CNet Promotes Essential Open-Source Software to Joe Public

Zool writes "A feature is currently running on CNet explicitly promoting open-source software alternatives for typical home users, with programs rated and compared to commercial offerings. Although there's no mention of the Linux advantages to home users, the list is extensive and certainly written with the intention of snagging wider open-source adoption and understanding in the mainstream. 'Why should you care about open source? You should care because the vast majority of common applications, even complex commercial stuff like Adobe Photoshop, Windows Media Player and Microsoft Office, have free, open-source alternatives. And this point is worth reiterating: open-source software is free. No cost. Zero. Zilch.'"

Hard drive photo?

[suso]

Somehow I think it odd to have a picture of an open case hard drive to represent open source software.

Does this matter?

[Henry V .009]

Are there really any CNet readers who aren't tech savvy enough to have actually heard of open source? Sure, there are people out there who have never used any free software, but they sure don't read CNet.

Don't offer bad alternatives

[athloi]

If OSS is to thrive, it needs to not offer worse alternatives, and by so doing, convince people that OSS is unreliable.

No matter what people who wish it were otherwise say, OpenOffice is a piece of junk. It's huge. It's buggy. It has difficulties using other formats. It explodes frequently. It requires massive Java-ware installed on the machines of otherwise happily non-bloated users. It's worse than anything Microsoft has shipped.

Point people toward Abiword, or point them toward Google apps, but don't push that piece of junk on them, unless you want to cement in their minds the idea that "free but inferior" is the definition of open source.

Thank you.

Re:Be careful with the free statement

[Rude Turnip]

Whenever I talk about AVG, I make sure to mention that they only charge for commercial licenses and that while I use the free version at home, I've paid for a commercial license for work. That might make it sound more reassuring to some people.

Technical Communication is your specialty?

[expro]

How about objectivity?

I know a number of businesses and private people who use Open Office every day exchanging documents with others without a hitch, whereas I have never heard of anyone who gave it up because it was huge, buggy, or had difficulty using other formats.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but Open Office is a very beautiful thing for everyone I know personally who has ever tried it.

Re:Free Speech is Not Free Beer

[rgravina]

Hear hear! Most non-programmers I have got to use open source alternatives have done so because of the free is in beer aspect. Almost all of them have eventually understood the free as in speech advantages too. Especially those in small business, who begin to realise that not only do updates to the software come for free, they can also pay programmers to improve the program or fix a critical bug if they choose to.

Bravo!

[Synchis]

Since the author of TFA has apparently closed off comments for now, I'll state it here:

Bravo. It's nice to see a main-stream media outlet offering this kind of coverage of FOSS.

I've experimented with FOSS for a long time, and have wanted to switch for many years. Last spring, I did, once and for all. I now use Ubuntu 7.10 on my home system, even for gaming. (I was surprised to find that many companies are offering a Linux version as well as Windows.)

In my opinion, meny FOSS projects are ready for the main-stream. They simply need some good publicity, and a following.

Re:Free Speech is Not Free Beer

[Doc Ruby]

I'm not ramming ideology. It's CNet that explains the ideology wrong by saying "open source = $free". They could just tell people the SW they're pushing is free, without saying something false about the source code. Because, as you say, most people don't care.

Don't rant at me for correcting their mistake. Rant at CNet for mentioning the source code as a benefit for everyone.

FWIW, open source is not really an ideology, but a development technique. That has important benefits to consumers in quality and, yes, cost. Just because Stallman is a whiny hippie doesn't mean the rest of us are. Your rant just makes that image worse by perpetuating it, even when that image is irrelevant to the actual story here: cost and quality benefits of the SW CNet is promoting. No one mentioned ideology, or relied on it, at all, until you started shouting it down like a straw man.

Re:Be careful with the free statement

[sootman]

Be careful with this statement.

Good point. But...

A coworker went to Staples and purchased a version of McAfee for home, even after I told her AVG would do everything she wanted it to, and for free. I got the impression that she didn't think something that didn't cost anything would be able to do what she wanted...

Too bad. You missed a great opportunity--you should have sold her a copy! No, I'm not being a smartass and saying you should have taken advantage of her. Well, actually, I guess I am--not being a smartass, but it seems that some people insist on being taken advantage of, and she evidently is one of them.* If they insist on burning money, you might as well help them put that money to good use! From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html [gnu.org]

Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost. Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on. ...

Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price isn't more free, or closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee [emphasis mine] and make some money [emphasis theirs]. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it.

Free software is a community project, and everyone who depends on it ought to look for ways to contribute to building the community. For a distributor, the way to do this is to give a part of the profit to the Free Software Foundation or some other free software development project. By funding development, you can advance the world of free software.

Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it! [emphasis theirs, but I agree. :-) ]

And, in case it wasn't clear up until now: "In order to contribute funds, you need to have some extra. If you charge too low a fee, you won't have anything to spare to support development."

So charge as much as you can! Hell, charge more than the commercial offering and throw in some support. And if you've got a guilty conscience, a) get over it or b) send some money to the FSF. If you really don't need money, tell them you're an "authorized distributor" and they can make a check out to "FSF" with the name of the software in the memo line.

Richard Stallman wants software to be capital-F-Free, as in hackable, usable, modifiable. I don't think he has ever once said that people should give away their time. If you're spending your time extolling the virtues of Free software, you should get paid!

* See also the recent thread about the $199 WalMart PC that is in a bigger-than-needed case because people think bigger == better. The last thing I need is another fullsize tower, but I would have bought one in a second if it were the size of a Shuttle PC.