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.""

Comments

Bad Logic

[tapiwa]

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.
This is a sign of bad logic. Because I want to be able to pay somebody to fix it, I need the source.

The CTO of BigCorp is not going to hack code, but he wants to be able to pay someone *lots_of_money* to fix it so it works for his organisation. The fix might be becuase of a problem unique to his situation... (we've all seen how some programs can break OS), and so not on top list of priorities for whichever co built the software.

With closed source this is more difficult.

An interesting analysis, and a good point

[Brento]

"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.

Re:Wizard's First Rule:

[Carp Flounderson]

Nope... the biggest obstacle to Linux is people who say: People are stupid. It's the biggest obstacle to Linux.

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.

Why do programmers choose windows?

[nordicfrost]

At work, a newspaper, the desktop publishing system is being changed. They have used Sun SPARCstations in the past, but changed them for Dells when they got too expensive. The Dells Intel structure isn't very stable with Solaris and crashes quite often it seems. Now, even worse, the Solaris is being phased out and Windows is in (!) with remote X windows. Is it just me or is this a perfectly stupid descition?

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?

Off the horse, sir

[Anonymous Coward]

"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".

Re:Wizard's First Rule:

[yatest5]

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.

GUI design newbies making UI's for linux newbies

[Ilan Volow]

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.

Does Closed Source Work?

[nagora]

Funny how these people happily ignore all the problems of closed source apps, isn't it? The security issues, the continual upgrade payments, the bloated system requirements, the worry of the company dying and support drying up. Not to mention the cost.

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

Re:Bad Logic - Not so Fast

[CrazyLegs]

As a senior IT guy at a Very Big Corp (and former geek) I must humbly point out a few errors in your logic:

• I do not need the source, I need a support structure (i.e. a vendor) who has the source
• I'm not willing to pay "lots_of_money" to fix something I already bought from the vendor
• closed source or open source - no matter. As soon as I pay for support (under the above rules), it's closed source. Let the vendor worry about it.

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.