I see now difference between Proprietary s/w and open-source

[Plumber]

I am new user to Linux/Unix. So it is kind of bad experience having failing to install onto my harddisk. And I sought the support from here, and I need the topic gets posted, but now pending for approval...

I know this is open-source, so is the quality of service and support.
Anyhow, there is always pros and cons with proprietary s/w, but now I think it is even more so with open-source platform...

[Pierre]

- with proprietary s/w, you pay for your support,
but with open-source platform, you get a Volunteer who is prepared to support you. ..

[eanfrid]

* With closed source software you are a wizard-apprentice using parts of Gandalf's spellbook, so you need to send money to Gandalf for rent and support.

* With open source software, you are Gandalf and you can still send money to any other wizard to do your own job (fill your spellbook) or you can ask fellow wizards for advice.

Free Open source software does not mean there is either no support nor no cost It means that you are not a prisoner and that sending money to anyone is not mandatory in order to use or modify your own spellbook...

Being Gandalf has some pros and cons

[killer de bug]

The difference between proprietary and free softwares is simple.
In the free world, when we read this kind of complains/messages we are not obliged to reply anymore.

[flateric]

I have seen some forums place initial restrictions on the first few posts (unrelated to open source of IT etc). Ubuntu has a a forum too where you may get a quicker response. What is the problem exactly with the install?

[apemanx]

Just had to say - I love the Gandalf analogy!
May I use your phrase under GPL?

[wanderer7]

* With closed source software you are a wizard-apprentice using parts of Gandalf's spellbook, so you need to send money to Gandalf for rent and support.

[wanderer7]

This is not the main diffrence between proprietary and free software. The main difference is freedom. With free software you have 4 freedoms:

1. The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
2. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

If something is wrong with a non-free windows OS, what do people usually do? Pay M$ some money for support? No, not often. They either post on windows forums or hire a local IT guy. You can do the same thing when you're using a free OS. Besides, there are companies who sell support for GNU/Linux.
Free and open source doesn't mean zero cost or poor quality.
I know, you might sometimes get frustrated, but that's because you're still new to GNU/Linux.

[eanfrid]

The real definition is obviously the only one to be 100% accurate but I prefer my more memorable (understandable) and funny Gandalf metaphor

[apemanx]

After you've broken and repaired a few distros and realized that you are in fact the Wizard you will never be satisfied on any other OS.

As for proprietary software - if the software is really great I never mind paying for it - but then I also demand the support. This is also part of the freedom - you can use the non-prop and or the prop... there is choice and freedom.

Become the Wizard!

[/dev/urandom]

Interestingly, I use more open source software on Windows than on other systems.