ANY piece of proprietary software will one day die for good unless its code is liberated (if that happens belatedly, like Microsoft releasing code it wrote before I was born... no sooner than 2020... then it's worthless).

"When we look objectively at Linux and assess the breadth of usage of GNU or Curl or Firefox (well, not so much anymore because Mozilla lost its way) we quickly come to the realisation that the world is based on Free software."FUD isn't a new concept. Blame IBM for it. IBM started it. Evil company. Monopolist. Arrogant. Ask people old enough (like parents or grandparents if you're young) how smug IBM engineers used to be back in the days they were presumed emperors of the universe, both hardware and software. Without IBM, Microsoft would be nothing (probably wouldn't exist past the 1980s).

A month ago I quit reading "Open Source" news after more than 15 years (doing so every day!); it was so full of FUD and misinformation that I could no longer stand it. It was pure noise or close to pure noise (over 90% of it was garbage).

"So basically, what the media calls "Open Source" is nowadays more suitable (for pragmatic reason) or fit for purpose (technically) than this "enterprise software" or "commercial software"..."When we look objectively at Linux and assess the breadth of usage of GNU or Curl or Firefox (well, not so much anymore because Mozilla lost its way) we quickly come to the realisation that the world is based on Free software. It runs everywhere (never mind if the media calls it "Open Source"; the media giants have their own agenda, based upon the owners'). If there's that (false) dichotomy of "enterprise software" or "commercial software" (what the media likes calling secret/proprietary software) compared to "free" stuff (they mean price but mockingly allude to free/libre software as shoddy), why do so many choose the latter -- and more so over time, despite all the FUD?

Maybe it's technically better, right?

And if it's copyleft-licensed (GPL is still vast in the lines of code sense), then "enterprise software" or "commercial software" can have none of that (unless it decides to self-liberate).

"If Microsoft et al can hijack and warp the meaning of words, so can (should?) we."So basically, what the media calls "Open Source" is nowadays more suitable (for pragmatic reason) or fit for purpose (technically) than this "enterprise software" or "commercial software"...

Let's take control of words like 'corporate' (whatever they even mean), too. The openwashing agenda misuses these words to confuse us.

"What software do you use, Madam?"

"I use commercial enterprise corporate GNU software, thanks for asking, Sir!"

If Microsoft et al can hijack and warp the meaning of words, so can (should?) we. Messaging is very important, sometimes as important as the code, as with poor messaging it's hard to convince people to actually use the code. ⬆