Like better compatibility. If you have the source to a piece of software, you're free to do what you like with it, compile it in any way you want, install it on any system you want, modify it how you like. None of that implies that it has to be "free", though.

Take two scenarios:

1) You buy a piece of proprietary, closed-source software. You HAVE to run it on the platforms they dictate, if a bug appears, you have to wait for them to fix it, if there's a security vulnerability, you have to wait for them to fix it, if you upgrade your system, you might not be able to take it with you and so on.

2) You get an open source piece of software. You can compile it for any platform you like, if there's a bug you can fix it yourself (or hire someone to fix it - remember, we're talking about big corporations here as well as desktop users), if there's a security vulnerability discovered, chances are there'll be a patch from whoever discovered it. If you upgrade your system, you can take the software with you since it likely will just take a recompile.

Some companies offer the open source software for free, but then let you pay for support (which could be anything from on-site support, to updates, to phone support). Once again, not necessarily free.

Furthermore, and most importantly, Open-source is open to the community. anyone can look at the code, submit bugs and even write in new features, making it better for everyone. Imagine what would happen if the PS3OS or 360OS were open source, pretty much any video support you wanted would be added, all kinds of fancy dash/XMB options would be created, better web browsers (comparable to our desktop ones) would be added and you can bet that every feature you've ever wanted would be added. That's the power of open source.

And sometimes, the educational value is still there as well. Both ID and Epic have released source codes to some of their engines (Most famously Doom and Quake 3's), but that's not made those GAMES free, just the source code. To play the games, you still must buy a license. That's a fine example right there.

Another point with Open Source is, it doesn't protect you from malware or other insidious behavior. Example is the open source pdf printer software "pdfCreator":

"Users have reported that this software changes their computer settings. PDFCreator's end-user-license-agreement states that the software will "modify your Microsoft Internet Explorer and/or Mozilla Firefox browser settings for the default search engine, address bar search, "DNS error" page, "404 error" page, and new tab page to facilitate more informative responses as determined by The Toolbar". All instances of "page not found - 404 errors" redirect to a malicious search site." -excerpt from wikipedia (that I can personally confirm a few of those applied to me).

Open Source is great and I tend to steer towards open source applications I can find, but they have numerous issues and isn't the solution to all.

I very much agree with the submission and think that in some ways Open Source actually increases the entry bar in terms of user friendliness. I think both proprietary and open source needs to exist for this balance.

@Kushan: Well, you are generally right, but once a successful project is open sourced, it is impossible to close it again, because the code is out there and people can use it as an example to build their own codebase.

It is possible to change from e.g. GPL to a proprietary license, but let's be realistic here. Four months later, a new software will be born with a new codebase, but almost identical features. It's impossible to prevent that.

PS3 fanboys on N4G get more sad by the day. Of course the ps3 dies everyday a little bit.

Hope sony will pull the plug soon.

ssssstupid comment man. You actually want your beloved M$ not to have any competition to keep them inovating? Fact. If you didnt have a playstation 2 the xbox would not be what it is today.

Imagine a world where M$ doesn't have any competition. Would they push the envelope? No.

Sony and Microsoft need to co-exist. They push each other to deliver better experiences to us all.

Competition in captalism is a great thing. Please think before you make your fanboy comments man. I love my ps3 and I hate M$ however I can see that both companies have there strong and weak points and when one company exploits the others weakness they get a posotive response that improves the companies offerings as a whole.

Sony is not going to pull the plug, people say MS hatred is a disease, well what about the hatred towards the ps3? Just because the ps3 is 3rd in sales its automatically doomed, but what about the yearly average sales which are just about equal, sure the 360 had a head start and this will give them a head start in sales and this is what people don't realize. Besides MS fanboys like you refuse to see the qualities of the PS3 because you are so set on hating it. Likewise with Sony fanboys who hate the console purely on principle. To you I say F*** off, you should know better. Brand loyalty is one thing and if a person can only afford one console or is in need of only one thats one thing but blind fanboy hatred is immature and it only breed unnecessary conflict.

Droids can't read

If only he could manage a stable OS, then I would be a supporter, but the problem is that just like dos, linux, and the PS3 its just garbage.

Badabim badaboom the penguin has begun.

Trillupi trilupa the PS3 its crap.

No it is $600 with the laptop you bought from Apple.

Those small fees for the OS updates are what I call holding me hostage. I have run into cases where I cannot install a piece of software I bought without paying Apple $75 (if I don't remember wrong) to upgrade the OS so it is now compatible with the software.

Your paid $75 for an OS UPGRADE. OS upgrades are not the same thing as Service Packs. Being angry at Apple because you are trying to run a 10.5 app on 10 is your fault, not theirs. Also, OEM OSs are included in the price you pay for any computer, be it Mac or PC.

I don't care if it is an upgrade or not. If I bought Windows XP and it came with SP1, but my software needed SP3. I would have no problem installing it after I get a free download from MS. With Apple, they call it an OS upgrade and force me to pay for an upgrade.

Whatever you call it, I'm still extorted to pay for the update or upgrade. MS could equally have called SP2 an upgrade because it included a host of new features including built-in firewall.

If the word 'upgrade' justifies $75 is fine with you then good for you!!! Personally I would not put up with a maintenance fee on top of the premium priced hardware.

My comment about the $600 was in regards to how Macs are priced at a premium to their PC brethren for the same hardware. There is nothing wrong with that if you prefer Macs, but ignoring that fact and claiming that Windows is priced at $600 is just ridiculous.

Yeah, but the only reason its changed is because of Firefox. Just like the Windows OS will likely improve now, pass the costly upgrades that requires tons of updates over years before working anywhere near to promised, is going to be dependent on how well the Chrome OS does.

But expect any Linux based app that MS owns which Chrome OS needs to become restricted before Windows really starts to improve.

@Action Bastard:
No, I'm talking about OS apps. All the code MS puts into into Linux much of which no one except them have an idea of what it is. That's the thing, though Linux is open MS "owns" enough of it that they can kill it on a whim, or worse, should it become more popular Windows.

Linux based MS apps (Office, IE, etc) don't exists and will probably never exist, so Chrome OS should be ok.

LOL!!!!! Without Microsoft I wouldn't of been born!

Things happen without MS. Relax!

You do understand that Microsoft didn't create Windows right?

ummm, have you heard of open source, you can create games on things other than windows

Also, Sony went into the console business when nintendo gave them the big finger at a E3 press conference

I think hugi is trying to brainwash us and is an android which only function is to convince people Microsoft is necessary to continue life as we know it.
=(
truth is microsoft has made appealing products to the public but to the gaming world it would not be as we know it if it were not for nintendo,atari ,etc. sony hopped on at the right time and helped build the industry to what it is now .......microsoft........not really
so hugi please stop looking at microsoft as this god

Do you even have any idea what microsoft does to the tech world? They buy out companies with better ideas and technology so they won't have any competition, and for the most part they simply dispose of the ideas because they aren't their own. If the company doesn't sell themselves then Microsoft will buy out the resources the company needs to survive.

In fact the only reason Microsoft got into this console generation was to beat one of their only competitions Sony. They didn't give a damn about gaming or consoles they are just obsessed with money and making sure no competition exists.

Microsoft hasn't survived all these years because of their brilliant ideas and their pushing towards innovation but because of their brilliance in public relations and buisness. They've ruthlessly destroyed software and hardware companies for 'profit'.

They are the embodiment of whats wrong with capitalism and they destroy the fair competition who innovates.

You want to know why microsoft donates so much to charity, its to trick easy minded fools into thinking they are a GREAT company when in fact all they are doing is buying your trust! They are doing the only thing their good at and playing the market.