Published at LXer:

Nathan Zale Dowlen objects to proprietary software, so when he opened his new law office, he outfitted it with Ubuntu Linux and open source software. Cost was the main factor in his decision at first, but he has since come to appreciate the security found in FOSS and the ease of use found with Ubuntu. Dowlen has used Linux and open source software since 2006, when he attended the Nashville School of Law, and had no trouble with compatibility, since "OpenOffice.org will open almost anything thrown at it." He recorded lectures with Audacity and even found that his "Linux based laptop did a better job of automatically finding printers on the school's wireless network than when it ran Windows."

Read More...

> However, "cost was my first concern," Dowlen admits.

There wasn't any principled objection, like a lot of people, he just needed to save money. Also like a lot of people, when he saw what Linux could offer, he immediately grasped the tremendous advantages of Linux.

It's not very helpful to smear proprietary software with the Microslop paintbrush. It's as if there's Linux and Microslop, and nothing else on either side. That's just silly.

Microslop was not even a twinkle in anyone's eye when the proprietary software industry began, and today it is not representative of anything except as a marketing success with nothing of value behind it.

There is plenty of proprietary, closed-source software (including probably 95% or more of the world's transaction processing software) which is of much higher quality, more reliable, and performs better than any UNIX or Linux variant. The issue is not proprietary or open source, the issue is good and bad.

Windows is not bad because it's proprietary, it's bad because, well, nobody has the time to read the whole list.

I expect LQ Community members are intelligent enough to make the distinction.