Why Free?

This is an open question, because I am genuinely curious, and because I
work with a lot of creators of Free/Libre and Open Source software....

It seems that many, many people who can afford computers and other
software want or expect to get a really good anti-virus product for
free. Why? Why should AV be free when almost everything else costs
money? Or do the folk who ask about a free AV also use free/libre and
open source software like OpenOffice (which, btw, I can highly
recommend)?

Don't get me wrong -- for years, I was a happy user of F-Prot for DOS,
which was and is free. Now I am an equally happy user of F-Prot, for
which I pay a really small annual sum, compared to the cost of any other
commercial software on my machine(s). And, for that small price, I am
allowed to install it on every machine in my home.

So, for curiousity's sake, I wonder if anyone has any ideas?

Thanks

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 06:24:16 -0500, Cathrine Lowther
<janusNOSAP@PLEASEmagma.ca> wrote:

>This is an open question, because I am genuinely curious, and because I
>work with a lot of creators of Free/Libre and Open Source software....
>
>It seems that many, many people who can afford computers and other
>software want or expect to get a really good anti-virus product for
>free. Why? Why should AV be free when almost everything else costs
>money? Or do the folk who ask about a free AV also use free/libre and
>open source software like OpenOffice (which, btw, I can highly
>recommend)?
>
>Don't get me wrong -- for years, I was a happy user of F-Prot for DOS,
>which was and is free. Now I am an equally happy user of F-Prot, for
>which I pay a really small annual sum, compared to the cost of any other
>commercial software on my machine(s). And, for that small price, I am
>allowed to install it on every machine in my home.
>
>So, for curiousity's sake, I wonder if anyone has any ideas?
>
>Thanks

Most of the major pay solutions, like Norton or McAfee are bloated,
intrusive, and cause prorblems. Free is almost always smaller and less
intrusive, plus no major monetary risk if it doesn't work. Sometimes a free
evaluation copy is enough. People burned by N or M don't want to be burned
shelling out money for more of the same.

Of course, some people are just cheap

JT

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 06:24:16 -0500, Cathrine Lowther
<janusNOSAP@PLEASEmagma.ca> wrote:

>This is an open question, because I am genuinely curious,
[snip]
>So, for curiousity's sake, I wonder if anyone has any ideas?

IMHO this is not at all related to AV software alone. People don't
want to pay for software. IMHO this is having the following reasons:

- You can't touch software
- Regular users have no idea how much work is involved to create
something like i.e. a working AV software
- The big vendors - due to the sheer volume they can sell - can afford
to sell their software for not too much money. This is even further
helping in miss understanding the efforts needed to create good
software.

I could be wrong, but IMHO it's all that simple. It's intersting, as
soon as you add some minor hardware to a piece of software you all of
a sudden have less arguing about the price - simply because there is
something people can touch.

Just my 2¢ though

Markus

A lot of users dont have the money or dont want to spend money on software
such as AV s/w.

However, if they dont have AV cover then it isnt only their problem, it is
all of our problems... Their machines become toys in the hands of the
hackers & spammers...

So it is in everyones interests that we all have AV protection.
Consequently, some organisations offer free AV software for
personal/non-commercial use. Business still have to pay, but they will tend
to do just that. They have plenty to lose, and they are more readily
accountable.

So now we have the situation where some free software is available.. if Fred
uses Product X at home for free, he might be inclined to recommend it to his
company, so they buy Product X for their corporate machines...

Consequently some of the competitors also release free home-use versions,
and so on...

So for home users, we now have the awful monolithic s/w like Norton & McAfee
for £50 per year, or Avast! or AVG for free. A lot of us choose to use the
free versions... why pay if you dont have to? Personally I use Avast! and I
recommend it to all my family and friends. If I could find a free version
that I had confidence in, I would pay for a commercial version.

CJM

"Cathrine Lowther" <janusNOSAP@PLEASEmagma.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ac4a268f5ead1a6989687@news.magma.ca...
> This is an open question, because I am genuinely curious, and because I
> work with a lot of creators of Free/Libre and Open Source software....
>
> It seems that many, many people who can afford computers and other
> software want or expect to get a really good anti-virus product for
> free. Why? Why should AV be free when almost everything else costs
> money? Or do the folk who ask about a free AV also use free/libre and
> open source software like OpenOffice (which, btw, I can highly
> recommend)?
>
> Don't get me wrong -- for years, I was a happy user of F-Prot for DOS,
> which was and is free. Now I am an equally happy user of F-Prot, for
> which I pay a really small annual sum, compared to the cost of any other
> commercial software on my machine(s). And, for that small price, I am
> allowed to install it on every machine in my home.
>
> So, for curiousity's sake, I wonder if anyone has any ideas?
>
> Thanks

Because we are not asking for these viruses. That's why.
Personally, I think MS should provide AV software for FREE.
After all, they write the software that has holes which allow these
viruses to "work". Therefore, THEY should pay.
One other thing I question. Are any of these viruses created by the
companies that make the most money off of AV software? I mean, if
they send out more viruses, they sell more product, right?
However, if they give away their AV software for free, then why would
they be sending viruses. Something to think about !!!!

--------------------

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:30:16 -0000, "CJM" <cjmwork@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>A lot of users dont have the money or dont want to spend money on software
>such as AV s/w.
>
>However, if they dont have AV cover then it isnt only their problem, it is
>all of our problems... Their machines become toys in the hands of the
>hackers & spammers...
>
>So it is in everyones interests that we all have AV protection.
>Consequently, some organisations offer free AV software for
>personal/non-commercial use. Business still have to pay, but they will tend
>to do just that. They have plenty to lose, and they are more readily
>accountable.
>
>So now we have the situation where some free software is available.. if Fred
>uses Product X at home for free, he might be inclined to recommend it to his
>company, so they buy Product X for their corporate machines...
>
>Consequently some of the competitors also release free home-use versions,
>and so on...
>
>So for home users, we now have the awful monolithic s/w like Norton & McAfee
>for £50 per year, or Avast! or AVG for free. A lot of us choose to use the
>free versions... why pay if you dont have to? Personally I use Avast! and I
>recommend it to all my family and friends. If I could find a free version
>that I had confidence in, I would pay for a commercial version.
>
>CJM
>
>"Cathrine Lowther" <janusNOSAP@PLEASEmagma.ca> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1ac4a268f5ead1a6989687@news.magma.ca...
>> This is an open question, because I am genuinely curious, and because I
>> work with a lot of creators of Free/Libre and Open Source software....
>>
>> It seems that many, many people who can afford computers and other
>> software want or expect to get a really good anti-virus product for
>> free. Why? Why should AV be free when almost everything else costs
>> money? Or do the folk who ask about a free AV also use free/libre and
>> open source software like OpenOffice (which, btw, I can highly
>> recommend)?
>>
>> Don't get me wrong -- for years, I was a happy user of F-Prot for DOS,
>> which was and is free. Now I am an equally happy user of F-Prot, for
>> which I pay a really small annual sum, compared to the cost of any other
>> commercial software on my machine(s). And, for that small price, I am
>> allowed to install it on every machine in my home.
>>
>> So, for curiousity's sake, I wonder if anyone has any ideas?
>>
>> Thanks
>

"Cathrine Lowther" <janusNOSAP@PLEASEmagma.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ac4a268f5ead1a6989687@news.magma.ca...
> This is an open question, because I am genuinely curious, and because I
> work with a lot of creators of Free/Libre and Open Source software....
>
> It seems that many, many people who can afford computers and other
> software want or expect to get a really good anti-virus product for
> free. Why? Why should AV be free when almost everything else costs
> money? Or do the folk who ask about a free AV also use free/libre and
> open source software like OpenOffice (which, btw, I can highly
> recommend)?
>

Yeah, OpenOffice is great, but I will pay for WordPerect because I like it
and need it to fix up the messes my boss makes with Word. I will buy new
versions of my favorite games, because i want to play them.

But AV does nothing for me. I can't play with it, I can't fix a document
with it. It doesn't make my computer stronger or faster or easier. It is
utterly useless to me except to counteract the combined effects of a**hole
skiddies and buggy M$ products. M$ should buy my AV. But they won't. And
neither will I. I have tried to get my company to buy Sophos, which
supplies free AV for home use to it's business users, no joy. Although, now
it looks like the company may buy Avast on my recommendation :-)

Also, like lots of people, I sometimes suspect the AV vendors and vxers are
in cahoots. I remember the days with John Macaffee was like
Mister-John-Wayne-anti-vxer, giving away his solutions to these pesky little
programs polluting floppies and boot sectors. Now he is a major
corporation.

Just my 2 cents as a free AV user.

Stella

Cathrine Lowther wrote:
> This is an open question, because I am genuinely curious, and because I
> work with a lot of creators of Free/Libre and Open Source software....
>
> It seems that many, many people who can afford computers and other
> software want or expect to get a really good anti-virus product for
> free. Why? Why should AV be free when almost everything else costs
> money? Or do the folk who ask about a free AV also use free/libre and
> open source software like OpenOffice (which, btw, I can highly
> recommend)?
>
> Don't get me wrong -- for years, I was a happy user of F-Prot for DOS,
> which was and is free. Now I am an equally happy user of F-Prot, for
> which I pay a really small annual sum, compared to the cost of any other
> commercial software on my machine(s). And, for that small price, I am
> allowed to install it on every machine in my home.
>
> So, for curiousity's sake, I wonder if anyone has any ideas?

i have some ideas:

1) they don't really want the software but rather feel pressured into
getting it... obviously in such a case if you're getting something
under duress you want to minimize the expense you incur...

2) they don't really know what av software to choose and so feel better
about the possibility of making a mistake if it doesn't cost them any
money...

3) non-free av software doesn't come with a one-time fee, it's a
recurring cost that users correctly recognize as being much more than
sticker price in the long run...

4) they feel it's unfair that they have to pay their hard earned money
just because of some jerks who like to make connected computing unsafe...

i'm sure there are other possibilities too...

--
"we're the first ones to starve, we're the first ones to die
the first ones in line for that pie in the sky
and we're always the last when the cream is shared out
for the worker is working when the fat cat's about"

me@myhome.com wrote:
[snip]
> One other thing I question. Are any of these viruses created by the
> companies that make the most money off of AV software? I mean, if
> they send out more viruses, they sell more product, right?
> However, if they give away their AV software for free, then why would
> they be sending viruses. Something to think about !!!!

oh no... not that dead horse again... av companies would not be able to
keep such dealings a secret and if word got out that company X was in
league with virus writers then company X wouldn't be able to sell their
product anymore - no one would touch them...

--
"we're the first ones to starve, we're the first ones to die
the first ones in line for that pie in the sky
and we're always the last when the cream is shared out
for the worker is working when the fat cat's about"

<me@myhome.com> wrote in message
news:bm0m501114p8nft0tu9crooe94sqri45qc@4ax.com...
> Because we are not asking for these viruses. That's why.
> Personally, I think MS should provide AV software for FREE.

Why??

> After all, they write the software that has holes which allow these
> viruses to "work". Therefore, THEY should pay.

Rubbish. MS Software is not faultless, and it would be foolish to say any
different. But nor are they on their own.

However, the single biggest reason that viruses target Windows machines is
because the vastly more windows machines out there. Macs and *nix machines
are vulnerable. If they had the dominant market share they would be targeted
instead.

In addition, Joe Public tends to use Windows, and he's the guy most likely
to read the spam. He's likely not patching his machine. And he probably
clicks on every attachment he gets. Another reason to target windows.
Virtually all Linux users are high up the technical food chain. You need to
be to use Linux - although getting better by the day, it is still years
behind windows software in it's ease of use and sophistication.

I think you should pay... you clearly know enough about the vulnerablities
of windows software, yet you clearly own a windows machine... If you didnt
own a windows machine, your machine wouldnt be at risk... You chose windows,
you should pay...

It's like the current hot topic in the US: burgers made us fat, so it's the
fast-food chains fault. I'm sorry, but you chose to eat the windows burger
so you should pay.

> One other thing I question. Are any of these viruses created by the
> companies that make the most money off of AV software? I mean, if
> they send out more viruses, they sell more product, right?
>

Isn't this an episode of the X-Files??

AV cartels conspire to create viruses to perpetuate sales of their AV
products....??

Bold but risky, I would suggest.

> However, if they give away their AV software for free, then why would
> they be sending viruses.

Indeed. I think you have answered your own question.

> Something to think about !!!!

No. Not anymore.

CJM

Black Dog wrote:
[snip]
> Also, like lots of people, I sometimes suspect the AV vendors and vxers are
> in cahoots.

there's no way to keep something like that secret - if it were
happening you'd have heard about it...

> I remember the days with John Macaffee was like
> Mister-John-Wayne-anti-vxer, giving away his solutions to these pesky little
> programs polluting floppies and boot sectors. Now he is a major
> corporation.

no, now he is a major pariah... he (essentially) paid for new
viruses... he is the closest thing to what you suspect of av companies
in general... it's a darn good thing for the company that he's not a
part of it anymore (and hasn't been fore a good long time)...

--
"we're the first ones to starve, we're the first ones to die
the first ones in line for that pie in the sky
and we're always the last when the cream is shared out
for the worker is working when the fat cat's about"