Why Is Open Source viewed as

[tehkain]

Well a few days ago I was surfing a website when I was pulled into a skype conversation with a friend who was one of the owners. The aformentions friend hosted this site on his windows box. It consisted of a phpbb forum and a phpnuke blog front end. He is trying to bring the site into the future with some new software. We got into discussing it and he had already decided that he would be using a properitary site system using MSSQL and .net.

I mentioned something to the effect of 'drupal can do all that and more for no cost other then a custom theme. Also you get a wealth of modules created by the community'. I was quickly struck down with a comment like 'I aint using none of that open source cobled together s**t any more. So now I am messing with this site on a windows box wanting to ripp my eyes out. The best part of the ordeal was every single feature we needed was availible on drupal and worked perfectly on my webdev box.

So my question becomes, Why is all of Open Source viewed as nothing more then cheap unfunctional software. I dont understand these people. Would it make any sense at all if i viewed all propertary software as crap just because most of it is?

[Quillz]

It makes no sense to view all proprietary software as crap, because none of it is, even though you claim opposite. That said, I don't know why some people think open source software is not up to par. I think it's just that most people are used to software being backed with a constant commercial funding, thus, they are led into thinking that it's better or more advanced. People pay for Windows, so they have a certain expectation of what the software should do. People do not pay for Linux, so they may think that there's no incentive to make it any good.

[Lord Illidan]

It makes no sense to view all proprietary software as crap, because none of it is, even though you claim opposite. That said, I don't know why some people think open source software is not up to par. I think it's just that most people are used to software being backed with a constant commercial funding, thus, they are led into thinking that it's better or more advanced. People pay for Windows, so they have a certain expectation of what the software should do. People do not pay for Linux, so they may think that there's no incentive to make it any good.

Their is some propietary crap out there, same as there is opensource crap out there. But software shouldn't be judged as crap on a mere license issue.

And, yes, I agree, some would think that because it costs a lot, it must be more advanced...this is a mentality which is difficult to ignore.

[DoctorMO]

I mentioned something to the effect of 'drupal can do all that and more for no cost other then a custom theme. Also you get a wealth of modules created by the community'. I was quickly struck down with a comment like 'I aint using none of that open source cobled together s**t any more. So now I am messing with this site on a windows box wanting to ripp my eyes out. The best part of the ordeal was every single feature we needed was availible on drupal and worked perfectly on my webdev box.

I'd tell him to get lost.

[23meg]

Why is all of Open Source viewed as nothing more then cheap unfunctional software. I dont understand these people.

Because they don't have and have never seen free or open source cars, clothing, houses, you name it. They live a life where monetary value is the most respected factor that determines the value and usefulness of things. There's no free meal in their lives; in the rare case that they get something for free, as a favor, it usually turns out to be substandard compared to its counterparts that actually cost them something.

Unaware that monetary "free"ness is just part of the whole story in the Free software realm, they're very quick and unhesitant in relating such experiences to their first negative experience with Free and open source software. It lets them stretch their generalization to the realm of software as well: "I tried it; it was bad, perhaps because it's free. I've never seen something that went for free work anyway".

It makes no sense to view all proprietary software as crap, because none of it is, even though you claim opposite.

You probably meant "not all of it is", right? There's plenty of bad software in all camps, including proprietary. I've even seen embedded device-specific in-house developed single-function software that completely ruined the functionality of the device it was meant to run efficiently. Development and marketing methods are an important reason why a lot of software ends up substandard, but not the ultimate reason.

[Quillz]

Because they don't have and have never seen free or open source cars, clothing, houses, you name it. They live a life where monetary value is the most respected factor that determines the value and usefulness of things. There's no free meal in their lives; in the rare case that they get something for free, as a favor, it usually turns out to be substandard compared to its counterparts that actually cost them something.

Unaware that monetary "free"ness is just part of the whole story in the Free software realm, they're very quick and unhesitant in relating such experiences to their first negative experience with Free and open source software. It lets them stretch their generalization to the realm of software as well: "I tried it; it was bad, perhaps because it's free. I've never seen something that went for free work anyway".



You probably meant "not all of it is", right? There's plenty of bad software in all camps, including proprietary. I've even seen embedded device-specific in-house developed single-function software that completely ruined the functionality of the device it was meant to run efficiently. Development and marketing methods are an important reason why a lot of software ends up substandard, but not the ultimate reason.

Yes, I meant "not all of it." I'm a huge fan of open source, but I also couldn't limit myself entirely to it. There are still a lot of software I use on a daily basis that is not open source.

[Lord Illidan]

Yes, I meant "not all of it." I'm a huge fan of open source, but I also couldn't limit myself entirely to it. There are still a lot of software I use on a daily basis that is not open source.

Well said. An example would be nvidia drivers in my case..or most games. I try not to be too biased. In Linux, I tend to think about it as a meritocracy... as in applications are reviewed based on their merit and performance, not on their license, supplier, etc. Not to say that license is unimportant, because OSS gives you the freedom to get the source code and do things for yourself, but it does not mean that a program is the best purely because it is open source.

[aysiu]

Isn't phpbb open source?

[tehkain]

Yes, I meant "not all of it." I'm a huge fan of open source, but I also couldn't limit myself entirely to it. There are still a lot of software I use on a daily basis that is not open source.

I did not say all of proprietary was trash. There is a large amount of crap proprietary software that is either designed to be faulty or just badly written. I love many proprietary programs. I did not claim it was all crap. When i said 'most' it was a percentage wise thing. For every good program of any license there are 10 more that are full of badly written code and lack complete functionality.

[tehkain]

Isn't phpbb open source?

Yes it is. He is moving to another peice of software. The old site is phpbbnuke