Slashdot Mirror
Does Open Source Software Really Work?
reflexreaction writes "This article on NewsFactor does a decent job of covering some of the issues facing Open Source Software (OSS). It points to Linux's growth area, non-mission critical projects in mid-sized companies, and its main weakness, the desktop. It also briefly discusses Linux's potential growth into mission critical applications if scalability issues are addressed. Quick easy read. My favorite quote from the article "Linux on the desktop is toast.""
Live today. Tomorrow will cost a lot more!
"I believe that if you supported the desktop side more and there were more Linux desktop users, you'd sell more servers," he said.
This is exactly how Windows invaded the enterprise: it was easy for businesses to buy into Windows servers simply because they looked & felt just like the desktop OS. Newbie network admins loved Windows over Netware because they could quickly transfer their knowledge into the server room.
Fast forward to today, and Linux is trying to invade from the other side. Suddenly, this guy makes me realize that it's just as if we were trying to get Novell to the desktop - it wouldn't have worked either, even if Novell had a desktop OS.
What's your damage, Heather?
10 years ago, people were reproaching Linux with its lack of drivers and now, some whine about its lack of applications...
:-)
I guess it'll soon be fixed once people express their needs instead of their "états d'âme".
And BTW, the loudest ones are also the ones that are supposed to pay for apps, so, let's give money to Sun or Ximian or whoever develop corporate stuff and we'll soon have more than enough Office Suites, etc.
Of course, the others who actually work with Linux on a daily basis just didn't remark such lacks and, for example, are happy with the light-weight Ted when it comes to view/edit/print RTF
Trolling using another account since 2005.
It looks like the article is more of a "i came, I saw, I wrote" stuff than a properly well researched article. The major (only?) things the article keeps pointing out is the "Lack of applications" and "No company pushing it"
... pushing Linux on the desktop," Claybrook said.
Linux for the desktop is another matter. Its wide-scale adoption is still treated with skepticism by experts, who say that for consumer-level users, simply configuring Linux to dial into an ISP (Internet service provider) is a challenge.
What about KDE and GNOME diallers? Both work great.
But what hampers Linux the most, according to analysts, is a lack of applications that can run on the open source operating system.
I think what they mean is a lack of Microsoft Office Compatible applications. However, what about OpenOffice and StarOffice 6 (though there is a very brief mention)
"All the system vendors are pushing Linux on the server side, [but] there's really no large company that is
Looks like Mandrake , RedHat et al. have been forgotten?
US is now divided as the "Red" and "blue" states. Red States = communist countries. Coincidence? I think not
Why can't folks like you figure it out that not everyone wants to study the internal workings of obscure OS's. That has nothing to do with stupidity. Do you think most people who use windows even know a definition of "Operating System"? No! Because they don't need to and shouldn't have to! The interface is intuitive enough so that people can quickly figure out how to do what they want to do, move on and be productive. Learning thousands of rediculous shell commands with all their options is not intuitive and makes people become distracted from what they want to use their PC's for. Hacking config files, compiling software, unsucessfully hunting for apps with well thought out user interfaces... these are things that drive away linux users. Look at this story! If it were left in a comment on /. it would be modded into oblivion because nobody here can solve these problems, so they ignore them.
Color flashing, thunder crashing, dynamite machines.
It turns out that CCI, the DTP company, don't want the clients to run on Solaris, but on windows. That sounds fucked up. Why can't they port it to Linux, which is somewhat native for the app? And easier to deal with in a crisis?
"People" aren't "stupid" - but not everyone that could benefit from using a personal computer has had the benefit of being intimately familiar with one for years or decades, unlike most geeks. The Macintosh didn't take off in academia because the scientists and professors that took to it were too "stupid" to master the alternatives.
Unnecessary complexity does not appeal to everyone. Most, as is obvious from sales figures, are willing to sacrifice the extremes of utility, security, configurability, etc. in exchange for ease of use. View this as heresy if you like, look down on those "stupid" people all you want, but the fact is - most adults lead complex-enough lives as-is. If I hadn't been hacking UNIX for the past 20 years, there's no way in hell any Linux distro would appeal to me over MacOS or Windows.
People aren't necessarily stupid just because they can't be bothered to learn complex new OS environments for negligible gain (for their purposes, not yours). Most people just want to look at the mummies, and despite the museum curators' infantile protesting to the contrary, not learning to interpret hieroglyphs doesn't make them "stupid".
People are stupid.
It's the biggest obstacle to Linux.
True, these people are also linux developers.
What I find funny is you guys look at people using MSFT by choice as a problem. Aren't OSS/linux cult people by nature pro-freedom-choice. So if a user CHOOSES to use windows isn't that a good thing? I thought the gloves only come off when they have no choice?
Since when was the Linux crowd about a bunch of pathetic sore losers? Maybe if y'all stop pissing and whining you'd get more credible attention instead of throwing fits like 6 yr old girls.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
People are stupid. It's the biggest obstacle to Linux.
What a truly ignorant point of view. Boo hooo, the public don't understand how to use Linux, that's their fault. No - if Linux wants to successful on the desktop, it needs to satisfy the public's needs. If it's being written by a load of arrogant wankers (which I'm not saying it is) who think the public are 'stupid' for what they want, then it is toast.
On the behalf of the general public, fuck you.
You know what, Linux is going to win, period, end of story, no further debating, it is not an issue of if, it is an issue of when.
.net initiative and Xbox, etc, it leads me to believe that they have also considered the possibility that over the long haul, they just can't compete.
I've figured this out due to an earlier assumption I made about netscape, I thought, jeez, with the massive installed base that netscape currently enjoys in the www market, IE has no chance, no matter if it's free, especially considering that the early versions of IE, probably up until about 4.x were actually enormously worse than the comparitive time based offerings from Netscape, a lot of people at the time shared my opinion.
But, as we all know, IE won, and is probably about to be overtaken once more by gecko.
The reason IE won isn't bundling into the desktop as so many people like to think, it's because of a few things that it had going in it's favour over netscape and these few things that it had going over netscape, linux currently has going over windows, plus some.
1) Microsoft was giving away their product for free, as much as you like to blather on about TCO and crap like that, it's a simple fact that this matters, I've implemented corporate wide solutions before and seen people blanch at licensing fees for commercial software, especially the exorbitant rates which microsoft charge, and people are looking at ways to cut these costs, Microsoft could afford to give their Browser away for free because they had a whole bunch of other products still making them money and providing them with a nice fulcrum to leverage the www market.
Linux, is basically invincible, you can't kill it, you can't target the company and choke it by removing it's revenue sources, it doesn't matter if it's not a commercial success, there's nothing that you can do that will stop people from making linux a better mousetrap time after time after time, and it does get better, with every iteration, it's amazing just the difference between RH6.2 and RH7.2, what do you think will happen by the time we have RH8.2?
In this respect, Microsoft has no come back, there is nothing that they can do in the long run, short of making linux illegal (touch wood) that will stop it from eventually destroying their monopoly.
Disagree with this single point all you like, but ask yourself how much people would be willing to pay for a car with metallic paint which cost 30,000$ vs a car which they could simply get for free and was just as usable as the original option.
2) Linux, unlike MS IE, is actually coming from a technical position of strength, if you all remember the version of IE that MS first put out, you'll understand where I'm coming from here, IE 1.0 was a joke, it was completely laughable, there was nothing even remotely in it that was percievably a threat to the dominant browser.
In the modern OS market, Linux vs Windows from a purely technical standpoint without the UI issues results in a resounding win to Linux, I will grant that application, driver, and even debatably User Interface is superior under Windows, but if you think that is going to remain the truth forever, I advise you to look back at humble old IE 1.0 vs the current offering from netscape, and Windows XP vs. the latest RedHat distribution, I think you'll find the gap to be quite significantly smaller.
Judging Microsoft's recent business initiatives I am beginning to think that perhaps they're hedging their bets on the windows hegemony with the
Anyway, the article, oh yes, the article.
Bunch of fucking hacks.
;)
Cheers
Genj
Most linux programmers come from a developer community that up until recently hasn't been tasked with designing user friendly interfaces or has even considered UI design very important. For almost 30 years, the target audience for unix software has been either other unix geeks or servers, and human non-geeks never really figured into the picture. We keep hearing "Linux has already gotten so far on the server, it's only a matter of time till it gets as far on the desktop". It is incredibly naive for the linux development community to think that any of its attitudes, design values, and methodologies are going to carry over from the server to the desktop. Linux got as far as it did on the server because linux programmers were the absolute best kind of people you could ever hope for to do server stuff. Unfortunately, they are the absolute worst kind of people you could ever sent to do desktop stuff.
The reason why MacOS X is currently the most successful unix desktop is that the mac development community has always been very committed to designing usable and consistent interfaces. They don't have 30 years of anti-newbie, RTFM baggage they've got to get rid of, and no one has a problem saying the word "folder" instead of "directory".
To get to the point that the mac community is at, linux developers will have to undergo a radical attitude debugging. The problem the linux development community faces is not a technological problem like the kind they've had in the past, but a people problem. Unfortunately, fixing people problems are a hell of a lot harder than fixing technological ones.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
I think one of the problems with linux on the desktop is that people want to see features they know from windows, and don't care about other useful ones. Last week I saw my friend's mom and brother complaining about linux because he hadn't set up anti-aliasing yet, and windows had it. But Windows XP wouldn't work with his cable modem, so it wasn't even worth booting into, but they still ragged on linux. The problem is people don't care about cool things like exporting displays or multiple windows- they've been conditioned to believe the only things that are important are things Microsoft gives them. Up until MS used anti-aliasing, they couldn't care less about it, but now it's the end of the world if it's not there.
Colin Winters
Ok, I started off with a blatantly obvious statement that can be said about just about any software. I have yet to find a piece of software that does more than one or two things that doesn't have flaws. (Kudos to those out there who have done it. Too bad I haven't seen it.)
Anyway, I know even from a server position that there are issues with memory management and garbage collection that make Linux unwieldy at times. We use it, but we also know that sometimes we have to reboot systems. Yes! We reboot Linux machines because we haven't coded around the lack of features. We easily have RAM allocated on our machines and then can't release it easily for other applications. Oh well. Rant, rant, rant.
I see the posts about Aqua and how Macs are so great, but I hate that I can't customise Aqua to how I want it. I hate the big bulky bars. Yeah, Apply MAY have been really great, but I think they've lost touch with people now, and are fighting a losing battle of trying to control. Microsoft may be a big bad behemoth that has wielded a lot of power out there, but at least I can customise windows to some degree as I like it.
As far as getting applications onto Linux, it's not that hard. Support the companies that are building good IDEs! Get better and better documentation written. If you wonder why widget X and Y hasn't been built to work with your application, perhaps your documentation isn't so good. I found this with our own developers in that we had lots of docs written by our developers ostensibly for others, but only really targetted towards themselves. No one had any idea beyond a basic presentation as to what our apps did as standard features and how they could be configured.
And for those trolls who love to bash anyone who's not a great tech geek, well, I'm sorry, but someone has to pay the bills. And people who design those pretty boxes and that cool anime and write a lot of great sci-fi books, scripts, and so on, tend to not be the most technically oriented people, and they don't like fighting to get an OS to work for them. If you don't have the user base, you don't get the supporting tools, and without the tools, you can't easily increase the base. The Linux user base has to reach critical mass, and not only in the server area.
OSS works. But bad attitudes and bad practices by the self-appointed mini-evangelists (i.e. trolls) who would rather engage in idealist wars than work together have hurt OSS more than Microsoft or any other corporation. There are very few idiot users. But there sure are a lot of socially inept engineers.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
The most pathetic thing in the world is a prisoner what spends their time rationalising about how much better off they are than those poor saps that have to pay for rent and food outside.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
In my hospital, different sets of proprietary software are used for path results, patient records, radiology reports, etc.
;)
A unit head had become frustrated that he was paying his registrars to do hours of work collating the data from the various (incompatible) sources before each ward round. (paying doctors to do paperwork is expensive
He reasoned (correctly) that it SHOULD be easy to make a little program to collate the data. But the vendors weren't prepared to talk to one another, or to give advice on how their systems worked. Quotes from the companies to do the work were exorbitant.
If you have the source, little ad-hoc, specific additions are cheap and easy. If you don't, vendors can hold you to ransom and demand as much as they like.
The logic seems clear to me, but there is a lack of (production quality) open-source code for such applications.
Not to flame you, but until someone cracks the problem of making actual cash money, you know, the stuff that buys groceries and houses and cars (spending venture capital is not making money) then there will be no open source industry.
It's already been cracked. What's happening is that software service companies... companies that make money off selling their workers for hire on a contract basis... are using the product of open source code as a market descriminator for their services. This is in tune with the larger-scale socioeconomic realities: we are becoming a service economy. Open source is actually well-synchronized with the changing economic landscape by that standard.
C//
It's right in the article:
"There are different reasons why people advocate open source. One reason for enterprise is, 'You have the source code; if it doesn't work, you can fix it.' But the fact is, if I'm an enterprise, I don't want to fix it. I want somebody else to fix it," Goldman said.
That about sums it up. Most corporations are not in the software business; they have IT staff, but not programming and development staff....just guys that maintain and secure the servers and networks. These guys aren't going to desk-check all the code for buffer overflows and the like, they just want to install it, configure it, and apply security patches that the software developers wrote.
This is not an unsolvable problem; hopefully Redhat and other Linux vendors will eventually get the respect / trust that other commercial OS vendors get from the business community.
They'll take one look at a Slackware install, say "WTF this doesn't have AOL", and go back to sacrificing money to the stone idol of Bill Gates.
That's the classic mistake that many technical people make, that if you don't know about computers, you're stupid.
If you do believe it, I expect that you are expert in the electronics in your TV and DVD player, understand the mechanics of launching a satellite to relay phone calls, the chemistry of an oil refinery that fuels your car, all the routes driven by the postal service to deliver packages to and from your door to anywhere in the world, etc...
Of course not. That's why we have specialists. You happen to be a specialist in computer technology, but you'd starve to death without specialists in field-ploughing to feed you. Remember that.
Now, folks may not agree, but this is the way it works. Big corporations are in the business of doing their business, not maintaining an o/s (unless that is their business). Fact is, there's no such thing as "free' in the corp world. Corp wants to pay someone else (under an SLA) to maintain stuff. Where Linux is concerned, they want to (1) buy licenses from a vendor and (2) buy support from a vendor within an SLA. Any other arrangement does not work.
That said, I would love to exploit Linux desktops (and I'm considering that option for about 21,000 OS/2 desktops I have today). Why? Because I think it could be cheaper than going the M$ route - assuming vendor support is there. My biggest risk is the lack of applications (with support) and lack of peripheral vendors (with support). However, the picture is getting clearer and I have hope.
CrazyLegs
"Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.
Why can't folks like you figure it out that not everyone wants to study the internal workings of obscure OS's.
That's not what I took from that. Although poorly said, what he (I feel) is trying to say is something like:
People are lazy (yes, there's stupid ones too). They don't want to LEARN anything new. They want to be handed something that they know the person sitting next to them knows because when the person is stumped, rather than hit Google, or try to figure it out, they turn to the person next to them.
"Hey Sam, how do I change the background of my main window here?"
"Main Window? You mean the Desktop?"
"I dunno, I guess."
THAT is my point, and I think Teknogeek's as well.
I'm an Admin. I've seen this in action for 7 or 8 years.
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
Actualy, is all about the OS being pre-installed.
Take a look at this article:
Linux for Mom and Dad
This article "kills" a myth: only geeks can use Linux.
When reality says: only an expert can install and configure Linux or Windows so anyone can use it
This is why Microsoft is so against Linux being pre-loaded on computers, as seen recently.
That may be the way it works, in IT.
In engineering, there's more to life than fixes and support. It's about doing things, creating new things, using your tools to get things done. You might have software that you would like to perform some function, but the vendor is under no obligation to provide that function for you. You can apply pressure on the vendor, and if they get enough of the same kind from enough companies, maybe the next release will have it. Or not. But that doesn't help you if you want to get something done before the next release. Having the source code is an invaluable asset for an engineer.
The enemies of Democracy are
Regardless of whatever anyone is trying to see, the simple fact remains. People who have better things to do than understand UNIX deserve freedom too.
My Mom, who, at retirement age, is beginning a 3rd career as a landscape designer, who takes dance lessons, who got 2 Master's degrees in her forties, who travels regularly to Europe and Latin America, who studies botany, history, and languages. She doesn't want to learn vi to get email, but don't dare say she doesn't want to learn anything. That you think of the computer as the horizon of knowledge is really very, very sad.