50 Open Source Replacements for Really Expensive Software

[El Gringo]

I came across this article the other day. Thought people on this forum would find it particularly useful!

http://www.datamation.com/article.php/3898906

[astadt]

Awesome post!

[JoshuaSpodek]

Having used linux almost exclusively on my computers since 1996, I've come to find the idea of paying for software weird. Obviously I realize most people do it, but I haven't actually done it for a long time. I guess technically when I bought my last couple computers from people on Craigs List, I paid for their versions of Windows, but I overwrote them without using them. Maybe I could get a refund?

Business school had a few challenges where professors assumed everyone would use a different spreadsheet than I was using, but otherwise I've never had a problem.

[Ziggurat]

Really excellent link! Thanks.  There were several on there that I had not heard of and will definitely check out.

[c12mintz]

Thank you for your post-- very helpful!

I would add Duolingo as a substitute for Rosetta Stone  / Free versus $20+ month or $200-$600 for the package. I think Duolingo might actually be superior to Rosetta based on lots of experience with Spanish and a tiny bit with German.

[imustachemystash]

Awesome!  I just shared with my husband and he said Ubuntu works great.  Also, thanks for the tip on Duolingo.  I've been meaning to try that to work on my Espanol.

[i_am_the_slime]

Having used linux almost exclusively on my computers since 1996, I've come to find the idea of paying for software weird.

I used to use linux but I have to have windows for games and I got tired of switching back and forth just to play a game.  I prefer linux but I'm too lazy I guess.

[DaKini]

I've come to find the idea of paying for software weird.

I do pay - the currency is back contribution (bug reports, source code, ...).
Besides that i do enjoy the freedom opensource software delivers. And there are even plenty of free games also. I could not imagine a problem i could not solve with open source software.

[MrFancypants]

Having used linux almost exclusively on my computers since 1996, I've come to find the idea of paying for software weird.

I used to use linux but I have to have windows for games and I got tired of switching back and forth just to play a game.  I prefer linux but I'm too lazy I guess.

^ what he said, this is what keeps me tied to Windows at home.

However, I'm very hopeful that SteamOS will take off, which means that more game publishers should release Linux compatible games and hardware developers will maintain up to date drivers for Linux.

[rocksinmyhead]

awesome list, thanks!

I used to have Illustrator on my lab computer in grad school, and loved using it for non-school related things (mostly tshirt designs, for races and relay teams, parties, etc). I was soooo excited when I discovered Inkscape this year! I can be my friends' amateur graphic designer again!!!

[prodarwin]

However, I'm very hopeful that SteamOS will take off, which means that more game publishers should release Linux compatible games and hardware developers will maintain up to date drivers for Linux.

I think Valve will make linux games (HL3??), and developers using Valve's engine will make them.  Outside of that I don't see it happening much :(

[Spork]

However, I'm very hopeful that SteamOS will take off, which means that more game publishers should release Linux compatible games and hardware developers will maintain up to date drivers for Linux.

I think Valve will make linux games (HL3??), and developers using Valve's engine will make them.  Outside of that I don't see it happening much :(

Humble Bundle sells quite a few Linux games.  I'm not a gamer... so I can't speak for whether they're any good or not.  But something to try if it interests you.  They sell them for "name your price." ... so you could buy the first really cheap (to try it) and if you like it, pay extra on the next one (to support them and get them to make more.)

[Jamesqf]

I used to use linux but I have to have windows for games...

All depends on what you use a computer for, I suppose.  That's what struck me most about the list: so many things that I not only wouldn't do myself, but that I really wouldn't have thought enough people would do to make up an open-source community.  OTOH, fundamental, basic stuff like gcc that I use every day doesn't get a mention.

[JoshuaSpodek]

While I respect gamers wanting or needing their games, I found that regarding most things that were difficult or impossible with Free Software, my life was better without them. Eventually getting rid of things like Facebook became easy choices -- http://joshuaspodek.com/leaving-facebook-easy-and-fun.

Instead of feeling like I'm missing something (stuff created by someone trying to make money off me), when I fill my newly free time with other things, I find I like them more (stuff created by a community based on sharing). For example, the alternative to Facebook is in-person interactions. Community-oriented stuff isn't always as polished as money-making stuff, but it seems to get the job done and builds more community. GIMP may not match Photoshop's features, but once when I needed to solve some graphics problems I emailed the guy who wrote a graphics program I used and he wrote back and helped me solve my problem.

[Spork]

While I respect gamers wanting or needing their games, I found that regarding most things that were difficult or impossible with Free Software, my life was better without them. Eventually getting rid of things like Facebook became easy choices -- http://joshuaspodek.com/leaving-facebook-easy-and-fun.

I'm not entirely sure what this means....  It sounds like the implication is that "things like Facebook" don't work on Free Software.  Just to clarify: that is not in any way remotely true.

...but maybe I just misunderstood you.

[JoshuaSpodek]

While I respect gamers wanting or needing their games, I found that regarding most things that were difficult or impossible with Free Software, my life was better without them. Eventually getting rid of things like Facebook became easy choices -- http://joshuaspodek.com/leaving-facebook-easy-and-fun.

I'm not entirely sure what this means....  It sounds like the implication is that "things like Facebook" don't work on Free Software.  Just to clarify: that is not in any way remotely true.

...but maybe I just misunderstood you.

Oh, Facebook works fine. To me using it feels enough like using commercial software that not using one made it easy not to use the other. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I hope it is now.

[MrFancypants]

While I respect gamers wanting or needing their games, I found that regarding most things that were difficult or impossible with Free Software, my life was better without them. Eventually getting rid of things like Facebook became easy choices -- http://joshuaspodek.com/leaving-facebook-easy-and-fun.

Instead of feeling like I'm missing something (stuff created by someone trying to make money off me), when I fill my newly free time with other things, I find I like them more (stuff created by a community based on sharing). For example, the alternative to Facebook is in-person interactions. Community-oriented stuff isn't always as polished as money-making stuff, but it seems to get the job done and builds more community. GIMP may not match Photoshop's features, but once when I needed to solve some graphics problems I emailed the guy who wrote a graphics program I used and he wrote back and helped me solve my problem.

So regarding Facebook...  for those of us who have lived relatively mobile lives in our adulthood, it is, by far, the most convenient way to keep up with the large number of friends you come across in life.  If your social network is basically all in the same city or county, ditching Facebook should be incredibly easy.  For somebody whose friends are spread across different states or even countries, ditching Facebook means severing my link to people I genuinely want to keep in touch with.

Regarding games....  while it may be hard to see when the most popular games are incredibly expensive, heavily advertised, and typically come from a very small handful of publishing companies, supporting some games is about on the level of supporting art.  If you don't mind doing a little sifting, which I don't (kind of a hobby), you can find some absolutely incredible games from small independent development studios making some truly unique and innovative stories and gameplay for very low prices.  I don't mind dropping an average of $10 a month feeding the machine that drives innovation in an area of creative industry.

I'm not trying to convince you to use Facebook or start playing video games.  Just trying to throw out a "here's why we these things are still relevant..."

[i_am_the_slime]

I actually never joined (and never will join) Facebook.  But my "multimedia" of choice is video games - I hate watching TV.  I also am looking forward to SteamOS, but I'm still skeptical.  I think it will take another 5 years before it might become an option to replace windows. 

[greaper007]

People pay for software when there's newsgroups and bittorent?

[RetiredAt63]

Statistics packages: PAST is a nice open source statistics program with a spreadsheet interface.  R is command line driven, very versatile but steep learning curve.  What SPSS and SigmaPlot (which I love but cannot afford) charge is totally unaffordable for individuals.

[PantsOnFire]

If I had a friendship that was contingent upon my being on Facebook to keep in touch, to me that would be a pretty clear sign that it's not a real friendship. 

[El Gringo]

If I had a friendship that was contingent upon my being on Facebook to keep in touch, to me that would be a pretty clear sign that it's not a real friendship.

To each his own, but I definitely disagree with this statement. I have lots of true/real friends that I wouldn't keep in contact with if it wasn't for Facebook. I've even had friendships *grow* to the point that, because of Facebook, we also stayed connected in real life. If it wasn't for Facebook, we would have drifted apart.

[Paul der Krake]

People pay for software when there's newsgroups and bittorent?

Yeah, what could go wrong with running code from an untrusted source?

[Spork]

People pay for software when there's newsgroups and bittorent?

Yeah, what could go wrong with running code from an untrusted source?

...or shoplifting it?

[Ashyukun]

If I had a friendship that was contingent upon my being on Facebook to keep in touch, to me that would be a pretty clear sign that it's not a real friendship.

To each his own, but I definitely disagree with this statement. I have lots of true/real friends that I wouldn't keep in contact with if it wasn't for Facebook. I've even had friendships *grow* to the point that, because of Facebook, we also stayed connected in real life. If it wasn't for Facebook, we would have drifted apart.

I'd also agree with this. I'm an Army Brat who graduated from HS in Germany from a school that no longer exists and after college moved halfway across the country for a job. Were it not for modern social media I'd likely be in touch with a fraction of the friends from HS & college that I still am. The fact that we now live half a country or half a world away from each other doesn't make them not 'real' friends. I see nothing at all wrong with using social media to stay in touch with people you actually know. 'Friending' scores of people you've never met and almost certainly never will? That I would argue you're correct about not being 'real' friendship.

[MrFancypants]

If I had a friendship that was contingent upon my being on Facebook to keep in touch, to me that would be a pretty clear sign that it's not a real friendship.

Good thing all of the real friends I have on Facebook disagree with you.  Otherwise I'd have a hard time keeping in touch with them.

[JoshuaSpodek]

So regarding Facebook...  for those of us who have lived relatively mobile lives in our adulthood, it is, by far, the most convenient way to keep up with the large number of friends you come across in life.  If your social network is basically all in the same city or county, ditching Facebook should be incredibly easy.  For somebody whose friends are spread across different states or even countries, ditching Facebook means severing my link to people I genuinely want to keep in touch with.

Haven't you had the experience where a long lost friend or group of friends finds you online, or you find them, you all get excited to find each other after drifting apart, you all get back in touch, and then you drift apart again, realizing you don't have time to keep in touch with everyone you've ever met and that time spent with people far away takes time away from people nearby?

[JoshuaSpodek]

If I had a friendship that was contingent upon my being on Facebook to keep in touch, to me that would be a pretty clear sign that it's not a real friendship.

To each his own, but I definitely disagree with this statement. I have lots of true/real friends that I wouldn't keep in contact with if it wasn't for Facebook. I've even had friendships *grow* to the point that, because of Facebook, we also stayed connected in real life. If it wasn't for Facebook, we would have drifted apart.

People say this a lot. I did too until I realized that connecting online doesn't create more time for socializing, it only creates more connections. I still have 24 hours in the day. So the more people I keep in touch with, the shallower my connections become. If people prefer having tons of friends with whom they share pictures, short stories, and quick updates, I support them. When I discovered social media I felt more social too.

When I got off social media I started distinguishing between online connections and in-person connections. Eye contact, physical touch, doing things together, depending on each other... I've come to value them more than what any number of online connections can give. As much as I value the friendships I've made throughout my life, my values combined with my finite resources and time lead me to sacrifice good ones for great ones. Or as I put it, you have to say no to a lot of good things to have a great life (one of my favorite posts http://joshuaspodek.com/lot-good-great-life).

In my experience, mostly-online connections hold me back from deep interactions.

[JoshuaSpodek]

I'd also agree with this. I'm an Army Brat who graduated from HS in Germany from a school that no longer exists and after college moved halfway across the country for a job. Were it not for modern social media I'd likely be in touch with a fraction of the friends from HS & college that I still am. The fact that we now live half a country or half a world away from each other doesn't make them not 'real' friends. I see nothing at all wrong with using social media to stay in touch with people you actually know. 'Friending' scores of people you've never met and almost certainly never will? That I would argue you're correct about not being 'real' friendship.

"... I'd likely be in touch with a fraction of the friends ..."

Facebook leads people to measure how social they are by number of connections. I haven't found that that number correlates with quality or depth of friendship or quality of life. If it does for you, great. I value in-person time so much higher, I found online time just detracted from it. If I had to resettle somewhere, I'd sacrifice online time to make time to meet new people in my new place.

If a genie gave me extra hours in the day when time would stop for everyone else that I could only spend online, I'd take them in a second. Until I get that magic ability and time I spend one way I don't another, I favor in-person over online friends. I don't ignore online-only friends completely. I just triage my time.

[MrFancypants]

So regarding Facebook...  for those of us who have lived relatively mobile lives in our adulthood, it is, by far, the most convenient way to keep up with the large number of friends you come across in life.  If your social network is basically all in the same city or county, ditching Facebook should be incredibly easy.  For somebody whose friends are spread across different states or even countries, ditching Facebook means severing my link to people I genuinely want to keep in touch with.

Haven't you had the experience where a long lost friend or group of friends finds you online, or you find them, you all get excited to find each other after drifting apart, you all get back in touch, and then you drift apart again, realizing you don't have time to keep in touch with everyone you've ever met and that time spent with people far away takes time away from people nearby?

No, I have never had that problem.  Not once. 

How much time did you spend on Facebook that it took away from your nearby loved ones?  If you were on Facebook so much that it was impacting your other relationships then maybe it's for the best that you stopped using it.

[El Gringo]

People say this a lot. I did too until I realized that connecting online doesn't create more time for socializing, it only creates more connections. I still have 24 hours in the day. So the more people I keep in touch with, the shallower my connections become. If people prefer having tons of friends with whom they share pictures, short stories, and quick updates, I support them. When I discovered social media I felt more social too.

When I got off social media I started distinguishing between online connections and in-person connections. Eye contact, physical touch, doing things together, depending on each other... I've come to value them more than what any number of online connections can give. As much as I value the friendships I've made throughout my life, my values combined with my finite resources and time lead me to sacrifice good ones for great ones. Or as I put it, you have to say no to a lot of good things to have a great life (one of my favorite posts http://joshuaspodek.com/lot-good-great-life).

In my experience, mostly-online connections hold me back from deep interactions.

I think we're dealing with different philosophies on friendship here (and boy, what a rabbit trail this post has taken!). But in my experience, my real-life interactions have been better because of Facebook. I don't view Facebook as an end in and of itself. I see it as a means to facilitate better friendships when you're together in real life. I'll give you one example: I interned at a place during college. There was a girl I kind of got to know, but not super close. We talked occasionally in the office and we played frisbee together. But we connected over facebook before I left for the summer. Over the next few years, we had a lot of good, thoughtful discussion on Facebook, about meaningful topics. I found that I actually got to know her much better and she got to know me much better during that time over Facebook. I felt closer to her as a friend. As a result, if we're in the same city, we meet up and hang out. If we hadn't connected over Facebook, we would have just slipped off each other's radars and never spoken again. Instead, not only did we have meaningful conversations online, but we also continued to hang out in real life, when we're in the same geographical location. This is just one example - and in this case we live in different cities. There are numerous other cases in which I have also found myself living in the same city as a friend from a past life. If it wasn't for Facebook, we never would have stayed connected or reconnected. But because of Facebook, we reunited in person and started hanging out again, and grew closer as friends. And this wouldn't have happened without Facebook. I think it's a useful tool.

[rocksinmyhead]

I'd also agree with this. I'm an Army Brat who graduated from HS in Germany from a school that no longer exists and after college moved halfway across the country for a job. Were it not for modern social media I'd likely be in touch with a fraction of the friends from HS & college that I still am. The fact that we now live half a country or half a world away from each other doesn't make them not 'real' friends. I see nothing at all wrong with using social media to stay in touch with people you actually know. 'Friending' scores of people you've never met and almost certainly never will? That I would argue you're correct about not being 'real' friendship.

"... I'd likely be in touch with a fraction of the friends ..."

Facebook leads people to measure how social they are by number of connections. I haven't found that that number correlates with quality or depth of friendship or quality of life. If it does for you, great. I value in-person time so much higher, I found online time just detracted from it. If I had to resettle somewhere, I'd sacrifice online time to make time to meet new people in my new place.

for me, it's not NUMBER of friends. it's that if I didn't keep in touch with my oldest friends, I would have no friends that have known me for more than two years (other than my boyfriend). I guess that doesn't bother some people, but to me that precludes having really deep friendships. and some people have moved even more often than I have!

I would say I only have 1 or 2 REALLY GOOD FRIENDS from each previous stage of my semi-adult life so far (HS, college, grad school). I really hate talking on the phone, so I very rarely communicate with this small group of people that way. however, I do get to travel to the areas where they live occasionally (for work, or for holidays/visiting my family) and I am so glad that the Internet lets us stay in touch enough during the in-between times that we can easily arrange meeting up when I'm in town... and it's like we've never been apart! I would hate to not have these people in my life anymore.

I also don't feel I am spending significant amounts of time online as opposed to socializing face to face, so maybe that's a problem for some people but not others.

[El Gringo]

for me, it's not NUMBER of friends. it's that if I didn't keep in touch with my oldest friends, I would have no friends that have known me for more than two years (other than my boyfriend). I guess that doesn't bother some people, but to me that precludes having really deep friendships. and some people have moved even more often than I have!

I would say I only have 1 or 2 REALLY GOOD FRIENDS from each previous stage of my semi-adult life so far (HS, college, grad school). I really hate talking on the phone, so I very rarely communicate with this small group of people that way. however, I do get to travel to the areas where they live occasionally (for work, or for holidays/visiting my family) and I am so glad that the Internet lets us stay in touch enough during the in-between times that we can easily arrange meeting up when I'm in town... and it's like we've never been apart! I would hate to not have these people in my life anymore.

I also don't feel I am spending significant amounts of time online as opposed to socializing face to face, so maybe that's a problem for some people but not others.

^THIS. For me, it's really valuable to be known. I have no friend that knows every stage and circle of my life. I have old friends that know many stages of my life, and it's important that they remain in my life, even if we are geographically separated. And since no one knows all of my stages of life, it's valuable to me to keep people from each stage and circle connected to me, because each person knows me a little differently. My good friends I currently see on a week-to-week basis don't know me from college, high school, or middle school, or from the other defining experiences I've had not in DC.

Also, I too, hate talking on the phone!

[JoshuaSpodek]

People say this a lot. I did too until I realized that connecting online doesn't create more time for socializing, it only creates more connections. I still have 24 hours in the day. So the more people I keep in touch with, the shallower my connections become. If people prefer having tons of friends with whom they share pictures, short stories, and quick updates, I support them. When I discovered social media I felt more social too.

When I got off social media I started distinguishing between online connections and in-person connections. Eye contact, physical touch, doing things together, depending on each other... I've come to value them more than what any number of online connections can give. As much as I value the friendships I've made throughout my life, my values combined with my finite resources and time lead me to sacrifice good ones for great ones. Or as I put it, you have to say no to a lot of good things to have a great life (one of my favorite posts http://joshuaspodek.com/lot-good-great-life).

In my experience, mostly-online connections hold me back from deep interactions.

I think we're dealing with different philosophies on friendship here (and boy, what a rabbit trail this post has taken!). But in my experience, my real-life interactions have been better because of Facebook. I don't view Facebook as an end in and of itself. I see it as a means to facilitate better friendships when you're together in real life. I'll give you one example: I interned at a place during college. There was a girl I kind of got to know, but not super close. We talked occasionally in the office and we played frisbee together. But we connected over facebook before I left for the summer. Over the next few years, we had a lot of good, thoughtful discussion on Facebook, about meaningful topics. I found that I actually got to know her much better and she got to know me much better during that time over Facebook. I felt closer to her as a friend. As a result, if we're in the same city, we meet up and hang out. If we hadn't connected over Facebook, we would have just slipped off each other's radars and never spoken again. Instead, not only did we have meaningful conversations online, but we also continued to hang out in real life, when we're in the same geographical location. This is just one example - and in this case we live in different cities. There are numerous other cases in which I have also found myself living in the same city as a friend from a past life. If it wasn't for Facebook, we never would have stayed connected or reconnected. But because of Facebook, we reunited in person and started hanging out again, and grew closer as friends. And this wouldn't have happened without Facebook. I think it's a useful tool.

What are you comparing this experience to? The time you spent online with her you wouldn't have been sitting there doing nothing. Your time online with her may have kept you from getting yet closer with someone else.

Anyway, I apologize to everyone for getting so off-topic. I'll stick with just Open Source software in this thread from now on.

[MrFancypants]

Hey Josh, strictly speaking this isn't off topic.  Facebook is free software....  it's just that a vast majority of the computing power occurs on servers that aren't located in your house and you access it via a web browser.  =)

[JoshuaSpodek]

Hey Josh, strictly speaking this isn't off topic.  Facebook is free software....  it's just that a vast majority of the computing power occurs on servers that aren't located in your house and you access it via a web browser.  =)

It's not open source, though ;)

... although my browser and probably their servers are.

[greaper007]

People pay for software when there's newsgroups and bittorent?

Yeah, what could go wrong with running code from an untrusted source?

I "might" have been running warez since the early 90s, and I can count on one hand the times I've had a problem with software.    If you're downloading from a trusted source the software is generally crowdsourced already, just like freeware linux programs.   Besides, the NSA is snooping more than russian gangsters.

[greaper007]

People pay for software when there's newsgroups and bittorent?

Yeah, what could go wrong with running code from an untrusted source?

...or shoplifting it?

OK Immanuel Kant, I'll gladly pay for products that add value to society and are priced at a fair level.   I have no problem going greyware to figure out if a program is worth buying or to stick it to a multinational corporation that chooses to operate as a monopoly.    There's a reason Louis C.K. made tons of money off of his live standup video a few years ago, even though he released it in a format that was easily pirated.    He priced his product at $5, a very affordable price, and built up an audience that appreciated his brand and wanted to see him be successful.    I remember there were very few downloads of his video on certain sites I frequented and the discussion was that we should probably pay him for his product because it offered a great value for the price.

[El Gringo]

He priced his product at $5, a very affordable price, and built up an audience that appreciated his brand and wanted to see him be successful.    I remember there were very few downloads of his video on certain sites I frequented and the discussion was that we should probably pay him for his product because it offered a great value for the price.

On a related note, check out the post I just put up in regards to musicians and authors giving away their product for pay-what-want: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/reader-recommendations/free-music-and-books/

[Spork]

People pay for software when there's newsgroups and bittorent?

Yeah, what could go wrong with running code from an untrusted source?

...or shoplifting it?

OK Immanuel Kant, I'll gladly pay for products that add value to society and are priced at a fair level.   I have no problem going greyware to figure out if a program is worth buying or to stick it to a multinational corporation that chooses to operate as a monopoly.    There's a reason Louis C.K. made tons of money off of his live standup video a few years ago, even though he released it in a format that was easily pirated.    He priced his product at $5, a very affordable price, and built up an audience that appreciated his brand and wanted to see him be successful.    I remember there were very few downloads of his video on certain sites I frequented and the discussion was that we should probably pay him for his product because it offered a great value for the price.

Rationalization doesn't make it right.

It doesn't have to add value.  It doesn't matter if it's over priced.  If it is priced unfairly THEN DON'T BUY IT. 

Even software (or music or movies or ...) that  have no value to society probably have a value to the creator.  They take work.  Is it worth what they charge?  Well, that's determined by whether you buy it.  That's how a rational society operates: by trading one value for something they consider to be an equal value.

Try rationalizing other stuff that way:   Hummers add no value to society and represent the worst of the clown car mentality.  Steal it.  It's just made by a big faceless corporation anyway.

...and I'd be pretty much the opposite of Mr. Kant.

[greaper007]

Microsoft created a monopoly in the late 90s and pushed lots of people out of the market.   Pirating their software is imho, simply civil disobedience.    I would never steal from a person, or a corporation that adds value to society.   I wouldn't take stolen goods from costco, they pay their employees a living wage and don't tend to destroy communities when they move into a town.   I probably wouldn't think twice about receiving something from Wal-Mart though.   They're one of the corporations that's done the most to destroy the lower middle class, they use underhanded techniques to put their stores on historical sites in developing countries and the children of Sam Walton are everything that's wrong with this country.

As individuals we have very little power to fight corporate person-hood, fracking, and the explosive polarization of wealth in this country...   One way we can fight  the beast, is through pirating.    Let me give you an example.   In college I went nuts on napster and downloaded everything I could.   The average price of a cd was $17 and as a music lover I had been paying this fee for years.   I thought it was great that I could finally hear music I loved (often times from a very deep back catalog) without paying large sums for it.   

My actions destroyed the record companies as they existed from the 60s to the late 90s.  They didn't destroy music though.    Instead, the record companies got wise and embraced services like Rhapsody and Spotify.   Now I pay a very reasonable fee of $10 a month and I can hear new and old music to my heart's content.   I probably haven't illegally downloaded a song in 8 years because I don't need to.    I also try to support my favorite artists by paying for a show when they come through town.   If it's at an affordable venue I'll buy a reasonably priced beer at the show and support the purveyor.   If it's at some stupid live nation venue that charges $10 for a bud light, I'll sneak in a flask or maybe even a joint and say screw them.

Back to the original thread though.   The nice thing about software now is that I don't have a need to pirate it anymore.   I get free anti-virus from avira with minimal ad support (screw the days of Norton), I don't play games, and generally everything else I use is free with ad support.   That's fine with me.

[Jamesqf]

Microsoft created a monopoly in the late 90s and pushed lots of people out of the market.

Not true.  Linux can do pretty much anything Windoze can, and can do quite a few things that it can't do (effectively, anyway).  Everything from supercomputing to running smart phones and tablets - Android is basically Linux with a fancy presentation layer on top.

[Spork]

Microsoft created a monopoly in the late 90s and pushed lots of people out of the market.

Not true.  Linux can do pretty much anything Windoze can, and can do quite a few things that it can't do (effectively, anyway).  Everything from supercomputing to running smart phones and tablets - Android is basically Linux with a fancy presentation layer on top.

I am absolutely no fan of Microsoft.  I haven't run a MS box since Win 3.1.  ...but I don't steal from them.  I have a hard time with the whole "end justifies the means" rationalization.  It can (and is) pretty much used to rationalize anything. 

But I'd be hard pressed to say MS didn't do wonders for the computing industry.  MS -- through mass distribution and cost reductions -- has made the industry what it is today.  Hardware is cheap and a lot of this is hugely attributable to them.

And remember: corporations may not be people.  But in real life all they are is a group of individuals.  Stealing from a group is no more justifiable than stealing from a person.  It doesn't really matter how you rationalize it.

I've often thought there was a much better way for those that want to "fight corporate power" and that is to unionize.  Labor unions have pretty much gone as far as I think they can go.  They've made huge gains -- and they made it (mostly) through negotiation.  Those same concepts could easily be applied to stocks.  A "green stock union" could buy massive amounts of shares in oil, coal, etc and become a viable part of the operation.  They could make things happen.  If they're smart, they could possibly even change the business and still turn a profit -- all legal and above board and all voluntary -- by negotiation.

[aglassman]

Well this thread has certainly spiraled out of control.

I like open source / free software, but I will admit that the expensive stuff is usually better. I think Adobe has finally addressed this issue, and offers a pay per month type of deal. 

[El Gringo]

I love the numerous rabbit trails this thread has taken. 

Ok, so I got a question regarding Linux. I got a free Dell desktop from my work when they replaced our computers. It's currently running Windows XP, is 2.5GHz and 3.23GB RAM. I don't plan on using it for any heavy computing: just internet browsing, word processing, and iTunes-playing. I am however, one of those web browsers who over a course of a day or two will will find himself with 30 tabs open in his browser. Between all those tabs and iTunes, I'm finding the computer is getting slowed down quite a bit.

My IT guy gave me a copy of Windows 7 I can install on the computer. Will a new OS on an older computer slow it down even more? Am I better off trying Linux?

[Paul der Krake]

You should be fine running 7 on those specs. But yes, now is the perfect time to try Linux now that you have a machine with a clean slate and don't have to worry about saving your files. If you don't like it after a week or two, wipe the computer clean and put Windows on it, no harm done.

[Daley]

My IT guy gave me a copy of Windows 7 I can install on the computer. Will a new OS on an older computer slow it down even more? Am I better off trying Linux?

Depending on the desktop environment or DE (KDE, Gnome, XFCE, Fluxbox, Mate, Cinnamon, etc.) used with Linux, you can breathe a lot of life into an older system just by using less bloated software. Web browsers will use pretty much the same resources no matter what the OS, but the OS and DE itself can have a pretty large impact on overall system performance, as can certain multimedia apps. That said, the specs aren't terrible on that machine and should be plenty fine for a knock-around desktop. Going Windows7/iTunes will likely be counter to this purpose, however. If it can run XP fine, it'd probably run 7 just as well so long as you turned off all the eyecandy and disabled some of the more pointless background services, but the real problem in your proposed setup is iTunes itself. It's a bloated, fetid, resource hogging piece of crap under Windows. Replace it with Foobar2000, and if you need to support an iPhone with it, there's a plugin for that too. Still doesn't address the additional bloat of necessary security software under Windows as opposed to Linux, but it should still be serviceable without necessarily going to Linux unless you just want to expand your horizons (like Paul said, you should do that).

[El Gringo]

I totally agree with your iTunes assessment. I hate it for Windows. But I keep all of my music on a classic iPod. I think I'll give Linux a try, both to get rid of some bloat as well as expand my horizons. With Linux, what would be my best option for a music player that I can use to manage my iPod?

[Daley]

I totally agree with your iTunes assessment. I hate it for Windows. But I keep all of my music on a classic iPod. I think I'll give Linux a try, both to get rid of some bloat as well as expand my horizons. With Linux, what would be my best option for a music player that I can use to manage my iPod?

Most all of them can manage older iPods without trouble, and short of that, there's always disk mode. Just give the default a try with whatever distro you choose.

[greaper007]

Is there a silverlight solution for Linux yet ?    My main computer is my htpc and when I built it, that's what prevented me from going Linux.