Microsoft vs. Ximian

Kappelmeister writes "The open source movement gets some great mainstream press today as the Washington Post reports tht Ximian's Volunteer 'Army' Fights Microsoft on Open-Source Code. It mentions Linux progress in the server market, Shared Source, and how both sides are courting Mexican President Vincente Fox for use in his 'eMexico' initiative to get 98 percent of the population online. Best of all, though, it tells a lot of people that there is a decent alternative to Microsoft software."

Comments

decent alternative

[Proud Geek]

I'd feel much better about this whole thing if Linux actually were a decent alternative to a M$ Windows desktop. There are certainly places for Linux in a program like this, particularly in the infrastructure. Unfortunately I feel like I'm pushing substandard goods as a Free software advocate in cases like this.

I know Richard Stallman says we should always use Free software because it is a morally superior thing to do. However I worry about the future when we are using technology that is inferior, just because it may save a bit of money. There are a lot of people counting on this initiative!

An argument I don't understand

[Laplace]

The Free Software Foundation has recently started to promote the idea that all software should be free. This includes open source, free software, and (currently) proprietary software. To clarify that statement, Microsoft keeps their source secret, and the FSF feels that the source should be made available for all to view, modify, and redistribute. This is a point that was touched upon in the Washington Post article.

I don't understand this point of view. I am very supportive of free software as a choice. I like GNU software. I prefer to use free and open source software (yes, I do recognise the distinction between the two). In my personal life I have been free of Microsoft for over a year, and mostly free from it in my career. However, I appreciate and respect the copyright that Microsoft (and other software companines) holds on their software.

By stating that "all software must be free, no matter who developed it," I believe that the FSF is shooting itself in the foot. By crippling itself with such extremism, the FSF takes away opportunities to convince people that by having a choice, they can make the choice to improve their futures by choosing free software. The FSF political tendencies seem to be closer to dictatorship rather than the common attack of communism. Even if a dictatorship is benevolent, it is still a dictatorship.

Free Software has come so far, and has improved the quality of our lives so much. Preaching the word of freedom while advocating the removal of freedoms is counterproductive. Can anyone give a rational explanation as to why the FSF and its advocates push this unintuitive line of thought?

A decent alternative!

[mcrbids]

Boy, stuff like this just makes me laugh. Have you actually USED KDE 2.x?

As a desktop, it BLOWS WINDOWS AWAY...

Multiple simultaneous desktops, multiple simultaneous users. Configuring menus in KDE is every bit as easy as configuring the Start menu in Windows. User customizable panel menus (like the start button, 'cept you can have more than one)

Move programs between desktops with two clicks. (right click -> move to -> desktop X) Lots of games.

Lots of other nice touches, such as "highlight an URL in ANY program. You immediately get the option to open it in your browser of choice."

Kmail is super easy to use and supports any number of e-mail accounts, and has an excellent filtering system. Address book support, etc.

I just migrated an 8-site corporation to Star Office from MS-Office - no complaints; its working great...

It's very stable, running for weeks on end w/o restarting X-Windows. (note: X-Windows, not operating system)

In short, what's not the decent offering?

Sheesh....