Be the change you want to see!

I use OpenOffice and Libre Office on the regular at work.
Sorry, but Word is way way more advanced than both. Both in ease of use and extended feature set.

I'm not sure there's much of a consumer market for those products. At least not in the self-operated and self-hosted way you might be thinking. I feel like way too many of us here have major blinders on in the way non-experts or non-hobbyists approach a vast majority of technology and technology adjacent subjects.

Speaking as if I were a layman, why would I download and install a word processor when I can just login to gdocs and have it there?

And in regards to enterprise, you'd be hard pressed to find any tech crew willing to stake their career on open source, user facing tools that don't have a robust support structure in place.

Costa money to do all that though. That's the challenge. Bring able to fund development while still being open

Do you have a minute to talk about our lord and savior Typst? https://typst.app

Gamepass. Get me a solution to that and I'm moving right now.

I tried the cloud app and it demanded I use a controller and not kb/mouse

Office software - OpenOffice

Free File Hosting - OpenSSH server and Filezilla

Im a business intelligence analysts and would love to have the opportunity to work with Tableu (not sure if its FOSS, or just OS), but everyone is on the PowerBI train, except the company I work with that for some reason goes with QlikSense that sucks.

Just because something is available for free doesn't mean it's better for all use cases. There are cases where Oracle will perform better than Postgres (and vice versa of course).

And there's a business case for finger pointing --- security issue with your open source DB install? It's either your fault (configuration), or the fault of some possibly volunteer engineer (bug). But if you pay enough, the whole thing is Oracle's problem, and you can tell investors with a straight face that it's not your fault. And Oracle are big enough that it's an easy decision to defend should something go wrong (which is something of a self fulfilling prophecy, but that's the way it is).

But yeah, whenever I need a database it's Postgres :)

Business reasons. Some companies like to pay for licensing because that will lower the chance of getting wacked by a patent troll lawsuit. Vin addition they like being and to call someone when something goes wrong.

Even a database with no licensing fees costs money in terms of wages/salaried employee time to use, so while that cost advantage is real, there are costs on both sides. If MS has products you want to use that are much easier (read: cheaper) to use with their paid database than some free alternative, that's certainly a good reason to consider it.

The longer you use it, the less likely it is to pay off, but execs focused on short term profits don't weigh that very highly.

Who would pay for a database when you can get a free one Postgres?

Typically support is cheaper and many times infrastructure and high availability will be baked into the contract. Unless you are planning the service as a core business capability it's typically cheaper to support.

How so?