Converting Users to Open Source- Why Do You Care?

mack knife asks: "Here's a question for Slashdot readers: Why do you care what web browser/email client/etc people use? What do you care if Firefox catches on or not? Why do some people feel the need to convert others to their pet applications? Personally, I am a convert to Firefox/Thunderbird, but I understand that many users are happy with their Microsoft products; I'll mention what I use and why, but I won't harangue them on their apps' shortcomings, nor will I try to push an unfamiliar open source app on someone who is more comfortable with a 'mainstream' product. Some open-source proponents can be quite obnoxious about this, and I'm interested to hear why it is taken so seriously."

Comments

Interoperability

[bmw]

Why do we care? We care because what software other people use does indeed affect all of us. Not only do many of us work in the IT field and have to deal with all this poorly written software but it often makes things harder on everyone even if you don't have to deal with it directly. Take Internet Explorer for example... Thanks to things like broken CSS support web developers are forced to go to great trouble in order to create websites that display properly across different browsers and platforms. And what about the Word document format? Wouldn't it be nice if you weren't forced to use MS Office just to read the text file your coworker just sent you? You see... It's all about interoperability. All this technology is supposed to help us communicate, not lock us into one product or another.

In short: It isn't so much that we really care what software you use, it's that we care about your software playing nice with our software. If everyone in the world used software that supported truly open standards then we would all be more free to choose what software we want for ourselves.

Re:Interoperability

[Jeremy.DeGroot]

many of us work in the IT field I gained the title of "Head Browser Evangelist" in the university IT department where I am a part-time employee because I tried to switch every user I spoke with to Firefox. Why? Because I was sick and tired of taking spyware calls. Certianly when they called me about spyware, I told them to switch. But even if they were calling me on an unrelated problem, I asked them what they were running and if it was IE, I told them to switch. Was I being overly aggressive trying to get people to switch? Maybe. But my job is to make computing on campus the most pleasant experience it can be for our users, and this year we get about 1/6 the spyware calls we did last year. Also, everyone I converted prefers FireFox to IE. I've never heard of a switchback.

Several reasons

[peacefinder]

It really depends on the scenario. My default position is that I don't really care. Exceptions to that include:

Epidemic control - I want people to use more secure software on network connected machines for the same reason that I support mass immunization programs. Such steps reduce the number of vectors and, therefore, the rate at which harmful data can spread.

Support - I'm a geek, and my friends know it. they call me for help. I urge them to use free software (or Macs) to cut down on the number of support calls I get. (Or at least to make the support calls a bit more interesting.)

Politics of Open Societies - I want all information produced by my tax dollars to be made publically available. (I'm willing to accept some reasonalble limits on militarily and diplomatically sensitive data, but eventually everything should come into the public domain... even if it's 100 years later.) When it does, that data should be in formats that are not proprietary.

Because Tech Support is sick of this crap

[Jerim]

I have worked tech support for a few years now while I attend school. Having been on the wrong side of too many "My computer crashed and what do you mean you can't fix it sight unseen over the phone for free?" conversations, I can easily answer why some people are adamant about switching.

Simply because we are tired of hearing about all the problems people have out of something. We have suggested to our customers for a long time that they switch to various applications. Why do we suggest Firefox? Because people who use Firefox don't call every week when it is jampacked full of spyware to the point where they can't get anyway. We only get those calls from IE uses. Why do we suggest Mac or Linux? Because those users don't call every week with another computer crash. Why do we suggest any switch? Because the switch will make our problems less.

You may be happy with what you have, and in that case carry on. But for those who call every day with some sort of problem, please switch.

Sure thing

[Safety Cap]

~ if they became mainstream, people would find ways to get spyware on it.

That's why the mainstream web server, Apache (in use by 3x as many shops as all the others combined), has far fewer unpatched and less-severe vulnerabilities than the next closest competitor.

Popularity is not a function of hackability. Being poorly written and stupidly integrated into the low rings of the OS is.

Re:Sure thing

[jc42]

now put apache in the hands of people who know nothing about computers...

That's exactly what Apple does. When you fire up a new Mac, one of the things it asks you is whether you want a web server. If you click "Yes", it sets up an apache server on the machine. You have a "Sites" directory that is your web directory. You move files into that directory (or subdirectories). They're on the Web, at least if your machine is on the Web. If not, it's still a live web site which you can test locally to your heart's desire. When you have it like you want it, you can copy the whole thing to a machine that is on the Web.

I have a Powerbook on which I do this, though my actual Web sites are on linux and FreeBSD boxes. It works fine, and there's no history of novices' machines (or mine ;-) being pwned via their web server.

(There is a serious problem with running rsync between OSX and other unixoid systems. But that's a different issue, not related to security.)

Of course, you can still endanger your machine by installing CGI programs that violate security. But your typical Joe Sixpack isn't gonna do that. Programmers will, but they're not "people who know nothing about computers".

No, apache is the poster boy for debunking the claim that being a market leader automatically makes you a hacker/cracker target. Apache has nearly 70% of the web-server market now, but it isn't a security threat. Your CGI programs may be, but apache isn't.

You'll have to find a better excuse for why IE is such a security danger. The real reason is that it's written to be insecure, and MS has no motive to fix its problems. After all, it's the market leader, so people must like it the way it is. Why change something that's so popular?