|
Top-level
 There is a time cost to learning a new system. And a lot of people don't want to pay that cost to wean themselves off a proprietary software. (A lot of "poor UI" complaints are really "UI is not identical to what I trained on"). But that has to be weighed against the risk! At any moment, a proprietary single-supplier can choke you right out of business, by suddenly deciding to charge (or charge more) for access. That's my main business reason for FOSS tools. 4 comments
 @rysiek @TerryHancock @nicemicro Specific examples are great. They're solvable, ready to bake bits of work. What's missing isn't the functionality, it's the organisation needed to construct them.  @doctormo @rysiek @TerryHancock Right. But for those changes to be made, it is the coders, who need to do the work. While features are missing for the business use case, advocating #FreeSoftware for the business users will make minimal impact. Unless of course you can convince the business owners to pay for the missing features to be implemented, while they keep paying for the proprietary software that lets them pay the bills now. @nicemicro @rysiek @TerryHancock If you leave it to programmers, you will have programmer choices. Which is most of what has already been rejected by non programmers. Yes, I know asking for investment in the future requires quite a lot of imagination and a canyon full of trust. That is why the stories we tell about Free Software have to be of an unusually high quality. Call for the bards. |
Gregory's Server
@TerryHancock in the broader thread there are plenty of examples of specific functionality that is missing from FLOSS alternatives. It's not just "I don't like that the button layout is different".
@doctormo @nicemicro