Free Software

I'm looking for a discussion about free software and related issues. In this context I mean 'free' as in the freedom to reuse and change the program, rather than being able to get it for nothing. Here's one definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

I contend the success of free/open source projects is attributable to a relationship it has with the anarchistic concept of free association, where hierarchy or authority are more or less nonexistent, or at least not an emergent property of the software development process.

It's my view that an open-source/free model for software development is almost always better for the end-user than proprietary closed-source one, mainly for the reasons expounded in this quote here:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Sourced (third one down, the big one).

 

In the article you linked us to with the big paragraph, it stated that Companies like Microsoft and Apple had "Monopolies" on the software they sell. How would you say they are supposed to try to stop illegal copying and things like this? They are in the business for profit, not to make everyone happy by getting free copys.

Possibly so, but if I buy a product from Microsoft I'm not going to go to Apple for help because they didn't make the product.

He uses the word "escape" as if something is harming him.

Also please explain exactly how users who choose to purchase a piece of software are being mistreated?

Sounds like he just wants the entire software market to completely go dead.

 

I don't have the statistics to back up a point I didn't make. How would success be measured?

It's obviously more than an aesthetic issue.

Acquiring and installing notable free applications isn't any more hassle than proprietary ones. Feature richness isn't an issue for a normal desktop user either, at least not in my experience.

Open source projects usually provide binaries, at least once the program is usable. It's a non-issue - you can get a copy of Debian ready made for your System/390.
Anybody has the opportunity to build a binary - or port a piece of software to a system - and then share it with everyone. I remember being annoyed when I learned the latest version of ePSXe (a playstation emulator) had not been released for Linux. If it hadn't been closed source, I'm sure somebody would have got it running right away.

Well, there are some obvious reasons for the difference. I expect free server management software is often written with advanced users in mind. After all, people who want nothing to do with the insides of computers probably don't run servers.
Then an absence of a marketing department to whip the developers into making a beginner-friendly package generally leads to a lack of wizards, polished GUIs and so forth.

You don't have to.

I enjoy coding because it's a creative and intellectual activity, and don't mind sharing what I make. Similar to chess, bread and butter isn't the motivating factor. For people with the same mindset, the GPL is a good idea. Sharing knowledge lets developers make better programs.

I haven't used any free software that continually nags users to help develop it. I can't see why novice users would be put off by software like Firefox or whatever.

Can you share these experiences of tackiness, or are they trade secrets?

Support is provided by the community. A Google search describing my problem always renders results, because lots of people have had the same problem before and had their questions answered. Major Linux distributions have forums that are full of helpful people.

Red Hat makes a hefty chunk of revenue from technical support. Bug databases maintained by various Linux distributions are visible. Last time I checked this wasn't the case with Windows. Marketing teams don't like to admit that software has bugs.