Why is open source always less popular than propriety alternative?

Why is open source always less popular than propriety alternative?

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>"open source"
>open source bashing meme

>accompanied with a 2.28MB png screencap (because popular proprietary software aka. mspaint cannot into jpg or png properly) featuring a video straight from reddits frontpage

like fucking pottery

Marketing. They spend some of the money they bring in from selling proprietary software on advertising to deceive people into buying more of it.

Its like how if you ask any ten normies what mutual funds their savings are in, most of them will be in actively-managed ones despite the fact that they're an objectively worse deal than index funds. Some of the ~1% the fund manager takes off the top gets spend on advertising, sales, bribing financial advisers to push their funds, etc.

proprietary always have better app icons

Open source projects generally have no interest in getting a lot of users because more users mean more retards submitting bug reports with no information or not even related to the product as well as suggesting a lot of stupid and useless features only they would use. Without advertising it the project is more likely to be found only by tech literate people who have the intelligence to either submit helpful bug reports, useful features or even contribute code to the project themselves.

Open Source is shit.

FREE(libre)-software is where it's at.

lol, sometimes.

Or just the intelligence to manage to use the software on their own as they find it, and read documentation/search the internet to solve any problems they have with it. Most of the population seems incapable of doing this.

gcc gnu c compiler

you bash reddit but know its front page material?

Most of the population would rather just do something else with their time.

1. They have nearly no marketing.
2. Perceived value. Subjectively, something that costs nothing feels like it's worth nothing. Even if I tell you that 8/10 of the datacenters are powered by Linux and an experience you can essentially reproduce by installing the free-of-charge-and-free-as-in-beer CentOS, you'll still feel like Windows Server is more valuable because it costs $1,200.

You ask me.

why is nginx gaining so much ground over apache?

>open source always less popular than propriety alternative
Isn't Linux running on like 60% of all public-facing web servers, and 90%+ of all large-scale public-facing web servers?
Don't IP PTZ security cameras all run Linux?
Don't tons of routers run Linux?
I mean, Linux is pretty much the #1 choice for embedded devices and web servers.
So there's that.

I believe it was 498 of the last TOP500 list of the world's most powerful supercomputers that run Linux. but that might be last year's, I forget.

But is the software that those systems run actually open source? Anyone can put up a web server in apache but most web sites are not open source.

Because it isn't absolute trash

whats wrong with apache?

Because compiling things is a skill check and most people can't pass it.

slow af in some areas, you can combine ngnix and apache for gainz

Yeah but people don't actively use those machines. It just receives requests from other computers.

If I mail a letter, I only interact with a mailbox. If something is wrong with or requires special instructions to use the mailbox, then this affects the user. Whether or not the airplane used to ship the mail is .2% less efficient in shipping volume than another plane of equal cost back the post office was ordering planes is absolutely moot to the end user and he never sees it.

Linux and open source in general only occupies this realm of computing, where an engineer makes a few decisions, sets some things up, and users only have very limited, if any, direct contact with that machine.

Most people using open source software directly are either doing it for professional work or because their lives involve research/academic/professional work involving open source software so they are simply used to using it.

why does software need a skill check?

1. If all your friends play on the PS4, you're getting the PS4 if you want to play with them. If all your colleagues do their work in Office, guess what, stupid?

2. Businesses take every situation into account and typically make their program usable with similar proprietary software so you use both if you have to for different projects.

3. The features are almost always rich and seamless. Freeware is pretty bare bones. The fact that freewaretards are more likely to be minimalists doesn't help this at all.

4. Creates a nice standard. No reason to have to go through a bunch of hot ass to get your movie career started when you can just buy Premiere Pro. The fact that most of the people you make the movie with will also be using it makes real-time collaboration leagues easier. Same with Pro Tools and Photoshop.

5. Work. If you make money with it, the people that made it should expect payment and not hope for donations.

>Literally retarded

Try to find a proprietary h264 encoder more popular than x264, oh wait you can't.

because propriety is backed by huge companies, which make lots of advertisements to normies, when open/libre is backed by way smaller companies/foundations
for example, look at articles that say mp3 is dead, they don't recommend OPUS even though it's good as ACC, every news website shill ACC and never mentions OPUS, like they never mentioned GNU/Linux when XP is dead instead "they" recommended windows 7 and maybe a hardware upgrade if your machine is old

Is not VLC like the most popular video player?

nginx is not gaining that much ground over Apache. nginx is often used as a reverse proxy to Apache for static content, so you only see nginx on the front-end of things.

thats not how isn't works you retard. popular doesnt mean better, closed source players are occasionally better than vlc but mpv is better anyway

Op said "popular" not "better". Get your head out of your own ass.

>x264
x264 is proprietary tho

Open Source is not the opposite of proprietary software. For Open Source, proprietary software is acceptable.

The opposite of nonfree software is free software.

Have some reads:
gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.html

>android
>apache
>mysql/mariadb
If there is a healthy competition of software therefore it can catch on, it can btfo the closed source.