this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
39 points (71.4% liked)
Open Source
31665 readers
203 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't know what kind of sw you use, but usually I find Foss software to be sleek, functional, fast with good support and updates, while commercial software is ridden with ads, trackers, bloat and bugs. Exceptions on both sides but the notion that free software is generally worse is categorically incorrect.
So first not everyone can contribute. Usually people who also use the software and have personal (or monetary) interest in it, contribute.
And why does everything has to be about monetisation? Yes, both people and gigantic corporations make money off foss in various ways, I'm sure others have explained that already. But people also do things for other reasons than just money.
But I'm just baffled how people so often declare that foss can't work or that it's qualitatively worse, even though the entire planet has been dependent on foss for decades.
No, just because someone sells something directly, doesn't mean it's inherently better.
Often FOSS software has lots of customisation options, some of which can conflict or make it not play nicely. That can be buggy for users. Commercial software is usually simpler but lacks customisation options. Ads, not so. Ich, unless it’s shareware or windows itself. I love foss, but if it was polished and simple, without bugs, there would not be commercial versions.
I find 95% of foss software to be better than the commercial alternatives, and I'm not joking. As for bugs, foss devs are usually faster to respond to bug reports and user requests too, unless it's some mismanaged behemoth like Mozilla.
Thing is, commercial software can use the money for advertising and marketing. Foss, especially of the free to use kind, usually only spread by word of mouth, and even that only within the foss communities at first.
Let's not get into examples, because I'm sure we can always find examples for every case and it often comes to specific preferences. My general point is, that people who think free has to be crap, and commercial has to be good, are categorically wrong.
It's in fact backwards: if you do something only for money, you're incentivized to do the least amount of work either for maximum effectiveness or to give yourself time to do stuff you actually want to do.
I think you're right in that there are examples on both sides. I think Foss software is often powerful, but not always as simple to use. It's designed for functionality. Commercial software is designed to be easiest to use.
As we develop best practices more and more for UX, I think that is fading. I don't think marketing alone is the issue. Foss users often promote the free software and the price point is good. Take internet explorer. It's heavily marketed and free (not FOSS) but it's use is low. Software needs to fulfill a need for the user.
Foss is often filling a small niche. There are only a few large FOSS projects with broad appeal. Even then, it is difficult to not have them fracture and fork, which is better for options but usually poorer for the individual user after they have chosen.
I think for most things that are common, FOSS will end up the default eventually. There are few things that Microsoft can do to word to make it more attractive than librroffice. Excel is still ahead but the gap is closing for most users