[Also appear to have macro's though I've only just put it back on so again not tested.

Oh it definitely has them. It's just that at a certain point it interupts you, tells you that this is only in the paid version, and would you like to pay to unlock that.

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
--PS at what point should we move to Geek support?

Just don't' assume all those of us who disagree with you don't know what we are doing.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

You folks know that the Android operating system on smart phones and tablets is open source right? Some 70% of phones are running this as Apple loses market share. You can download the operating system for free, modify it, write apps for it etc. I have it running in the open source version of VirtualBox which is a computer emulator. I run it in Linux Mint.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
You folks know that the Android operating system on smart phones and tablets is open source right? Some 70% of phones are running this as Apple loses market share.

Yes, and this demonstrates very neatly that open source can have proprietary interests driving it.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Or to put it more bluntly, if you have an Android OS on your mobile, you paid for it.

Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
There's a reason no architect building anything larger than a garden shed uses open source software. Just for grins, I did a web search for "open source alternatives for Vectorworks". That's the phrasing that google suggested when I started typing it in. I was able to come up with three programs fairly quickly, but their definition of "alternative" was pretty loose. Two of those programs were 2D only.
<snip>
We pay for the software because the free drawing programs simply aren't powerful enough and won't do what we need them to do. (I'd be better off going back to an old-fashioned drafting table than using most of them). The professionals who designed the program deserve their remuneration for providing a program which makes my job easier, not harder.

I use AutoCAD every day for my work. (engineering, not architecture, but many of the programs are the same). Here are some of the reasons my* company just shelled out several grand for licences for the latest version:

marketing - when we are trying to sell our drafting services to clients, they like to hear that we use the industry standard software so that they can easily integrate our drawings into their system (and we can extract information from theirs).
professionalism - It stops us looking like a bunch of cowboys. If we can't be bothered paying for our software, what else is there that we can't be bothered doing?
training - We probably could use some random open source program but (as OB has said), it would probably be less powerful, less intuitive to work. Most people in this industry already know how to operate it, so it's one less thing we have to teach new people.
integration - We work for quite a lot of clients, generally as a subconsultant. The company name on the drawings is theirs, not ours, so our drawings have to be in the same styles as theirs are. There are other drafting programs out there, but .dwg format is the main one if everyone is using the same software, your drawings don't suddenly look different at the other end of the email.

There are probably other reasons too, but these are probably the ones which would be used to justify the cost.
Here's another thing - most engineering calculations are done on computer these days. There's quite a few different specialist programs around for steel, concrete, timber calculations. Some are developed by the manufacturers of specific components and are given away to encourage people to use their products, but the general design calculation programs need to be paid for.
And I'm glad - I don't want the safe design of homes, bridges, offices depending on people's good nature. I want the programmers to be paid for developing a useful tool just the same as my company would be paid for producing the calculations and drawings. Especially since if there were any errors in the program that led to unsafe calcs, there would be a) someone to pin the blame on b) someone to fix the program so it was safe in future. Of course, I would rather that never happened in the first place - and a company providing paid for software has a massive incentive not to fuck up in that way. Some randomer open sourcing something might not have the resources to test the program and iron out all the glitches, especially if they need to earn a living as well.
Maybe some of the licences could be less pricey - would stop people pirating it all the time - but that doesn't mean all software needs to be completely free.

*doesn't belong to me of course!
(TL,DR: you get what you pay for)

[code fix]

[ 31. January 2014, 16:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Philip Charles (# 618) on :

There are considerable economic advantages in using FLOSS if the conditions are right. Software is a cost whether is is bought or written specially.
Three examples.
IBM sells hardware, but it also needs software to run on it. 10-15 years ago it decided to shift to GNU/Linux at considerable cost. Its software engineers put a lot of effort into developing Linux and they released this work into the Linux community which then maintained and enhanced this software. IBM has lower software costs and Linux is enriched. AIX, IBM's original operating system takes second place.
Apache is a server (a web server runs the Ship-of-fools site) which was patched together (a patchy server) by a number webmasters who wanted a high quality server. By cooperating they improved the quality of the software and reduced costs, it is also publicly available. 40% of the servers currently on line use Apache. nginx (engine X) is a similar project with a 15% share. The quality must be high to achieve these percentages.
Sun Microsystems had about 60,000 (IIRC) people sitting in front of computer screens at a considerable software cost. So it bought Star Office from it German developers improved it and made a FLOSS version available as Open Office. Sun got a cheap office suite improved by the FLOSS community and we got Open Office.
It is possible that a large architectural firm may decide that commercial software is too expensive and sponsor a FLOSS version.

Those who are dissatisfied with Libre Office should upgrade. New versions come out several time a year.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

no prophet's OP said:

quote:
no-one actually must pay for any software

I'm sure these various open-source solutions have their merits, but my point is that even if they are free for the end user, they do not cost nothing to develop, and proprietary interests are involved:

quote:
Originally posted by Philip Charles:
10-15 years ago [IBM] decided to shift to GNU/Linux at considerable cost...
Sun Microsystems...bought Star Office...

I think this debate is often presented as greedy, evil, rights-mad corporations enslaving us to proprietary software on the one hand and long-haired, altruistic, saintly developers giving away their skills and energy to the community out of the sheer kindness of their hearts for absolutely nothing in return on the other. The reality is much more complex and there are financial interests underlying both models. Open source may be a legitimate choice, but I don't think it's the obvious and/or morally superior solution some seem to claim it is.

I don't think the open-source ethos could survive without the proprietary environment: they are symbiotic.

[ 01. February 2014, 06:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Philip Charles (# 618) on :

quote:
The reality is much more complex and there are financial interests underlying both models. Open source may be a legitimate choice, but I don't think it's the obvious and/or morally superior solution some seem to claim it is.

There is common misconception which causes considerable confusion. FLOSS is not free/no-cost. In fact it is free/do-what-you-like-with-it (libre). People can charge what they like for it, but some are charitable and give it away.

The strength of FLOSS is its development process. Anyone supplying such software is obliged to make the source code (the stuff programmers write) for that software available. This condition applies to large corporations as well as individuals. As well as economic advantages the development process is extremely secure and robust, the code is inspected by many independent sets of eyes. I have had a nominal firewall ever since I have run Linux and never had a hint of a nasty, and this is not good luck.
The FLOSS model has a weakness for J.Random User caused by a lack of salespeople in a nice computer shop. These people can explain how programmes work, solve problems and above all feed back to the developers what people want. FLOSS is so cheap that there is no way these salespeople can be paid.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I can't make OpenOffice, which is otherwise fine, do nested stuff, as in things identified as A, B, with other things inside numbered, and then lower case letters, and then numbers as i,ii and so on. Hair tearing out stuff, needed for meetings.
Does the option in format "Bullets and Numbering" work?
...
(mind you I have problems getting it to work nicely in MSWord, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's not easy when actually trying to do stuff in either Open/Libre)
...
Have tried that sort of thing, but it usually fouls up the stuff I have already entered.

That I can well identify with, I can't make lists/bullet points behave nicely either when I need them to (on either). Your phrasing suggested you couldn't do it at all, sorry.

I was pleasantly surprised how easy it was (on both) for a single toy nested list though on a blank page. So I've learned something from this, maybe (given what I use lists for) I can change my style to fit it.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

It is very hard getting people to pay for software.

I write apps. I've recently released a new one (see sig). I'm in the enviable position of having written it as a side project, rather than as my main full time employment, so there isn't quite as much riding on it as there might be. So I've priced it at something higher than many apps cost, but is more like what it's worth. (An app is not easier to develop than a program for a desktop computer, but sadly in consumer perception, value seems to correlate with screen size.)

Some consumers go to great lengths to justify pirating apps, and one of the popular excuses is "It should be free". They ignore the costs involved (in my case, including paying to license the data, which is a non-trivial sum). They ignore the value of the developer's time: the months of designing, coding, debugging and testing that are required to produce a functional product.

I'm not against open source code. I've released a fair bit of it myself, but it's mostly useful routines that will make another developer's life easier, rather than complete products. I don't think open source is the right model for consumer-facing software, firstly because developers deserve to get paid for their work, and secondly because open source software often turns into a sort of design by committee, where every conceivable option is thrown in just in case someone finds it useful, making it unintuitive to use. The sort of focus where you trim the problem down to its bare minimum and ship that as your 1.0 doesn't tend to happen in open source (where projects often take years or decades to hit 1.0).

I guess my main argument is: if you want there to be nice things, you have to pay for them, otherwise nobody will make them. (And that's not even getting into the other money-making schemes that people use when an up-front charge doesn't work: adverts that track your every move; freemium software where you need to spend hundreds of pounds on 'gems' to get anywhere. Or worse, the business model of "make it free, then sell the company to Google, and screw all our existing users".)

Posted by dv (# 15714) on :

I'd like people to have paid employment so I do not begrudge paying for things I use.

It's rather like I avoid those do it yourself "let's make everyone unemployed and render no service" lanes at the supermarket.

Folk are very keen to parade their virtuousness about Fairtrade overseas... while happily stiffing people who are trying to earn an honest crust for an honest day's work here.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

This is interesting:
gratis versus libre

quote:
Gratis versus libre is the distinction between two meanings of the English adjective "free"; namely, "for zero price" (gratis) and "with little or no restriction" (libre).

At my business we don't pay for software but we pay for the upkeep of the server. So no restriction on use and no cost to the software, but do pay for maintenance of the machines and how they run.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
At my business we don't pay for software but we pay for the upkeep of the server. So no restriction on use and no cost to the software, but do pay for maintenance of the machines and how they run.

More likely the price you're paying to maintain the server has the cost of the software baked into the hardware maintance cost.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Nope. No software costs with the server. We have a local company which tweaked Zimbra for us, no Window$, runs on Linux. No software costs specifically. But deployment costs. It's a little ideological of us to avoid large companies and work with other small businesses.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

no prophet,

Not that you are required to, bu you have not answered my question of why you should expect free service from the labour of others?

Or, if you do not like that, there is Eutychus' observation.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

I don't think the open-source ethos could survive without the proprietary environment: they are symbiotic.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

People write free software, or give away what they have already written, because they want to.

The best software is written by people who know what it is to be used for and are going to use it themselves That's why system software is being taken over almost entirely by open source. Sort of inevitably, programmers know about software and use it.

Application software, which is what end users care about - and all they really care about, from their point of view hardware and systems software are irrelevant - application software is completely differrent. Whether its architecture drawings or office applications or student databases or finance or or whatever (except possibly games) its mostly written by people who wouldn't have written it if they weren't being paid to.

But system software? Its done. Free software has one. No-one will ever write another Unix-like OS from scratch. They will all reuse Linux, BSD, and the Gnu tools. Probably no-one will ever write any general-purpose OS again without taking stuff from those. (And yes, same goes for Windows - vast amounts of old unix and internet code has ended up in system tools and utilities in Windows)

And as for GCC - that's all but ubiquitous now. Maybe no-one will ever write a general-purpose compiler again (other than as a teaching excercise). If you need a compiler that does something cool or clever that isn't available chances are that its cheaper and easier to add it to gcc than to write a new one.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
People write free software, or give away what they have already written, because they want to.

And, as mentioned above, because they have real jobs to pay the bills. Most often writing commercial software.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

The best software is written by people who know what it is to be used for and are going to use it themselves

Absolutely, whole-heartedly disagree.
Programmers know what they want, not what I want. They are often happy with keyboard shortcuts, clunky interfaces and their own logic.* Which is fine for them.
Photoshop is better than GIMP. This is an opinion based on the use of both.
Photoshop is more capable, more powerful. This is not opinion.
I think it is easier to use as well, but this may well be preference.

I hate both MS Office and Open Office, so I will not offer an opinion here beyond MS office is the devil I know.

Many commercial softwares are too bloody expensive, and I loathe with the fire of a billion suns the #$@%!$!!! subscription model. But the flip side of this is constant feature additions and improvements. These are often user driven. Features unpaid developers may or may not wish to include.

Open source is terrific if you are a programmer.
Or if you employ programmers.(Hey, where did that "free" go?)

Please do not get me wrong, I love open source software existing. This keeps pressure on commercial developers, offers alternatives to those who cannot afford the outrageous highway robbery erpetrated by some companies. (Hello, Apple, Autodesk and Adobe)

I simply do not think it can exist on its own.

*Ever repair your own motor? Get half-way through a procedure and be told to loosen apart X which is adjacent part Y. However, one is never told where part Y is. Same problem.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Nope. No software costs with the server. We have a local company which tweaked Zimbra for us, no Window$, runs on Linux. No software costs specifically. But deployment costs. It's a little ideological of us to avoid large companies and work with other small businesses.

So you are using a scaled-down, free version. That might work for you but not for everybody and there are certain trade-offs.

Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
People write free software, or give away what they have already written, because they want to.
And, as mentioned above, because they have real jobs to pay the bills. Most often writing commercial software.

Not most often actually. At least if you measure it by the total size of contributions, the vast majority of work done on Linux for example, is done by people working for commercial companies who are being paid to do it. Companies like IBM, Intel and of course RedHat and Canonical. The idea that most Open Source software is produced by hobbyists in their spare time is largely a myth.

Now these companies obviously see value in this work. Crucially it's often cheaper and easier to maintain Open Source software than to write your own from scratch, particularly if we're talking about what ken calls systems software I.e. infrastructure. Because such software is a cost and not a competitive advantage. Imagine if there were no public roads but a group of companies got together and agreed to maintain their own network. It would both make sense for them to pay for the work - they need roads - and for the network to be open - you want your customers and suppliers to have transport links to you.

Now this applies less to application software as ken said.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

The best software is written by people who know what it is to be used for and are going to use it themselves
Absolutely, whole-heartedly disagree.
Programmers know what they want, not what I want. They are often happy with keyboard shortcuts, clunky interfaces and their own logic.* Which is fine for them.
Photoshop is better than GIMP. This is an opinion based on the use of both.

And you're talking about application software in response to a point about systems software. So you may disagree with someone but it's not what ken said.

quote:

Open source is terrific if you are a programmer.
Or if you employ programmers.(Hey, where did that "free" go?)

See the libre/gratis distinction someone made earlier.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

My apologies, ken. I completely missed a paragraph of your post. Thank you, Late Paul for pointing to this error.
Well, it will not be the first time I posted whilst stupid, nor likely the last.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And as for GCC - that's all but ubiquitous now. Maybe no-one will ever write a general-purpose compiler again (other than as a teaching excercise). If you need a compiler that does something cool or clever that isn't available chances are that its cheaper and easier to add it to gcc than to write a new one.

LLVM

You can easily download it for Linux systems. It is open source and independent of GCC and more recent. And used in very serious applications. Apple adopted it in place of GCC I think (look up "clang" in Wikipedia).

LLVM can work with GCC and it can work completely independently of GCC as a competing product. But GCC is certainly not the last word in compilers, not even in free and open source general compilers.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:

quote:

Open source is terrific if you are a programmer.
Or if you employ programmers.(Hey, where did that "free" go?)

See the libre/gratis distinction someone made earlier.

The problem is, if my software is libre, although I can charge for it if I want, there's nothing stopping someone buying one copy then giving it away free (gratis) to everyone in the world. That's explicitly allowed by the license.

So in practice, libre implies gratis.

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dv:
I'd like people to have paid employment so I do not begrudge paying for things I use.

It's rather like I avoid those do it yourself "let's make everyone unemployed and render no service" lanes at the supermarket.

Folk are very keen to parade their virtuousness about Fairtrade overseas... while happily stiffing people who are trying to earn an honest crust for an honest day's work here.

Most of the big label open source projects (Apache, Tomcat, Linux) are coded, tested and so on by staffers from companies like HP, IBM, Oracle, Redhat and so on. Linus Torvald is paid.

Just because it is free to use does not mean nobody gets paid to write it. Or, quite frankly, that some body isn't making big bucks off the back of it as well as many getting the honest crust.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
The idea that most Open Source software is produced by hobbyists in their spare time is largely a myth.

Then why is it so shitty?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
LLVM

Although in fairness to Ken, LLVM began its life as a graduate research project, which is not terribly distant from his (other than as a teaching excercise) qualifier.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
The idea that most Open Source software is produced by hobbyists in their spare time is largely a myth.
Then why is it so shitty?

Firefox vs Internet Explorer? IE has consistently and continuously been the loser.

Thunderbird vs Outhouse? That one's closer - recent versions of Microsoft's offering are much improved, and if you want the complete solution, you can buy Exchange and get the integrated calendaring and so on - none of the open source offerings get you such a complete package. If you don't want the extra bits, you don't want Exchange, though.

Apache vs IIS? LaTeX vs, well, anything? And I have no idea at all what I'd buy to replace emacs. Perl. Python.

On the other hand, nobody can touch Mathematica (even though Sage is, frankly, pretty awesome).

Many people have complained about (Open|Libre)Office, and I think it is a little clunkier than Microsoft's suite, although most of the complaints are "it's not exactly compatible with Office" which is hardly a level playing field. GIMP isn't quite Photoshop, but it's perfectly adequate for my personal needs.

There is really no sensible open source CAD solution, though, let alone something like Cadence or ANSYS.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Open Office is putrescent. Firefox is good for most things but there are still pages I must open in IE because Firefox chokes on them. I use GIMP all the time; I will admit it does what I need.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Libre Office is the open source fork several years ago. There are several other alternative office suites though they are less elaborate. Firefox I don't use. With open source unlike closed source you have many other alternatives. From computer I use Srware Iron which is Chrome without tracking. Choking? I pretend I am running something else.

Sent fom Tint browser from Debian OS on an Android phone.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
With open source unlike closed source you have many other alternatives.

The number of alternatives hardly matters if they're all bad.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Some random thoughts on this.

Word etc. - I've got this because you have to have it to communicate with the rest of the world. However, it is overpriced by a factor of at least double, if not treble. It is also ponderous, bloated and not easy to use. Excel is particularly bad. All this combines to make one resent M******ft, and regard it as unconscionably exploiting its market position.

LibreOffice - I have got this but do not use it enough to be familiar with it. One of its great advantages, though is that it is more able to open unfamiliar formats.

Pages - Quite easy to use but the format situation is a muddle at the moment.

IE - I used to use this before I retired because it was what the office supplied. It is possible that I may only be familiar with an old version, but it was slow, and inflexible. It did not even have tabs. Firefox is much better by a factor of at least 10.

Gimp - I have never been able to get the hang of this one. Also, I haven't got Photoshop and so cannot compare them. I suspect both are dependent on more knowledge than I have.

Latex etc - I tried to understand this. From a description that somebody gave me about the way it uses command codes, I thought it might have had a feature that I really miss from WordPerfect long ago. However, I found it completely incomprehensible, unfriendly and very inflexible.

Unix/Linux etc - Far too techie for ordinary people like me to use. Even the instructions start from assumptions that the rest of us do not have. Complete waste of time.

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
OO cannot create a true docx. I discovered this the hard way when I tried to publish on Lulu. It was a nightmare. It couldn't take it straight, and converting the file to PDF was something between a joke and an invitation to murder.

The main reason for this is that "a true docx" is not, and is not meant to be, in true OpenDocument format.

Microsoft's business model is based, and always has been based, on customer lock-in a.k.a. vendor lock-in. Both terms mean that you do everything you can get away with to force your existing customers to keep using your products and buying the new versions of those products and/or pay regular maintenance-fees.
Actually Microsoft traditionally goes a step further by using any means possible to lure new customers in. The best-known method is forcing hardware-manufacturers to bundle Windows with any computer-system sold. Another tactic is lowering prices for products that experience competition from other vendors, if needed (hopefully temporarily) even giving them away until competitors are wiped out. Occasionally Microsoft gets fined for these practices, but even in the case of the EU-fines that amounts to a tiny fraction of the profits they make with these practices.

When it dawned on Microsoft that free Office-replacements based on the OpenDocument/OASIS standard were eating away at Microsoft-Office market-share and profits, one of the tactics to counter this threat was announcing to build in support for the OpenDocument/Oasis standard in Microsoft-Office, the ***x format. Problem is that Microsoft predictably "improved" their OpenDocument implementation, in many cases making the ***x files incompatible with the od* formats.
So, your nightmare is most likely the result of Microsoft's tactics to preserve market-share at all costs.

Thankfully these tactics are not always successful. In spite of large-scale efforts by Microsoft the majority of tablets and smartphones use Android or IOS. UEFI (purportedly meant to protect PC's from malicious software) has not succeeded in keeping PC's free of Linux. There are still other internet-browsers besides IE. And so on.

Microsoft is by no means alone in applying customer lock-in -and various other monopolistic- tactics. Countless competitors (some long forgotten, some surviving, and some even thriving) rely on these tactics. Simply because it profits them, and is extremely hard and costly to prove.
People should be aware that services like Skype, various free cloud-services, free web-based Office-services (by Microsoft, Google, Adobe, etc.) will only stay free as long as there is competition, and the possibility that you upgrade to a paid for premium-service).

The crux of the matter is whether you will still be able to read your documents, view your pictures, listen to your music-files, in twenty years time, without paying a -possibly extortionate- license fee for proprietary software.
Using software that truly adheres to a widely-accepted non-proprietary standard is the only way to go.
And it is extremely unlikely that Microsoft Office will ever do that.

Posted by The Machine Elf (# 1622) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
What I wonder about is why wouldn't we have a situation where all software is free and available? The IT people make their living doing service, not by reselling software. It's only big corps which want to make money that way.

Having worked all my life as a software engineer in R&D departments, and never in an IT department (IT was outsourced in about half my employers), I can tell you that how the IT people make their money has almost nothing to do with the costs involved in creating software (the R&D department creating the software has to pay the IT department for the compute resources they use; all other costs are nothing to do with IT).

You might as well say cars should be free because mechanics get paid for servicing them. It could work - you'd end up with something like Cuba's fleet of 1950s USA cars where the current cost of the car has almost nothing to do with its R&D cost.

Not that there aren't companies whose business model is to recoup the R&D costs through service contracts, but that isn't always successful - one of my previous employers nearly went to the wall because the service department was in a different silo to R&D so it got all the money and R&D none, and it couldn't guarantee no-one else serviced its products.

[ 08. February 2014, 10:32: Message edited by: The Machine Elf ]

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
LLVM

Although in fairness to Ken, LLVM began its life as a graduate research project, which is not terribly distant from his (other than as a teaching excercise) qualifier.

I don't actually think that is very relevant. Ken wasn't excluding all projects that *start* as academic projects, he was excluding all projects that *remain* mere academic projects (i.e. that never have more than trivial use in the real world). Any academic project that turns into a serious contender to GCC in the real world is the very thing that overturns Ken's assertion about GCC's finality.

Many open source projects have started out in the academic world - the difference is that quite a few (like, say, the database server PostgreSQL that I use extensively at work) become successful non-academic projects. That is the case with LLVM - it has moved well beyond the academic world to become a serious contender to GCC in the commercial world. It has become "terribly distant" from his "teaching exercise" qualifier.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Using software that truly adheres to a widely-accepted non-proprietary standard is the only way to go.

And when all the people I need to send documents to do that, then I can too. Until then, I cannot, despite all the flowery bullshit proponents of non-proprietary standards spew.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Nope. No software costs with the server. We have a local company which tweaked Zimbra for us, no Window$, runs on Linux. No software costs specifically. But deployment costs. It's a little ideological of us to avoid large companies and work with other small businesses.
So you are using a scaled-down, free version. That might work for you but not for everybody and there are certain trade-offs.

No again. As I mentioned a local company tweaked it for us, so instead of a general package, it is specifically for us. We paid/pay for service not software, which is the point I want to make.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
With open source unlike closed source you have many other alternatives.
The number of alternatives hardly matters if they're all bad.

This is uninformed. As is the next post you made. It doesn't matter what operating system or program others use. We can work with any. No one even has to know what we're using because we retain what they want.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
We paid/pay for service not software, which is the point I want to make.

And the counterpoint repeated made is someone paid for that software to be developed. And your proposed model is somewhat questionable in a business environment and completely out the window in the non-business environment.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Not sure where these ideas come from?

-Google & Yahoo both run on Linux, with Yahoo also running freeBSD.

Here's another link to 50 companies/gov'ts etc who are doing it. Includes various gov't agenices/departments (including USA post service which I though was interesting), a series of governments (China, Spain, civic and state governments), many universities and schools around the world.

Additional companies doing it: Novell, IBM, Panasonic, Cisco, Amazon, New York Stock Exchange, Toyota, Sony...

My ISP's server is Linux.

Again: software and operating systems are free. The development and preparing it for the specific environment for use is something you pay for. I like that I don't have to pay foreigners for that and deal with local business.

The idea that it cannot be used in non-business or has trouble in business environments is simply not true; scan through the second link I posted to the 50.

[ 09. February 2014, 14:43: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
With open source unlike closed source you have many other alternatives.
The number of alternatives hardly matters if they're all bad.
This is uninformed. As is the next post you made. It doesn't matter what operating system or program others use. We can work with any. No one even has to know what we're using because we retain what they want.

This is inept. I was not talking about operating systems, I was talking about applications. If there are no applications that will do what I want, save commercially-produced ones, then the call to ditch commercially-produced software is idiotic.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Nope. No software costs with the server. We have a local company which tweaked Zimbra for us, no Window$, runs on Linux. No software costs specifically. But deployment costs. It's a little ideological of us to avoid large companies and work with other small businesses.
So you are using a scaled-down, free version. That might work for you but not for everybody and there are certain trade-offs.
No again. As I mentioned a local company tweaked it for us, so instead of a general package, it is specifically for us. We paid/pay for service not software, which is the point I want to make.

Again, you paid for the development. It was not free. I'm familiar with Zimbra. If you look at their website they sell a more upscale version with more bells and whistles. You got the scaled down version. You made a trade-off.

I'll "out" myself a little bit. I purchase software for a living. You mentioned Yahoo! up thread. My previous job was doing just that for Yahoo!. I'm willing to bet I'm more familiar with their software usage than anyone else here. Yes, they are a Linux house. There is still a cost associated with using Linux. The article you linked even mentioned that they have to pay Red Hat for support. I can assure you that this is not a small bill.

Again, there is nothing "free". There are costs,internal or external, to using software. I know, I've had to model them out.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I certainly feel more "free" using proprietary software that functions independently on my computer to any form of Software As A Service (which might be presented to me as open-source software with me paying for "maintenance") where I am at the whim of an internet connection and tweaks I didn't ask for.

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I certainly feel more "free" using proprietary software that functions independently on my computer to any form of Software As A Service (which might be presented to me as open-source software with me paying for "maintenance") where I am at the whim of an internet connection and tweaks I didn't ask for.

In the case of f.i. servers you do have a point.

When it comes to the software you use for documents, pictures, music, you are better of in the long run with software that adheres to a widely accepted standard, is platform-independent, and of which the source-code is freely available. Then you can either choose to use a compiled version supplied by an independent volunteer organization, or compile it yourself. The latter may seem insurmountably difficult for an ordinary user, but is in fact a lot easier than getting Windows 8.1 to properly do what the average user wants it to do.
LibreOffice/OpenOffice, Gimp, are prime examples of that kind of software.
Microsoft Office, Adobe Acrobat, Photoshop are examples of the exact opposite.
They may seem reasonably priced at this moment, but should they ever be able to shake off their (free and commercial) competitors, you will pay through the nose to be able to access everything you archive now for possible use in say ten years time.

In (supplier) theory proprietary software and formats may be meant to give the customer the best product/service possible.
In practice they produce customer lock-in.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
In the case of f.i. servers you do have a point.

I'm sorry but I don't know what this abbreviation means!

quote:
When it comes to the software you use for documents, pictures, music, you are better of in the long run with software that adheres to a widely accepted standard

A point I tried to make earlier is that these "widely accepted standards" may themselves be the subject of intense lobbying by firms such as Adobe that have incorporated open-source solutions in proprietary packages. I am far from an expert in this area, but I think that behind this controversy about Microsoft's implementation of ODF lies some serious lobbying by competitors to affect the content of the "widely accepted standards" - in favour, not simply of the open source ethos, but indirectly of their competing products that use it.

[ 10. February 2014, 09:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
When it comes to the software you use for documents, pictures, music, you are better of in the long run with software that adheres to a widely accepted standard, is platform-independent, and of which the source-code is freely available. Then you can either choose to use a compiled version supplied by an independent volunteer organization, or compile it yourself. The latter may seem insurmountably difficult for an ordinary user, but is in fact a lot easier than getting Windows 8.1 to properly do what the average user wants it to do.

Spoken like someone who knows how to compile code. I don't think you have an inkling what "compiling code" looks like to the average user. Hint: think "Linear B."

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
The idea that most Open Source software is produced by hobbyists in their spare time is largely a myth.
Then why is it so shitty?

It isn't. I use Perl, MySQL, and Apache, pretty much ever working day. Occasionally GCC, Python, PHP. Also half a dozen unix shell tools. They are fine. And at some of them so good they've driven commercial software out of the market.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I think most opensource software is entirely usable for most people. I can understand that some people need to use software in specific professional ways might find it hard to use.

The difficulty is that opensource software is usually full of bugs and is being constantly updated. So to be sure that you are using the lastest stable release (if one exists), you need to constantly be prepared to update.

Secondly you have to be prepared to spend a lot of time solving problems. I've reformatted my hard-drive and reloaded linux several times - because the automatic updates never seem to work for me. Ask anyone who uses linux a lot and they'll tell you about the times when it all fell apart. My personal bugbear is the soundcard, which often seems to break the software.

Say what you like about Windows, but it doesn't ask this much from users. Hence people are prepared to pay for it. I assume the same thing happens with other software.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And when all the people I need to send documents to do that, then I can too. Until then, I cannot, despite all the flowery bullshit proponents of non-proprietary standards spew.

Yeah, but that's not a comment on the quality of open source software, it's a comment on the network effects of proprietary software and the fact that they've gained a lock in of sorts.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Current open source software sounds akin to what I've heard regarding the early days of personal computing.
The conflicts, the workarounds, the manually configuring everything to work with everything else, the reconfiguring when anything new was added.
And all the geeks happy as clams as this, despite the bitching, was what they liked.
It was not until things started getting locked down that normal people began to flock to computers.
Can't imagine my Gran figuring out how to setup a Linux box.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

I've reformatted my hard-drive and reloaded linux several times - because the automatic updates never seem to work for me. Ask anyone who uses linux a lot and they'll tell you about the times when it all fell apart.

In my experience Linux has been more stable and much easier to install than proprietary Unix systems. I've had far less trouble with it than with Solaris (which I have been using pretty much since the day it was released)

quote:

Say what you like about Windows, but it doesn't ask this much from users. Hence people are prepared to pay for it. I assume the same thing happens with other software.

Installing windows has been no problem since NT4 came out over 15 years ago. Upgrading windows is still harder than Linux though far easier than it was - both systems are in effect 99% automatic as long as you have a fast Internet connection and you trust the update repository. Installing new software on Linux tends to be a little easier than on windows as long as you are using a distro with a good package manager. Pretty much fire-and-forget these days.

Where windows loses out is setting it up for local circumstances. It usually takes me a few hours to get a new Windows system the way I want it - networking, backups, locally defined users, firewall, my own data going where I want it, not where windows wants it - unix/linux is much quicker and simpler. I'd reckon windows takes roughly four times as long to get right. OK that's still only a few hours out of the two or three years you are likely to be using the system, but its boring!

Macs win hands down on this sort of thing. Three or four minutes to get started rather than the three or four hours windows is likely to take. But only up to a point - if you do any but the most basic customisation then you are dealing with a unix system without a decent modern package manager and things take longer.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Without wanting to compare linux boxes, ken, I think we'll have to put this down as Your Mileage May Vary.

In my experience, when it works, Linux is excellent. But it can involve days of headache. Bully for you if you've got away without this.

And I'm not an IT professional, just someone who wants to use the software and has time to make it work.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

It seems to me that a lot of this debate depends on the perspective of who is answering: is it an ideological perspective, are you a systems manager, an end user, a developer...?

My perspective as a freelance end user is based on a) compatibility with clients b) not letting my business processes be locked in more than necessary. In practice this means I use Windows and Office.

I also use proprietary CAT software, but the most open and geeky version there is (Déjà Vu, if anyone is interested), I export everything to widely compatible formats, and I could manage without it.

However, I eschew fancy SAAS-type turnkey project management systems because any old spreadsheet does me just as well, helps me keep a grip on what's going on, and could be done manually at a pinch.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Aaahhh, project management software!
Thank you, Eutychus, there was something worrying my brain every time software as a service was mentioned.
Project management and asset management software, even those a client purchases, often run on this model. The client is then held hostage to the service provider for any changes or integrations.
Oh, you wish a new feature? £€¥$!
Oh, you wish the new feature to cooperate with existing features? £€¥$!
Oh, you wish us to fix bugs in the features we wrote? £€¥$!

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

There is a large and infamous translation company that has gone one better, and actually charges freelancers working for it to use its online translation software, mandatory for all assignments done for them. Some people actually seem to think this is a good thing [brick wall]

[ 10. February 2014, 16:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There is a large and infamous translation company that has gone one better, and actually charges freelancers working for it to use its online translation software, mandatory for all assignments done for them. Some people actually seem to think this is a good thing

That's comparable to a haulage company charging its lorry drivers for parking in the depot car park.

Name and shame, that's what I say.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0