Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 3rd Aug 2007 23:09 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 260838
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
That said, I can understand users who don't want to forego the additional rights and power free software gives to them, even if they have to live with reduced functionality.
I prefer the benefit of a stable platform. Open source systems are constantly changing. There is no such thing as a standard platform you can rely on users having. Open source developers typically have little regard for the importance of binary compatibility.
As a software developer, you have to spend far more time than you should keeping up with the ever changing APIs. It doesn't matter if your new API is slightly better than your old one if it means I have to keep rewriting my code with each new release.







Member since:
2006-01-16
There is no real benefit for the user in "proprietary". If the same software would be available in a proprietary fashion or free, as in speech, the latter would always be the better choice.
But it is not always the best choice, monitary wise, for the developer. It would probably be no good choice for Coca Cola to give away their formula to everyone.
That said, I can understand users who don't want to forego the additional rights and power free software gives to them, even if they have to live with reduced functionality. For example, it is perfectly reasonable to not run software you don't have full control of in general. And enforcing free software is in effect enforcing your own rights, as a user.