In my experience free software tends to be better, that's why I also tend towards a "we don't use software that costs money" approach.
Another advantage of free software is that it is available everywhere. If I switch company, or if I am traveling with my notebook or whatever, I can just download the software anew and start coding. It think it is worth a lot - also saving the hassle of evaluation.
If I use an IDE that costs 10000$, that skill will be unlikely to be of any value at the next company I will work for.
Also, free software tends to concentrate on the important aspects, whereas commercial software tends to look good superficially, but is often crap below the hood. (yeah, broad generalization, but that is how I have come to feel).
The only commercial software I have is Windows XP and Computer Games (and XP is needed for the games).
> In my experience free software tends to be better, that's why I also tend towards a "we don't use software that costs money" approach.
Even if it's not better, you can fix it, if it's actual free software and not "freeware." Or fork it and make a version that is better. And if the creator abandons it, it's easy for anyone to pick it back up again.
For me, dead ends and a lack of user extensibility are as big a problem as the cost when it comes to commercial software.
Another advantage of free software is that it is available everywhere. If I switch company, or if I am traveling with my notebook or whatever, I can just download the software anew and start coding. It think it is worth a lot - also saving the hassle of evaluation.
If I use an IDE that costs 10000$, that skill will be unlikely to be of any value at the next company I will work for.
Also, free software tends to concentrate on the important aspects, whereas commercial software tends to look good superficially, but is often crap below the hood. (yeah, broad generalization, but that is how I have come to feel).
The only commercial software I have is Windows XP and Computer Games (and XP is needed for the games).