1. Software refers to code/programs that aim to perform a task on a computer.
2. Open source refers to a wider ideology, a series of development methods and a means of legally distributing software, through which is it possible to develop software for many applications, including (but not limited to) desktop software.
3. As far as desktop software goes, software that is aimed at a non-technical user, I claimed that my personal position is to prioritise (give importance to) the human over the machine. As far as desktop software goes then, I believe that Open Source has made great strides over the past ten years with projects like KDE and Gnome, but it’s still not ready and lags behind Windows — and of course the Macintosh, although it evolves daily.
4. Despite its deficiencies, Open Source software can be used in a plethora of applications that do not involve usability or technically challenged end-users. Examples of such applications are research applications, industrial applications, firmware software and software for appliances, server software among many others. In many of those applications Open Source software provides a much superior solution

Now the fact that the EU is going to sponsor the use and development of Open Source software does not only cover to what you think Open Source is, but the wider approach to software development, the ideology, the community, no matter what the application is. Either way, you cannot — according to your own statements — just a methodology this way. Under your criteria, Windows have been evolving for about 20 years, whereas Gnome and KDE have only been out for 10 and — still — in many areas they are far ahead of Windows and Mac OS X. This, on its own, I believe should be enough to convince you about the quality of Open Source softweare, not as individual examples, but as a methodology.

Ok, I really hope it’s clearer now (after so many repetitions). Thanks for the comments!

I’m sorry if you found my comment demagogic. That wasn’t my intention.

I believe there is a contradiction in terms when you’re claiming that this is not about ‘usability’ etc. and that you’re always giving the highest importance to humans (as opposed to machines).

In any case, the whole matter, my personal view is that of a user, the user-friendliness etc.; the point of view that xpan is describing in his blog. In other words, I’m responding to the question: “Why is the average user using Windows and not Linux?” Now considering Open Source as an ideology is something else… :-)

I believe you still fail to grasp the essence of this report. This is not about ‘ease of use’, ‘desktop software’, ‘usability’, ‘ergonomics’ etc. I found your mentality comment somewhat demagogic and I find this completely out-of-place here. If you looked — you didn’t have to read them thoroughly if you don’t find them relevant — at my articles that I referred you to earlier and if you have been following my writings here or my comments in other blogs it should be clear to you that I give the highest importance to humans and not the machines.

Now going back to the post. Formally, if you prefer: Open Source != Desktop Linux. You may have associated the two terms, because that’s what you care about, or that you know about — as is the case with most non-technical people following Open Source; yet Open Source is — beyond a theoretical approach to software development, an ideology and a series of methods employed in collaborative development — present in a series of amazingly varied application domains that have very little to do with ‘simple users’ or ‘usability’, concepts that you keep coming back to in your previous comments.

I had read the Economist article that you’re referring to at your blog back when it came out. Besides the gross mistakes that the article contains with regards to the way the community works, the completely baseless comparisons with the commercial approach to software, but also the generalisations as far as contributions etc. — I wouldn’t expect anything better from Economist anyway, ‘pretense is their middle name’ — I believe that Open Source is no panacea (i.e. I would probably be in favour of a hybrid market) and I agree that Open Source is not necessarily a model necessarily applicable to every and any market, industry or activity. Nevertheless, I do not think that we have found a model that is, really: capitalism and the competitive model also lacks in so many areas. But I digress… :)

This mentality is the mistake that (at least some) open source fans make. They judge others by their own standards. They look at the product and not the user.

As far as the ethics go, all I have to say is that ethics is ‘in the eye of the beholder’.

Now let me refer you to some of my posts on Open Source [1].

Now, whether Open Source software is ethically superior to proprietary is a huge subject which I consider absolutely relevant to the article, especially when we are referring to the supporting arguments by an international organisation such as the European Union. I do not understand how you found this ‘flawed’, however I believe that you’ve probably misunderstood the point. In addition, I am trying to comprehend how you can claim that the moral dimension is ‘flawed’ when you’re arguing that the experience of a new user is ‘relevant’ and an ‘important’ example as a means to compare the value of Open Source software. Perhaps you didn’t get the point of the article and/or the report?

Finally, the economics are — largely — what this report is about and what I intended to focus upon.

“I didn’t read the whole article, but I find it a waste of time”

As you wish. However your readers could similarly consider your [1][2][3] links a waste of time. ;-)

“Open Source software provides a superior solution, not just ethically, not just practically, but also economically over proprietary solutions.”

I respect your opinion. However, the ‘ethically’ part is probably wrong. As far as ‘practically’ goes I think my links give an idea of whether this is true or not. As far as ‘economically’ goes I do not have an opinion at this time.