Craig, with all due respect I dont think you get it at all. The open source issue is simply not about who can change the code or who wants to change the code or whether end-users want to change the code. It is about the simple fact that the code is in the public domain. It can be changed. And because of that end-users are not locked into any single vendors product. Choice. Open.


>No, I totally understand this issue. However, why would the average user even CARE about this? Reality is, they don't.

This is a huge generalization without, I suspect, proper research, and falls into the same category as what you call the "lies and half-truths of the open source community". Nevermind, lets move on...

What the average end-user cares about should not be the guiding light with respect to the ideal of open source. The open source issue is not about what the end-user wants per se, but about the freedom from being locked into a platform effectively dictated by a profit motivated entity.

To judge the value of open source projects by what the average end-user (currently) understands of the IT world is ridiculous. Thats like judging the value of medical research by looking at what the layman thinks about it. The value of the open source projects must be considered by IT people, people who understand it and can think about the implications of it. A jury of its peers if you will.


>Let's go back to your idea of thousands of people improving an open source pRoduct and look at it from the point of view of the average user. In fact, let's pick an easy to discuss topic...a security hole that can let in a worm. How difficult would it be for the average user to patch a Linux system compared to a Windows system. I say it's MUCH easier to do on Windows. You just run Windows update.

The Windows update feature is not a miraculous invention and I am sure that the open source developers will have this soon, if not already? On top of which the number of times Windows needs to be patched vs Linux is most telling dont you think? IAC this has nothing to do with the open source issue.


>Now, think about how many people really do that....not many.

Have you researched this? Or is this just an opinion?


>My point is, the ability to have things easily changed in Linux is not important to the average user. Geeks like it. A few CEOs may like it, but it is meaningless to the average user. The average user will use the OS as it came installed.

You confuse a practical issue, an end-user education issue, with the ideal and purpose of the open source movement. Do not confuse the average end-users current behaviour pattern or opinion with how she/he would behave or think if they were educated about the open source movement and what it means to their freedom of choice.