Free and Open Source Software is superior to proprietary software.

When IE drives competition and the competition is better, then it clearly follows that IE is worse. But without the initial superior standard of IE, Firefox would never have arisen. So my argument is that FOSS is dependent upon non-free closed source software to operate. I argue that the drive of innovation it generates is a good thing. Now that Firefox is a market leader, they are stagnating. New features are already being called clumsy and memory-taxing - all arguments which, if I remember correctly, were once leveled against IE. So Firefox is not inherently better than IE, it's only because IE was the market leader that innovation thrived. Remember, to win this debate my opponent must show that FOSS is superior to other software, as opposed to me having to show the other way. I'd also like my opponent to elaborate on which free, open source games and video applications were successful. I've already mentioned that there are FOSS examples of photo editors like GIMP, but they were competing after Adobe. Secondly, still under my first argument (I'll get to my second one in a minute), does one have the fundamental right to modify software? When you buy a house, it's yours. When you buy software, you buy a license to use the software, not the software itself. This is stipulated in almost every single license agreement (those things that pop up when you install software and you just click "I Agree"). The agreement that you agree to usually specifically denies you the right to modify it, unless the law says otherwise. In almost all jurisdictions, the law does not accept that this is a fundamental right at all. If you do not accept the terms of a license agreement, you are usually legally entitled to a refund. Third, STILL under my first argument, where is it easier to get support? My opponent does not address the point about internet forums being restrictive to some types of user, and I'd like a response other than the assertion that it's moot. My opponent does say that since the online community is driven to produce the FOSS, surely they will be driven to support it. Having been a programmer, I can tell you support is not fun. To do it properly takes at least 90% of your development time, most of them come from people who have not even read your documentation, and usually for every question you answer the user will have a dozen more. I'm sure many programmers will sympathize with me here. By contrast, commercial software often has numerous staff whose only job is support - and they love it! Microsoft is a good example here. Besides which, there is a support community through many online forums that is easily much larger than for any FOSS project. Final point under my first argument, poor organizations/France might be better off using free software (in some circumstances, most of the time low-cost commercial software is much more powerful and innovative), except 1) they're the exception, not the rule, and 2) why are they even using computers when pen, paper, and the local postal service do an even less expensive, far more feasible and far more stable job? Now on to my new argument. If I want to develop a new 3D rendering engine, that costs significant time and effort, but also money. I need to test it on many GPUs interacting on multiple hardware configurations. I'll want a decent compiler and linker, and some software to generate the documentation, because frankly the free stuff just won't cut it for a project this big. I will never get any of these development costs back with FOSS. Now granted, many do it anyway - thanks be upon them. But these are few compared to those who want to get some sort of compensation for their efforts. FOSS is thus the exclusive domain of the wealthy who can afford to produce software for lots of money and no return or credit. It isn't exclusive to 3D rendering either - the same could be said of word processing, operating systems or anything else. Basically, the developers who have the guts to develop for nothing SHOULD be compensated more than the big corporations that don't - but those who ask for a small donation (shareware) typically don't get lots of money from this. So the FOSS model does not work. Only commercial software generates the returns that the small developers want and need to develop their software. Besides which it's also more consistent with the equitable society we live in that people should profit based upon what they produce. With FOSS those people don't profit. So, herein I hope you have found some rebuttal and reinforcement of my first argument, as well as argument 2/3 - that development costs of FOSS are so prohibitive, they would be better off doing commercial work and actually earning something.