Free/ Non-free software and average users usage.

[Fandangio]

Is it just me or does anyone else get completely frustrated with Linux being held responsible for the (alleged) lack of quality of non-free software.

On numerous reviews of Ubuntu 11.04 comments consistently slate the lack of industry standard software on Linux.

Looking at Photoshop as an example compared to Gimp they're comparing a free piece of sw with one that costs in excess of £500.00 (in the UK). The arguement is flawed not only just because of the discrepancy in cost but also the assumption that all of us are photo editing professionals. As far as I am aware Gimp can do 95% of Photoshop and even has a few features not available in its costly rival.

Same goes for a number of "key" applications.

It's a weak excuse for why Linux is not suitable for the desktop PC. Gimp, Cinerella, Openshot, Evolution, Komposer and a few other applications are all that I need (and offer much more functionality than I use) and would be for 90% of all home users.

Same can be said for Unity, for the average user a clean easy to navigate OS is all many users would want. A number of people I know are happy with browsing the web, getting email, uploading photos (and minor editing) and listening to music and watching videos. That's it... And probably is for most home users.

In fact having a stripped down OS, easy to load and remove software and configured out of the box is all most users would want!

[ThistleWeb]

People are brand snobs. If they read on forums that the best image editing software is Photoshop, that all the pro's use Photoshop, then Photoshop is what they want, even if they don't pay for it and only use it to auto-fix red eye. For maybe 95% of people, FOSS alternatives fit the bill and do everything they'd want to do with it, and a whole lot more they'll never explore. A tiny minority of people actually need the expensive rented applications like Photoshop.

Adobe are apparently flirting with the idea of bringing Photoshop to Linux, not that it matters. Most users get them from P2P sites with keygens. If the Linux versions don't work with those serials, or there are no Linux ways to unlock the applications, it won't take off. When people complain about "I need Photoshop" they mean "I need to run an illegal version of Photoshop which cost me £0".

There's also the idea of "how can something as complex as an office suite possibly be free? It must have some catch like spyware, or features missing etc They're used to what they know, they put up with what Microsoft give them because they don't know there's an alternative, or that it's not the norm.

[Fandangio]

I agree ThistleWeb,

Sad thing is though that people read these comments and take them as gospel.
Personally I can do everything I need to with open source software, easily and with minimal effort.

I run a small school website for the school my son attends and have used paid for software, including Dreamweaver. The school purchased it for me (thankfully at a reduced cost) but honestly, I can do everything I need with Komposer. I'd bought into the hype. Now if I was a professional, getting paid huge amounts from clients for development I might need the huge suite that Adobe offers. In all reality though I'd probably suffice with half of what Komposer offers. The limitations not the software but me.

I'd argue only a select number of professionals use Dreamweaver (or Photoshop) to their full capability.

[ThistleWeb]

It'd be interesting if Adobe would call them out. When the P2P sites don't have cracked .deb or .rpm compatible with their current distro, they'll just ignore it and say it doesn't count. Adobe have known for a while that around 80% of their user base are illegal versions, the remaining 20% are the corps who can't afford NOT to be legit, so they pay through the nose for it. I wouldn't be surprised if they cut corners too, like having employees install illegal versions on their home PCs to be able to tweak stuff from home, while the BSA inspect-able "company property" will all be legit.

The really sickening one is Office. The vast majority of word processing people use is bold, italics, underline, alignment and lists. Even the most basic of editors can do that, yet they still demand Microsoft Office because it's "what everyone uses".

[Fandangio]

And then complain that formatting changes if the doc is viewed in MS Office!

Like it's the (insert here any non-ms office suite here) fault that MS fails to implement any open standards!

[tdockery97]

What it boils down to is retail exposure. The average user buys a computer and of course it has Windows on it. I would wager that only a fraction of a percent of average users walk into a retail store and buy a copy of Windows. I've been using computers for 30 years, and I've never known an individual user who has purchased a copy of Windows. When they need a certain type of software for their Windows-bound computer, of course they either buy or get it by other means. Keep in mind that the average user doesn't even know what FOSS is. Corporate users are, well, corporate users. They've been convinced that something that is free cannot possibly compare to something that is expensive.

[ThistleWeb]

Corporations also have a natural comfort zone of dealing with other corporations, which means black box arrangements where the corp who makes the product is in full control to dictate it's features and functions. They don't trust anything that mere users can contribute to, no matter what their eyes tell them (assuming they get as far as actually trying it).

It is funny to hear people champion their Android phone, Google services or Firefox as being great, proudly stating that free can't be good, and totally unaware they're using and recommending free because they're the best, not because they're free.

[ThistleWeb]

And then complain that formatting changes if the doc is viewed in MS Office!

Like it's the (insert here any non-ms office suite here) fault that MS fails to implement any open standards!

Microsoft consider whatever they do to be "the standard" because of their sheer user base numbers. They don't consider they need an organization to rubber stamp it for them. The only reason they want that, is that more and more govts around the world are demanding it, and currently Microsoft Office doesn't come close to being suitable on that score. The result is to just do the usual "buy the decision" with OOXML.

[Fandangio]

In all I guess it's up to the end users.

If people like to pay for software irrespective of it's merits then that is their prerogative, and ultimately their financial loss.
What is an annoyance is that many people who use such free software then criticise it for the average users use, when ultimately it would adequately fulfil their needs.