How ideological are you about Linux?

[lykwydchykyn]

I use software that is adequate for the task, readily available, and well-integrated into my workflow. Free, open-source software tends to fit this description most often for me.

I don't have any major angst against proprietary software, but I've found that the proprietary software I've had to deal with over the years sooner or later becomes a stick-in-the-mud and a limiting factor in my workflow.

For example, our corporate email client at work: while it does have a Linux-compatible version, it only comes as 32bit rpms. Making it work on modern 64-bit Ubuntu requires a 32-bit JVM, a bunch of deprecated gtk & c libraries, and a bunch of environment tweaks.

I think what it comes down to for me is that, in my personal experience, FOSS applications tended to have more long-term sustainability and flexibility as my technology and workflow evolved, so I feel safer depending on FOSS.

[Paqman]

Software is a tool. You take it out of the box, do the job, put it back in the box. No ideology required.

I use Linux because it's good, not because of any ideological hangups.

[jerome1232]

I hate OSS but am hanging out on an Ubuntu forum anyway

8)

More seriously if I can, I will always use OSS, if it can't fulfil my needs I'll turn to properitary software. I think there's room in this world for both to coexist in some happy or less than happy state.

[QIII]

I'm a pragmatist.

[Erik1984]

I'm a programmer and I think a programmer should have a right to chose his/her own business model depending on what works best for him. If you need to put bread on the table and opening your software up may prevent that then by all means keep it closed. If you think you can make money by selling support then feel free to open it up, but don't be surprised if someone forks it and takes away your business.

OSS is a good thing, especially for users, but not everyone should be expected to give away their code.

Agreed, but as a user I also have right to choose and I take openness into the equation. I checked the 'willing to compromise' box as you sometimes just can't do without closed source parts (of the kernel) or programs.

It also depends on the software category. For games I don't care so much if they are open source or not. If we look at webbrowsers however I find it very important.

[slickymaster]

I'm forced to agree with lisati's post: "Kernel? Operating system? Something else?..." whatever... It also works for me.

[quentinl]

Ubuntu is better than anything else out at the moment
fast
reliable(ish)
has workspaces (catch on Microsoft)
open source
open sauce
neat
and stuff

[Linuxratty]

I only use oss and have for years. I prefer it to what the big boys have to offer.

[evilsoup]

Open source mostly works well enough, and with a few applications it is actually the best there is. I'm generally willing to put up with a little bit more BS from open-source stuff (because what am I going to do, get a refund :v), but if there is no adequate open-source equivalent (mostly games, but also video editing) then I'll use a proprietary solution.

TL;DR I prefer OSS, but will use what works.

[ratcheer]

I selected "I feel strongly about OSS, but willing to compromise". I wish I could run a completely FOSS system, but my hardware requires a few non-free drivers. I refuse to run proprietary applications.

Tim