Ask HN: Why hasn't free software been able to compete with proprietary software?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6267625

by gschiller • 13 years ago

1 6 13 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

Geniuses like Richard Stallman have evangelized free software, arguing that it should be a basic human right, and often they argue that it is monetizable, but free software has largely failed in that regard.

Why has free software failed to be a commercial success?

Twirrim• 13 years ago

RedHat and a sizeable number of companies will disagree with you there. Open source is perfectly profitable and competitive.

benologist• 13 years ago

Free software was on the path to success, then SaaS and the internet and mobile computing exploded in popularity which revived proprietary platforms in spite of heavily/fundamentally exploiting free software.

paulhauggis• 13 years ago

Server software and programming languages have succeeded, but general desktop software has mostly failed.

I feel it's because the time and effort isn't put into actually making it user-friendly. Look at any apple product, for instance. It's so easy and intuitive and I don't need to play around with the command line to get something to work.

I use Linux and tons of open source software every day for running my business. I've tried to use pretty much every desktop version of Linux..but I always switch back to windows or mac. Why? It never feels finished to me. Random crashing, error messages that don't make sense, a horrible UI (that looks like a programming just threw it together with no thought).

There needs to be a movement of Open source UI and graphic designers.

mindcrime• 13 years ago

Why has free software failed to be a commercial success?

Your premise is flawed, and this entire question is nonsensical. F/OSS has been able to compete with proprietary software, and - in many cases - has won. Just because it hasn't won every segment doesn't mean that it's been a failure.

rgubarenko• 13 years ago

You're likely talking about desktop software and OS, because open-source and free dev platforms are successful. I myself, after being a .NET guru a couple of years now creating more and more stuff in PHP5 and node.js and I'm totally happy with them. But for OS yes, for average user those free ones really suck. I remember trying to setup XBMC on ZBox with Ubuntu - every single feature caused issues. To get proper sound I spent half of a day sitting with command line. After 2 days of fight, I gave up and installed Windows XP where I did not have to do anything - it just started working out f the box. So, for average user or for person that does not want to waste time with command line (like me) free OS is not an option. I need a complete product, not a DIY Lego parts.

SEJeff• 13 years ago

Depends on your definition of success really. Linux beats the living snot out of windows in high performance computing and supercomputers. It also beats the snot out of windows in embedded and mobile / tablets because it is so much easier for manufacturers to adapt it for their own needs. What is your definition of success? Linux never tried hard enough with desktops I think. Canonical's Ubuntu is trying awful hard to make Linux desktops relevant (which is cool) but even they have mostly ceded that fight and are going after the more viable mobile.

Ever bought a smart tv like the Sony Bravia or basically any of the nice Samsung TVs? Linux as well. How about a home router? Many of those are Linux. I'll go out on a limb and say there are a lot more Linux devices than Windows total (primarily due to the plethora of embedded and mobile).

Ask HN: Why hasn't free software been able to compete with proprietary software?

Related Stories