I have 2 examples of quality, free, open source software: Firefox and
Pidgin. Light, secure and very customizable, they have more features
than any of their closed source enemies.
Take Yahoo Messenger vs Pigdin: ads, takes a while for loading, all
sorts of crappy addons that clog the UI vs simple, clean, multi-
protocol, fast Pidgin.
Take Firefox viruses, spyware, homepage hijacking vs. phising filter,
tabs(that work)plenty of skins and useful addons like ForecastFox and
AdBlock Plus.
I'm not so sure about OpenOffice, which is inferior to office 2003,
not to mention Office 2007.
Ubuntu. Prety good. Major driver compatibilities, especially with
laptops, poor support for peripherals, sound and wifi. while not
entirely Canonical's fault, the typical user will find this
unacceptable. But, it's free.
While I completely agree that Vista is a Mac OS X copycat, it's a very
good one. Take FrontRow and Media Center, take Glass UI, animations
and eye-candy. Leopard: Microsoft start your xeroxes.

The perfectly honest answer is no. Why, because the question provided
nothing in the way of criteria.

wired wrote:

<pointless rambling prose snipped>

On 25 May 2007 01:22:30 -0700, wired <stefan.neagu******.com> wrote:

>I have 2 examples of quality, free, open source software:



The quality of any particular piece of software should be evaluated
individually, not by what category it falls into. A program isn't
better because it's open source, and it isn't worse because it's open
source.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup