What right have you got to give people orders relating to their own computers?

It was no order but my personal advice ;-).

Now let me explain shortly why open-source softwares are better :-).
With open-source softwares :
You get free support for bugs, documentation etc.
You dont get spies inside trying to know your habits.
You dont get a huge piece of software eating 500Mb of RAM.
You can get in touch with a nice community of users like here.
You can read the source code and check it, correct it and even create your software.
You can help open-source project directly and give your personal touch.
You can propose new ideas of design etc.
Etc.

Try it with proprietary softwares. And good luck :-).

People should decide for themselves what software to use, based on their own needs and preferences.

It is not true that all open source programs are better than any commercial software. Most of the reasons people choose what program to use are related to the characteristice of that particular program, nothing to do with what license it is released under.

Most of the "reasons" you have listed are either untrue or entirely subjective. Whatever your priorties are, don't assume everyone in the world shares them.

Most commercial software does come with some from of support. In fact, many open source programs explicitly don't offer any of the support you would get with a program you paid for.

Not all non-open source software is spyware.

That's all to do with the characteristice of certain programs, and absolutely nothing to do with what license it is released under.

If you want to get in touch with a community like this then that's your choice, but that's hardly a priority for someone who just wants to get a job done.

If you've got a PHD in programming you might be able to, but that's hardly relevant to the average end user.

Some producers accept user suggestions, some don't. That is the same for open source software as any other. In my experience, most open source producers pay very little attention to user feedback, wheras commercial producers actually have a commercial interest in listening to what customers demand.

Everybody knows :
People are free to choose their software.
Open-source are not always better.

In my opinion, I prefer open-source progs. And I wrote why.

And please let me add, in my experience :
- commercial supports often cost (a lot of) money and dont always help that much.
- open-source progs are often good written :-).
- I like open-source communities because I learn a lot there and there are nice people :-).
- Open-source progs are free or dont cost that much.
- I dont have PHD in programming but even the "average end user" has small programming notions (I learned to use computers at school when I was 14-15 and most of people did).
- When a proprietary soft is discontinued, dont expect anything more. Thats not the case with open-source products : projects can fork and live forever :-).
- In my experience, I wrote bug reports or ideas to open source projects and I was at least read, if not taken into account. Never happened with commercial products except if you pay a lot or if too many people complain for a bug.

Please respect other people's right to choose their own software, and don't nag them to chooes software based purely on your personal preferences.

That may be your experience, but that doesn't necessarily match everyone else's experience.

Most people may have learned to use computers, but not to modify source code and write their own software. A user with the programming ability necessary to do this is hardly average.

I fully respect people's choice.

But :
I am free to give my opinion here.
I am free to talk about my experience here.

Please respect that freedom.

Thanks.

Nagging users to "use open-source softwarte first" doesn't sound very respectful of other users' choice. Niether does saying (at least implicitly) that one "may not" use proprietary unless no equivalent open source software exists.

Of course you are free to share your experiences, but there's a difference between sharing personal experiences and nagging other users, which is what you have been doing.

When I write "I recommend this" or "please use open-source softwares", or "you may use this", that's my personal advice.

I also explained why open-source softwares are often better.

People are free to agree with me or not ;-).

If you want to have the last word, then please. I have better things to do :-).

Nowhere in your original post did you say anything like "I recomend that...".

You started by saying

Which is clearely atempting to order other users around. If you had said "I recomend trying open source software" that would be a different case, but that is not what you said.

You then ended by saying

If you had said "you may also use proprietary software" then again this would have been a different case, but you didn't. You in fact said that one may use proprietary software only when it satisfies criteria of yours. It is not for you to place restrictions on what circumstances one may do something under.

That can also be true of commercial software. My Win2k partition has several programs that sprang up when others were discontinued. These programs were written specifically to do the exact same thing (many of them with very simular interfaces) as the programs they replaced. Why? Because there was a demand for them. Some of them are free, some shareware, some paid. One thing you will find if you spend a significant amount of time in several OSes is, most of them have the same basic things going for them. Not everything will be the same, nor should it. If all things were identical, why would there be more than 1 OS? But you will find the same sorts of users in each one, complementing this, bitching about that, suggesting this, contesting that. I don't care if its Windows or Linux or Sun OS or Free BSD or OS/2. An OS is a OS, a user is a user. While each has it differences, they also have similarities. Having said that, I have multiple OSes on my box for the following reasons:
1. I like to tinker. I don't know everything about anything, and I doubt I'll ever come close. But I like to experiment.

2. Some OSes have better S/W for a given task than others. This is subject to change w/out notice however, as the "OS War" rages and OSes jockey for position.

3. I can't see letting go of a perfectly good OS even if it becomes outdated. I still have installed (and use) MS-DOS. I also still have my old fc4 Disks, though that OS is no longer installed on my box.

That's just how I am. Others will be different. Some may be simular to me. That's the beauty of the whole thing, the similarity within diversity. And for the love of the Gods, would MS PLEASE port their Messenger (and Messenger Plus!) to linux?!

Since this has become a debate over if linux should or should not accept proprietary ports and such im going to throw an example of where many linux users are happy with paying big bucks. GAMES! especily 3d games. the company that makes the unreal engine basicly suports linux like no other all but one of there games for pc run on linux or have been ported. the creators of quake have always released their engines after they make a new game making the open source and propritary????? more companys should do this especily the release of the origional unreal engine would be nice.

i thought the use of linux was an alternative to overpriced OS's and unnneeded bugs and constant fixes. this whole debate about who uses and who dosnt use payed software is stupid. i suport open source but iv always live by this story.

"when a man is stuck in a hole with you and you have a piece of meat in your hand your willing to sell him for $100 bucks is it wrong for him to pay for it? then what if theere is a piece of slightly better(but less preatty) meat in the hole for free (but noone knows where it came from), should he not take that? what if theirs a slightly more rancid piece of meat for free and that meat tells you exacly where its been and whas in it... but its hidden under a rock.... is it more safe?"

all these seem easy but their not! to difrent people the reason is obvious, but never the same...

-if you take the $100 your getting meat thats guarentted to be good, and someone to yell at later and sue if it isnt.

- the second one might be better but it dosnt look nice and their isnt anyone to sue if that meat does hurt you, badly.

- the last one is nice becuse you know where its from and most likely that its gotta be at least ok. but its not as good, but in the light of sourcecode you can make it better.

this shows the problem with freeness you get that no-guarentee issue.

so when you pay for somthing its really paying for people who's jobs depend on making you happy. like having a maid that works in the background, you dont know what its doing or how but it does a good job and you never have to give it too many commands and exacts for it to get it done

when you download free but non-open-source code you get a slave, they do what you want, but not as good, or as nicely as you might like, and they dont always look preatty. but none the less it all works unless you have a rebelion.

but when you dowload sourcecode your getting a really dedicated (and sometimes freaky) girlfreind (please follow me) itll do anythign you want if you tell it how, but it sometiems needs alot of instructions and is always asking you what you want. for somepeople thats annoying, and its always difrent from girl to girl (or program to program) now you can get a girl that someone else ahs already setup in the way shes gonna be and that can never changed or be bettered (but whats the point of open source if you cant edit what you want).

i hope this clears up in a sence why some people choose to pay, download non-open-source, or download source files. if you really read it it makes sence

if you want to see more commercial software on Linux, you need to support commercial software. I still want my Photoshop port so I think I may purchase a copy.