Quote Originally Posted by Olhado View Post
But free and open software always will be worse that commercial. Because our modern world is build on commercial rules

Developers of free software can make excellent work and worthwhile product (Ubuntu is a bright example). But they has no profit of their work, so they has less stimulus to keep on their cause.

Commercial software developers has. So their product always will have more quality. Maybe not in one point - then in another. And generally commercial software always will be in leaders. Always. And nothing can change it.
You have much to learn about "free" and "open source", and how they fit in the commercial playing field.

Note the "commercial rules" you mentioned include provisions for a thing called competition and another thing called choice.

Linux, and much of the software that is written for it, fills a niche. Only in "recent" times has Linux emerged at all as a player in the Desktop market, while Linux and BSD have quite an established presence in the server market and related fields. These systems are free, but often times the support or certification to accompany them is sold commercially (Red Hat and Novell are two major players in this). While Linux may not have the "market share" that Windows or OS X have, that fact in no way should determine the quality of the software written for it. This is a completely subjective matter.

Some find Windows better than OS X, some find Linux better than both. Some find IE better than Firefox, some don't. Some find GNOME better than KDE, some don't. Some find hot dogs better than sausages, some don't. See where this is going? "Better", in general, is a subjective matter, a matter of opinion.

Try not to make blanket statements regarding subjective matters. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but these should not be espoused as fact. Peace.