

Being Blind to Majority of the Software on the Internet - cplat
http://crossplatform.net/dev/being-blind-to-majority-of-the-software-on-the-internet.html

======
ChuckMcM
I wonder how much of this discrepancy is driven by the motive of the person
writing such software. I remember how amazingly crappy the Roxio CD burning
software was, mostly it was tool to sell labelling supplies and CDR blanks.
Pretty much all the open source I've used was written by someone who really
wanted to write it rather than achieve some alternative objective by making it
available.

~~~
tluyben2
A lot of the crap software is white label, like you say; something to sell
something else. It's like most hardware; if you buy a camera you get free
editing software which is white labelled crap usually but at least you can
tick the boxes compared to your competitors.

Then there is the 'getting rich' thing which is more prevalent than, I think,
most people here realize. Currently it's about apps => get rich making apps;
there are countless 'internet marketing' ebooks online how you make apps
without programming and 'get rich' doing it. This used to be actual printed
books 'how to become the next Bill G.', usually with VB/Delphi like 'almost
codeless' development. A lot of crap comes out of that unfortunately.

~~~
cplat
If you go to Google and type in "make your own software", you'll find a site
with the same domain as the keyword. And guess what? It's "patent pending."

To a lot of buddies of mine who want to learn programming, I keep saying that
"writing code" is a very small part of it. But one cannot understand that
statement without going the distance.

~~~
tluyben2
Yeah <http://www.makeyourownsoftware.com/> this is a very famous one; and he
sold a lot of copies (the original developer). What it does is it allows you
to make a doc with variables; you 'save an .exe' which you give/sell to
clients; when the client starts the application they get a form with those
variables to enter and then the doc appears with those variables in it.

I have seen those 'apps' on download sites, like 'unique recipe printing
application' and such. It doesn't even store the result. Another, more modern,
'no coding software creator' is ; <http://www.profittigersystems.com/vbforum/>
which also sold quite well and at least can do a bit more. But from this
'codeless' stuff comes mostly garbage which you can find for sale on eBay and
such.

~~~
minikomi
Wow, sounds cool! I could use something like that that to make these bingo
cards I need.

------
Shank
I can agree wholeheartedly. At this point, if software is freeware, I don't
see as reason as to why it shouldn't be open source in this day and age. While
there are probably numerous reasons, it's certainly created a mindset of
suspicion, regardless of how valid that suspicion is.

------
patmcguire
There are a fair amount of things that are better when they're not free. I
remember spending a half hour or so wading through free credit report offers
online to find one I could pay fifteen dollars for.

Why? In that case no one's doing it for fun do they have to be making money
somewhere to pay for the ads. I'll take the devil I know over the devil I
don't.

With open source you know why it's free - the least altruistic possibility is
there's a user whose main motivation is solving the particular issue you have,
and that it's open in the hopes that someone can improve it. With freeware,
who knows.

~~~
cplat
Yes, there are a lot of kinds of software that are better if they're paid. The
main reason being the amount of concentrated research and work that has to be
done. And let's not forget copyrighted and patented technologies that can make
something "non-free."

GIMP is great, but Photoshop is a killer tool. Same goes with Computer Algebra
Systems and Electronics tools. These are areas where open source is yet to
catch up.

However, when it comes to web servers, programming languages, databases, and
any great cutting edge technology, open source just rocks. The very building
blocks of most of the software today is open source. And that's marvelous.

~~~
chii
In other words, utility software (that is, software that has a use for a wide
variety of applications such as OS, server tools and programming languages)
tend to be more and more free - simply because so many people need it, that it
quickly turns into a sort of commodity.

Specialist software, which includes photoshop, but there are heaps of others
like electronic circut design software, and geological survey software, tend
to be paid for simply because no one uses it (other than the handful of
profrssionals). The cost to make them can't be amortized across millions of
its users.

------
udpheaders
I honestly can't think of one proprietray program I've paid for (and I have
bought some expensive software) that exceeds the quality or reliability of the
free, open source programs I use.

Sometimes I feel like I've been duped by every vendor I've paid for software.
It sounds terrible to say that, but honestly the open source stuff just blows
the commercial stuff away. Alas, open source is just not possible for all
software needs; it only covers so much.

~~~
daliusd
I know one you have paid for: OS. If it is Windows or Mac OS X, you have paid
for it. If it is Linux you have either paid for it with your time spent for
configuring it or by buying more expensive hardware that just work with Linux.
If your time is cheap that's OK. If you got lucky with configuration - many
people don't.

~~~
buro9
I stopped worrying about the OS a long time ago.

I happened to have purchased Lenovo laptops because I like the keyboards and
generally believe that the reason Apple laptops are better than the majority
of Windows laptops is because people are willing to spend more on quality
hardware. I prefer the industrial design of Richard Sapper to Jonathan Ives so
it was a no-brainer.

After running Windows for a while and getting bored of using KiTTY for SSH I
switched to Linux Mint.

I honestly have configured nothing. It all just worked, and installation was
less than 10 minutes end-to-end.

I know you will say I got lucky, or that I spent more money... but luck didn't
come into it and I spent not a penny more than I did for the Windows machine
and good industrial design.

If you just use the system, it just works. I've had zero pain in my personal
computing for a long time now. I don't understand the "Linux costs you time"
mantra.

~~~
chii
> I don't understand the "Linux costs you time" mantra.

its because this mantra is FUD that opponants of GNU/linux often use to
discredit it. If you spoke to a businessman who doesn't know his microsoft
from his unixes, he might be veryeasily convinced that something which
would've costed thousands could've been had for free must have some sort of
catch. Because physical goods that you can get for free always has some sort
of catch (whether its just for adverts, or whether the "free" month of trials
automatically becomes a paid month the 2nd its over etc). Most people aren't
equpped to deal with software, simply because its so new and recent, and the
brain is evolved to deal with the physical and the now.

~~~
daliusd
Well, I'm big GNU/Linux proponent but I will never ever use on Linux on my
laptop or desktop unless it will support Linux out-of-the-box. I just got fed-
up after 14 years of trying to do that. There are machines that work really
well with Linux (e.g. Thinkpads) but a lot of cheaper machines is royal pain
in the ass.

~~~
udpheaders
This is a frustrating problem. Not only with Linux (which I'd argue has some
of the best support of any open src OS).

The only solution I've come up with is to steer away from hardware that is
brand new on the market. Buy stuff that is a few years old.

With an open source OS, it's still going to as fast (probably faster, and
certainly more agile) than new hardware coming fresh off the assembly line
loaded down with the latest crapware OS.

------
inafield
It's things like this which make me want to create a free, opensource, fully
featured but well designed version of the various software programs I
occasionally need to use. Something without gimmicks, easy to use, doesn't
have a super-flashy interface.

Audials Tunebite and all the Roxio tools are a mess with all non-standard
interface items. Do I click this to get a menu of options or is it a button? I
can't tell! Is this element disabled or is it just not activated because my
mouse isn't hovering on it? What is crash number 0x0000###? Why did it
randomly close?

And then there is FileZilla. I like that software and encouraged its use at my
employer. I've had ZERO trouble with the server and the client. But the
interface could be a bit simpler, and a nice template packaging for corporate
installs would be nice. Too many buttons, outdated buttons, and extra options
are problematic. Anytime I see someone struggling with some other ftp client I
always steer them towards FileZilla (since it is now company policy, thanks to
me), but there are some things that could be cleaned up.

Unfortunately, I'm not a C programmer and I currently don't have the time or
energy. Wife, puppy, condo -- you know the drill.

~~~
inafield
I'm curious about using NME for cross platform programming whenever I do
investigate making my own programs.

------
nhebb
My theory is that there is a direct correlation between the quality of free
software and the likelihood that developers directly or indirectly use the
software for their work. The exception is utilities, but for non-dev business
tools, commercial applications tend to be better than free software.

------
cpeterso
Open source software also means that you won't be trapped with some dead-end
software when the developer goes out of business or changes their business
model.

~~~
eckyptang
This is _almost_ true. I've been burned by unmaintained Open Source software
as well (which resulted in costly in house maintenance) as well as commercial
software disappearing.

Keeping all your eggs in one basket is the real problem.

