I use FOSS when possible because it's free, suits my needs better, and I like the idea of "software for the public good." More to the point though, I continue to use nonfree software because I don't see the usefulness of being a fanatic about it! a) There are more important issues to tackle than software freedom b) I still have needs for work, etc. that are unmet by FOSS c) From a more idealistic standpoint, I feel that point-blank failure to deal at all with nonfree software is profoundly harmful to the cause of FOSS developers. If you want to disagree, fine; but first take a look at how "successful" the six or so entirely free distros are. Disclaimer: the above is entirely my opinion, and does not reflect in any way on the opinions of those I work for or otherwise associate with.
I too use whatever fulfills my requirements. The issue I see with many of these programs is that development and bug fixes seem to come whenever the creators get around to it. My feeling is that it is quite fine to work on projects as a side hobby or business. But, if time doesn't allow you to stay right on top of issues and keeping users happy, then you should consider turning it over to better hands or stopping. I don't think all open source developers are a part of the sometimes fanatical FOSS movement, thankfully. Some of those folks can cause more harm than good. I look for an upkeep in support and quality work when I choose to use software that may not have a large following.
The same here. I have a preference for free software, but as to whether it is open source or not does not concern me.
I use open-source software over proprietary paid software. I don't do this because I am cheap either. I do it because open-source in my opinion is less likely to have security vulnerabilities then paid close source proprietary software. I am an incredibly strong advocate to open-source software. To those who stated that they use whatever gets the job done. Consider for the moment that when you support proprietary software companies with your money you are opening yourself up to vulnerability you may never know about. I am suspicious of everyone these days. The only way to minimize these types of vulnerabilities is for the public to have a chance to review the code. That cannot be done with companies like Microsoft.
Saying 'use open software' is like saying beat your wife with a belt. I think you should choose the best tools for the job and not limit yourself to any one option. Open-source is a means to an end. One of. Mrk
When it comes to freeware, I think that it should be judged on its merits rather than whether it is open source or not.
Same here. But if I was a software developer I would take the closed source path. My software is mine, don't you dare to touch it!
GrafZeppelin, what if you don't know there is a vulnerability? What if you don't know how to fix it? There are many other benefits to open source that would benefit you. No need to be selfish.
I'm much more inclined to use open source software, when available, but I would never limit myself to *only* using open source software - that's impractical, and open source is not necessarily better in every situation, even if it typically is.
All I am saying is if you have a choice and you are concerned about the way this society is going with regard to purposeful software vulnerabilities, software dual purpose, backdoors, etc, chose an open source option before you open your wallet.
It depends on a user's level of paranoia. That's just how I interpret when these discussions come up.
It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with paranoia, in the past it's often been more of a free vs non-free type debate, i.e. about money...
It has something to do with it. What seems to turn users away from Microsoft and Apple is that it is closed source and there are those that worry of being spied on and worry of backdoors built into the software. There are those that have similar worries with open source even though at the same time it is being claimed that the open source software is better because the code can be inspected by anyone and it is just more secure. So it has something to do with paranoia.
Sure, it has something to do with it for the very few users who are truly paranoid (there are some here at Wilders for sure). But for the majority, I think it's more about free vs non-free. Notice above that I said it isn't *necessarily* about paranoid, not that it's not ever about it...
I don't see it as paranoia to want code subjected to some level of peer review. Especially drivers, firmware, and anything else that operates close to the hardware. Just look at the numerous fiascos involving backdoors in low-end routers. Many eyes don't necessarily make for shallow bugs, but IMO they may discourage developers from goofing off... Edit: not that peer review of closed projects is out of the question, mind.
All of my softwares are opensource. The question is irrelevant to me. 80% of the world lives with less than $2 a day. I don't see the point of wasting money on softwares for doing things which I can do for free. Non-opensource free softwares are usually limited; some are adwares, bundlewares, and some have privacy and security issues. So only opensource.
