Solution to...
Recently, I got a mail with news item about Microsoft adding validation for 'Genuine Windows' to Windows Update website. The sender, while sending it to a mailing list (that I'm on) added this line to the end of the news report: "Solution? Go Open!". He was referring to Open Source software - which brings us to the question - are people taking open source as a solution to "That company enforced stringent checks against piracy! Help!"?
If yes, and if more people are using this argument to propagate open source in markets like India - well, *shrug*. For one, it looks all right, since most people unfamiliar with the details of computer software (and just interested in getting their work done - with some office suite, or financial billing application) would understand the 'cost factor' more easily than the 'quality' or 'philosophy' factor. People tend to understand "That one costs money, and this one is free of cost" very quickly. Once they get used to open source operating system / applications, they'll start appreciating the quality / philosophy.
On the other hand, why start with a false notion? Why put forward cost as the sole reason for using open source? (which, in reality, isn't even true in all scenarios - open source and free software aren't the same...)
For every five people who would appreciae open source for its quality / community development model, there may be ten more who would shun it as "Cheap attempt to mimic the features of that elite commercial software", because cost is the only reason that has been explained to them.
Which way for such audience?
If yes, and if more people are using this argument to propagate open source in markets like India - well, *shrug*. For one, it looks all right, since most people unfamiliar with the details of computer software (and just interested in getting their work done - with some office suite, or financial billing application) would understand the 'cost factor' more easily than the 'quality' or 'philosophy' factor. People tend to understand "That one costs money, and this one is free of cost" very quickly. Once they get used to open source operating system / applications, they'll start appreciating the quality / philosophy.
On the other hand, why start with a false notion? Why put forward cost as the sole reason for using open source? (which, in reality, isn't even true in all scenarios - open source and free software aren't the same...)
For every five people who would appreciae open source for its quality / community development model, there may be ten more who would shun it as "Cheap attempt to mimic the features of that elite commercial software", because cost is the only reason that has been explained to them.
Which way for such audience?