Craig. You are completely missing the point of the open source issue. It is not about whether a particular user can modify the source or not. Its about the fact that one can vs. one cannot.

Just because your mom can't modify it doesnt mean that there are not tens of thousands of others who can, and do, and in so doing improve a product that your mom can use, for free. Is this a bad thing? The correct car analogy is that you buy a car and there are thousands of people fixing and improving things on it that you can get for nothing.

iro open source movement in general - at the very least if it does nothing more than increase competition in the marketplace then that, as a consumer, is to be welcomed.


>As the Open Source movement is trying to push Linux more mainstream and onto the desktop, this is a very bad marketing ploy. A very small percentage of the potential market (ie all computer users) really want this feature. It's like a car manufacturer shouting that they have the newest widget on their car when only 2-3% of all car buyers really care.
>
>>
>>On the issue of choice, I agree with you that the average computer user will not be modifying and recompiling their kernal, however, the opportunity does exist. Contrast this with Windows. If something about the OS really harshes your groove, you have what options? If you try to reverse engineer, or otherwise try to dig into the inner workings of the offending module(s), you face criminal charges thanks to the EULA and the UCITA.
>>
>>Choice implies potential and doesn't demand to be acted upon.
>>
>>I have been looking into open source software for the choice and freedom to do with the products as I wish without being tied down with such an onerous EULA such as the ones coming out of most software companies. That the solutions may actually have a higher long term cost is rather immaterial due to the flexibility provided.