Since the ideology of software freedom is still swirling in our heads, this being the week Richard Stallman gave two talks at NUS, let me talk about something at the opposite end. Embracing commercial, paid-for, non-free software. Evil software, so says the GNU man, like Microsoft Office. So, I need to ask, how many of you out there embrace evil software?
I don’t specifically go out to embrace non-free software. They usually cost money, and since I don’t print money, I don’t want to spend it unnecessarily. But I’m a practical person. Sometimes, the non-free software presents the best solution. If there was a free software that was nearly as good, would I consider using that instead? Yes, of course, I will give it due consideration. That due consideration means that there will be some process of evaluation. Free (both as in beer and speech) is good, but that doesn’t mean free always wins.
So, if there were an equivalent free software to something that is paid-for and non-free, I will certainly have to evaluate and weigh the pros and cons of each one of them. This process of evaluation is not going to be very much different comparing two paid-for and non-free software against each other. It’s just about comparing two different software solutions. Cost, is just one attribute in the evaluation matrix.
When I was a poor student with little money, cost would be a very important factor in any evaluation. (I’m assuming we’re all talking about acquiring and using software legally.) Once you’ve graduated, entered the workforce, and started earning a decent salary, the cost factor starts to change. You still want to save money (again, unless you’re earning tons of money), but there is now more flexibility. Your priority may start to shift.
Let’s look at some examples.
I have been using various virtualization solutions. At one point, it was Sun’s VirualBox. I could go for the “freer” version, and suffer some inconvenience, or get the “less-free” version, and benefit from its greater feature set. Both are free, as in free beer. As a practical person, I went for convenience, and downloaded the ‘less-free” version of VirualBox. This was on my MacBook Pro.
After using VirtualBox for a while, I decided to try out VMware Fusion. I hadn’t want to try Fusion previously because, well, it’s not free and I didn’t want to end up loving it so much after trying it, then finding myself “forced” to buy it. I tried Fusion, and true enough, loved it so much I had to buy it. Today, I still wonder why I ever put up with VirtualBox back then. It was, comparatively, such a lousy software and made life so difficult. Fusion enabled me to get whatever I needed done faster, more enjoyably, and then move on to other things.
Talk about “freedom”: Which software gave me more freedom?
Let’s talk about office suites. I’ve tried many office application suites. StarOffice, OpenOffice, NeoOffice, AbiWord, Applixware, Polaris Office, Google Docs, and I don’t know what else I have forgotten. I give up. The world needs Microsoft Office. If you are going to collaborate with anyone, unless you get everyone to agree to use the same software (e.g. OpenOffice), you are definitely going to run into some “interoperability” problems. Document formatting will mess up, or something inconvenient and unproductive like that.
So, let’s face the reality. Most people are likely to be using Microsoft Office. If you are going to be able to work productively with any of them, the most practical solution is to use Microsoft Office.
Even if you could get everyone to agree on some free office suite, like say, OpenOffice, if you put cost aside, is it really the best solution for you? Yes, I know, some folks talk about how Microsoft Office is overkill, that it does too many things you don’t even ever need to know about. But can OpenOffice do enough, and do it well enough, everything that you need an office suite to do?
I was using Office 2004 for Mac, and recently, bought myself a copy of Office for Mac 2011. I couldn’t be happier. Not the least because it enabled me to work happily and productively. But, actually, I concluded after also investing in Apple’s Keynote, I realized that Powerpoint is really better, at least for what I want to do. Yes, I’ve determined that, for my needs, Powerpoint is more suitable than Keynote. Don’t tell me that Powerpoint is overkill and Steve Jobs uses Keynote so Keynote must be better.
People in certain circles had long considered Microsoft “evil”. I used to. It started a long time ago, in the era of Windows 3.1, when I was very happily supporting OS/2 (after Microsoft pulled out of OS/2). Then when I moved on to Linux, there was still no love for Microsoft.
But eventually, the reality set in: Microsoft Office is necessary. It enabled me to get work done. It enabled me to work with and collaborate with other people. I had to support that evil software from that evil empire.
My point is not to sell the idea of non-free software, or tell you that you should embrace non-free software. My point is that free software is not always the most suitable solution. To me, it isn’t “freedom” if you find yourself “locked out” of benefits that people in the rest of the world are enjoying, or prevented from getting your work done efficiently and effectively. To me, “freedom” also means to be happy, to be able to do what I want to do. This “freedom” to do what I want to do, mind you, is a whole lot more than just being able to study software, to distribute software, or to modify software as I deem fit.
Life, is so much more than that.
Most of the time, there isn’t anything really evil about non-free software. They may have taken away your freedom in some way, but they give it back in other ways. Don’t shun non-free software just because they are non-free.
View Comment Policy