What stops people from using Open Source Software?

[slackwarespy]

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore,
is not an act but a habit.
------Aristotle

[jrib]

I think the biggest obstacle is that people just don't know about it.

[xXx 0wn3d xXx]

I think the biggest obstacle is that people just don't know about it.
I think that people don't use it because they don't think that it will be as good as closed source + they don't know about it.

[eriqk]

I think the biggest obstacle is that people just don't know about it.

Seconded.
Hmm, also, there are many people who do know about it who think open source/free sofware lacks quality.

Groet, Erik

[aysiu]

Most people I know don't know the difference between open source software and freeware or open source and proprietary. They just know software--does it cost money or not?

That's me two years ago, before I started using Firefox.

I don't think anything really stops them except that they don't know it's available. Well, take, for example, OpenOffice. I bet if you ask most people who buy a Windows computer and then are planning to purchase Microsoft Office why they're buying Office for several hundred US dollars instead of downloading OpenOffice for free, most responses would run along the lines of "What's OpenOffice?"

[stuporglue]

I voted lack of marketing.

You don't buy what you don't know about, and you don't know about what isn't advertized/announced. Since OSS is mostly a grass-roots movement, there's not much of an advertising budget.

Also, look at how people aquire software. Many of those who do so legally often go to the computer store and say "I want to do $foo". The store is obviously going to recomend something they stock which does $foo. Since there aren't (m)any companies selling and advertising boxed OSS software, OSS software doesn't get recomended.

Programming is cheap. You can do it on your own computer with a net connection. It can be done any time, and the code doesn't have to be pretty, just functional.

Advertising is expensive. It takes time and dedication to build a relationship with the middlemen (the stores) and with the end user. It takes writers that can write quality copy that not just works but is also interesting and easy to read. Designing a good looking magazine add, billboard or sales brochure is a lot harder than designing a good looking icon set, and getting it printed on good paper with good ink is expensive. There are many other costs...

I think a lot of people would cry "heretic" at the idea of some company selling OSS software they didn't create, but I think that's what it will take to get the Thank-you-GeekSquad crowd using OSS.

[benfinkel]

Lack of software is what I voted. Since I'm ready to go back to XP to play my games :)

Although I think more than that is a lack of usability.

As an example: Ubuntu is Linux for Humans. I still had quite a bit of trouble getting it up and going. I ran the install fine, except at one point during install I was asked a couple of difficult questions about partitioning. It's not that the concept of partitioning is hard, or that a user should be shielded from it, but it needs to be more accessible language-wise. I'm a very computer-savvy person and I was a little confused by the options.

Then, getting my wireless card up and running was a gigantic pain in my ***. I ended up having to download ndis source code, about six or seven additional packages from Synaptic, and recompiling my Kernel!! Those things are not for humans, those are things for IT personel.

A dell can still be plugged in out of the box without the user needing to know any more than how to match the colored plugs to their receptacles. :)

I think there are still major usuability hurdles for Linux to get over. It's getting much much better (I've messed about with a distro about every two years, for the past ten years or so) and I think it WILL get there, but it's going to take more time.

[aysiu]

I think a lot of people would cry "heretic" at the idea of some company selling OSS software they didn't create, but I think that's what it will take to get the Thank-you-GeekSquad crowd using OSS. "Would"? They already did. Read more here (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=138366).

[aysiu]

A dell can still be plugged in out of the box without the user needing to know any more than how to match the colored plugs to their receptacles. :) So can a System 76:
http://www.system76.com

You're confusing "easy to use" with "easy to install."
No operating system is easy to install on hardware not built for it.

[dasunst3r]

I have seen responses ranging from not knowing that it exists to the zeal for Microsoft. Whenever I see someone using something like IE, I would tell them, "Hey! You should give Firefox a try!" and I would talk about what Firefox can do. Out of those who (reluctantly) installed it, none of them uninstalled it.

In essence, people need baby steps to transition into open source technologies. Give it time and patience.

[aysiu]

In a sense, it doesn't make sense to talk about open source software as a whole because it does vary in quality.

I mean, Firefox is open source and is stellar in terms of quality. SharpMusique is a noble idea that is rather buggy.

When I browse through Synaptic, looking for an application, I have no idea how quality a piece of software it's going to be. Some applications are almost commercial quality. Others look as if they've been written by one person in her basement.

[egon spengler]

The idea that people don't trust it because it's free probably has at least some truth to it but I'm sure that we all know more than a few Windows users who always go for the freeware option (Winamp, Foobar). I think that on Windows nobody really makes a big deal about being OSS and so accordingly most users won't care/know about open source. Look how popular Firefox has become, do you really think though that most Windows users know about it being open source? They just know it does what they want and is free.

When I used to use Windows I was a big fan of the replacement shells BBlean and Litestep both of which were open source. In fact BBLean is a fork of BB4Win and Litestep is only still around due it being opensource and other people taking over maintenance of the project (and both are based on OSS Linux WMs). Despite all of that I don't think I ever saw the term OSS being mentioned in conjunction with either one of them.

I've got absolutely no idea why OSS doesn't seem to be a more popular concept on Windows but I don't think it's down to users not trusting OSS otherwise freeware wouldn't be so popular

[GreyFox503]

What stops people from using Open Source Software?
When it comes to their computers, most users have the attitude of "don't know, don't care."

They don't know that FOSS exists, and even if they did, they would not care. Unless they are the sort that likes to tinker and play with their computers, they will not care one bit. Even if FOSS is 100x better (and it's not), they would put up with a lot of inconvenience to avoid having to change.

[stuporglue]

Me: I think a lot of people would cry "heretic" at the idea of some company selling OSS software they didn't create, but I think that's what it will take to get the Thank-you-GeekSquad crowd using OSS.

Aysiu: "Would"? They already did. Read more here.

lol. Hadn't seen that, but I think it half proves my point. People are used to buying software, and would pay for OSS as well, if it filled a need(1). If they pay for the first version, and then realize that downloading the next version isn't too hard, they may soon be stuck on OSS.

While I don't necicairily care much for Linspire or http://openosx.com/ specificly, I do think that their approach will get more people using OSS products more quickly than the current word-of-mouth strategy. What's needed is someone or some company who can create the proper relationships with both the OSS people and with the computer stores.

Anyways, back to my point about the problem being a lack of advertising...advertising is expensive, which is why us normal OSS users don't run extensive web/TV/magazine advertising campaigns(2).

(1) Product, Place, Promotion, and Price. The consumer will buy the product that best fits their requirements in thsoe areas. OSS is usually a good product, and a good price, but if it's not in the store (Place) where they're looking for a solution to their problems, they won't use it. Likewise, if they've never heard of it (lack of Promotion) they won't use it.

(2) http://www.microsoft.com/office/evolve/default.mspx

[XQC]

Probably not the most critical one but I would also vote for "dependency"
You are dependent on your .doc format, dependent on various features of Outlook, dependent on iTunes for your iPod, dependent on .psd and dependent on your multimedia codecs. The last one is just easier to obtain on Windows, on Ubuntu you have to browse these forums and try various methods to tun .wmv.

You could also argue that these dependencies are just... habits, you don't want to change.

[BWF89]

I think it's mostly lack of knoledge the software exists. I don't think it has much to do with quality. I'm running Windows XP until I get a spare computer to run Linux on (duel booting isn't an option) and I get by just fine running almost completely cross platform (Win, Mac, & Lin) open source software.

But that's not to say there isn't popular open source software. When the kids at my school want to download the latest song off the internet they'll say "Get it on LimeWire" without even knowing that LW is GPL'd.

On the other hand theres great software like OpenOffice that not as many people know about. So we need to get the word out. One of my friends came up to me at school and asked if I knew anything he could use at home to make a 20 slide powerpoint presentation and I burned him a disk with OpenOffice and it worked perfectly.

[AndyCooll]

Got to agree with the "never having heard of it" and even if they did "couldn't care less" crowd. I'm often asked advice on how to do something. Mention any software other than the usuals and peoples faces go blank, mention the fact that it is open-source and that's usually completely over their head. And besides they're not really that interested, they just use the default stuff that's come with the pc and now just want something to do this additional function they're not bothered whether it is "free" as in beer or open-source.

You'd be surprised at just how many people are unaware of Firefox, let alone tried it. And very few are aware that it is open-source.

:cool:

[benfinkel]

So can a System 76:
http://www.system76.com

You're confusing "easy to use" with "easy to install."
No operating system is easy to install on hardware not built for it.


I'm confusing the two purposefully. You know and understand the difference as do I, buyt the majority of users out there don't. What happens when you want to upgrade that System76? With a Dell or Compaq or even a custom-built PC from the local shop you can generally just plug an upgrade in and run with it. With "Linux" that usually ends up being a lot more difficult.

Now, that's not necessarily Linux's fault, but it is the reality of the situation.

And other posters were correct. Firefox is having great success not because it's open source but because it works well. Until other OSS options achieve that same level of ease of "use" (in quotes because by use I mean installing, using, upgrading, and uninstalling all rolled into one) they're not going to make huge dents in the market.

I've got another question to go along side of the Poll question though, why SHOULD more people use OSS? I think the reasons to switch to Firefox from IE can be argued easily enough, but not all OSS is of the same quality as Firefox.

[earobinson]

A missing option is lack of trust (if its free it cant be ne good)

[aysiu]

What happens when you want to upgrade that System76? With a Dell or Compaq or even a custom-built PC from the local shop you can generally just plug an upgrade in and run with it. With "Linux" that usually ends up being a lot more difficult. No, you're totally right. Editing a sources.list file and then doing an update and dist-upgrade isn't "user friendly" to most people. I've heard rumors that that'll be a semi-automated (or at least completely GUI) process for upgrading from Dapper to Dapper +1.



And other posters were correct. Firefox is having great success not because it's open source but because it works well. Until other OSS options achieve that same level of ease of "use" (in quotes because by use I mean installing, using, upgrading, and uninstalling all rolled into one) they're not going to make huge dents in the market. I think my point was more that when you're talking about quality, OSS isn't necessarily high or low quality--it all depends on the software. OpenOffice is high quality because it has a company behind it. So does Firefox. SharpMusique and Gtkpod don't appear to have that kind of corporate backing.



I've got another question to go along side of the Poll question though, why SHOULD more people use OSS? I think the reasons to switch to Firefox from IE can be argued easily enough, but not all OSS is of the same quality as Firefox. I think they should use it for several reasons:

1. Open source tends to have less (or no) spyware/adware crap than "freeware."

2. Open source software, once established, is less likely to die if the creator leaves the project, as anyone can splinter off of it.

3. Open source tends to have fewer licensing restrictions for the end-user (how many computers it can be installed on and such).

[not28]

Maybe people have a hard time memorizing little acronyms and package names? Grub = very intimidating, and a nasty little insect at that.

[Kimm]

They think commertial software allways will be better.
When I tell a friend after he formated and reinstalled Windows that he can get OpenOffice completely free, he tells me "Why? Microsoft Office is free too".

And when I try to describe what Free and Open Source software is, they still come back a few days later and calls whatever example I used "gratis" (swedish = free as in price).

I dont think they realize that it is harder to put a virus in F/OS Software than in Freeware, as a mather of fact, they seem to think its the other way around.

[Christmas]

I voted "Insufficient software" only thinking at games, which is not a very good argument. There are more options you could add to the post I think, like: 1. support 2. because most people are used to windows.

[TrojanSkin]

I totally agree with benfinkel. I have used stuff like GIMP and open office for quite a while. I downloaded and installed Ubuntu on another PC today - my first stab at Linux - but I only have wireless access ( from a nearby pub), and it's impossible for me as a newcomer to get any support which I understand to use my wireless dongle. I'm going back to Windows out of necessity for now. I just don't understand it, and can't have that machine off line whilst I learn that much info to just go online.

[DigitalDuality]

1). Crappy naming scheme for software. Gimp? or Adobe Photoshop? or Print Shop? GAIM? Or AIM, MSN, Yahoo, Gtalk? Hell even Trillian and Adium stand out better. Open Office needs to drop the "org" from their product name and leave it to the organization and website. Firefox is gaining.. but lets admit it.. Netscape and Explorer and Safari all bring images of web surfing, exploring, venturing out, etc.. Firefox, Dillo and Konquerer do not.

Also.. so many apps named Gnu- , G-, or K- is obnoxious.

2) the philosophy of "too good be true" and "you get what you pay for" tends to apply too. Free scares people b/c of older business models for providing a product.

3) FUD.

4) Marketing efforts are poor and underfunded, most OSS and FOSS simply don't even try in this regard.

[aysiu]

1). Crappy naming scheme for software. Gimp? or Adobe Photoshop? or Print Shop? GAIM? Or AIM, MSN, Yahoo, Gtalk? How is AIM or MSN a more descriptive name than GAIM?
Firefox is gaining.. but lets admit it.. Netscape and Explorer and Safari all bring images of web surfing, exploring, venturing out, etc.. Firefox, Dillo and Konquerer do not. I don't really see how the name Safari is any more indicative of the application being a web browser than the name Firefox or Konqueror.

Yes, a lot of open source application names are invented almost intentionally to sound stupid and not describe what the application does, but that's not true in all cases.

And... Firefox is more popular than Safari right now.

And no one cares that Outlook doesn't describe email--they use Outlook anyway.

[benfinkel]

No, you're totally right. Editing a sources.list file and then doing an update and dist-upgrade isn't "user friendly" to most people. I've heard rumors that that'll be a semi-automated (or at least completely GUI) process for upgrading from Dapper to Dapper +1.

And the "better" it gets, the more people you'll see coming over to this side of the fence. But don't candy coat the above process. It's a lot worse than not "user friendly". I work in software development closely with end users all day long. There is a LARGE population of people out there that are daunted by left-clicking. These are people that type the letter F followed by 3 when you tell them to press F3. These are not odd cases, and they're not exceptions to the rule. Entire organizations are run by these people. Hospitals have a staff full of hundreds of users just like this. You move their icon to the other side of the desktop and they could lose half a day to confusion. Winblows may hide a lot of the functionality of a computer from the end user, but I'm pretty sure that's a good thing(tm).


I think my point was more that when you're talking about quality, OSS isn't necessarily high or low quality--it all depends on the software. OpenOffice is high quality because it has a company behind it. So does Firefox. SharpMusique and Gtkpod don't appear to have that kind of corporate backing.

Yea, we're in agreement there as well. It's not that small communities or individuals CAN'T do good work, they just usually lack the resources, motivation, and general experience that a more formal organization has at it's disposal. And when a truly good product is made, like Firefox, the market has responded appropriatley.



I think they should use it for several reasons:

1. Open source tends to have less (or no) spyware/adware crap than "freeware."

2. Open source software, once established, is less likely to die if the creator leaves the project, as anyone can splinter off of it.

3. Open source tends to have fewer licensing restrictions for the end-user (how many computers it can be installed on and such).

I think #3 is the only item there that end users are really going to care about. And are they sufficient reasons to go through all of the trouble of learning and installing new software? I think it still comes down to this. I know a lot of people that won't switch to Firefox, even I explain the advantages to them. It's simple a matter of "why bother? What's it to me which browser I use? IE works, works well, and that's all I need."

[aysiu]

And the "better" it gets, the more people you'll see coming over to this side of the fence. But don't candy coat the above process. It's a lot worse than not "user friendly". I work in software development closely with end users all day long. There is a LARGE population of people out there that are daunted by left-clicking. These are people that type the letter F followed by 3 when you tell them to press F3. These are not odd cases, and they're not exceptions to the rule. Entire organizations are run by these people. Hospitals have a staff full of hundreds of users just like this. You move their icon to the other side of the desktop and they could lose half a day to confusion. Winblows may hide a lot of the functionality of a computer from the end user, but I'm pretty sure that's a good thing(tm). I believe you. I know these people, too. These people will not do a dist-upgrade, no matter how easy it is--they won't even upgrade to a new version of Windows. They'll ask someone (or pay someone--yes, I know people who do this) to upgrade Windows for them.

It doesn't matter how easy you make upgrading from Dapper to Dapper +1, people who think F3 is the F key and the 3 key will never install or upgrade an operating system.



I think #3 is the only item there that end users are really going to care about. No, they'll care about #1, just not immediately. If you tell them "this has no spyware or adware and your program does," they won't care unless they know what spyware is. If you tell them "your machine will be more responsive running this program," then they will care.


And are they sufficient reasons to go through all of the trouble of learning and installing new software? I think it still comes down to this. I know a lot of people that won't switch to Firefox, even I explain the advantages to them. It's simple a matter of "why bother? What's it to me which browser I use? IE works, works well, and that's all I need." Yeah, I hear you. I know a lot of people like this. They just don't see the need to switch because whatever software they're using suits them just fine.

I think that attitude generally stems from a fear of computers. People who have that attitude (I don't want to try a new program even though it might be vastly better) are like stereotypical baseball players. They think it's all about luck and streaks. If you're wearing that nasty old green sock that you never wash when you happened to win the World Series, you're always going to wear that nasty old green sock, even though you know it logically has nothing to do with winning (except the psychological tricks you play on yourself to give you confidence).

People feel that way about their computers: "It's working now. I don't want to change anything because the last time I changed something, it broke."

[mips]

Big businesses are well aware of opensource and you will find them happily running commercial versions of Linux in the background.

Business wants support. If something breaks it needs to get fixed and they want a company backing a product. They don't feel comfortable with the lone linux geek down the road. More and more dedicated Unix/BSD/Linux support companies are popping up.

Another issue is the GPL does not work for all scenarios. A friend told me he would prefer not to sell/support linux but rather MS crap. Why ? Because it is a revenue generating stream, there is money on the initial sale and lots more on the support. If they had to 'sell' linux to clients they would have way less support revenue as things never break. they run linux themselves but dont sell it to clients.

If you are a developer you cannot use GPL'd code and then sell it without ploughing the code back. This code could be your bread and butter. There is always the BSD license I suppose.

With GPL you are going to make your money on consultation, installation, integration & support, possibly a bit of design & development as well. Plus potential hardware you could sell from the standpoint that it is linux 'certified'/tested etc and it works.

Another major thing is change, people fear change. Generally something that is 'different' is rejected by most as you take them out of their comfort zone.

Another argument is that there are more MS techies out there than Linux techies. This does hold water but then again you probably need less linux techies to aclomplies the same goals in linux.

The various unix/linux systems actually do very well in the market place but it is usually in the backoffice side. As far as I'm aware MS does not have the majority of the server market. The only remaining frontier is the Desktop one where linux/unix is behind. If you count process controll, embedded pcs, phones, pda's etc linux/unix has a strong footing in the market.

[not28]

I tend to agree with the naming scheme, but not on the popular programs like GAIM and GIMP. I'm thinking of the lesser-known ones like k3b, amaroK, etc. They just don't seem like catchy, attractive names for applications. I know that's all superficial, but chalk it up to the marketing problems of open source. IMO Apple has their naming scheme down to a T.

Also, it's sad but true, I think people want to see a company name associated with their programs. Stuff like Macromedia Dreamweaver and Adobe Premiere seem a lot more appealing than "nvu" and "kino." But that's just me. I'm speaking from the average consumer point of view, not the enthusiast or workstation user.

[angkor]

What stops people from using Open Source Software?

Well nothing actually. People are free to use whatever they want.

People are lazy and use whatever software came (installed) with their computer. Since there's hardly any oss pre-installed on computers many people won't ever use it, because they need to search for open source software on the internet and install it.

[egon spengler]

Firefox is having great success not because it's open source but because it works well. Until other OSS options achieve that same level of ease of "use" (in quotes because by use I mean installing, using, upgrading, and uninstalling all rolled into one) they're not going to make huge dents in the market.

You're talking as if being OSS has some bearing on the way that program is designed or coded when it doesn't. OSS simply pertains to the license it is released under. Ease of installation, upgrade and uninstallation is not intrinsic to commercial software and extrinsic to OSS (where does shareware fall in you sliding scale of ease of use btw?). If you really believe that commercial software by default is easier to use than OSS then I got some high quality "commercial" magic beans you could buy


2) the philosophy of "too good be true" and "you get what you pay for" tends to apply too. Free scares people b/c of older business models for providing a product.

I'm sure that if you went to any Windows forum and suggested that people don't use freeware software because they are sceptical of gratis software you'd be laughed out of there. Perhaps for mission critical operations people would prefer to pay but for word processors, text editors, media players, browsers, file compression and various other things many people would have no problems in going with the gratis version.


If you are a developer you cannot use GPL'd code and then sell it without ploughing the code back. This code could be your bread and butter. There is always the BSD license I suppose.

Are we supposed to feel sympathy for those people? Someone shares the fruit of their labour and all that they ask in return is that anyone who uses their work also share. I don't really see that as a great tyranny. Nobody is stopping them from just writing their own code instead of just hoping to use someone else's


Also, it's sad but true, I think people want to see a company name associated with their programs. Stuff like Macromedia Dreamweaver and Adobe Premiere seem a lot more appealing than "nvu" and "kino." But that's just me. I'm speaking from the average consumer point of view, not the enthusiast or workstation user.

The thing with this name issue though is that the so-called "professional sounding" names are just as nonsensical and undescriptive as the OSS names. Dreamweaver is as stupid name as nvu, as far as any supposed name recognition factor I'm sceptical. I work as a web developer and in all of the interviews I've been to and jobs I've applied for I recall many references to dreamweaver, barely any to macromedia though. I think in a lot of areas dreamweaver (and flash of course) give macromedia status more than vice versa

[aysiu]

The thing with this name issue though is that the so-called "professional sounding" names are just as nonsensical and undescriptive as the OSS names. Well, I'm on my Windows computer at work now, and it seems to be a mix.

Undescriptive names:
Adobe Acrobat Reader
Quicktime
Excel

Not that these are any better:
Evince
MPlayer

Though, I have to say the open source offerings for spreadsheets are more descriptive than Excel: KSpread, Gnumeric, OpenOffice Calc.

[egon spengler]

We could quite easily make a long list of popular windows software that has an undescriptive or nonsenical name

Cubase
Reason
Recycle
Nero
Gordian Knot
Foobar
Quintessential
Trillian

On Windows, foobar = the best media player
On Linux, foobar = typical stupid Linux name, that's why it'll never succeed

[public_void]

People are lazy and use whatever software came (installed) with their computer. Since there's hardly any oss pre-installed on computers many people won't ever use it, because they need to search for open source software on the internet and install it.

I agree with that generalization. There is loads of great software out there, but searching for it is the problem. Most people don't know of sites like SourceForge. Even if they did, it can be a scary place with all those files and different versions. Most people except software bundled with their computer, e.g. MS Works. But because they don't know of Open Office and other alternatives, they stick to MS Works, even though it doesn't do what they want.

People should be made aware of the amount of free and excellent software available. In the end its about choice, and at the moment there isn't any for most people.

[mips]

Are we supposed to feel sympathy for those people?

I never said that you should...

[BoyOfDestiny]

Hmm, what does this mean. I'm willing to bet there aren't many people that haven't used open source software in one way or another. Whether it's tivo, to the bsd code in the tcp/ip stack of windows, the freebsd base of osx, stored data/websites on an apache server...

Is there anyone that has used PC software and never used open source?

[not28]

Ehh, to each his own. I'm not really saying these titles are descriptive, I'm saying people find them more appealing. Do you think "Dasani" sounds like a name that described bottled water? No, but it still sounds intriguing, and that's why people keep buying it. Why do you think companies spend millions of dollars in research just to design an appropriate logo/title/identity for their product? It's all in the marketing and most of it is psychological. I'm not saying this is the cause of OSS's unpopularity. It's probably not even a major problem.

[DigitalDuality]

I'm sure that if you went to any Windows forum and suggested that people don't use freeware software because they are sceptical of gratis software you'd be laughed out of there. Perhaps for mission critical operations people would prefer to pay but for word processors, text editors, media players, browsers, file compression and various other things many people would have no problems in going with the gratis version.


Try that in a corporate environment where most of your software purchases are made.


How is AIM or MSN a more descriptive name than GAIM? I don't really see how the name Safari is any more indicative of the application being a web browser than the name Firefox or Konqueror.

Yes, a lot of open source application names are invented almost intentionally to sound stupid and not describe what the application does, but that's not true in all cases.

And... Firefox is more popular than Safari right now.

And no one cares that Outlook doesn't describe email--they use Outlook anyway.

Outlook is part of a package for the most part that has a recognizable branded name attached to it, as does MSN and AIM.

[ember]

Well, I voted 'insufficient software' - yet this surely is only half correct. The problem is not functionality but ease of use. Usability is still an open issue for many oss projects.
That's why I like Gnome better than KDE, the standard user should not be confronted with loads of options (yes, this can go too far, but the HIG actually is one of the best ideas in Gnome).

[imagine]

Open Office needs to drop the "org" from their product name and leave it to the organization and website.The application OpenOffice.org doesn't need to drop the .org because it can't. The name "OpenOffice" belongs to someone else.


Try that in a corporate environment where most of your software purchases are made.This is somewhat offtopic: I develop and test closedsource software for Windows at a large company (>400 000 employees) and there is more closed- and opensource gratis software in use than one can count. I don't know of any computer in my department on which for example not at least one GPLed software runs. Or eg the computers are preinstalled with a licenced version of WinZip. When it comes to provide a ridiculous compression ratio together with a dumbed down user interface WinZip is really the best, so what do you do? Install one of the many gratis file archivers.
So I strongly disagree that gratis software is stigmatised in a way that "only paid-for software should be used for critical tasks". The only thing you really have to pay for are the guys who work with the software.

[aysiu]

Outlook is part of a package for the most part that has a recognizable branded name attached to it, as does MSN and AIM. Exactly my point--it's not about the name making sense; it's about it being well-known.

[egon spengler]

Try that in a corporate environment where most of your software purchases are made.

1) I already ceded that in a "mission critical" situation people may well prefer to go with software with support so that's a redundant point

2) even if it wasn't redundant you'd be shifting the entire scope of the discussion just to try make a point. Throughout the whole thread it's been strongly implied that we were discussing the average user with control over their system. If you want to include corporate company wide installations that's something entirely different. You might as well make a thread asking why people who work at burger king always wear the same clothes as each other