"Open source" softwares are superior a lot of time, sure.
But you're missing the larger moral/ethical aspect, here.
The real value of "open source" is freedom. The freedom to share copies with your friend, the freedom to modify the softwares, the freedom to study the software as you wish.
You see, it doesn't matter how expensive or cheap "open source" is. The freedom is really the defining feature of "open source" softwares. All superiority of softwares are temporary and any competent proprietary vendors worth its salt can match "open source" softwares in term of values and quality. Any proprietary vendors can give their softwares away for free.
The real selling point is the liberty. That is the real value.
Now, I don't really use the term "open source" in my daily lives as a developer. I called them Free softwares as in free as in freedom. Open source to me is just trendy and marketingspeak. Open source is a term originated in 1998. Free softwares, which describe the same identical set of softwares, originated decade earlier. There is a movement called the Free software movement that spawn the open source movement. The difference is subtle.
It is very easy to relinquish your freedom. Software quality can come later.
That's why I used inferior flash player known as Gnash, just because it is Free softwares.
Free softwares are not necessary better but they either give you freedom or protect your.
Don't fall for "Free/Open Source is ALWAY better than proprietary softwares" crap. It's BS.
|