Why DON'T you use opensource/GNU software?

Random question, looking for reasons and perhaps things that could change.

Taking two fairly major applications, Open Office and GIMP why do you use other applications (Microsoft Office and Photoshop are the two that spring to mind) rather than either of these two?

I use Open Office pretty much exclusively, I use Paintshop Pro instead of GIMP, while a main reason for this is simply that I found out about GIMP after I already had Paintshop Pro, another is that I find Paintshop Pro easier to use (more intuitive) and prefer the single window with docked toolbars to GIMP's free floating toolbars.

 

I do use opensource software whenever I can.

People keep saying that GIMP is just as good as Photoshop, but to be honest it is not. It just lacks many features a lot of advanced users need, CMYK and color management spring to mind.

I also agree with you comments about the layout, the floating windows thing does not do it for me.

And like you said GIMP is to complex for home users to use for photo correction and basic work.

So it's kind of in Limbo, too complex for average users, and not powerful enough for power users.

Basically though I use opensource whenever it's possible to do so. Openoffice, Firefox, Drupal, Filezilla, are all great apps.

 

I use a mixture of open and proprietary stuff, depending on which is easier to find. I posted a list of free software I make use of in the sticky thread at the top of this forum. When I use proprietary stuff - XP, Vista, Office, etc - it's usually for compatibility and simplicity. I've installed Ubuntu multiple times, and while it's perfectly suitable of working as a main OS, I didn't like the extent to which I had to type code into the terminal. They're getting better, but I'm not ready to make the switch yet. Maybe upon Gutsy Gibbon. I used Open Office for at least a year, until I had to make a powerpoint presentation, and had trouble doing so in OO. I got Office '07, and it was a lot simpler to do. If I pushed a bit harder, I could probably remove all proprietary software from my XP toolkit besides the OS itself.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=2127696&postcount=315 <-- freely available stuff I use.

 

I'm speaking purely on general observations as I don't currently use anything that isn't open source or that is at least free. This will likely change after I depart from college...

The most obvious reason is ignorance. Many people simply do not know about certain projects like OpenOffice.org and GIMP primarily due to the lack of advertisements pertaining to them (both paid and word of mouth). Then there's the small chunk of people who do know about such projects. Many people out of this group find these to be very intimidating when compared to their corporate brethren who have become the norm.

Then there are the professionals and the power users out there who simply can't be bothered with what many can deem as a lackluster product. It cannot be denied that GIMP is much weaker in comparison to Photoshop for various reasons (many already stated). OpenOffice.org saves in the OpenDocument format by default which breeds the issue of compatibility. Yes, one can take the time to have it save in Microsoft Word compatible formats, but the professional would simply just spend a small fraction of his paycheck to use what is standard and escape from the problem altogether. And, as stated, I don't think anyone can be bothered making a decent looking presentation in OpenOffice.org, heh!

Honestly, the only people who really use open source software out there are the enthusiasts who can put up with problems and wish to help build up a project within community. That and cheapskates like me! Once you hit the corporate atmosphere, you can't afford to mess around with free alternatives that always seem to be playing "Catch up!" anymore if you're to be serious in whatever business you accompany. And, even those that would once use such alternatives to save a couple hundred dollars here and there now have that money to use on buying the "standard."

 

Because some of the stuff you pay for is better than the free stuff.

 

The way I tend to view it, if it is a paid for program...there is some level of liability that the manufacturer has to support/update/fix it...now obviously freeware can do that too, but the idea that there is financial incentive definitely might help keep the software updated.

Freeware can be perfectly fine, and sometimes they have the best tools available for an application for for a novice that doesn't want to spend too much money. But sometimes, you have to fork out a little cash to get things working right, and sometimes you can get it working great for practically nothing.

 

I use a mixture of freeware and paid-for

Can I just say, since buying AVG Pro+firewall, AVG are incredibly helpful and give me same day replies. Of course since purchase, I've not contacted them as the software is hassle free

And GIMP is confusing - and photo editing takes some learning to start with!

Added to the above, perhaps a % of the consumer population have the perception paying a little money goes a little towards peace of mind

 

I use Open source software when the alternative paid program is ridiculously expensive, or it is already able to provide the functions of the paid program.

 

I do use open source software ie: Firefox/Thunderbird/OpenOffice/Stepmania/Audacity. However, I use free ones as well like Paint.NET/Foobar/FoxitPDF.

 

Unfortunately, if you read the fine print in those EULA's, there is no commercial software that accepts any liability for future updates or even for the product working at all! Every EULA puts 100% of the liability squarely at the feet of the consumer. So from a legal standpoint, it's no different than OSS. Do you really think you can sue Microsoft because Vista gave you a blue screen in the middle of an important presentation? Or sue Adobe because Photoshop munged up all your graphics files? Or because AVG allowed your system to get infected by a virus? I don't think so.

That said, the charter of any corporation in a free market is to make money. They're not going to make much money if their products don't meet users expectations. ... But it doesn't mean they have any legal liability to do so.

Back on topic, I use commercial applications when there is no free alternative. Here's some of the specialized apps I use that simply don't have a free alternative: VariCAD, Mathmatica, ETKA, PET, VAG-COM, to name a few.

 

I tend to use opensource and free stuff whenever I can for my personal needs, but for work and anything in a professional capacity, I use commercial software. Oftentimes however, it's just a matter of whatever I've used longest and most familiar with.

For example, I'm most familiar with MS Office because it's what was used throughout my college years, and at my last few jobs. Openoffice is free, and I have that as well, but I tend not to use it. Wordperfect is supposedly better, and I also have that at work, but I also tend not to use it. Am I using the best program at the best value? Probably not, especially since I have other options available, but it's the most familiar to me, and the alternatives aren't so much better that I'm going to bother switching. On the other hand, if there's a clear demonstrated need that one can fulfill better than the other, then I'd happily switch.

 

i also use a mix, for office i stuch with MS Office 2007, because simply i found oo to be not compatible with some excel and ppt files (sometimes). Plus telling the truth, OO is ugly and much complicate to use compare to MSO. Firefox is my primary browser, uTorrent, Putty, notepad++, truecrypt, gnugpg for windows... but then i use Macromedia Dreamweaver, flash and Photoshop; simply because for these 3 there are no free software comparable in features and usability.

 

I also use a mixture of both. Why would I turn down Freeware like Gimp, Audacity and OpenOffice. Most people should have enough space to install and enough resources to run them, so I really can't think of a reason for anyone not to.

 

By the way, Paint.NET is open source ("MIT license") in addition to being free.
http://www.getpaint.net/download.html

 

I use whatever is better and gets updated more often.

 

I think I'm like most others in this thread. I use open source wherever possible but there is no contest, in my opinion, for Photoshop CS3, Illustrator/Freehand and Indesign for what I do. I stick with Dreamweaver just because I have used it since version 3 and can use it without thinking.. a case of if it aint broke don't fix it. If I just want to get a job done lifes too short to be learning new software which doesn't quite do what I want it to do and having to learn new work arounds etc.

I don't mind giving my money to Adobe (despite the fact they are canning Freehand!) as in turn they have helped me earn a living for many years, run my car and buy a house!

That said I only upgrade every other version... you've got to be sensible at the same time lol..

 

I don't use any of them. (Use LaTeX, which is also open source, for writing documents, and I get lost in graphics apps more complex than MS Paint )

But to answer the question, open source generally has a fairly fundamental problem. People only work on it because they want to. Which means they only work on the bits they want to. Which means no one works on the boring bits. Which means the boring bits don't get made properly.

The boring bits usually include the documentation, or the interface, or making it work well with Windows, or making sure it follows standard interface guidelines.

Now that someone mentioned Dreamweaver, is there a free alternative to that? I'm going to have to dig into a bit of php/web development soon, and would be nice to have a decent tool for this.

He didn't say anything about lawsuits. He said that he could be sure that Microsoft would support the product for years to come. Which is true. You can go to their website and check the roadmap for how long each product is supported. And as you say, they want to make money, so they have to make customers reasonably happy.

 

you could try Nvu http://www.nvu.com/index.php

I use the Portable Apps version of Nvu as a mobile solution if I'm out at a clients and need to tweak something. ( http://portableapps.com/)

also there is "XAMPP is an easy to install Apache distribution containing MySQL, PHP and Perl. XAMPP is really very easy to install and to use - just download, extract and start"

which can be found at
http://www.apachefriends.org/en/xampp.html

I've used Nvu a bit but just for very minor stuff but I have to say I've always used Dreamweaver for anything major so didn't really give it a good work out, it looks like it would do the job tho!

 

I use both proprietary and OSS. Whichever's better for the job.. I lean towards OSS, though. The major reason I use Windows for personally is gaming.. There are very few ports of FPS, racing games for other OS, and then they are mostly very old ones- no fun playing them..

 

My big gripe with O is that the Excel and Access equivalents are far inferior to the MS Office counterparts. Doing things like creating address labels is ridiculous compared to Word (or Access). But the basic components are there, and Open Office does get used on my desktop. I actually follow the MS EULA by having Office installed on 3 home computers (desktop was the 4th).

I do, however, really enjoy Avast! Antivirus, Audacity, Picasa, and the various multi-format IM clients. I use them quite often.

If most people are going to use software, it must be easy to use. I can say that Picasa is very easy, Avast's simple interface is easy enough to navigate (you can also run that one mostly in the background), but Open Office is very clunky for some tasks. I'd definitely use it as a word processor, but not much more. You can get MS Office for $150 (Home and Student), and it is well worth it for that price. The GIMP has a very steep learning curve. Though it's something I could figure out, I don't edit photos enough. * The smudge tool is the extent of my editing

Just think of this.... I recently spoke to a small business owner who said that 2 clicks is too much to change a setting when posting a customer payment (to change the account it will be deposited in). 2 clicks!

Automation is the key for many people. The fewest amount of clicks to get the desired result, the better. Most people do not want to deal with behind the scenes settings. That's why there's often an "Advanced" install method; people would rather just click through software setup.

 

Hrm. I thought the Office license was for only 2 separate installations...not 4?

Anyway, there's also that many opensource or free programs just aren't as good as commercial software.

I mean, sure Avast is great as a free virus software, but really, I'd rather trust my system to Kaspersky or NOD32. GIMP is nice, but...it's still not photoshop.

 

Actually, on the Office 2003 Student and Teacher edition it says the software can be installed on 3 home computers provided the user of each fits the criteria listed. The criteria being that the user has some tie to a school (embellishment). I could have installed it on my desktop just fine, but I knew that 2007 would come out soon after I bought it. I figured that I may just buy that later on. I do love the improvements over previous MS Office versions.

 

Open source rocks - i use PaintShop Pro, OpenOffice, Winamp n Firefox. Its a winning combination

 

PSP and Winamp aren't open source

 

I tend to use pretty much all OSS. Mostly it's because I'm cheap, and just don't feel like paying several hundred dollars for many of the commercial apps out there. But also because many of the commercial apps I use as an engineering student cost upwards of $300 for a 12 month license and thousands of dollars for a full license. But beyond that, I support open source because I do believe in it.

At the same time, though, there comes a point where you just have to pay for the good stuff. While development does move for open source apps, and occasionally it moves better, a lot of times it just moves too slowly for me. OpenOffice is perfect for most everything I do, Firefox is great and is the only browser I use, GIMP is good for anything I want to do (after I figure out how to do it anyway), and Linux has proven to be far more stable and usable (and customizable) than Windows, which is why I prefer it. But I would not be opposed to use proprietary software on Linux; I'm not an OSS fanatic or anything. I just want to use stuff that works right and not worry about the company controlling almost everything I do with the software. Unfortunately, that is what causes my aversion with a lot of proprietary software, because I find the EULAs to be generally too restrictive.

 

To be honest one of the main things holding Linux back right now is the lack of proprietary software available for it. OSS software is great, but sometimes you just need a commercial application, and if you can not get it for Linux you are forced to use something like VMWare or install windows/osx.

For example, there is nothing even remotely close to Adobes Creative Suite in Linux. There are several separate apps that provide some of the functionality of some of the applications, but nothing that offers the integration of all the applications in the suite. And these apps are so large I doubt there will be anything close for a very long time. Also it is a industry standard, if I take a Gimp or Dia file into a print shop they will look at me funny and send me packing.

That is one example of proprietary software that would greatly help Linux if it would run just as well as Windows and Mac. Think about it, where would OSX be today if it did not run Adobe or Microsoft applications?

OSS is not always the best solution, and if we can tempt commercial developers to release apps for Linux the platform as a whole will be in much better shape.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself

I wouldn't not even login to Ubuntu half the time if I wasn't able to VMWare XP to use some apps. IE: ActiveSync.

If most commercial developers release their Apps for Linux, then OSX and Windows would stand to lose alot.

 

Yah it would be nice. It does not even have to be all applications. We could just try and focus the platform on one industry to start, just like Apple did. They focused on Education and Design industries. They built up a client base from there, and now they are pushing into other areas.

Linux is a little un-focused and tries to do everything right away. So we have thousands of applications that do not work quite as well as their competitors on other platforms.

Imagine what would happen if lots of developers focused on just a graphic design suite for Linux, or just video production, or just audio editing. See how fast Adobe ports to Linux if there is a serious threat coming from the OSS community. That would be a fun thing to see.