I think it would be best to have free versions of every program. Unfortunately that is a bit too idealistic, and so what you are saying is right: Commercial software is better than nothing.

Volker Kuhlmann wrote:

I suppose most windows-users don't pay for most of the software they should pay for. Kazaa is a good example for their attitude.



This is a different attitude, it's "I'll take for free as much as I get". It's utterly amazing how much bugware, as in spyware, people are willing to load onto their computer just because it says "costs no money" somewhere.

Go into a Dick Smith or Whitcoulls and you'll see that those
Billy-Encartas are selling. People are willing to hand over their money
for something they can't download for nothing. If their was a
Linux-Encarta right next to it and otherwise identical, I doubt the
proportion of Linux users who would pay up is nearly as high. Why? It's
a hindrance to general Linux acceptance because those who would pay will
say "This Linux thing, well, can't even get an encarata for it, me
thinks we'll stay in Redmond". Replace whatever you like for encarta.

Ok so it's not ideal to not have "freedom" with some software. You know
what *really* sucks? Not to have software at all. And there's a heck of
lot of that still.



-- Happy Hacking, Robert

   Use free software only. See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Democracy is a government where you can say what you think even if you don't think.
-- /usr/bin/fortune

Reply via email to