If you’ve spent money on a piece of software, and then watched it fail to do the one task you paid money for, open-source software seems the obvious choice. After all, it’s free, transparent, and backed by communities of passionate developers and users.
I found open-source alternatives to every Adobe program, and plenty of others for all the tasks I need to do on my computer. However, after trying them all, I don’t feel open source is a universally superior option, and it doesn’t have to be either.
The hidden price tag of free software
Time, effort, and maintenance can outweigh the price tag
One of the most seductive aspects of open source software is that it costs nothing to download. That said, if you’ve ever actually implemented open source solutions, you know that it comes with drawbacks you don’t usually get in paid or proprietary alternatives. You may not be paying licensing fees or a subscription, but you’re paying in time, expertise, and sometimes even infrastructure costs.
Open source software usually requires specialized technical knowledge to use, configure, and maintain. For example, GIMP outperforms Adobe Photoshop in several key areas, but unless you have program-specific expertise, you won’t find GIMP very useful. Open source programs like GIMP or Krita are made for artists, by artists who know that someone with the right expertise will be able to use the software effectively.
On the other hand, proprietary software vendors, in this case Adobe, are incentivized to make their software user-friendly because their survival depends on customer satisfaction. When you buy software from an established vendor, you often get an interface designed for the intended user, not a field expert. I regret paying for Canva after finding a fantastic open-source alternative, but I still appreciate just how easy-to-use and complete a solution Canva is.
Another hidden hurdle is integration. You or your organization might already have existing systems, workflows, and tools in place to get things done. While proprietary software is designed to work seamlessly within established ecosystems, open source software may or may not function as effectively in the same scenario.
Open source doesn’t guarantee security
Transparency helps, but doesn’t guarantee safety
Open source software is often considered more secure, as the code can be reviewed by anyone and constantly improved. There’s also transparency in the process that lets you decide whether a piece of software fits your use case.
This sounds good in theory, but is a lot more complicated in practice. Yes, open source allows scrutiny, but that doesn’t mean vulnerabilities are caught faster. The developers and community shoulder the responsibility of keeping the code secure by frequently auditing it and catching any issues.
While having more eyes scrutinize your code does increase the likelihood of any bugs, vulnerabilities, or security issues being caught, it’s not the same as a dedicated security team conducting regular audits. Software vendors are also legally liable for breaches, and that accountability creates pressure to keep systems secure.
That said, open source software is often more privacy-conscious than its proprietary counterpart. A piece of software may be tough for a hacker to breach, but if the company behind is siphoning off your data to sell ads, that doesn’t do you any good on the privacy front.
The learning curve is real
Great tools—if you’re willing to climb the setup and usability ladder
Open source software often prioritizes functionality and flexibility over ease of use. This is especially true for developer tools that can feel like they were built by engineers for engineers. That’s great news if you’re an engineer with the required field expertise, but for anyone else, it creates a rather high barrier for entry. If your goal is to accomplish work rather than tinker with configurations, proprietary software can often get you there faster.
Proprietary software vendors also have support helplines that can help you solve any problems or issues, in addition to dedicated communities and forums where you can seek help. With open source software, you’ll be left checking GitHub issues, Stack Exchange, subreddits, community forums, or documentation to hopefully find a solution. AI chatbots also do way more than just searching the web, and can help you get out of a rut.
This isn’t a slight against open-source communities. Most, if not all, of them are incredible, and I’m glad they exist, because it’s how I learned a lot about various software that I use every day. But they’re not obligated to solve your specific problem on your timeline.
It’s not that big of a problem anymore, especially considering you’ll find hundreds of tutorials, community posts, and whatnot to help you. However, if you’re dealing with a particularly niche piece of software, you might end up asking a question no one previously asked.
Open source isn’t perfect, and that’s alright
Sometimes a polished proprietary tool is simply the better choice
I’m not arguing against open source. It excels if you’re technically capable, value customization more than ease of use, and when independence from a single vendor justifies the operational overhead. For many individuals and even organizations, adopting open source software might well be worth the effort.
However, treating open source as morally superior or the best possible option without considering the competition just because it has a price tag isn’t right. The best choice depends on your specific requirements, capabilities, budget constraints, and how critical the software is to your work.
Using open source software everywhere isn’t always the best choice, and using proprietary software doesn’t make you lazy or anti-innovation. Software isn’t one-size-fits-all.
Open source does a lot, and often makes tools and programs accessible to those who can’t or don’t want to spend on a proprietary solution. I love open source, but it has problems no one is willing to admit—it’s an economical alternative, but not necessarily the better choice.