Gervase Markham wrote:
>>>> You just described 90% of open source software. Is that not end-user
>>>> software also?
>>>>
>>> No. The e.g. version packaged (and, often, patched) by Red Hat for which
>>> people pay $39.95 is end user software.
>>
>>
>> But what about all the OS software we don't pay for? (AAMOF I get RH for
>> free also through download)
>
>
> Maybe this is a confusion about the term "end-user software". When I say
> "Mozilla is not end-user software", what I mean is:
>
> - It's not supported in any way
> - No, really. It's not supported
> - No part of it is guaranteed to work
> - It may crash regularly
> - It may corrupt your data
> - It may molest your cat
> - It may mail your tax evasion schemes to the IRS.
>
> Would you call a bit of software which fulfils the critera above
> "suitable for end-users"?
That's the problem... "not suitable for end-users" is different than
"not end-user software". In this case, you could argue that Mozilla is
"end-user software that is not suitable for end-users". To me, "end-user
software" is software that the end-user (defined as "non-software
developers") could use--whether or not they could use it effectively.
M$ Outlook makes very few guarantees of the sort you cite above, but no
one would argue that it isn't end-user software. Conversely, as someone
pointed out already, open source software is not end-user software by
your definition above.
David
