What's most important about the software you use?

[jamescox84]

For me it has to be the fact that it's libre, free software, that grants me freedom. Unfortunately not all software on my machine is libre, so I'm not hardcore about it. But I support the Ideals held by the Free Software Foundation and hope that one day all software will be Free.

I was just wondering if this is a view held by allot of Linux users, or are they any other things you find more important. Sorry if the poll isn't very extensive, I was mainly aiming to see where people stood on the moral size of it.

[SZF2001]

What's most important is that it does it's job. I prefer the KAudioCreator over the one provided in the default Gnome setup, simply because I can just slap my disc in there and let it rip, get it started on encoding, take the CD out and let it rip another while it's encoding - I have very little time on my hands somedays, so this is very handy.

Until it doesn't recodnise a genre or something and stops the whole process. I make sure to avoid that now, though.

Being a busy person who can barely get on the computer (let alone pay for an OS and all that fun junk, trying to support myself is enough as it is), the most important thing is: it just has to work, period.

[prizrak]

What's most important is that it does it's job. I prefer the KAudioCreator over the one provided in the default Gnome setup, simply because I can just slap my disc in there and let it rip, get it started on encoding, take the CD out and let it rip another while it's encoding - I have very little time on my hands somedays, so this is very handy.

Until it doesn't recodnise a genre or something and stops the whole process. I make sure to avoid that now, though.

Being a busy person who can barely get on the computer (let alone pay for an OS and all that fun junk, trying to support myself is enough as it is), the most important thing is: it just has to work, period.

Seconded.

[mech7]

That it is userfriendly and works and has a proper workflow for the rest i could not care less.. They are tools not a religion.

[jamescox84]

I see that's a popular opinion, but I assumed the software you was using did it's job. I was more interested in the philosophy you choose.

[MOS95B]

That it is userfriendly and works and has a proper workflow for the rest i could not care less.. They are tools not a religion.


Yep!!

[kebes]

That it is userfriendly and works and has a proper workflow for the rest i could not care less.. They are tools not a religion.

Language is also a tool. To support free speech is not turning language into "a religion," it is merely valuing freedom. :)

Similarly, with free software, I appreciate both the pragmatic "it is a high quality tool" argument, and the more idealistic "it provides me with freedom" argument. The two arguments are, in fact, inter-related: much of the quality of free software comes from that fact that people are able to adapt it, modify it, freely distribute it, and so forth.

But since the poll was for the "most important", I voted for "freedom," since this freedom frequently leads to pragmatic productivity anyway (whereas productive proprietary software does not lead to freedom).

[rich.bradshaw]

In Windows, if it doesn't do what you want, you are stuck.

I downloaded a battery applet for Karamba today, but it only supported one battery, my laptop has two.

I just opened the python script, and changed it to average both batteries instead. I don't even know python, but I could just copy and paste.

I know this isn't the biggest example, but it took a few mins, and now it works fine. In windows I would have paid $20 for it, and would have been pissed when it didn't work!

[jrusso2]

Of course being Open Source is preferred. But lacking this I don't mind free as in beer or paying for proprietary software if it does the job I need to do or is clearly better then any Open Source solution.

[jamescox84]

That's right, you don't always need to be an expert programmer to modify things you like, especially if they're written in Python (my favorite language).

@rich.bradshaw I take it your an Open Source kinda guy.

It's nice to see people responding to this, even if they don't like the idea of the philosophy behind the software at least you guy have an opinion on the subject and have thought about it.

[GeneralZod]

1) Capital-F "Free" (I've no objection at all to sending money to talented Free Software developers) and
2) Integrates well into KDE.

[samjh]

1. Functional - capable of performing what I need and want (or do not want) it to do;
2. Reliable - perform those tasks consistently well without harming my computer;
3. Usable - be easy to obtain, install, use, maintain, and remove.

In that order.

Everything else is just accessory. Open source is good, but not as important as the above three. "Free" software is nice, but that's about it.

Software is not a tool. That is too broad a category. Software is simply a product, a product of technical design and implementation. Even FOSS software are mere products of their creators. Political or business philosophies mean very little to me unless it meets the demands of the end user, and in a commercial environment, improves sales.

You don't know every technical details about the car your drive, or the house you live in. Much of those details will be beyond your understanding, and often not disclosed to the public. But that doesn't make your car or your house "bad". You rely on the automotive engineers for designing and producing your car; and you rely on civil engineers, architects, and tradesmen, for the house you live in. You use the sewage system daily, but do you know really how it works? You use banks, but do you know their internal processes or legal issues which govern their operations? Do you know the exact process your insurance company uses to calculate the premiums you pay to them? Can you obtain full schematics of the closest power station? I doubt it. Most of the things we use are analogous to "closed source" software. We could learn to design and build those things, but most of us choose not to, or have no opportunities for that. Even if we had the expertise, the designs and implementation are probably commercial or pubic secrets.

I am educated in computer science. I can build and program electronic devices, and my computer. I like to use open source software, if it is good quality. Sometimes I enjoy examining the source code, and occasionally contribute to the software's development. But I also use closed source software, respect the skills of those who created it, and pay my dues by legally purchasing licence to the software. To me, that is a fair philosophy. I can't make something for myself, so I rely on others to make it for me, and pay for their product and after-sales service. Just like most other things I use in life.

[moffatt666]

For me, the most important thing is that it works and gets the job done efficiently. The only reason I converted to linux was that one day Windows stopped working properly and my install CD packed-up as well. My only option was the copy of Mandriva I had lying around on my desk and I've never looked back since.

[Adamant1988]

The absolute most important thing about my software is that it increases my productivity and does something for me that another piece of software can't. Past that, I want my software open-source - I want to know that It'll be around in some form years from now even if the original devs drop it.

[forrestcupp]

That it does what I need or want well. If free/libre does the job well, I will use it first. But if a free/libre offering doesn't measure up, and it is feasible for me to use proprietary, I will. It isn't about philosophy with me, it's about having a good, working system.

[AndyCooll]

I voted "other", because like others have already posted the most important aspect of the software that I use is that it does the job.

"Free/Libre" is an important philosophy to me and I will endeavour to use these apps wherever practical in preference to "proprietary" apps. However, if the "libre" version isn't up to the job or doesn't exist then I have no problem choosing and using the proprietary alternative.

:cool:

[KIAaze]

One more freedom supporter here. :D

[kragen]

How about... "It's good reliable software which is productive and easy to use?"

How can people genuinely rate the fact that software is free above the fact that it works? However free a piece of software might be, if it doesn't do the job you want it for, its worthless.

[KIAaze]

Yeah, well ok, I admit that if it didn't work I wouldn't use it. :oops:

But I still do value the fact that a software is Free extremely high.
Therefore, I'll rather use something that works and is free than something that is better and not free.

Luckily, Free software happens to be better somehow. :)

[karellen]

most important, in this order:
- it works and it does what I need it to do
- it's gratis.
I don't care much about being open source as I don't want to (and have no time) to modify the code or something similar...

[karellen]

How about... "It's good reliable software which is productive and easy to use?"

How can people genuinely rate the fact that software is free above the fact that it works? However free a piece of software might be, if it doesn't do the job you want it for, its worthless.

totally agree :)

[mcduck]

I voted for 'Other. The most important thing is that all the software I use work, and allow me to do whatever I want/need to do with minimum effort.

[aysiu]

I voted other.

In order from most to least important:
It is available for Ubuntu
It performs whatever task it needs to
It performs that task efficiently
It is easy to install/find
It is cost-free (money)
It is also Free (freedom)
It isn't ugly
Its name is a cool name

[jamescox84]

Its name is a cool name
LOL, we wouldn't be geeks if we couldn't appreciate a cool acronym especially a recursive one.

It surprises me that at the moment, most of the post's seem to be saying something along the lines of, "I don't really care about the software been Free Software as long as the job gets done", and some have even gone on to say they don't really even value Free Software at all.

I wish these people would look into the philosophy of the software they use, it might just change there minds. Here are the freedoms, Free Software grants.

Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
This may see odd, can't I use gratis software for any purpose? We'll it all depends on the license. Free versions of software often have restriction on commercial use, or using the thing's you've created with that software.

Freedom 1: The freedom to study and modify the program.
This is important, sometimes thing just don't work the way you want them to, or wont compile on you machine. With a little programming knowledge you can often just tweak things to work.

Freedom 2: The freedom to copy the program so you can help your neighbor.
This is very nice indeed, when people ask me what did you use to do that, I can just given them a copy of the software, and I don't have to worry about breaking any laws.

Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits
As I mentioned in Freedom 1, you can modify it's source, now you can contribute you improvements back to the community. This is one of the more satisfying things, even when all it is, is a simple bug fix, these contributions are always received well.


Interestingly though the libre option is winning in the poll.

[steven8]

LOL, we wouldn't be geeks if we couldn't appreciate a cool acronym especially a recursive one.

It surprises me that at the moment, most of the post's seem to be saying something along the lines of, "I don't really care about the software been Free Software as long as the job gets done", and some have even gone on to say they don't really even value Free Software at all.

I wish these people would look into the philosophy of the software they use, it might just change there minds. Here are the freedoms, Free Software grants.

Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
This may see odd, can't I use gratis software for any purpose? We'll it all depends on the license. Free versions of software often have restriction on commercial use, or using the thing's you've created with that software.

Freedom 1: The freedom to study and modify the program.
This is important, sometimes thing just don't work the way you want them to, or wont compile on you machine. With a little programming knowledge you can often just tweak things to work.

Freedom 2: The freedom to copy the program so you can help your neighbor.
This is very nice indeed, when people ask me what did you use to do that, I can just given them a copy of the software, and I don't have to worry about breaking any laws.

Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits
As I mentioned in Freedom 1, you can modify it's source, now you can contribute you improvements back to the community. This is one of the more satisfying things, even when all it is, is a simple bug fix, these contributions are always received well.


Interestingly though the libre option is winning in the poll.

I say you are spot-on, my friend. Well said! You must remember, though, there is a gap between the OSS and FSF people.

[jamescox84]

Oh, yes I totally agree OSS basically places less importance on Freedom 2, 3. Valuing mainly the access to the source code. That's why I put an Open Source option and a Free Software option on the poll. I personally value the Free Software view.

[steven8]

Oh, yes I totally agree OSS basically places less importance on Freedom 2, 3. Valuing mainly the access to the source code. That's why I put an Open Source option and a Free Software option on the poll. I personally value the Free Software view.

ditto!

[euler_fan]

Number 1: It has to work and do as advertised. No piece of software failing to do that (or otherwise meet my needs in some way) is worth my having regardless of its FOSS/OSS/etc status.
Number 2: I can see the source code and make changes if I want to and distribute it if I want to.Personally I think it should work like books: if you use someone's code you owe them a citation in the comments of the code and in the documentation. Partly this is as a thank you and partly to give credit where credit is due.

[aysiu]

It surprises me that at the moment, most of the post's seem to be saying something along the lines of, "I don't really care about the software been Free Software as long as the job gets done", and some have even gone on to say they don't really even value Free Software at all. I know you're not addressing me specifically, but I do want to say that free software matters to me. Nevertheless, functionality comes first. If a program doesn't do what it's supposed to, then why are you using the program?

People talk about free software mattering a lot to them, but I don't know if it does. I mean, I haven't done a username comparison or anything, but it seems to me a lot of the same people emphasizing how important free software is are the same ones saying they much prefer Opera to Firefox. Firefox may not be "cool" to use any more, but it is still open source, and Opera is still proprietary.

[Extreme Coder]

1) Does exactly what I need with any compromises for any features I NEED(that may be available in competitor's software)

2) Free, in terms of modification, distribution and usage too ;)

3) Opensource. I can view it's code to learn from, or modify for improving and forking.


Extreme Coder

[juxtaposed]

That they work as they are supposed to, and work well. Also that they have alot of features, yet are lightweight.

[jamescox84]

I would just like to say that to all those saying that, "it has to do what I want need it to do". That's all very well and good, but I assumed the software you was using did what you needed, otherwise you wouldn't be using the software, you'd be sitting in front of an useless box. Apart from been functional, which is a given, What's most important about the software you use. For the most part it seems to me that most people are happy that it's gratis first, and free second. I find this ashame.

[karellen]

For the most part it seems to me that most people are happy that it's gratis first, and free second. I find this ashame.

why?

[juxtaposed]

but I assumed the software you was using did what you needed,

Well, maybe there is one piece of software that does something you need it to, but not well? Since it's the only software out there, you can't use anything else, so you settle for it doing what you want but not very well.

[Lucifiel]

For me, ths software has to:

a) perform as it claims to do so.

That is, if it claims to have ___ feature, then I must be able to use them and they shouldn't have been implemented half-heartedly.

b) stability

What good is a software if it crashes too often, even if it's free?

c) free

Yes, it's gotta be freeware for now.

[jamescox84]

For the most part it seems to me that most people are happy that it's gratis first, and free second. I find this ashame.

why?


Because freedom is very import, and should be important to you. Freedom is something we value in all areas of life, be it freedom of speech and expression, or freedom of choice. Why shouldn't the freedoms be supported for information and software? I think our freedom is far more important than the cost of it, and certainly should come first where ever possible.

Being put in prison won't cost you anything, but don't you think living free would be nicer?

[karellen]

Because freedom is very import, and should be important to you. Freedom is something we value in all areas of life, be it freedom of speech and expression, or freedom of choice. Why shouldn't the freedoms be supported for information and software? I think our freedom is far more important than the cost of it, and certainly should come first where ever possible.

Being put in prison won't cost you anything, but don't you think living free would be nicer?

well I fail to see how being put in prison = using gratis software (not free) :P
maybe I have an issue with this, but I don't like exaggerations and false comparisons. and divagations. I believe this is a personal problem of the software creator: he has the right to choose how and what will do with something that he created: make it open source, freeware of proprietary paid software. nobody forces you tu buy it and nobody restricts your freedom

[jamescox84]

Proprietary software does restrict it's users, but I will agree my prison/proprietary slat was a little harsh, for that I'm sorry. All I really want to do is spread awareness of the cause.

[aysiu]

All of about 5% of forum members who hang out in the Cafe (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=95718) have completely free software in their Ubuntu computers ("Completely free, RMS would be proud.")

Using proprietary software is not at all like being put in prison.

There are some distinct disadvantages to the end user for using proprietary software, but none are all that tragic, just slightly unfortunate:

1. If proprietary software is cost-free, it is far more likely than non-proprietary software to include some kind of spyware, nagware, or other malware.

2. If the proprietary software's developing company discontinues the product (or the company itself goes belly up), there is absolutely no way to continue development of the project without the company's consent. Free software allows a developer to come in and fork the project or take over the existing project. And it also allows an end user who has the money to fund a fork if no developer is interested otherwise.

3. Proprietary software often (but not always) locks you into a particular file format or other kind of restriction (DRM, for example).

But not all three or even any of those three limitations need apply for all proprietary software, and most end users will not be able to tell the difference in any way between Opera and Firefox (as far as freedom goes) or between Flash and Gnash (as far as freedom goes). They will, however, be able to tell the difference between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice because the former costs money and requires an activation code. The latter requires neither of those two.

Everyone knows the benefits developers get from software being Free and/or open source, but there are also benefits to the end-user, and those are not always relevant or even felt... depending on what software we're talking about.

[karellen]

Proprietary software does restrict it's users, but I will agree my prison/proprietary slat was a little harsh, for that I'm sorry. All I really want to do is spread awareness of the cause.

no problem :)
I don't pay much for software as I use mostly freeware in windows and in ubuntu...open source all the way

[AndyCooll]

I know you're not addressing me specifically, but I do want to say that free software matters to me. Nevertheless, functionality comes first. If a program doesn't do what it's supposed to, then why are you using the program?

Got to agree. My view is very similar. Functionality comes first.

I will always prefer the free libre version of an app to do a job when it performs appropriately. It is why I choose Firefox in preference to Opera, or Amarok in preference to Realplayer, Evince in preference to Adobe Acrobat, K3B in preference to Nero, oOo in preference to Microsoft Office. All these apps do a good comparable job in relation to their proprietary counterparts. Sometimes a few adjustments need to be made, but on the whole they are every bit as good.

However in the case of Flash (for instance) there currently isn't a comparable alternative, so most folk use this proprietary piece of software ...and so do I. Gnash being at the Alpha stage (at the moment) isn't comparable. And for most folk, not using Flash simply isn't an option they are willing to take.

It's also the reason why folk use Nvidia and ATI drivers. Of course we'd prefer to use a free libre
option but when it comes to a choice of doing without or using a proprietary app then most folk will choose the latter. And this is fair enough IMHO.

:cool:

[use a name]

Uhm, it get's the job done?

[jamescox84]

@AndyCooll, that's completely fine, because at least you care about it been free software, and choose it over gratis software first.

[TheMono]

I'd like to emphatically second what AndyCooll just said.

[Kalixa]

I usually choose the software which works best for me. Unless the price is pretty extreme. Such as Adobe products.

[NESFreak]

Uhm, it get's the job done?

mm, yes, getting the job done, that would be nice, maybe some human understandable userinterface would also be nice.

If there would be to programs that where able to do the same trick. I'd go for the one i'd understand.

[DUDE_2000]

I'll use most things because they A. work or B. are free (no cost)