Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
The more people we convert, the more support for our projects and the better they will become sooner.
Why do people try to get other people on their side in an argument instead of just arguing alone?
Because once they connect to the Internet with an exploited system, it becomes everybody's problem.
Much like, when somebody drives with an automobile that is a gross polluter, everybody has to breathe the air that is tainted with their car's smog. Cumulatively, this adds up to a real problem in a hurry.
In the long run, friends of mine using Internet Explorer affects me in the sense that I'll have to be the one to clean the spyware off their computer and repair whatever damage it caused. Apathy is a problem with software just as it is with politics. People accept what they are given
Fetch Text URL - Firefox Extension
I understand your reasoning for Firefox...but you are trying to convert people to Linux Server by saying "better able to manage stuff". And you want someone to switch top open office because its "Adequate"? These are not very compelling reasons for people to switch to open source applications.
Open Source solution = Can be a good solution.
Closed Source Solution = Cannot be a good solution.
You have the "I don't own a TV so you shouldn't either" or "I am a vegan and you should be too" type of attitude this guy is talking about.
1 - People ask me all the time how to clean up their system. I tell them to switch to Linux or buy a Mac, knowing that they will do neither. I then tell them that they need to never use ie again and start using Firefox, and update it when the red arrow shows up. So in these cases I'm not telling them because I care, I am telling them because they cared enough to ask how to solve their problem.
2 - Network effects. The more people that are using a product, the better it is. Even if my mom and dad aren't going to hack on Firefox, their choice of browser will show up in the logs of the pages they visit. Smart webmasters will make sure their pages work well with popular browsers. It is to my advantage for the browser I use to be popular (assuming it is secure).
Lasers Controlled Games!
And you want someone to switch top open office because its "Adequate"? These are not very compelling reasons for people to switch to open source applications.
But the upcoming OpenOffice.org 2.0 will be more adequate than ever!
Ummm...
Many of us are also the first tech support contact for many of our family and friends. It is super frustrating to get problem reports for things like:
I don't have any of these problems on linux/firefox. Its hard for me to figure out what is wrong with software that I don't use and don't care about. Usually my solution is to upgrade them to the stuff I'm using.
--
Currency Exchange Calculator
If more people use "your" product, there's more chance it will survive, more chance it will interoperate with other programs you own, more chance it will even operate at all with other programs, more chance it won't disappear leaving you high and dry with legacy software... In the specific case of Firefox, I have already noticed that my favorite genealogy site has modified their display to work better with Firefox thus making it unnecessary to open the same page in IE. This becomes a more and more probable outcome the wider Firefox is used. It also leads to closer adherance to web standards by the "big guys." In short, in the software world, there are players and there are nonplayers. You want the software you use to be a player simply because it's going to be more useful to use if it is. And the only way to help make your software a player is to flog it with everyone you meet. At least, that's how I see it.
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
Even with those clever puns, your Outlook doesn't look too good...
"Why do you care what products other people using?"
Because, sometimes, their choice indeed affects me. Let's go with the tipical car comparations: It could be said that whatever car other peoples drive its their bussiness so why should I care if, say, model X brakes are known to be faulty, after all is them who will kill themselves against a tree in a curve... except when they don't crash against a tree but against myself, of course!
I do use Debian GNU/Linux so malware doesn't affect me... except by the ton of spam and mail worms I recieve from windows zombies; except for latency on my Internet connection when malware activity arises; except that some destinations won't accept mail directly from my computer since so much windows-based malware has made them block residential or dynamic IP blocks...
On the other hand, I have to take care about what hardware I buy (PDA, scanner, video cards and the like) since lots of them are not properly supported for Linux, and most of the time it is the cheapest ones; more Linux users would mean easy access to more supported components/gadgets.
Finally, let's return to the car comparation: even if there were no choice for the other car to crash against me I am a sensible person anyway, so it's my pleasure to avoid their pain if I can help to.
This is all from my "Linux fan" point of view. Let's put now my "professional hat": I do consulting for a living for soho and soho-like companies (a department within a bigger corp, for instance), and my client-base depends greatly on my own reputation. Specially with Microsoft, but it is extensible to privative software in general, there is so much I can do when things go wrong, but no more. For those that use mainly Microsoft environment I am basically an expends issue: from time to time, no matter what, a virus at some box, or an antivirus which hangs a computer, or an Office component which go nuts... for too many of these problems, once you applied the recipies there's not too much you can say but "well, let's talk to Microsoft" (and I am still waiting for the first time for them to resolve me an issue) or "time to reinstall". Not to talk about when they ask me "can [new feature] be implemented", and I have to answer "errr... yes, it will be some [big money here]". You see, mainly they pay me for things to stay the way they were. No surprise they don't see me with nice eyes.
On the other hand, when I can deploy open source solutions, I am on the drive site; there can be problems, of course, but they are resolved -and quite fast most of the time, never to return. I know I even have access to the source code if nothing else will do (and I restorted to that option in some ocassions). When they ask me "Is X doable", I usually can aswer them "Yes, open source solution X will do, at my standard hour fees". These people, quite on the contrary to the others see me as the friend that make their systems grow with time being always better and better and when problems arise, the one that always come with the solution.
Now, *I* am the one that makes things happen (so I take a merit that is not mine: obviously Wietse Venema merits much more than myself when I install Postfix and they have stable e-mail from that day on) in one case, but *I* am the one that fails too even when I say, "what do you want? Trying to correct a Windows 2000 problem is much alike to try to repair a car engine without the ability to open the hood, because in both cases I am the "human being" that they see around "doing things" and taking their money for that. So what should I do? It's funnier working with Linux and open source than with Windows and privative software, and my clients are more satisfied too, so no wonder I try to push open source on them!
All I care about is myself. And I want to use software I like. If everyone uses MS Office, I am forced to use their dc/xls/ppt file formats. If eveyone else is using Windows I will have to deal with wmv files. Many properitory plugins are not available on platform I want to use (because of small user base). As 90% people use IE website will refuse to work with browser I use. I dont care what other people use. I just want everyone to follow (open) standards. If MS Office supports open document format, IE is standards compliant and wmv is replaced by ogg I dont care.