I myself don't see closed source software coming to an end anytime soon. The fact of the matter is that they simply work better. You gave the example of your daughter using OpenOffice, and I for one am proud that she's able to hit the OpenSource world very well and it's working for her so far. However, you have to realize that OpenOffice doesn't function 100% with Microsoft Word's documents. It doesn't read with 100% compatibility, and it doesn't write with it either.

The reason for this is simple, they are trying to read a proprietary file in which they may not know how to 100%. It's like trying to run Mac or Windows software on Linux. We've gotten pretty far in doing it, but still can't do it 100%. Yes, OpenOffice's approach to word documents is a little better than Wine's approach to applications, but the main idea is the same. They both try to open a closed, proprietary binary and can't quite get it 100%.

Now, as long as Microsoft Word will be the standard for business and school, it's not going anywhere, and open source options won't be able to touch it. As long as Windows becomes the standard for business, it too will surpass open source ideas.

Now, even if Open Source ideas catch on, will they surpass the big company names? Let's say there was no standard. Well, I still say no. Open Source developers are just that. They don't have a graphics design department. They don't have a department that specializes in user interface. They are filled with power-users. Although this can be a good thing, for the normal computer user who uses a PC for more than just web-browsing and email, UI and graphics (placement, design, etc) become extremely important. Ubuntu Linux is still stuck in an older age and fails to move forward while both Microsoft and OS X are heading towards the future with UI approaches that destroy what Linux offers to date. This is the area that Ubuntu is, and will always be behind in. Unless, of course, they start adding some designers and not just developers into the mix.

I don't see Open Source ideas being the center of attention anytime soon. I do, however, see open source being used more and more in closed situations. Take Apple for example. They are a closed company, but they incorporate so much open source technology into their system it's scary. Even at the core, OS X is based on a Unix architecture (like Linux). However, if you open a program like XCode, you'll see so many open source data structures being used. Including, for example, open source implementations of a C compiler (for C++ and C, as well as Obj C) and an implementation of open source database structure with MySQL (or SQLite, I forget which one). I do see companies using open source items in the future. Why? It's strong at its core. If you can implement them into a strong interface and UI, you hit a grand slam really. Apple has seen this, and they have done it. You'll be surprised how much software is implemented off of Open Source software. iOS has it as well.

So while I don't see open source being the way of the future. I do see it being a part of closed software within the future. In a way, it's already begone. Although it isn't the way of the future, it is certainly something that is good to adjust to and get to know.

I could have bought a lot of records with the $ I spent on PureVinyl and Amarra Vinyl, neither of which work as well for me as Audacity.

As a 30-year programmer I have experience with different systems. Personally, if it weren't for DOS I would have dumped Microsoft PC's ages ago. Both they and Apple are so buggy and difficult to work with in many ways that open source UI's are not an important issue. What is at issue for the average person is convenience in apps, file sharing, and low cost. In corporate use, Microsoft has had domination due to the popular databases in use, and the fact that most businesses can afford their system license fees. But the move to Cloud services and mobile platforms is changing things, and in the large software corp I work for the change is radical. We don't know if Microsoft will hold onto its lead for x number of years or whether everyone's favorite browsers will replace the importance of the O/S. While the Word etc. compatibility is a factor, it can be fixed for open systems.

I think both Open Source and Close Source will co-exist.

Costumer support in certain situations is key, and close source can have an edge in this, specially in certain markets.

For operating system I use Ubuntu at home, and I like it quite a bit. Linux OS is also heavily used to develop HW and ASICs. Several computers can be used to run intensive simulations and very demanding applications under Linux somewhat inexpensively. However, many of these applications ARE NOT FREE.

MATLAB is a very powerful tool for system development, and it's not free. But it can run under Linux. Octave is sort of a clone, but it is not there yet. Mentor and Cadance tools are not free, and they are key in the development of ASICs and other stuff. However, they are regularly run under Linux.

It all depends on the particular consumer requirements, but I feel close and open source will coexist.

I finally made the move fully into open source in June this year.

As a university student I had been chained to Windows (Microsoft Office) during my first two and a half years, although I enjoy Windows (and MS Office) I decided that I will no longer be subjected to the proprietary elements of Windows and Mac. I do not want to have music files that I can only use in Zune (WMA) and not in iTunes, AIFF's that I can't play on my Windows phone, or text documents/presentations that work in MS Office but not in LibreOffice (the presentation doesn't not translate well). I have put up with this proprietary nonsense for far to long.

To me open source does not have to be free $, I am more than happy to pay for excellent apps (developers need money to make them excellent!), but what I don't want to pay for is content/apps who's creators unreasonably dictate how I can use them. To me, that is the appeal of open source, removal of restrictions, and standardisation of open, cross platform formats (FLAC, OGG, .odt – like .doc).

So I decided that I was going to do it, see if I really can make the switch and still get through a full course load at uni. I installed Ubuntu 12.04, which I love, moved all my university documents from Microsoft Skydrive into Ubuntu One (cloud storage), became familiar with LibreOffice for all my lecture notes and assignments, and most importantly converted my entire music library to FLAC and OGG. Slowly but surely I have found Linux replacements for all my apps and I’m really very happy, apart from a lack of hardware support, HP laptops don't work so well with Linux (battery and switch-able graphics).

Anyway, if people wake up to the fact that their rights as consumers are essentially being trampled on by large corporations and discover that there are other options, then maybe open source will become more popular. My only concern is, will we be ready for them? (I'm looking at you UI/graphic designers).

To say that "Open Source developers are just that. They don't have a graphics design department. They don't have a department that specializes in user interface." is a bit naive and condescending. There certainly are 'developers' who specialize in such things as GUI, file systems (NFS, EXT4, etc.), ergonomics, iconography and so forth. To say that these specialists are non-existant isn't true and is, in fact, quite the contrary.

In my daily life I use both Mac OS X and Ubuntu. I made the switch away from Microsoft/Windows OS back in 2006 and never looked back. Even then I had no insurmountable issues. Now, in 2012, I have even fewer. Heck, Linux even supports iPods now. With a recent release of iOS, you no longer need iTunes or a PC/Mac to activate your iPhone, iPod or iPad. You can do that via a simple wifi connection.

About the only remaining issue that I have come up against with regards to GNU/Linux is that modem support is sketchy. MS Windows offloads the modem handling to the CPU, whereas GNU/Linux works best with 'hardware' modems (e.g., US Robotics Courier, Zoom Serial/USB modem). They are typically more expensive than software modems, however. I have had a few friends require a dial-up internet access when broadband is not available.

As for GNU/Linux software, I have used Libre Office, Chromium, Inkscape, GIMP, Rhythmbox, Banshee, Audacity (wonderful app), Jokosher (multi-track audio mixer), DejaVu (backup), gEDA (schematic and PCB tools), VirtualBox and many more. All of which are excellent programs. Ubuntu/Linux has an excellent journaling filesystem (ext4) but can use many others. It has an excellent browser, email client, RSS reader, disk utilities and much more built-in. All that costs $0.00. I have not seen the so-called MS Office disconnect, as my Libre Office prints to my HP & Kodak printers just fine and reads/writes .doc just fine. I have never had a complaint when sharing files with Windows users.

Open Source doesn't mean 'free' as in no-cost. FOSS (free open source software) means you are free to use/modify/distribute as you see fit within the Open Source or Creative Commons license. Usually, that means giving attribute (not $$$) to the original software dev and supplying the source code so that others may contribute. You are free to make your own GNU/Linux distribution if you so wish. You can start with the basic install, add your fave apps, package it all up and distribute it to anyone without breaking the license, doing anything illegal or against IP. That in itself is quite a remarkable thing.

As for me, I will never go back to Microsoft. Cheers!

I think that as long as people are stuck in the mentality that because software or hardware is opensource or 'free' (as in freedom,) they don't have to pay for it, that free and open software will not surpass proprietary, or closed software.

What you're referring to as Linux is really GNU/Linux and what you're referring to open source is really libre.

Libre (free) software does not have to cost no money, it's about freedom, not money.

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

GNU/Linux is a cost-free operating system and the Ubuntu & Fedora distros are arguably the top 2. There are server, desktop and mobile versions that any company can install and use for no cost. You can, however, buy any of several support packages, if needed. There is even enterprise-wide systems management, remote access, VPN, cloud services, and much more. Also, there are paid open-source applications. Many are very good quality. They can be customized to a companies needs. The applications are mature and constantly updated much faster than MS. There are  enterprise hardware firewalls, routers, WAN devices, access points and cell phones that use Linux as their on board OS. So much more than many people realize.

It's certainly, as many have put it, a matter of functionality, compatibility, etc., but we can't reduce the issue of intellectual property and copyright to a merely practical matter, and especially if the practical aspect is ultimately arbitrary and circumstancial. I would insist on the more political emphasis of this choice, in the sense of were should and want to go. 

We can't just settle for what we immediately believe possible or probable, let alone for what simply works, because as one of the last comments put it, it's ultimately about freedom -of choice- not money. We can't continue to buy Windows or Mac as if it were an obligation, and especially if in Europe and Latin America, there are already hundreds of websites and companies that work with open source software, and by a very conscious choice.

I would also highly recommend GNU OS and Ubuntu, but I wouldn't leave it there, as a mere practical solution and money saver, I would also recommend a read of Richars Stallman, the developer behind GNU. Check out his written work on intellectual property and copyright or watch one of his conferences, of which you can fin dozens on youtube (This one is really good and easy to follow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNBMdDaYhZA). I would also recommend to check out important websites and activity in favor of open source and open access, like the Free Software Foundation , the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy & Technology. 

Downloads and the resources the internet offers to musicians to take control of their own work, is also an important aspect of intellectual property, and it certainly concerns us, who enjoy music. I would recommend you to check out the 300 Spaces initiative of German electronic musician Alex Gunia, which has created a free access project with performances that are streamed live on the internet, and will soon be so in 24/96 and full HD. The performances are all available for download and enjoying at the archive they leave behind, and you can actively participate with your appreciation.

The way I see it, open source has all the cards to win the battle in the long term.

Another intereresting find: http://www.ouya.tv/

Seems it will have XBMC and Plex Media Center...