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?
(Score:-1,Flamebait)
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?
I just this week installed Mandrake 8.2 on my machine. If linux on the desktop is toast, then it's nicely browned toast with lots of butter and strawberry jam :-)
Oh, but that's just a marketing problem. Instead of calling it "Linux/unstable" call it "Linux CE" (Linux Cutting Edge)...you'll see everyone flocking to Linux from there on!
If your comment starts with "the problem with linux is" then *you're* the problem because Linux doesn't have a problem it is made by geeks for geeks give it or take it but don't put marketing into the equation because it isn't code and linux is code under the GPL so don't give me crap about linux not ready for the desktop because linux doesn't care linus doesn't care no one cares except those who don't understand what that this is all about empowering users to a new paradigm that cannot be put side by side on a scale with proprietary alternative because linux doesn't fit on a scale it is code to be runned for a direct purpose that goes beyond mere comparison with alternatives and microsoft and stuff I just doesn't make sense to force the issue like some people are doing since no one can claim that linux was designed to take over the world initially while it may be on that path currently it remains to be seen whether OSS can compete in an arena controlled my money and dominated by people who have been top company execs for ages so they know their ball game and they know their turf unlike linux which is like the new kind on the block heck linus doesn't even wear a mustache so how in blue hell can anyone claim that you can compare apple and oranges while keeping a straight face and claiming purported weaknesses on the desktop but doing ok in mission critical application were scalability issues need to be addressed so I think that the point is moot and that the article is too quick and too easy to read compared to the stuff I write because when I write it never stops to be interesting especially when I write about linux and issues facing open source software because not everyone knows how to discuss these things without a single period or coma amen.
"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.
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.
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 guess that's their decision, and ya just gotta respect it - some want the money, others just want to help create nice software for everyone.
I see that you're a full time student... but pretty soon, you will realize that in the real world, people need money. 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.
Let me give you an example. ESR drives his pickup truck to the nearest small town (he lives in a log cabin in the woods for the purpose of this story) to pick up some oatmeal, beef jerky, tinned beans and this month's Guns & Brides magazine. But since the NASDAQ crash, he's a little short of money, so he says to the cashier, hey, I wrote a tiny part of the OS that runs your cash register, can I just take this stuff for free? Ummm, no, says the clerk, pushing the button connected to the local Sherriff's office.
See, that why wanting to help create nice software doesn't cut it in the real world. Sorry to have to be the one to break it to ya, kid.
Linux has some of the best desktops. I use WindowMaker on every machine and I install it as the default on every machine. Even people new to computers settle into it within a few minutes. It is far better than KDE/GNOME/Windows/MacOSX. I've never edited a single WM config file by hand either.
Unfortunately, they are the absolute worst kind of people you could ever sent to do desktop stuff.
What I think you really mean is that they are too interested in porductivity and not enough in interesting little icons. Well, most secretaries are interested in productivity too and they don't give a shit about GUI theories that spout all kind of ways to "interface with the user": they want a clean simple fast method of telling their computer what they want it to do next.
The reason why MacOS X is currently the most successful unix desktop
Is that it's preinstalled on Macs. Reactions to it are mixed at best but, just like Windows, the users are locked in and frankly Apple isn't interested in whether they like it or not. Jobs made it pretty clear that the desktop was changing and the users could like it and ask for more, please Sir.
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".
There is a lot less anti-newbie feeling than there is a dislike of being told that useful and productive tools that need some time to master are less important than pandering to simpletons that can't handle difficult words like "directory". Explain again why "folder" makes more sense; particularly the bit where I open a folder and find more folders inside. Which metaphor are we using here?
To get to the point that the mac community is at, linux developers will have to undergo a radical attitude debugging.
Assuming they wanted to get to that point, where their market is shrinking and the hardware they use is grossly overpriced for the performance and there hasn't been a new application of any note for a decade.
Unfortunately, fixing people problems are a hell of a lot harder than fixing technological ones.
How true. It is much harder to get people to try thinking instead of just following the latest pronouncements of the Gates and Jobs of this world. Imagine if people using computers felt they had a chance of arranging their desktop to suit themselves instead of some expert with a joke degree in Human-Computer-Interfaces. Or even, Jobs-forbid! an actual choice in which desktop to use! Jesus Christ! The sky is falling, the users have choice; the unified user interface is under attack!
Basically, to hell with you and to hell with people that want their users to be good little sheep. Linux on the desktop does every work related task I've had for four years now ranging from graphics to web design to large document preparation to programming and if you want to pretend it's not happening it's no skin off my nose. I'm not depending on a financially insecure company with a terrble track record for supporting its users when things get tough.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.
It's only becoming a service economy because it's the latest buzzword compliant business plan.
./ instead. LOL.
Well. Far be it from me to believe all of those economists who are all largely in a agreement and have things like PhDs from well respected instutitions. I guess I should just believe some yahoo on
The service economy is a reality. It's a nation-wide economic trend that transcends software. Professional services are growing at an incredible rate. Look it up.
>Linux companies are trying to go service orientated, doesn't mean it's a great idea.
This isn't about goodness of ideas, but higher level economic forces. Your reference to "all these Linux companies" misses the picture. There are huge numbers of knowledge-worker service businesses in existence now, as we speak; they've been there for a long time, and have established and proven business models.
Think "contract software development".
Now, consider this. Should my company sell my last years project, or bill me out to a client for $160 an hour? My company can pull $320K annually on my service work. Getting $320K after expenses on my software may be a stretch, considering amortized business costs, and so forth.
Or they can "open source" my software. What's this do for them? 1. They don't spend a $1 Million in product/market development fees. 2. This creates goodwill for the company. 3. Next time we're proposing work to a client, the whole *company* gets to say "Yeah, buy our services, we did XXX product on open source."
In case your curious, I'm not speculating. This is really what's happening. I'm there, in the thick of it, and know what's going on.
Contract software guys love this sort of stuff.
C//
Now, folks may not agree, but this is the way it works. Big corporations are in the business of doing their business, not maintaining an o/s (unless that is their business). Fact is, there's no such thing as "free' in the corp world. Corp wants to pay someone else (under an SLA) to maintain stuff. Where Linux is concerned, they want to (1) buy licenses from a vendor and (2) buy support from a vendor within an SLA. Any other arrangement does not work.
That said, I would love to exploit Linux desktops (and I'm considering that option for about 21,000 OS/2 desktops I have today). Why? Because I think it could be cheaper than going the M$ 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.
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.