Maybe free software can assure them that if anything suspicious shows up in this scrutiny they can do something about it, and if it's a widely used project someone else will probably do something about it. Helpful if they are already using it.
So, open source helps them avoid a bad situation or detect a bad situation. Free software gets them out of it. Bianca On Nov 12, 2012 12:54 PM, "Yogesh Girikumar" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12 November 2012 03:38, Bob Ham <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You're using some popular packages to characterise free software in > > general. For those particular packages, it may well be that users are > > attracted by the usability and gloss. > > True. Take GIMP for example. The moment they here me mention it they > are able to relate it to free software - or as they put it, "that open > source software, right?". When I ask them what they mean by "open > source", most people get the concept right superficially and many > acknowledge the freedom it gives to the users. But in the end, they > like photoshop better for various reasons. That said, I've seen people > who prefer GIMP to photoshop even without caring for the free nature - > just for technical or economical reasons. I can only take a few > popular software as references here because other software are simply > not known to them. > > > You yourself said most people are unaware of software freedom, not > > uncaring. Our task is to educate them. When they become aware, I think > > you'll find most people *do* care about freedom. We can't educate users > > about free software while making software freedom take a back seat. > > I agree. Most people do care about freedom. But at the same time, they > want software that simply gets the job done. I have personally > migrated several MS desktops to GNU/Linux desktops. People like > Libreoffice for its frequent feature updates. They like it that Linux > comes with several desktop themes (?). They are happy that they don't > have to use an anti-virus because "Linux doesn't have any virus in it" > (a fallacy). Some people who are stuck with multiple server-clients > running: > > MS Windows + Active Directory + Anti-virus + expensive proprietary > application software > > are quite happy to switch to > > GNU/Linux + Active Directory (Proprietary) + Likewise open > (proprietary AD connector to Linux desktop Clients) + > GIMP/Inkscape/LibreOffice/whateverElse > > These migrations, I have done personally. They are quite awed by the > savings. They see the economics of it all and then ask, "can we > replace AD with LDAP?". So there. It saddens me that they do not think > about the freedom that Libre software gives them. Heck, they don't > even think about the dangers of proprietary software. I love educating > them. Some are interested some are not. Other people are quite > concerned about security. When I say to them that they have no way of > knowing whether MS has a backdoor programmed in it, they sit up and > listen more. > > Just the fact that the source code is open and available anytime for > their scrutiny (open source) gives them much mental comfort. Caring > for freedom (if at all) is only secondary or not quite obvious when I > speak to these people. But at the end of the day, people have always > known a little bit more how and why Freedom is important and it has > always resulted in better adoption of Libre Software. > > My 2 cents. > > -- > Y > >
