I really wonder about my roommate tonight. We had another "discussion" of our thoughts on the Open Source Philosophy. This is something that happens every so often, tonight it was brought on by a visit from another member of our software development group. He's interested in using Linux and learning more about it. So naturally I jumped in and wanted to support his interest. We began to discuss the merits of Linux. My roommate is under the impression that everyone knows how to use Windows and its the simplest interface ever for a computer. So in his mind, if everyone already knows how to use Windows, everyone should just continue to use it, whether or not there is something better or cheaper. Linux has yet to make it mainstream, but I, and many others, don't think it will be too much longer before we see a dramatic increase in Linux use amoung the general computing public.

Now for some people, a computer is a power tool. I like to make my computer work for me. I spend a lot of time on my computer and I like to customize it to my liking. For people like me, Linux provides an excellent system to learn more about my own computer as well as make my computer into what i want it to be. For other people, a computer is a mysterious, magic box and they have no desire to learn how or why it works. They simply want to be able to use it for a few simple tasks like browsing the Web, sending some emails, maybe some word processing. They're happy to just accept whatever is given to them as long as it works. These days, Microsoft has such a stranglehold on desktop computing, so when most people buy a new computer it has Windows pre-installed. Since they can just turn it on and it works, they're happy. If you were to replace their Windows operating system with a Linux system, many of these people would not notice much of a difference. Linux is fully capable of doing all the same things as Windows but at a much better price... free. If someone only wants to use their computer for very simple and general purposes, why they have to pay so much for an operating system like Windows when there is an equally capable operating system that is free? In recent years, many computer retailers have begun to offer computers that are preloaded with Linux instead of Windows, saving consumers hundreds of dollars in licensing fees, and making computers more accessible to people in general. When you don't have to pay for a Windows license and Office license, you can save a whole lot of money, yet you don't lose any productivity when using the Free software. And then a few years down the road, when you want to upgrade your software, you don't have to pay again for updates. If people added up what they'd paid over the years for Windows and Office upgrades, I think they'd really be surprised. I don't know about you, but I can think of better ways to spend my money than to pay Microsoft for newer, buggy software that is gonna break compatibility with my other software and make me spend more money to upgrade it, which then breaks something else and I have to buy some other software to fix it and then --- well... i think you understand. It's a viscious cycle that really doesn't make sense to me. Why should some sweet little grandma, who barely uses her computer, be forced into this totally unnecessary upgrade cycle that only profits the software makers?

Now what really blew my mind was what my roommate said before he stormed out of the room. He's fond of calling me a Communist because I support the idea of legally sharing software. Yet he had the gall to say that we shouldn't give anything away for free. Apparently giving things away for free makes him sad because then people who charge for those same things don't make as much money. So I'm the communist when he's the one who wants to tell people how they can spend their free time and how much they have to charge for their products. Now we both took economics, so I can recognize that as the Communist idea of a command economy pretty easily. Here in the US we like Capitalism, where if someone can create an equal or better product for less, well good for them. And if you can't continue to compete, well then you are the loser. And just because something is free, doesn't mean you can't compete. It's competition like this that drives innovation and in general is good for the consumer. It's Survival of the Fittest at its finest. But if we take his line of thinking that nothing should be free, then I guess all these Christian churches would have to stop their benevolence programs because we wouldn't want to take away business from retailers like Wal-Mart. Those poor people should just go buy everything like everyone else. And those dirty soup kitchens need to stop giving away soup for free because Campbells needs those homeless people's money. And from now on, no more free Bibles for people because its more important to make money than to try to save souls. I can understand that he wants to be able to take his education that he's paid a lot for and make some money from it, and in his eyes someone who can write software and not charge for it is a big threat. This just shows his complete ignorance of the economy we live it. If he wants to sell a product and be able to compete with something that is free, then he needs to be able to provide some sort of value which is worth paying his price. If he can't do that, then i'm sorry, but he needs to do something else. I shouldn't have to pay for his software just to keep him in business. That's one of the most upsetting and ridiculous things I've heard in a long, long time. Much like what has been happening with Microsoft, if he was guarenteed cash flow despite, what would be his motivation to innovate or improve quality. He could produce whatever he wanted as poorly as he wanted and still be paid... this is what is wrong with software these days. People can get away with selling such garbage simply because there hasn't been another choice. But now there is, and if you can't compete, then you have to move on. That's the way we do business around here.