5 reasons I’m switching my software to open-source alternatives


Are you curious about why someone would ditch all the popular mainstream apps in favor of less familiar options? Is there something to gain by making this transition? Well, currently, my app repertoire primarily consists of open source apps, and here’s why I made the switch!

I’ve used closed-source software for most of my life. The first computer I ever used was running Windows XP, which I used to access Microsoft Office, the Adobe Creative Suite, and all the other popular proprietary stuff. However, around a decade ago, I got my first taste of desktop Linux and, ever since, I have been slowly transitioning to open source alternatives. Here’s everything that I find useful, charming, and advantageous about open source apps.

Modern open source apps are well-designed

A feature-rich experience, often with a great GUI

Arguably one of the biggest misconceptions about open source software is that it looks dated and feels clunky. This might have been true a few decades ago, but modern open source applications often look just as polished as their commercial counterparts—sometimes they’re even better!

Take Logseq for note-taking—it can easily go toe-to-toe with paid alternatives like Notion in terms of both features and looks. Then there are tools like Portmaster, a network firewall that provides enterprise-grade security with a user interface that puts most commercial security software to shame.

In fact, you probably already use many open source apps yourself. For instance, VLC media player, Firefox, OBS Studio, and Blender are arguably the best apps in their respective domains. Not only do they carry a polished and modern interface with tons of useful features, but they’re also highly customizable.

Because the code is open, communities have built massive libraries of themes and plugins. For example, Logseq alone has hundreds of community themes that can transform its appearance completely. This level of customization is rarely possible with closed-source software.

The theming advantage becomes even more apparent when you want visual consistency across your entire system. On my Garuda Linux setup, the developers applied the Catppuccin theme across all the pre-installed apps—from the file manager and text editor to VLC media player and Firefox. This level of design cohesion is practically impossible with a mix of proprietary applications from different vendors.

Some open source apps open in Garuda Linux sharing the same theme and design consistency.

There’s rarely any telemetry

I don’t need to question where my data’s going

Windows 11 Group Policy Editor showing the allow diagnostic data setting which collects and sends data to Microsoft.

Telemetry refers to the data an app sends back to its developers. This can include things like usage patterns, error reports, feature preferences, and the like. Most proprietary and closed-source apps have some sort of telemetry enabled by default, and it can get very extensive.

Take Microsoft as an example. According to XDA Developers, Windows 11, by default, tracks your location, knows your browsing history, which devices your PC is connected to and what apps you use. It even knows how you use products and services on your system.

Call me paranoid, but I’m not comfortable sharing all of this information, not even with my friends. Even if Microsoft (or any company for that matter) claims to anonymize this data, you’re still sending information about your personal and work activities to a third party.

Thankfully, open source applications eliminate this concern entirely. For example, no Linux distro will track how you use your operating system—it’s yours to do with as you please. Likewise, LibreOffice, GIMP, or any other open source app for that matter won’t track how you’re using it either. The telemetry options, if present, are disabled by default, requiring you to turn them on if you wish to send information to the developers.


annoying gmail-2


Why I abandoned Gmail for a privacy-first email service—and never looked back

Between the end-to-end encryption and the break from big tech tracking, I haven’t looked back.

I own my data

No need for predatory cloud syncing

Ugreen DXP4800 GT internal M.2 SSD slots populated beside Kingston memory. Credit: Patrick Campanale / How-To Geek

You store family pics in Google Photos, your documents in Google Drive, and your notes in Notion. You might think you have full control over your data, but you’re actually storing it in rented server space, where everything can be lost if the company decides to change their terms of service, shut down servers, or lock you out.

If their services go offline, your data is gone. Also, if you break certain terms of use, they can block your account, and again, your data is gone. These aren’t hypotheticals—people have actually been locked out of their Google Docs accounts or other apps, losing all the work they created (or saved) over the years!

Thankfully, with open source apps, I can choose where my data lives. Most open source apps like Logseq (an alternative to Notion) store my data locally on my hard drive. In cases where I need the app accessible over the cloud, I can download the code and host it myself—either on my system or by renting a server. This is how I replaced Google Drive with Nextcloud.

This way, the data is mine, stored where I decide, and backed up how I want. Yes, this means I’m responsible for my own backups and security, but I’d rather be responsible for my own data than trust it to a corporation whose interests may not align with mine.

Hosting an open source app in the cloud can be technically demanding, but it’s the way to go if you want full control over your data. Some open source apps like Standard Notes, Bitwarden, or Proton Drive allow you to create an account on their cloud servers. This can be an option if you don’t want the technical burden of self-hosting. Also, open source apps hosted on the company’s servers generally allow you to easily download that data, so you still own it!

You can personally check if an app is secure

No secrets in the source code

Visual Studio Code showing git commit tree

This is where open source truly shines. Every line of code is available for inspection. Anyone on the internet can audit the source code and check for any bugs or outright malicious code in the software. In contrast, with closed source apps, no one knows the actual code being used apart from its developers. As such, we have to fully trust the developers and can’t check for ourselves if there are bugs and vulnerabilities in the code.

Now, I do recognize that not all of us are programmers—me included. So even if the code is accessible, what’s the point if we can’t read it? Well, there are other programmers and security professionals out there who are auditing code and will flag issues if they find any.

That said, what happens if you can’t read code and an open source app has a small user base? Truth be told, that can be an issue! This is why I always suggest picking open source software with a lot of users or a passionate community behind it. The more eyes on the code, the sooner someone will notice a bug or vulnerability, if one exists!


Illustration of a cardboard box with a 'not open source' icon and logos of some apps coming out of it.


7 Popular Apps You Think Are Open Source (But Aren’t)

They look open, act open, but these apps are closed.

It’s free to use

Image of Ubuntu running on a PC with a wallpaper showing the Linux mascot tux riding with an alien in a UFO. Credit: Dibakar Ghosh | How-To Geek / Gemini

If all the advantages above weren’t enough, the vast majority of open source apps are free to use! Yes, some open source apps do charge money, but that’s usually because of hosting services or access to premium proprietary add-ons. For example, Bitwarden, the open-source password manager, charges money for priority support and access to storage space for personal files—both of which are services that require either human effort or renting server space, resulting in additional costs.

I should also add that free open source apps aren’t free because they’re lacking in features or poorly designed. In fact, almost many open source apps can go toe-to-toe with their proprietary counterparts, delivering at least all the basic features you’d expect. Some free and open source apps are genuinely industry-leading and professionally used.

For example, Blender is so good that it was used to create Flow—the 2025 Academy Award winner for best animated feature. Then there’s OBS Studio, which has become the go-to tool for professional streamers and content creators worldwide. In a world where every software company is switching to subscription models that slowly chip away at your wallet each month, open source alternatives let you keep your money while empowering you with genuinely useful tools.


Don’t be the product

Open source software really challenges the old saying: “If the product is free, you are the product.” In reality, these apps offer better security, respect your privacy, and manage to deliver almost all necessary features with a modern interface—all without asking for a single dime! That’s the reason why I am currently switching all my apps and software to open source alternatives.

That said, just because an app is open source doesn’t make it good by default. Just like proprietary software, there are also good and bad apps in the open source world. Here’s a guide to help you navigate this space and steer clear of the more problematic open source apps.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


When the original Range Rover debuted in 1970, it introduced something the automotive world had not quite seen before: a vehicle as capable on a muddy trail as it was parked outside a five-star hotel. That unique combination of rugged capability and refined luxury few, if any, SUVs can pull off today. Yet, Land Rover has been doing it for five decades.

The current fifth-generation model, which arrived for 2022, extended that tradition with a cabin that let the quality of its materials speak for itself.

Now, the 2027 Audi Q9 is preparing to challenge it.

The Q9 makes its world debut on July 28th and is Audi’s first true full-size flagship SUV. While the exterior remains under wraps, Audi recently opened the doors for a first look at the interior. What’s inside reveals two very different philosophies about where traditional luxury is headed. Audi is betting on screens, sensors, and immersive technology, while Range Rover, in a notable move for 2027, is bringing physical knobs and controls back to the center console.

One brand is leaning forward. The other is going for a hint of nostalgia. Here is how they stack up.

Two cabins, unique two philosophies

Small details for discerning buyers

The Range Rover has long built its interior reputation on what it leaves out as much as what it puts in.

The current model is characterized by a clean and streamlined dashboard with minimal distractions. Premium materials include Windsor leather on the SE, semi-aniline leather on the SV, and sustainably sourced wood veneers across the lineup.

For 2027, the physical volume knob and Terrain Response selector are returning to the center console, reversing a decision made for the 2024 model year that moved those controls to the touchscreen. It is a small detail that some discerning buyers will appreciate. Although every new vehicle today has a touchscreen of some kind, the allure of a large screen has its limits.

Audi takes the opposite position with the Q9. The cabin moves away from the fingerprint-prone piano-black trim of earlier models, introducing matte and textured finishes alongside new materials. Q9 buyers will find Dinamica microfiber, Nappa leather, fine-grain ash inlays, and a carbon fiber weave with basalt gray accents. New colors, including Tamarind Brown and Stone Beige, complete the palette.


Audi Q9


Audi’s Q9 challenges the Mercedes GLS with 4D audio and a digital cabin for 10K less

The primary difference between these two flagship SUVs lies in their digital architecture.

Digital Stage vs. Pivi Pro

Three displays or one interface

Audi’s Digital Stage includes three displays across the Q9’s dashboard. The primary OLED touchscreen is front and center, while a driver’s instrument cluster is tucked just beyond the steering wheel.

The third screen is separate for passengers and sure to be enjoyed on long road trips by whoever is sitting there. Front-seat passengers can stream content from their own queue, whether that’s a YouTube video, a show on Netflix, or a podcast playlist, without interfering with anything on the driver’s side.

Range Rover’s Pivi Pro system uses a 13.1-inch central touchscreen as its primary interface, paired with a 12-inch interactive driver display. The system is quick, organized, and accessible within two taps from the home screen. There is no dedicated front passenger display, though 11.4-inch rear seat entertainment screens are available on the Autobiography trim and above.

The dedicated passenger screen may give the Audi Q9 an edge over the Range Rover and other competitors like the Lexus LX, which also does not offer a separate infotainment screen. However, both the Lexus LX and Range Rover offer rear-seat entertainment.

The Mercedes-Benz GLS and Cadillac Escalade, other prime competitors to the Audi Q9, also offer a rear-seat entertainment system, in addition to the separate passenger screen.

At the time of this writing, Audi has not confirmed the availability of a rear seat entertainment system for the Q9. Given the nature of its competitors, however, it seems in Audi’s best interest to include it as an option.

And finally, the return of physical knobs to the Range Rover for 2027 is the sharpest contrast to the Q9’s all-screen approach. Audi is presenting a cabin where most functions require screen interaction. Range Rover, after trying the same approach, concluded its buyers prefer not to hunt through sub-menus for simple volume and terrain controls.


Audi Q9


Audi’s Q9 aims to replace the Cadillac Escalade as the new standard of tech luxury

Audi enthusiasts may bristle. Cadillac loyalists might feel the same. But nonetheless, here we are.

Sound systems and the sensory experience

Meridian versus Bang & Olufsen 4D

The Bang & Olufsen 4D sound system in the Q9 includes physical actuators built into the front seats so occupants can feel low-end frequencies, not just hear them. Audi’s Dynamic Interaction Light, an LED strip at the base of the windshield, syncs its color and rhythm to the music, with the color scheme matched to the track’s cover art. Headrest speakers route phone calls and navigation prompts privately to the driver.

Range Rover has a bespoke Meridian Signature Sound System, standard on the Autobiography and above, tuned specifically to the cabin’s acoustics. The SV and SV Ultra models offer a more advanced Meridian configuration, albeit without the seat actuator sensations.

Meanwhile, the Audi Q9 has a seven-seat layout as standard, with an optional six-seat configuration with power-adjustable captain’s chairs in the second row. The outer second-row seat slides and tilts forward to ease third-row access without removing child car seats. Audi also introduces an aluminum rail system in the trunk for securing cargo in three dimensions, and includes roof-rail crossbars as standard.

Range Rover’s Long Wheelbase seven-seat layout has been available since the current generation launched, with semi-aniline heated leather across all three rows as standard on the LWB SE. The Autobiography and SV trims add the aforementioned rear seat entertainment screens, a front-center console refrigerator, and four-zone climate control.

Uniden R8 Transparent Background

Display Type

OLED

Radar Band Detection

X, K, Ka

The Uniden R8 is a dual-antenna radar detector with directional arrows, known for its long-range detection and false alert filtering capabilities. Comes preloaded with red light and speed camera locations and supports firmware updates for ongoing performance enhancements.  


Electric doors and adaptive headlights

Where the Q9 pulls ahead

Three Q9 features have no direct equivalent in the current Range Rover.

All four doors on the Q9 open electronically at the push of a button, up to 90 degrees, with sensors that detect approaching cyclists. Drivers close them by pressing the brake pedal or fastening their seatbelt. Range Rover offers power doors on the SV trims, but Audi makes them standard across the entire Q9 lineup.

The Q9’s panoramic sunroof spans approximately 16 square feet and uses nine individually controllable glass segments that dim electronically. An optional LED package adds 84 lights inside the roof in up to 30 colors, matched to the cabin’s ambient lighting.

The Q9 also brings Digital Matrix LED headlights to U.S. customers for the first time. Using front-facing cameras, the system detects oncoming traffic and selectively masks the light around those vehicles, keeping maximum illumination everywhere else on the road.

According to a recent AAA survey, six in ten U.S. drivers struggle with headlight glare. Range Rover’s Pixel LED headlights, standard on the Autobiography and above, are excellent, but Audi’s matrix approach represents a meaningful step forward in lighting technology for U.S. buyers.


2027 Audi Q9 coming soon

The 2027 Range Rover SE starts at $113,300, with the Autobiography beginning at $159,200. The SV lineup starts at $219,500 and climbs to $275,000 for the Long Wheelbase SV Ultra.

The 2027 Audi Q9 is expected to start around $80,000, with higher trims landing between $90,000 and $95,000.

Audi will reveal the full Q9 details on July 28th, with North American deliveries expected as early as November.



Source link