4 ms·

Most users don't care for fixing it - they just want something that works. Most users are not programmers either, and those that are probably have other issues

Most users don't care for fixing it - they just want something that works. Most users are not programmers either, and those that are probably have other issues making them busy. So the ability to fix broken is not really a benefit for most users. It's an enabler for those that can. As for not working well, that can be said equally well for both Open Source and proprietary software. Equally, I can pick examples of software that works well from both types. The biggest benefit for most users is that Open Source is free (as in beer). Firefox only hit the mainstream because it's free and was rock solid. Opera was for a long time rock solid but not free and that didn't help it, did it?

jrockway 18y ago
So the ability to fix broken is not really a benefit for most users. These users can pay someone else to fix the software. With proprietary software, that's not an option either.
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
  Moreover, only one person needs to pay someone to fix it, and everyone benefits. What goes around comes around.
  - wmf 18y ago
    Unless the cost of fixing the problem is higher than what any one person is willing to pay, so it never gets done (collective action problem).
    - jrockway 18y ago
      If not one person on the Earth cares about solving the problem, it is probably not that important. (Uh oh, here comes a rant about global warming and overfishing.)
      - kragen 18y ago
        Global warming and overfishing!
      - DougBTX 18y ago
        Avoiding the point, you assume that every problem can be solved by one person.
windsurfer 18y ago
Imagine a pipe in your new house sprung a leak. You contact the builder, but they don't answer your calls. Dammit, you need it fixed now! So you go into the phone book and hire the first plumber you see. He comes over, fixes the pipe. Sweet! Except now, two months later, the builder [i]does[/i] answer your call. And when you tell him you got the pipe fixed by someone else, he slaps a lawsuit on you, saying you're not allowed to disassemble or reverse engineer your house. I think the biggest benefit for users is that you are free to do what you want with the software. You can get plug ins, pop it on LiveCDs, share it with friends, anything. Yes, "freedom" may not be a great piece for marketing, but when it comes to a users true benefits, freedom is the best thing Open Source has to offer.
- wyday 18y ago
  I know I'm walking into a field of landmines in replying to this, but I'll try to tread carefully: The plumber/pipe metaphor is better suited to consulting & custom corporate apps. For wide-release software (like Adobe's software) it's in the company's best interest to fix bugs and keep the user happy. And I think pierrefar made a good point. The only reason I use Firefox is that it's a higher quality than IE and Opera. This might be a result of the openness of the software, but the openness of Firefox wasn't the deciding factor when I started to use it.
  - windsurfer 18y ago
    [quote]but the openness of Firefox wasn't the deciding factor when I started to use it[/quote] Of course! That's exactly what I meant. Freedom is not a great marketing fact. Being Free is.
- access_denied 18y ago
  I think reliability in terms of (long-term) availability is also a big plus for OSS.

jrockway 18y ago

So the ability to fix broken is not really a benefit for most users. These users can pay someone else to fix the software. With proprietary software, that's not an option either.

LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
Moreover, only one person needs to pay someone to fix it, and everyone benefits. What goes around comes around.
- wmf 18y ago
  Unless the cost of fixing the problem is higher than what any one person is willing to pay, so it never gets done (collective action problem).
  - jrockway 18y ago
    If not one person on the Earth cares about solving the problem, it is probably not that important. (Uh oh, here comes a rant about global warming and overfishing.)
    - kragen 18y ago
      Global warming and overfishing!
    - DougBTX 18y ago
      Avoiding the point, you assume that every problem can be solved by one person.

windsurfer 18y ago

Imagine a pipe in your new house sprung a leak. You contact the builder, but they don't answer your calls. Dammit, you need it fixed now! So you go into the phone book and hire the first plumber you see. He comes over, fixes the pipe. Sweet! Except now, two months later, the builder [i]does[/i] answer your call. And when you tell him you got the pipe fixed by someone else, he slaps a lawsuit on you, saying you're not allowed to disassemble or reverse engineer your house. I think the biggest benefit for users is that you are free to do what you want with the software. You can get plug ins, pop it on LiveCDs, share it with friends, anything. Yes, "freedom" may not be a great piece for marketing, but when it comes to a users true benefits, freedom is the best thing Open Source has to offer.

wyday 18y ago
I know I'm walking into a field of landmines in replying to this, but I'll try to tread carefully: The plumber/pipe metaphor is better suited to consulting & custom corporate apps. For wide-release software (like Adobe's software) it's in the company's best interest to fix bugs and keep the user happy. And I think pierrefar made a good point. The only reason I use Firefox is that it's a higher quality than IE and Opera. This might be a result of the openness of the software, but the openness of Firefox wasn't the deciding factor when I started to use it.
- windsurfer 18y ago
  [quote]but the openness of Firefox wasn't the deciding factor when I started to use it[/quote] Of course! That's exactly what I meant. Freedom is not a great marketing fact. Being Free is.
access_denied 18y ago
I think reliability in terms of (long-term) availability is also a big plus for OSS.