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?

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

Hard drive on grass photo

Actually, it is quite appropriate.
It has been an long, hard drive to for the developers to get the software out in the open - and they did it all while on grass.

Re:Hard drive photo?

I think computer parts would make for fantastic lawn art.

There's a nerdy redneck joke in there somewhere...

Free as in Beer then Free as in Freedom

"And this point is worth reiterating: open-source software is free. No cost. Zero. Zilch."

I find this may be the better approach in introducing people to free[dom]/open source software. People don't understand at first the implications of free[dom] software.

After the hook of 'free', then people can learn about the freedom aspects. Of course if they clue in right away the importance of freedom, all the better.

Re:Free as in Beer then Free as in Freedom

Most users don't care about freedom, they want something that (a) works suitable for their purposes, and (b) doesn't require them to change their use habits, and last but not least (c) requires a minimum of extra work to get running.

Most non-free software provides this functionality as easily as free software.

Re:Free as in Beer then Free as in Freedom

Most non-free software provides this functionality as easily as free software.

There are always two factors to choosing software:

1. Price of the software.
2. The amount of time it takes to acquire and learn to use said software.

Example:

Given the choice of purchasing the expensive Photoshop or downloading user unfriendly GIMP for free, which will the average user do?

The answer is they will pirate Photoshop for free and Win/Win!

But seriously, most people tend to go with what they can their hands on for the least amount of trouble. Most people think that Windows and or MS Office is free because it comes with the computer

Re:Free as in Beer then Free as in Freedom

Most users don't care about freedom, they want something that (a) works suitable for their purposes, and (b) doesn't require them to change their use habits, and last but not least (c) requires a minimum of extra work to get running.

How long did you work to pay your software licenses, and how long did you have to work extra to get it working, and change your habit of not paying for software? ;)

Most non-free software provides this functionality as easily as free software.

Especially if you also consider `piracy'.

Rather Free AND Legal!

Free (as in beer) doesn't really represent a value proposition if you've "pirated" your non-Free software anyway.

The message that needs to be gotten across is "Free AND Legal". I've had people express complete disbelief in my claim that they can have Legal Copies of software for free (beer) -- to the point where they were pretty sure I was lying or making it up.

Re:Rather Free AND Legal!

Completely agree. The Windows-world is full of users who would just pirate any commercial software they need (no matter what purpose). Many also end up trying to use at least one open source app at some point, but it in some way fails (eg GIMP has a weird window layout that is a little bit hard to get used to, and on Windows there's no built-in "force windows to stay on top" function). They get rid of it, go back to the commercial software (pirated), and decide to never use free and open source software again.

It is unfortunate. I think this is one of the more overlooked problems in trying to gain widespread adoption of open source alternatives, even if it is on Winblows.

I am in university, and the attitude from many first-year CS students I have spoken with is that "Linux sucks", even if they have only used PuTTY on their Winblows boxes to program their small C apps to the server with GCC. And they are all asking "Why not Visual Studio?", which they all have pirated of course. It is ridiculous. They do not believe me about the crappiness of proprietary software, and some even choose to use Vista just because it is the "latest".

Re:Rather Free AND Legal!

Many also end up trying to use at least one open source app at some point, but it in some way fails (eg GIMP has a weird window layout that is a little bit hard to get used to, and on Windows there's no built-in "force windows to stay on top" function).

That right there is the problem. GIMP isn't just a little weird. It's off in its own world. Most GIMP defenders write it off and say "use a better window manager", but the reality is it just doesn't play well with the normal usage patterns most window managers are coded for. And of course it's a much bigger issue on Windows, where you can't change the UI.

Don't blame the user for not understanding when you throw something at them that works totally differently than every other program they've ever seen.

And they are all asking "Why not Visual Studio?", which they all have pirated of course.

Why pirate it? It's free unless you want the high end editions. If you're the type of person who doesn't know why they should or shouldn't be using Visual Studio, you don't need the versions that cost money.

They do not believe me about the crappiness of proprietary software

Because to most people, especially home users, it doesn't matter. Most of them would never be able to do anything with the source code, nor would they have the money to pay someone who could. And they like having a company to call for support.

Proprietary data formats, however, are a completely different story. Those are bad for everyone but the maker of the software.

Does this matter?

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.

Re:Does this matter?

No, but there are plenty who click on links, so whenever CNET can create a 10-page article with 10 lines of actual content, they will.

Free Speech is Not Free Beer

And this point is worth reiterating: open-source software is free. No cost. Zero. Zilch. - Nate Lanxon

That point is worthless, or some negative value. Because open-source software is free speech , notfree beer. Plenty of open source is $free, but there's plenty of paid products that include the source code. It's harder to prevent people from redistributing open source, to collect the money from something they can copy to others without paying. But that's copyright violation, which CNet is now promoting, even though it makes its own income from that same protection.

Lanxon is the MP3 and digital music reviewer for CNet. Next time he says anything defending music industry copyrights, or his own on his articles, readers should remind him. Maybe by republishing it under their own name.

Re:Free Speech is Not Free Beer

That point is worthless, or some negative value. Because open-source software is free speech , notfree beer. Plenty of open source is $free, but there's plenty of paid products that include the source code. It's harder to prevent people from redistributing open source, to collect the money from something they can copy to others without paying. But that's copyright violation, which CNet is now promoting, even though it makes its own income from that same protection.

I'm all for free speech and free beer. I'm a big OSS advocate, but seriously, you guys need to get off your high horse sometimes and realize that this is how you sell OSS to Joe Sixpack. Joe Sixpack doesn't care whether the software on his computer is free as in speech or not. He doesn't care about modifying the source code, or freedom to fork. He does care about cost though.

The free speech education can come later, but please, quit arguing semantics because all you do is give the entire OSS movement a bad name. Joe Sixpack will see some idiot blathering on about how free speech does not equal free beer and think we're all just a bunch of whining hippies. Then he'll never use OSS because he thinks there is a religious ideology behind it.

Show him good "free as in beer" software, then later on, if he's interested, educate him on why "free as in speech" is important too. Please do us all a favor and don't try to ram ideology down Joe Sixpack's throat.

Fluff

What a godawful format. This is 2007, our web browsers have scrollbars for a reason. It's like a damn PPT, but with ads. Though, I suppose that's no surprise with articles like "Top ten geek haircuts" and "Top ten off switches". And no, I'm not [cnet.co.uk] kidding [cnet.co.uk].
Journalistic integrity, thy name is CNET.

Bigger list

For Windows users, here is a fairly comprehensive list of useful software [shsc.info], the vast majority of which is free (as in beer). The list is a bit unwieldy and unevenly updated, but I've snagged a few useful programs by browsing through it recently so I think it's pretty useful for those looking to get off unnecessary commercial apps.

I guess the debate is over

> And this point is worth reiterating: open-source software is free. No cost. Zero. Zilch.

Does this mean that the debate on the difference (or the lack thereof) between free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-speech is finally and officially over? It's about time [slashdot.org].

Gimp vs Photoshop?

Not sure about that one. Don't get me wrong, I love using the Gimp for web work and stuff. But I've read comparisons online and typically Photoshop has more features available. The Gimp tends to come off a sort of a "kid brother".

While this may be a familiarity issue, I'd like to hear from someone that really has dug deep into both and has a fair assessment of the two.

Nice article!

Too bad they didnt mention tools in my favorites:

Knoppix
VirtualBox
MPlayer (the Hungarian one, not MS)
GParted
GRUB
NT Password Recovery Here [eunet.no]
Cinelerra
FilmGimp
BitPim
NMap
RDesktop
VNC

And the best of all... Debian and Ubuntu

Be careful with the free statement

And this point is worth reiterating: open-source software is free. No cost. Zero. Zilch.'"

Be careful with this statement. Some people consider software that costs nothing to be of lesser quality or to have something wrong with it. 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...

Re:Be careful with the free statement

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.

Don't offer bad alternatives

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.

Technical Communication is your specialty?

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:Don't offer bad alternatives

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.

I'm having trouble with this comment... for a number of reasons:

1. You *almost* sound like you were paid to write that.

2. Your statement is inaccurate on many levels.

3. You provide no basis for your opinion. Care to back up your statement with some evidence?

Every experience that I've had with OpenOffice has been a good one. Its fast, provides all the features that I'm looking for without being too bloated, and sometimes handles the Microsoft formats better than even MS Office does. I hazard to suggest that if OpenOffice was as bad as you suggest, that Cannonical would not have picked it as Productivity app of choice for Ubuntu. And I believe a fair number of other distro's provide it as well.

Before posting a bash like that against an open source project on an open source oriented web site, you should probably have something to back up your statements. Otherwise, your just blowing hot air out your arse.

OSS is free, and that's good...

But lets face it: The vast majority of computer users aren't interested in making even a minimal effort to learn a new operating system or new programs. As the "go-to" person for tech support in my family, I'm not interested in helping them sort it out, either. I'd give it my best shot if someone had a problem, but I'm certainly not going to create new headaches for myself if I can avoid it.

I'm not bashing Linux or OSS; I think the fact that both exist is wonderful. I'm happy for all the people who've switched to Open Office, or Linux, or whatever, and come away pleased with it. At the same time, however, I simply have neither the time nor the energy to learn how another OS or application suite works. Just figuring out the quirks of Vista (and I'm required to do so) has been annoying enough.

These sorts of lists are important for people already using or wanting to use OSS but who aren't sure where to start, but I don't see them bringing anyone into the fold. Even if I found an OSS replacement for every application I use, and even if the OSS programs were, in every case, better than the applications I already use, I'm still not very interested in taking the time to learn an entire new application suite unless the difference between Program A and Program B is absolutely huge. If Program A takes 20s to do a common operation, and Program B takes 5s, then yes, color me interested. Other than that, not so much.

Osalt

http://www.osalt.com/ [osalt.com] has been doing this for quite a while now...

Free?

Not all open-source software is completely free.

I use Open Office extensively and have never installed MS Office despite having an MSDN subscription which provides it for "free" for the last 5 yrs. I do this out of principle, but this decision has cost me. There are incompatibilities present that have cost me time and effort.

I own Adobe Photoshop because Gimp would cost me dearly in time and effort. I've tried many times, but Gimp is really not a PS replacement.

And while Linux is "free" and my company's products support it, the userbase is comparatively small to our Windows base and the costs of using it, learning it, keeping up with it, and maintaining product support are astronomical (per user capita) compared to Windows.

That said, there are a huge number of open-source packages that are not only free but save me an enormous amount of time and effort. Thunderbird is far more time-friendly than Outlook has been to me. Firefox. Python. Ruby. Ruby on Rails.

Others save me money by proxy. My web host uses Open Solaris, for example.

Open Source software has a very important niche within enterprise and home use. But a large number of the mainstream packages that most home users would use will frustrate those folks with quirks. Some things are only free if you value your time at nothing.

Apparently, OSS is for n00bs

The bad: Microsoft Office comes with Outlook, which is vital for most business users. For this reason, OpenOffice isn't an alternative to Microsoft's corporate solutions. It's also lacks some of the advanced design functions of the 2007 version of Word.

The Bad: The software suffers a few bugs that could be something of a hurdle for newbies. It's in the advanced pre-release stages, meaning the team developing it hasn't deemed it suitable for general release.
Conclusion: MediaPortal is ideal for anyone who isn't afraid of looking at a program's preferences screen. If looking at settings confuses and scared you into a dark corner, stick with Microsoft's Media Centre for now.

The Bad: VLC won't let you sync your media library with your new MP3 player. There are no radio services directly available through VLC.

The Bad: WinZip offers a vast array of features for advanced users, such as intelligent compression, which chooses the most efficient archiving method based on the type of files being compressed. WinZip will also let you schedule backups and periodic and automatic updating of existing backup archives.

The bad: It's not as attractive as the standard IM chat clients and it's not blindingly obvious which contacts are part of each network.

The bad: The interface is quite basic and not as accessible to less tech-savvy users. More sophisticated and well-designed wizards in programs such as Nero are better at easing newbies through the creation process. The program is also a little slow when preparing to burn a disc.
Conclusion: Technophobes, however, will prefer the idiot-proof wizards provided by commercial software bundled with pre-built PCs.

The bad: While it's superbly kitted out for home users and podcasters, it can't match commercial products like Adobe's Audition software for studio recording. The GUI is also rather plain and not as easy to read as some paid-for alternatives.
Conclusion: Be prepared for a steep learning curve.

The bad: Firefox can sometimes devour a system's RAM. It can also take a few seconds longer to load a page than Opera or Internet Explorer.

It seems to me like the programs work but if you want more advanced features or a prettier/easier to use interface you have to buy the non-OSS software.

Free sounds terrible

When I plug open-sauce (which, despite my polar-opposite allegiances I still do), I rarely state "free" as a reason to install something.

"Community developed" always goes down much better....latch on "free" as a side-product benefit, but "community developed" makes it sound like "written by the people for the people", so tends to get better reception.

Everything is 'free'; it just depends whether you have to steal it or not.

OS should be innovative, no blind copy

Most OS alternatives don't offer features that aren't in the commercial versions. The only exceptions are the success stories: Firefox did add a lot of features that IE could only dream of, and Writer can export to PDF, but that's where it ends. GIMP and other Open Office progs run miles behind the commercial products, that's why it doesn't break through. Joe Average copies Photoshop and MS Office from his neighbor, so to him it seems free anyway. Why should he bother to install "another" free product that has less features than the fancy commercial software everyone else uses? Open Source should be innovative and come up with features the commercial equivalent doesn't have; that's the only way it can gain big public success.

while pidgin is great

...the lack of offline messaging for msn can be quite annoying.
Mind you it's not fault of the pidgin developers, but microsoft, who seemed to have used some arcane way to implement this feature.

I've used gaim and pidgin for a long time, but crumbled and when to msn solely cause of lack of offline msging.

and mind you pidgins simple look was a plus for plus for me.

VLC

I wanted to post a comment on the article but comments appear to be locked - VLC does have streaming radio and video via Shoutcast - not sure if the writer has used VLC for anything other than DVDs or opening a media file. As far as using an iPod I have switched over to Floola to manage my library and podcasts on my mini - it works in Linux as well as OSX and Windows.

Shifting my business focus

I've been working a steady contract supporting .NET development and MS products but I'm letting this contract run out in January so I can devote more time to supporting F/OSS development and applications. I may be a bit ahead of the curve but MS development is just so hideously boring. Plus I'm getting a lot more calls about alternatives to Vista and I'm curious if the market is really there or if it's just talk. I'll let you know how it goes. Worst case is I end up taking on more Windows support and come crawling back when faced with imminent starvation.

All the fun stuff in IT is happening in open source...and that's more than MS. Although in fairness to my clients, if MS or proprietary is the right solution, I'll pick the right tool for the job. This is business not religion. But I find in my own business and home network that F/OSS is frequently the better decision.

Should be interesting. Send food. ;)

It's free except when...

time is money.

Bravo!

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.

What about Avidemux?

They forgot Avidemux. It's great for converting video files and it works on Windows and Linux.

Great SLASH ZOOL!

The article is great. Can we mod ZOOLS karma up for posting this?
These are the kinds of things for newbies that old crusty sites like /. are often lacking.

We the freedom/software community should promote how great opensource is compared to the expensive programs. Anyone with a new computer he/she is setting up would immediatly benefit from the short list of programs the article reviewed.

And the post even makes the GIMP sound so easy to use! I.E. dont scare the willing.

Thoughts About Perceived Value and Open Source

First a bit of background, I am a general all-around tech support person for an island with a population of approximately 15,000 people (on the South end of the island). Most of my clients are either retired and/or are tech-shy.

As a dedicated user of Open Source software I consistently advocate it to my clients as a solution for many of their needs. The attitude that I run into time and time again that if you are not paying out the wazoo for software then it can't be any good. Many won't even try a piece of software unless they pay for it.

I have taken to creating a DVD or CDs of Open Source programs (particularly OpenOffice.org), charging for them and donating that money back to the respective project. It's a system that seems to be working for everyone - clients feel they are getting something valuable because they paid for it and the projects are getting much needed donation money.

Forget promoting Linux

Linux is still not suitable for most users - it's usable but there are still too many rough edges. A simple example is a bug that bit me today was when I ran my new Asus Eee PC for the first time - the thing does not like wifi WPA PSK passphrases that contain space characters. Consequently it dumped out a corrupted config file and didn't connect. It took me a while to figure this out from a Linux dist which simpler than most others.

Expecting people to switch en masse is not reasonable until the UI is completely idiot proof and requires no advanced diagnostic. Even Ubuntu is not there yet.

A better strategy is to promote open source software running on Windows. Firefox, Thunderbird, Gimp, Open Office etc. all run on Windows. Introduce users to these great apps and allow them to use them at their own pace. They can even run the open source apps side by side with the MS equivalents if they like. Since most open source apps run on Windows and Linux, it means the underlying OS is of less relevance.

Later when Linux for the desktop is more mature they can be tempted to move. It may even be that Dell / Compaq etc. off cheap machines with Linux on them. If the apps are the same then the pain in moving is so much less.

CNET Used To Have Linux Downloads

Anyone remember when you could go to CNET's Download.com and download Linux applications? Then one day the Linux section vanished.

WTF? What does C|Net know about FOSS??

Microsoft Office comes with Outlook, which is vital for most business users. For this reason, OpenOffice isn't an alternative to Microsoft's corporate solutions.

Ever hear of THUNDERBIRD?!??

There is ALWAYS a cost

Whether that cost is in the licensing terms, functionality restrictions, lack of interoperability, vendor support, etc. the cost can always be measured unless every single aspect of the 'free' software is on par or greater than every single aspect of the 'cost' software.

Joe Public doesn't care about free as in speech...

...when it comes to FOSS. They do care about free as in beer.

(This is in response to the tag freespeechisnotfreebeer.)

Round up the usual suspects

It is I suppose typical that an introduction to free and open source apps for Windows would be spread over ten add filled pages.

Open Office.org

Last month, our community college extension program was offering state subsidized courses in MS Office at $5 for each three hour course at the beginner and intermediate levels. No age or income restrictions whatsoever.

It was quite a success and a reminder that to most folks OpenOffice.org is a ticket to nowhere.

To talk of piracy is so much wasted breath.

The odds are quite good that if you are in the market for an office suite, you will qualify as a Home User through your employer's volume licensing plan or you will be eligible for a steeply discounted academic package.

MS Office for the cost of S&H.

The most you are likely to spend is $150 for MS Office Home (three seats, retail boxed) or $200 for the OEM Office bundle installed on your new road-warrior laptop. If that isn't in the budget, how you can afford the consumables for an ink jet or a laser?

The GIMP

I'll admit that I cringe whenever I type these two words.

It comes perhaps from my experience with a sheltered work program for the disabled.

Setting that aside for the moment, basic editing software is bundled with every printer and multifunction printer. Paint.NET is elegant little program. There are good alternatives for the amateur in Paint Shop Pro.

Older versions are easy to find, dirt cheap, and come with a thick printed manual.