What do you honestly feel about Open Source Software?

[pumpum]

Do you think it is worth the effort? Let me know your views. I personally am in a doldrums about it, when it works, there is nothing better, when it doesn't, it just looks like a waste of time. What do you think?

[karellen]

I think that what works for you is best for you. same for me

[maniacmusician]

I'm not a zealot about it, but I like to use it when possible. So, pretty much like you.

[JOrtiz8612]

I think that what works for you is best for you. same for me

It is the democratic form of the software/webware world. The freedom to collaborate and choose.

[godd4242]

It's better than 1984: The Operating System

[PriceChild]

I don't really think it is an effort. I like it because it works, and in my opinion works better :)

Everyone's just too used to windows that they think its easier.

[mech7]

I think the idea is nice but OSS only works in some case for example firefox, php, apache.. for the majority commercial software is just better. OSS Works when there is a company behind it to lead the project and can give financial support, also it needs to have a large enough userbase and developers otherwise it usually dies out or progress is too slow.

[a12ctic]

I don't really think it is an effort. I like it because it works, and in my opinion works better :)

Everyone's just too used to windows that they think its easier.

I agree, FOSS is always 1000000x better than the "free" programs on windows that try to get you to buy the "premium version" every 3 seconds.

[mech7]

I agree, FOSS is always 1000000x better than the "free" programs on windows that try to get you to buy the "premium version" every 3 seconds.

Yeah but is it better then commercial software?

Photoshop - Gimp
Office 2007 - OpenOffice
After effects - ?
Maya / Max - Blender
etc etc...

[Ripfox]

When i was bouncing between Windows and Linux, if I needed an app that i KNEW would be truly free, I would google "open source (insert app here)" and they were ALWAYS better proggys than so called "freeware"...

I look at the open source effort as a very noble cause and I think you will be hearing more and more out of it as the years go on.

[a12ctic]

Yeah but is it better then commercial software?

Photoshop - Gimp
Office 2007 - OpenOffice
After effects - ?
Maya / Max - Blender
etc etc...

I personally like open office better than MS Office and if you don't mind digging for a few plugins, gimp can be just as good, if not better than photoshop. And the latest versions of blender are nothing short of amazing.

[PriceChild]

I agree, FOSS is always 1000000x better than the "free" programs on windows that try to get you to buy the "premium version" every 3 seconds.I wouldn't go anywhere near that far :)

[ghostboy]

In my opinion FOSS is a love/hate relationship. The programs that run and run well I love. The ones that dont for whatever reason. I hate it. :D

[DR_K13]

I like it because I dont feel like I am " renting " my OS from microshaft.

This is mine!

[obrient]

I have to say that I like OSS for the reason that it is a learning experience. MS has a lot of things that work, but you can't always understand what it is doing or at least I am never that successful in finding out how it works.

I also think that the community aspect of OSS is great. I like the idea that I can contribute my 2 cents here and feel like I am helping someone. In the past 3 years of using GNU/Linux I have learned a ton about computers and have been able to teach this to others. Guess that educational aspect is also very important to me.

The last reason, cause a lot of it is available without a significant cost associated with it, All and all I like things that work for the end user, so MS and OS X will always have a place, but I also don't see Linux going away any time soon.

[mech7]

I like it because I dont feel like I am " renting " my OS from microshaft.

This is mine!

Actually it isn't its not from anyone :)

[Kvark]

I'll use whatever OS takes the least effort to maintain. Windows has better programs like Photoshop etc but it's not worth the maintenance effort of tinkering with a firewall, scanning for viruses, defragging, rebooting every month, cleaning registry, cleaning autostart, dealing with a separate updater for each program or manually checking for new versions and so on to keep it running fast. Then I rather use Ubuntu where the only maintenance effort is to make backups, and settle for alternatives like Gimp etc that are not kings of their fields but still does everything I need so thats not a problem.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I like the open source movement, perhaps a little more then the free software movement.
I think if a program or OS works for you, then you should use it and yes this applies to Windows too.
However change is good, with XP's fate near I think everyone should try Linux as opposed to Vista, or even Mac OSX as Vista is not worth it and a Mac is $$$.
These days I am more in support of Linux then I am in support of open source software, if a proprietary software does the job then use it... I know I use Opera more then say firefox or Konqueror, as its a nice browser, sure it has a few things in it I dont like but Opera is a good example of proprietary but good.
However Open source does offer a gateway from big expensive software like adobe photoshop or MS office, to have programs like krita, the GIMP, Open office, Koffice and abiword/ gnome office for free is a good deal.

[juxtaposed]

It is the democratic form of the software/webware world.

No, if the software world was democratic, everyone would be forced to use windows (as it is used by a majority of the people - democratic = ruled by a majority). I'd hate that.

Open source is anarchy. Complete freedom, and it works very well.

[DeadPanDan]

Being a poor college student, FOSS has been a lifesaver. Windows crapped out on my computer and I didn't have a restoration disk. Ubuntu saved the day.

I could probably pull together enough money to order a restoration disk from Dell but... why?

[Polygon]

foss is good because its free, and it usually gets the job done.

also oss usually tends to have less showstopper bugs or bugs that i see when im trying to run the program normally.

[bodycoach2]

I use FOSS whenever possible. If something is good enough to pay for, I don't mind paying a fair price. I don't like paying inflated prices (MS Office, anything Adobe). I like having an alternative.

Propriatary software that depends on income might not be around in the future, but I'm willing to bet that Open Source programs that don't depend on income might be around longer. And, when something is good (like OpenOffice.org), more people join in on development, making the developmental progress faster than commercial applications.

I'm just hoping for a viable QuickBooks alternative soon. GnuCash and Grisbi need some work. In the future, I might be able to help. As of now, I just don't have the skills to help.

[joe.turion64x2]

I think FOSS works quite well, it is quality software that makes the software companies to make better products. I also thank the opportunity it gives me to do whatever I need in my computer without becoming a 'criminal'.

[justin whitaker]

I have a love hate relationship with FOSS. On the one hand, I love it because:


It is free
I can use it legally for anything I want
It's very flexible
People are generally helpful


I hate it because:


Open source programmers keep trying to imitate proprietary software instead of doing something new, innovative, and/or sexy. Where are our Linux specific killer apps?
There are too many projects that do exactly the same thing (do we really need so many IM applications? Music Jukeboxes?).
Interesting projects tend to fade away do to lack of programmer's time, other commitments, or lack of skill.

[mthakur2006]

I have a love hate relationship with FOSS. On the one hand, I love it because:


It is free
I can use it legally for anything I want
It's very flexible
People are generally helpful


I hate it because:


Open source programmers keep trying to imitate proprietary software instead of doing something new, innovative, and/or sexy. Where are our Linux specific killer apps?
There are too many projects that do exactly the same thing (do we really need so many IM applications? Music Jukeboxes?).
Interesting projects tend to fade away do to lack of programmer's time, other commitments, or lack of skill.



I totally agree with you, especially with this:


Open source programmers keep trying to imitate proprietary software instead of doing something new, innovative, and/or sexy. Where are our Linux specific killer apps?

[az]

I think the idea is nice but OSS only works in some case for example firefox, php, apache.. for the majority commercial software is just better. OSS Works when there is a company behind it to lead the project and can give financial support, also it needs to have a large enough userbase and developers otherwise it usually dies out or progress is too slow.

FLOSS *is* commercial software. The word you probably want to use is "proprietary". And whether it is actually better or worse than the free-libre equivalent really depends on the software itself and your particular needs. You can't make a blanket statement that one is better than the other.

As for development, usually, if there is a need, there is someone who is trying to satisfy that need. This is where FLOSS creates more opportunities than proprietary software.


Yeah but is it better then commercial software?

Photoshop - Gimp
Office 2007 - OpenOffice
After effects - ?
Maya / Max - Blender
etc etc...

OTOH, if you want to run a business, the ability to set up an unlimited number of workstations, have them run any applications you want and not have to pay for licencing is pretty cool. Are you able to run a proprietary database server for your business without paying through the teeth?

And the FLOSS world also has it's desktop top apps. Is IE better than firefox? Is there a proprietary IM client that handles moe than just one protocol?


No, if the software world was democratic, everyone would be forced to use windows (as it is used by a majority of the people - democratic = ruled by a majority). I'd hate that.

Open source is anarchy. Complete freedom, and it works very well.

I think the analogy is a bit off. FLOSS is more like a free market, but not anarchy.



I hate it because:


Open source programmers keep trying to imitate proprietary software instead of doing something new, innovative, and/or sexy. Where are our Linux specific killer apps?
There are too many projects that do exactly the same thing (do we really need so many IM applications? Music Jukeboxes?).
Interesting projects tend to fade away do to lack of programmer's time, other commitments, or lack of skill.


FLOSS development is really closely tied to the people who will end up using the software. The fact that there is usually more than one way to get somoething done is a strength. Sometimes, it is difficult for the user/developer to chose which project to back, but overall, this allows the software to be flexible and innovate.

I don't think it's fair to say that interesting project fade away. If the projects were so interesting, they would be adopted by other developers. Sure you need a crtitical mass for this to happen. You wouldn't see Inkscape or the gimp just dissapear....

To answer the original question, my views on free-libre open source software are covered here:

http://softwarefreedomday.org/SoftwareFreedom

I think software freedom protects our rights. With computers becoming more and more important to our daily lives, I think we need to remember how easy it is for someone to take away our privacy and freedom of choice if we are not careful.

[Somenoob]

I like the philosophy more than that of closed source. There is also a wide variety of software in the FOSS world, some is good some is not. And I don't see how someone can have an opinion about FOSSoftware since there are so many projects, it's just like having an opinion about group of people.

[kevinlyfellow]

Yeah but is it better then commercial software?

Photoshop - Gimp
Office 2007 - OpenOffice
After effects - ?
Maya / Max - Blender
etc etc...

Gimp has more than enough functionality for most users (photoshop is not affordable anyways. I have actually never tried photoshop, never had a need to and curiosity is not worth being satisfied at their prices). So, since it costs nothing, yes the Gimp is better. As for overall quality regardless of price, I admit I have no idea. But, just like with any tool, if you can't use it, it's useless. I can't use photoshop since I don't have the money, therefore, to me, photoshop is useless.

OpenOffice is the same way, in fact, I actually like OpenOffice better than ms office because of the equation editor (I haven't used office 07, but I've used a variety of older versions which have terrible eq editors). Given the choice, I'd take OpenOffice.

I have no clue about 3d art tools so I'm not commenting on the rest. Never even heard of after effects... (sorry I'm not an artist).

So let's the play the game backwards, is proprietary software better than open source?

Firefox -- ie7 / opera
Linux/Darwin/BSD/... -- Windows
Tomboy -- ?
Vorbis -- mp3/wma (ok this is a codec but still I think its valid)
ext3 -- ntfs (same deal, very important)
apache -- IIS
pidgin -- aim/msn/yahoo (actually trillian probably puts up the best fight)
secondlife -- ?
synaptic -- installshield (or something like that, best equivalent I could come up with)

[zugu]

I don't care if the software I use is open source or proprietary, as long as it does what I want and has a decent price.

[brim4brim]

I trust Open Source to work because IMO the programmes are generally programmed better. Even the Beta's work better than some of the release products from commercial companies.

My example is on my 4th year project which was in C#. I was using Visual C# express but it crashed on me so I looked for alternatives and found Sharpdevelop which is an Open Source editor and while it was a beta, not once did I have a problem with it.

[forrestcupp]

I think open source is a great thing. An unlimited amount of people working together to create and maintain a solution. I will always use open source first whenever I can. I am not so much of a zealot that I would never use anything proprietary. For instance, nvidia's proprietary drivers run circles around the open source ones. Why would I want to cripple my system if I don't have to? I'm definitely not going to do it to prove a point or make a stand. But I'll use open source every chance I can.

My main problem are when zealots try to make people feel bad when they use anything proprietary. I know this is tricky, but in my opinion, Richard Stallman is just as controlling as MS only in a different way. It makes me uncomfortable.

[Eddie Wilson]

Yeah but is it better then commercial software?

Photoshop - Gimp
Office 2007 - OpenOffice
After effects - ?
Maya / Max - Blender
etc etc...

I own Photoshop and I like Gimp just as well. I own MS Office and Openoffice works for me just as well. Don't use the others listed except the etc. I like my etc. better.
Eddie

[PriceChild]

joe.turion64x2 (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=197088) - if you like OSS so much I wonder why you're advertising AMD? ;P

[joe.turion64x2]

joe.turion64x2 (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=197088) - if you like OSS so much I wonder why you're advertising AMD? ;P
Because I also believe in freedom to choose and AMD is the alternative to Intel. I would hate to be in a market locked by a single provider asking for lots of money for crappy products (as Intel did in the 90's). Monopolies are not good.

Joe.

[drfalkor]

I have a love hate relationship with FOSS. On the one hand, I love it because:


It is free
I can use it legally for anything I want
It's very flexible
People are generally helpful


I hate it because:


Open source programmers keep trying to imitate proprietary software instead of doing something new, innovative, and/or sexy. Where are our Linux specific killer apps?
There are too many projects that do exactly the same thing (do we really need so many IM applications? Music Jukeboxes?).
Interesting projects tend to fade away do to lack of programmer's time, other commitments, or lack of skill.



I agree with out 100% :)

[mech7]

OTOH, if you want to run a business, the ability to set up an unlimited number of workstations, have them run any applications you want and not have to pay for licencing is pretty cool. Are you able to run a proprietary database server for your business without paying through the teeth?


It does not really matter the software costs are only a tiny bit of the overall costs. Manhours costs allot more then software.

[pumpum]

Good going, pals!
keep the reply coming!

[tehbeermang]

It's not really how I feel about Open Source, it's more how I feel about current commercial software.

Genuine Advantage Notification assumes that I'm violating the terms of my EULA, and that I need to prove legal ownership of the license if I should install new hardware. Try installing a new network card, the MAC address no longer matches the serial number...

I don't have to activate Ubuntu. I install and go. It doesn't need to hog my broadband connection with notices sent to redmond.

A thing of beauty, if you will.

[carlosqueso]

I'm a big proponent of using whatever works for you. I got into linux because I realized that I was already using all of the major free software programs (OOo, GAIM/Pidgin, Firefox), because I liked them better, so I switched. I like the fact that they're open source, but I use them because I don't have to pay for them, and I'm not going to be violating any contract by normal use.

[az]

It does not really matter the software costs are only a tiny bit of the overall costs. Manhours costs allot more then software.

To run a large number of production workstations, you are probably going to pay for support regardless of what kind of OS you use. The difference is that you would have to pay for licencing on top of that in the proprietary world.

That cost is often prohibitive. How much would Google have to pay for database licences every time it builds and enables another server farm? If they did not use FLOSS, they would not even be in business.

We take for granted what FLOSS is used in the real world. Image if the free bits of software that everyone uses were pay-per-use or otherwise licenced?

Imagine how much you would pay for internet access if your ISP had to pay per-licence to add its users to its mail/DNS/web/etc servers? The internet would not be usable if it was not running on FLOSS.

Mark Shuttleworth made a few hundred million by building a business around free encryption software, Python and Apache. He would not have been able to compete head-to-head with other counties' large corporation without Floss. This is what "creating oportunities" means.

[forrestcupp]

To run a large number of production workstations, you are probably going to pay for support regardless of what kind of OS you use. The difference is that you would have to pay for licencing on top of that in the proprietary world.

That cost is often prohibitive. How much would Google have to pay for database licences every time it builds and enables another server farm? If they did not use FLOSS, they would not even be in business.

We take for granted what FLOSS is used in the real world. Image if the free bits of software that everyone uses were pay-per-use or otherwise licenced?

Imagine how much you would pay for internet access if your ISP had to pay per-licence to add its users to its mail/DNS/web/etc servers? The internet would not be usable if it was not running on FLOSS.

Mark Shuttleworth made a few hundred million by building a business around free encryption software, Python and Apache. He would not have been able to compete head-to-head with other counties' large corporation without Floss. This is what "creating oportunities" means.

And it's only getting worse for the desktop user, too. It appears that Microsoft is pushing toward a goal of having all of their software to be web-based pay-per-use. Someday MS Office will be set up so that you don't pay a one time fee, you pay every time you use it.

[rockhoppr]

As other's have said it's a love/hate relationship for me.

I'd much rather we focus on "open standards" instead of open source. For instance, I don't really care whether my email program is open source or not as long as it works with POP/IMAP servers.

[aysiu]

I don't know if there's a meaningful generalization I can make about open source v. closed source from a practical standpoint as an end-user, except to say that open source in theory appeals to me more, since I've never known open source software to have a 30-day trial, spyware, or exorbitant cost.

I've seen open source software that's better than proprietary, and I've seen proprietary that's better than open source.

Open source software I admire:
Notepad++
Firefox
Thunderbird
FileZilla/Cyberduck/FireFTP
AmaroK
Audacity
GAIM
VLC
GIMP
TagTool

Proprietary software I admire
Microsoft Office
Adobe Creative Suite
Opera
iTunes
iPhoto

I happen to like MS Office better than OpenOffice, but OpenOffice is free and works just fine for my home needs. I'm not a designer, so I don't need Adobe Creative Suite. Even though I admire Opera, I'm still a die-hard Firefox fan. I loved iTunes in Windows, but Rhythmbox suits my needs just fine (I like AmaroK for its features, but I prefer to use Rhythmbox for some reason). And iPhoto looks cool, but I don't really need to organize my photos. I've tried F-Spot and other programs, but then I realized I just like having them there... in chronological order. I don't need to do fancy stuff with photos or "tag" them.

[ThinkBuntu]

It's more efficient, nobody can argue with that. The more that developers use one another's source, the less work that gets duplicated. In the long run, unless proprietary software borrows from open source, it's going to get blown out of the water.

[tbrminsanity]

Open source and proprietary software have their disadvantages and advantages and it all depends on what you need to which tool is better.

Open Source:
+ Its greatest resource is its community (and the ability to develop the community), with the community you get access to variable resources and different knowledge bases that may not be available otherwise.
+ High bus factor, if managed correctly a open source project should have a high bus factor (number of people that would need to be hit by a bus to stop the project)
+ Loose security requirements, since everyone has access to the code, there is little need for non-disclosure agreements
- The biggest failing of open source is its fill a need mentality, there are programs out there that are needed but no one really wants to develop them (either because the work is boring or tedious, or because it is hard work with little reward)
- The need to manage egos can quickly bog down a open source project (especially if you have poisonous people in the project)

Proprietary:
+ Its greatest resource is a funding source, many open source projects open a lot of their time raising money to fund the project. Successful proprietary companies are in the business to make money and they do.
+ Few competitors, a lot of proprietary software are the only proprietary software that perform a certain task, this means customers will know exactly what tool they need for themselves.
- Security through obscurity is one of the biggest disadvantages of proprietary software, once a hack is known the programmers are scrambling to fill the hole.

[kevinlyfellow]

I think, in general, open source software is better than most proprietary apps. First off, there is increased value in low/no cost. In capitalist theory, the market is guided towards making the best product at the lowest price. Oss almost always lower in cost (in non-corporate environments, which are too complicated for me to analyze). So, we have that going for oss. Secondly, availability. There are a lot of cross platform oss projects out there, but how many closed source cross platform applications are there?

But I think what people really want is comparison in an ideal computing environment, free of cost and compatibility issues. Does proprietary stuff win? I don't believe so. I think that a it may have been true about 5-6 years ago, but we are at a point where we have matched and surpassed many proprietary stuff. I believe this because I don't have the desire to move back to proprietary stuff and whenever I have tried, there were show stopping bugs/poor design decisions. I remember once I decided to try out aim (for windows), because it must have cool features in it that I was missing out on in gaim. Now, I don't know how this happens, but installing aim in windows broke my sound (it would only work in one speaker). Then they dared advertise to me with voice ads in that one working speaker. Just what I need, another sense occupied with advertisements. I realized that I had no real complaints with using gaim, and switched back. Did I give up without trying to solve the problems? Yes, but I didn't know where to start looking to solve the problem (and if solving ad problems would be backed by aol?), so I gave up.

There are some proprietary software that I need, because there is not a useful alternative yet. Mathematica is one of them. The interface in the linux version sucks, there are strange bugs in the program including broken features, and I constantly need to restart its kernel. It's better than the yacas-proteus alternative which doesn't work for me at all. Is this really a point for the closed source team?

I honestly believe oss is better, and will continue to get better as more and more businesses become dependent on open source development. Proprietary software is best for specialized purposes where there is not enough user base for that type of application to support an oss alternative.

[forrestcupp]

But I think what people really want is comparison in an ideal computing environment, free of cost and compatibility issues. Does proprietary stuff win? I don't believe so. I think that a it may have been true about 5-6 years ago, but we are at a point where we have matched and surpassed many proprietary stuff.

I don't think open source is quite there yet, but I think it's poised to surpass proprietary. The reason I think this is because up until now, open source people haven't really been known to make things that look good and are flashy. It just isn't the geeky way to do it. We want command line and emacs, etc. But the problem is that most normal users want their stuff to look good and have nice, easy, flashy interfaces. The good news is that I think this geeky mentality is changing. People are seeing that nice user interfaces and things like Beryl and beautiful themes are actually getting people to enjoy using their stuff. So now we're poised to have people like the OpenOffice.org team making office suites that actually look good, like MS Office. We're not there yet, but we're on the right path.

Usability is good, but beautiful usability is even better.

[kevinlyfellow]

I don't think open source is quite there yet, but I think it's poised to surpass proprietary. The reason I think this is because up until now, open source people haven't really been known to make things that look good and are flashy. It just isn't the geeky way to do it. We want command line and emacs, etc. But the problem is that most normal users want their stuff to look good and have nice, easy, flashy interfaces. The good news is that I think this geeky mentality is changing. People are seeing that nice user interfaces and things like Beryl and beautiful themes are actually getting people to enjoy using their stuff. So now we're poised to have people like the OpenOffice.org team making office suites that actually look good, like MS Office. We're not there yet, but we're on the right path.

Usability is good, but beautiful usability is even better.

Hmmm... you may be right. I've constantly hated the direction that most user interfaces have gone (gnome has done a great job though, they've improved most of it). Windows Media Player is a prime example, last I saw it (version 8 or 9) I thought it was butt ugly and confusing. Other's that I talked to said they liked it. Same with just about every media player for windows, but I loved mpc, which clones windows media player from the good ol' days; its so easy to use. I also remember hating later versions of ms works and money. So you may be right, since every new update to a lot of windows applications rubbed me the wrong way, but somebody must have been enjoying the new interfaces. I'm very glad that the tango project looks nice, and that gnome is very themeable, but those things are a very very distant second to being able to do things fast and easy (which gnome is also great at with most things). I will take spartan over pretty and complicated anytime. Edit: complicated in my perspective, but being the person that prefers to do most of my file management in command line, my opinion is probably a little different than most.

Thanks for your insight, normally I hate it when people disagree with me ;-) but I believe your right.

[mwacky]

I feel that the commercial software world will always be one step ahead of OpenSource because of the effort and money spent pushing the envelope. For Example MSFT introduced their next file format system, Txf, with Windows Vista. In my opinion this is to stay ahead of OpenSource, as ntfs has no longer become a barrier for cross-platform, and keeps MSFT in the lead.

But for every day use, users do not need to 'push the envelope' so as open source improves, the need to pay exorbitant prices for matured server and desktop productivity will go down and linux's use will become more widespread due to simple economics. Msft will continue to be on top for years to come and Linux will not go away. But as long as there are a growing number of dedicated people working hard in open source communities, the potential (and cost savings!) for open source software will be realized by more and more users. Ultimately commercial and open source software have their place, commercial will continue to innovate in order to drive profits and open source will hopefully keep pace and continue to force innovation in both worlds.

[Adamant1988]

open source is a wonderful development style that tends to work very well. The flaw with open source programs is that they typically come in two breeds:

Corporate and Community. In most instances a corporate open source application will get further, faster, than the community application. FireFox is a good example of this, it's actually corporate at it's heart, which allowed it to spread so far.

So, really it depends on the piece of software, but typically I prefer to use Open Source software. Typically though, proprietary in-house software tends to be more attractive and more feature rich, hopefully this will change soon... Perhaps the reason proprietary software or "software as a product" goes further, faster, is because companies are thriving on it. Think about it, if I'm a volunteer I have no reason other than personal passion to develop something, and even then I'm not listening to the consumer base, I'm doing what I want with my time.

[bx2]

In my case it is working great! I can do everything on a computer that I need to do. Of course then if you are not satisfied with that and need absolutely all the latest gizmology, I think is when people get into trouble with this, mosty of the problems I see are due to trying to over tweak for the sake of looks, or other functioality that is just in my opinion not really needed. I have an old dell 500mhz celeron that i can do all by business stuff on gnucash, my printer works(actually better than it did in Wincrap) I have had to do some fixing of stuff, but it's really simple usually you can get all the help you need here. But it just is, and works every time i turn it on. Also i don't have to reboot the system every time i turn the firewall off just to read my mail, that in itself is worth it to me. If you're needing to compete with all the glitz thats out there maybe not a good choice, but I figure if we just hang on, it'll get there


"Have absolutely no expectations about anything" :)

[norwyn]

Most of the worlds absolute top class end-user software is open source.
Applications I love and use frequently (when they are available):

*Audacity
*Apache
*Firefox
*VLC --- There isn't any better
*Evolution
*OpenOffice
*Comix --- There isn't any better
*Rhythmbox
*Inkscape
*The Gimp
*Gedit
etc...
The only thing I miss is a great video editing app, but I'm learning how to program at the moment, so I'm planning on helping out in that area.

[dada1958]

Yesterday I read that Adobe is going to abandon FreeHand. I'm using this wonderful app since version 5.5 and yesterday I was doing a lay out job on an old Mac G3 at my work and thought it would be very nice to have that on my Ubuntu pc because Inkscape isn't coming even close. It would suit Adobe very well when they gave FreeHand to the open source community.
For the rest I'm pretty happy with the apps I'm using with my Ubuntu pc: AbiWord, Amarok, Grip, gThumb, Firefox, Gedit, TeXLive, Evince, Scribus, Streamtuner and ripper, Totem, Evolution, Pan, BitTorrent and the one I forgot to mention and yes I like Inkscape:)

[mech7]

Yesterday I read that Adobe is going to abandon FreeHand. I'm using this wonderful app since version 5.5 and yesterday I was doing a lay out job on an old Mac G3 at my work and thought it would be very nice to have that on my Ubuntu pc because Inkscape isn't coming even close. It would suit Adobe very well when they gave FreeHand to the open source community.
For the rest I'm pretty happy with the apps I'm using with my Ubuntu pc: AbiWord, Amarok, Grip, gThumb, Firefox, Gedit, TeXLive, Evince, Scribus, Streamtuner and ripper, Totem, Evolution, Pan, BitTorrent and the one I forgot to mention and yes I like Inkscape:)

You should try Illustrator it is much better then freehand :) and the reason why they dumped it :D

[keithpeter]

The Basics: Web, e-mail, Office: I use Firefox, ThunderBird and OpenOffice on Xubuntu on a recycled IBM NetVista P4 and on an ancient Dell L400 laptop. It all works. Honestly, what else is there to say?

I prefer the mathematical formula editor in OpenOffice to Word's MathType. I burn OpenOffice for Windows CD-ROMs for students who bought cheap laptops with MS Works installed hence no presentation program. They seem to get on with oOo Impress ok. Audacity rocks as a simple (not time coded) audio editor. All of these apps are available on any of the three main platforms (Windows XP or later, Mac OS X and any Linux distro).

The extremely specialised: TeX and LaTeX are free on all platforms, R, Gnuplot, Maxima and the others are available for most platforms.

My Gripe: Workflow. I like the Mac OS X thing of complete drag and drop between applications. Once KDE or Gnome or another interface package get that sorted, I'm for OSS all the way. As long as someone writes a decent outliner :-)

Project: Get a light weight desktop running the way I like it (Openbox with nice fonts and something like the Agualemon theme?)

[dada1958]

You should try Illustrator it is much better then freehand :) and the reason why they dumped it :D
Nah ... I disagree, I like InDesign, I like Photoshop, never liked Illustrator, Adobe dumped FH for marketing reasons, finally they won that battle:(

[az]

I feel that the commercial software world will always be one step ahead of OpenSource because of the effort and money spent pushing the envelope.


FLOSS is commercial software. Software freedom is compatible with commerce. FLOSS often creates more opportunites than prorietary software.

There are lots of cases where FLOSS is more innovative than proprietary software.

[airtonix]

I use FLOSS....because i feel windows will lead us to a 1984, brave-new-world,logans run,soylent-green,aeon-flux scenario.

I am jack-of-all-trades master-of-none-but-my-own-destiny.