[mordocai]

> Free software or even open source software is neither superior nor inferior by definition.

Strongly disagree with your implication here and the rest of your comment, though I agree with the literal text you wrote in this sentence.

FOSS is superior for the end user because it can help avoid vendor lock-in (someone else can always take the code and run their own service/app that the user can then switch to) and allows the user themselves to pay someone to fix issues/maintain the software if it becomes unmaintained.

You are quite correct in your point that FOSS is not necessarily more featureful, more secure, or easier to use than proprietary solutions though.

[_pdp_]

I understand where you are coming from but I disagree with some parts of your comment.

FOSS is not superior to the end user because by no means it helps with the vendor lock-in. Remember that the vendor in FOSS is the developer and when they decide to ditch the product it does not mean that someone automatically will step in to take the job. Therefore, the customer is locked in anyway. You are assuming that the customer will support the product but they may not have the technical know-how nor the interest to do it. What is the difference between a dead closed-source product and a dead open-source product?

In fact, more often than not you see the opposite happening - someone creates an open-source alternative of an already established closed-source products or services to piggyback on the established success.

I am dissing FOSS. :)I am only only trying to present a balanced view that at the end of the day all software is equal as long as it does the job for the time it is used.

[mordocai]

> What is the difference between a dead closed-source product and a dead open-source product?

The difference is that with an open source product you can always choose to pay someone to maintain it, even if just for long enough to move away from it. With a closed source product you are SOL and may not even be allowed to use it anymore after the company goes under depending on the details.

[codazoda]

Vendor lock-in is often solved by competition for proprietary software so it's not a great argument by itself. Software patents not withstanding.

[st3v3r]

I disagree with your disagreement. The usability and functionality of the software is the paramount concern. Who cares if you're not "locked into it" if the software sucks to begin with? You probably wouldn't start anyway.