Slashdot Mirror
Munich Delays Linux Conversion
It doesn't come easy writes "A short blurb over at The Register reports that Munich has decided to extend the pilot phase of their Linux migration project. One smart move mentioned: Many of their office workers will switch to OpenOffice on Windows first where it is comfortable, easing the transition."
start rolling in?
Isn't OpenOffice on Windows the same as OpenOffice on Linux? I see in the story at The Register that they have various office templates and scripts that they want to port to OpenOffice, yet why waste time removing Office from each machine, then installing OpenOffice, then getting all the scripts and templates to work, then having to recreate things when done again in the Linux environment? Why not just cut out the middle steps and go directly from Office on Windows, to OpenOffice on Linux?
People, am I missing something here, or would it not just be best to just go to Linux with openOffice functionality directly, and not even bother with this middle step? If you ask me, it sounds like something else here is amiss, as their reasoning seems flawed to me...
I can understand people being concerned about switching from a Microsoft Windows environment, using Office for their word processing, spreadsheet, database, and presentation tasks... yet as far as things go, Linux can do the same things with OpenOffice just as easily...
Also, Linux has a web browser, music player, everything that a company could need to do business with, and these days, with the majority of applications that companies needing built on web-based infrastructures, there really is very little reason to run Windows these days. Of course some companies still have applications that are Windows-only, but with time I can see more applications being able to function on Linux...
Another bonus of running Linux is the amount of spyware that will be cut down drastically, as windows is well known for how easy spyware can infect it and totally ruin a system image. If they would just hurry up and switch to Linux, so many problems would be solved...
Oh well, at least they can build cars right over in Germany...
Need a Nerd?
Nerd Systems
Who here, who as ever worked on a large scale project, has not experienced delays?
They rolled in a few months ago. Missed the boat a bit there I think.
It's nice to see a successful government project, even if it is something as relatively minor as a computer systems switch. Yes, okay, switching computer systems is a pretty big deal if you are a system administrator or applications developer for those systems. But from the general public (the ones whom the system is meant to serve) perspective, it should all be pretty transparent.
To see such a move going so well that they intend to do more of it is certainly heartening. I know that I wish the American government would allocate its funds better. Switching to low-cost, high-quality solutions like Linux provides us taxpayers with more bang for our buck.
Let's see how well it goes in Germany and see what lessons we can take away from it!
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
makes sense to me.
I find nothing wrong with it if it would bring the price down. It was interesting to read recently that the price of Vista is rumored to debut at $99, which some people at MS consider a low price (?) Apparently Microsoft is hoping people will have a more positive incentive to upgrade to the new software, instead of letting their existing OS slip into obsoletion. Of course, this would also mean more people would go out to the stores and buy the OS, raising profit margins and revenue... I still consider that $99 to be a high price to pay for an operating system, but the price of MS Office is just rediculous. Microsoft Office Professional Edition is retailing on Amazon for $404.99. If there is a big transition to OpenOffice maybe we will see some real competition and that price will start to come down... but from the looks of it MS would probably lower it to $350 and call it a good deal. For people who really need the software and are on a low budget these prices are truly crippling.
All that's happening is that they're waiting a little while for the workers to get comfortable with the office suites first. There's no hesitation about switching to Linux. Munich is a big city folks, you can't just say "We're going to change to Linux . . . wait for it . . . NOW!"
Slackware's a bitch to install .home) and I've never had any problems. Have you used it recently?
I've been using it since 8.0 and every version doing a fresh install (backing up and restoring
"I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
Although the compatability between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice has definitely improved, it would be interesting to know how much trouble is had in this region. The switch to OpenOffice because it is free arguement does not take into account the amount of time spent trying to make old documents work. If it could be shown by a large organization that all is good many more may make the switch
:(){
Somewhere in Redmond, Ballmer is abusing a chair.
I don't see why that would matter OOo is pretty similar to ms office, not much relearning to do. Like the parent said it would be more effective to do both transitions at the same time, but then again I'm usually wrong with these kind of things
Yeah, I hope they're considering rolling out other F/OSS packages during the transition, too. Firefox and Thunderbird on Windows come to mind as easy to adapt to while learning OOo.
SEO Firefox Extension
Yes you are missing something, OpenOffice on both platforms is the same. The idea is the users will have a chance to get use to OpenOffice, before they have to get use to linux.
Which quite honestly is a bigger change than changing from M$ Office to OpenOffice.
The effect will be that they will be able to convert there templates and scripts while still using an OS they are comfortable with, then copy those Templates/scripts to there Linux setup once they are accustomed to OpenOffice.
You and I may have no problem changing OS'es just like that, but they are dealing with general users that wont be, and will simply be expecting there computers to just work.
Slackware is Classic, and it has its own breed of users who have been using it since 1995 and never cared to switch to any other distro....
Give it a break... Slackware=simple+stable+speed
- User resistance: people like to stay with what they know rather than being pushed to use something unfamiliar.
- Extensive use of MS Office only features such as VBA or features that work differently in Open Office.
- Applications using Active-X or other COM controls that are not easily converted to WINE or similar.
- Third party software products that are only supported under Windows.
- What else?
There is probably aThis is often a much more sure road to successful acceptance than big-bang rollout projects, where any issues tend to be magnified in that short window when the powers that be see themselves politically vulnerable to errors in execution and might pull the plug.
When going after user acceptance, a pull is better than a push; if users want the change, they're on your side and will work to show the change in the best light. When pushing the technology out to people who would rather have a bit of control over the process, you risk their ire if you tread on their schedules.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
I am a little confused here... why the switch to OpenOffice on Windows first, then to Linux second? Is that not an extra step, that could be totally done away with?
Explain to me how the switch from Office on Windows to Open Office on Linux is not two steps to beging with. I would say going to Open Office first, then to Linux would more easing into OSS then the other way around. Switching your OS is a much bigger step than switching your word processor/office suite software. And if you switch your OS to Linux, you would be forced to switch your office suite package. I think it would be easier for someone to switch to a Mac and still be able to use Office rather than switch to a foreign OS and a foreign office suite all at once.
Quote: He explained that when a department has a small number of simple Office macros and templates, but a large number of complex applications, it is easier to switch to OpenOffice on Windows before switching to Linux.
What you missed was the 'large number of complex applications.' To me this implies that there are applications (outside of Office) that will need to be 'transitioned.' They'll need to wean people off the applications or create Linux-compatible equivalents.
Author of Enyo: Up and Running from O'Reilly Media
I can't imagine waiting for Gentoo to compile on 30,000 PCs. ;)
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
What are you talking about? I can do Slackware installs without a monitor its so easy.
They are mostly worried about the fancy stuff that no one but secretarys ever use. It's mostly there, but the shortcuts might be different, ect.
Can you imagine what most geeks would do if copy went from ctrl-c to ctrl-k or something like that?
Just a thought.
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
One point I see made constantly (wonder how many MS shills there are out there) is the concern and finger pointing at OpenOffice about ensuring smooth interoperability and compatibility with Office documents. This is frustrating.
First (but not foremost) in my opinion the sooner "compatibility with Microsoft" is dropped as the IT yardstick (really it is just a canard), the better. As posted in previous /. articles there are other and emerging standards. The other standards aren't necessarily better (since that's an esoteric discussion unto itself anyway), but I can think of one that in the long run if adopted hints at greater interoperability than seen in a long time.
Second (and foremost AFIC), I've posted on this point many times (hmmm, time to start keeping a list of links), there really isn't such a thing as Microsoft and Office interoperability and compatibility. It's time to push back and start pointing that out to the puff-piece MS standard bearers. How many times have you wasted valuable time at a meeting while attendees share paper copies of the pre-distributed incompatible (with their version of WORD) Word documents? If you don't remember, you're not trying.
It's just not OpenOffice's fault anymore, and it's time to start defending it. I know it's a long shot. I know it's a long haul. And I know I'm getting modded troll and flamebait.
As far as I understood the speech of Florian Schießl (project leader in Munich) on the LinuxTag 2005 they are using a Debian based solution. So there is no need to figure out how to install Slackware.
I've been moving people away from 2000 Pro at work to XP Pro and a few have complained that "It's too different! I can't learn this" even with the classic windows theme installed. Some people will fuss for no good reason. My only motivation is all the 2000 systems are still joined to a NT4 domain that is being taken away. Then people bitched when we went from Office XP to Office 2003. If you force things upon people they'll adapt quickly, but if you give them too many options it could take years to get them moved over to something different.
Training, primarily, as well as care and feeding of the myriad process monkeys with their taproots in the flow.
Seriously, large organisations - including municipal governments - are notoriously risk-adverse. Not adverse to change, but adverse to unmanaged change. And if you're working with people who are extraordinarily process-minded (the nursing profession comes to mind) then you're not going to get the ball over the line without showing a step-by-step progress from point A to point B. Smaller steps will be seen as less-risky, and therefore better. Chaos in any bureaucracy is considered irreligeous.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
...not everyone has ulterior motives for slowing down migrations.Which is often no more than "wishful thinking". Yes, it's sad, but true none the less.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Already did. The MS solution was cheaper at the time. Munich still decided on Linux. They want full control over their IT infrastructure in the future, right down the souce code level, something Microsoft can't offer.
First, I am not at all surprised by this delay. Munich is undertaking something extremely massive. I figure it is going to take maybe 2-3 more years to make it happen. Undoubtedly this delay has happened because they have found that some of their internal apps/web apps/etc. don't work as well on Linux and they are working on porting them over. This is to be expected and is hardly the end of the world.
Secondly why migrate the apps first? Think about it. You want to make sure everything works. This usually means migrating in stages and slowly. The last thing you want to do is migrate everything all at once and then have to shut down everything for a month while you rebuild certain areas of your infrastructure. So you start with the easiest to replace areas (Mozilla/Firefox, OOo) and work down from there. You have some people on a pilot program using Linux and finding all the issues with it, and this makes it easier to migrate additional areas. Also moving everyone over to OOo as soon as possible makes a lot of sense because it helps the people on Linux use the same software as the people on Windows.
Ideally this pilot program would be done by those people with the least specific requirements and the fewest software tools they rely on. Once these users are stabilized, then you can expand the pilot to a larger group with slightly more complex needs. And so forth. I figure that a well orchistrated migration of a large organization will take at least 3-5 years to complete assuming all goes well.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The patent proposal is that if you attack a given GPL'd project with patents then you lose the right to distribute that product. Not the ability to use it.
Linux is under GPL 2 not GPL 2 or later so that is no issue. Open Office is under the LGPL not the GPL.
"A lot of people get confused and think you can't patent open-source software. You absolutely can. The limitations, typically, are who can you enforce those patents against," Gatto said. "Under the GPL, you can't assert your patent against people in the chain who took your software under an open-source license, but you could certainly enforce it against a third-party."
http://news.com.com/GPL3+first+public+draft+due+e
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own" - Adam Savage
That was my attempt at alleged humour my friend :)
Ok looks like you misunderstood what that means if you write a peice of software, patent that peice of software, and then decided to release the software under GPL you cant enforce the patent on people who create derivtive works based on your software... but you can still enforce your patent on people who make a product that that is the same as yours but isnt a derivative work of you GPL'd code.....
:)
for example you write a compression algorithim, patent it and release source code for it under GPL, People can make projects with your compression algo and as long as they release it under gpl its all good... but if some company wants to include you compression algo without making their code subject to the gpl they cant without infringing on you patent
in other words patented software released under the gpl is good
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own" - Adam Savage
Massive changes almost never work.
The best way to approach this is to have a lot of small steps. That way, any minor advance that has a problem can be rolled back without killing the entire project.
The trick is to space out the changes that the end user has to deal with so they don't get overwhelmed by them.
And neither do your techs.
It's all about the migration plan.
I figure it is going to take maybe 2-3 more years to make it happen.
I figure that a well orchistrated migration of a large organization will take at least 3-5 years to complete assuming all goes well.
So basically, despite trying to sound like you know what you're talking about, you don't know enough about large scale human-office-computer dynamics to closely estimate the completion time.
Munich, as one of the pioneers at converting at such large a scale, is trying to figure this out. It'll be a process of continous timeline refinements, which will not only result in eventual success, but also provide a map for other organizations to better ease into open source.
For the IT department, switching the O/S is more complicated than switching the office suite because of all the details (user accounts, profiles, mail, printers, and so on).
But for a end user which spend most of its time in the mail client, spreadsheet or word processor the O/S is not such a big issue, as long as they have icons on the desktop, similar behavior from widgets and basic information on how to get the files they are using on the network.
For the end user, the big issue is all about the software, being it the office suite, the C++ IDE or the accounting package. (How do I merge documents? How can I convert this 30 MB Word file bloated with bitmaps that the customer sent to me? How come the CTRL-B won't put the text in bold?)
I think the two-steps migration is quite wise and to me it is obvious that those people know what they are doing. After a couple of months they will either rollback to M$ or move fullsteam to Linux, and this will be a very, very interesting story to follow-up.
End users will bitch, which is unavoidable, but with a strong commitment from the top levels of the hierarchy and from the IT department the move can be successful.
Anybody who experienced an SAP implementation or a M&A will tell you that: the challenge of the migration process is the user inertia and fear of change. How Munchen face this challenge will be textbook material for future generations of MBAs.
lucm, indeed.
This obviously means the death of Linux.
After all, these opensource nuts are the only ones that experience delays, and its only because of the poor caliber of opensource programmers.
Microsoft, of course, never experiences delays. If they had gone with a Microsoft Solution 3 years (projected started in 2001), they'd be running on Longhorm, ahem, I mean, Vista, today!
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Most of the people will be using three applications that are found on both Linux and Windows, OpenOffice, Mozilla Firefox, Mozilla Thunderbird. Getting them used to OpenOffice(hopefully the beta its sooo nice), Mozilla Firefox, and Mozilla Thunderbird will help ease things out when they are finally on Linux and the users will have to get used to the Linux desktop environment(I would suggest KDE). Anyway if they are really afraid I know there are many skins to make Linux look like windows, they should consider that to.
Word has styles!
This has come up a couple times in the past.
What is better (if anything) about how OO handles styles? (This is a legitimate question BTW; I'm not trolling.)
I did note that they have more categories of styles; Word has character and paragraph styles but OO has list and a couple others.
(However, even if OO support for styles is better, I have a list of many other things that OO 2 *doesn't* have but Word does, or Word does better. For instance, OO writer doesn't have a view that equates with Word's normal view.)
I find this very interesting.
Maybe the solution to the GPL software patents "problem" is for GPL software authors to begin aggressively patenting their work?
I mean, there are certainly lots of things that exist in the various flavors of the Linux operating system that could be patentable (certainly by the low standards the Patent Office here in the U.S. seems to be using). Rather than just scream and yell about how evil software patents are, maybe as a community we should start actively and encouraging authors to patent new concepts, and then assigning them to the FOSS so they could be used against GPL violators.
It seems that perhaps this is the direction that the GPL 2 drafters have in mind?
Software patents are looking more and more to be a powerful new weapon between the various entities competing for mind- and market-share in the tech world. It would be irresponsible for the FOSS community not to attempt to arm itself, as a deterrent if nothing else.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Isn't OpenOffice on Windows the same as OpenOffice on Linux? I see in the story at The Register that they have various office templates and scripts that they want to port to OpenOffice, yet why waste time removing Office from each machine, then installing OpenOffice, then getting all the scripts and templates to work, then having to recreate things when done again in the Linux environment? Why not just cut out the middle steps and go directly from Office on Windows, to OpenOffice on Linux?
What I got from reading the article had to do with the office infrastructure. If it is heavly based on Outlook and the mail infrastructure, the migration is quite involved. As other mailservers get set up, then the OS can be changed and Outlook and it's serve can be discontinued.
Small offices without a corporate server would be the easiest to transition. It sounds like what they are doing.
The truth shall set you free!
Oops -- in my editing I cut a chunk out: ... and then assigning [the patents] to the FOSS organization 'closest' to the project who would have the resources to employ them so they could be used against GPL violators.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I had to blink for a second; I knew slashdot has some slow news days but that takes the cake; is it now news that someone had to stop talking about Linux long enough to eat some food?
I see in the story at The Register that they have various office templates and scripts that they want to port to OpenOffice, yet why waste time removing Office from each machine, then installing OpenOffice, then getting all the scripts and templates to work, then having to recreate things when done again in the Linux environment?
Probably because they'll install OpenOffice before removing MS Office, so they can continue to use their scripts and templates while they get them working in OpenOffice. It's a lot easier to write a new version of your templates if you can see how the old version works with software you have available.
What is better (if anything) about how OO handles styles? (This is a legitimate question BTW; I'm not trolling.)
As you said OpenOffice has page and list styles, their styles have all the options, and they can be linked to a template (or not) or a master document
If you change a template style all the styles in the linked document will change
All the suitte is style-oriented, for example you need to use an style to apply conditional formatings or you can use styles to navigate a document
(However, even if OO support for styles is better, I have a list of many other things that OO 2 *doesn't* have but Word does, or Word does better. For instance, OO writer doesn't have a view that equates with Word's normal view.)
Sure. But I also have a list of many thing that OO2 does and Word *doesn't*. For instance, Word doesn't have word completiom, page styles, PDF export, a usable navigator, complex table calculation, good master document support, or complex vectorial drawing tools.
It's not so much that OO is almost the same as MSO.
It's more about psychology. People generally don't like change. And big change is more disrupting than small change. Part of that comes from fear of the unknown.
You get people transitioned to OO still on their familiar windows platform. It gets them used to the new OO system, while also helping build confidence in the overall changes to come.
While it might make more sense from an IT standpoint to just make the change and be done with it, from a human management point of view, it makes more sense to make a gradual transition. A successful deployment of OO on Windows will help win over the timid, and help check the nay-sayers. It builds confidence in what you are doing and helps build overall buy-in to what you're doing.
I guarantee you, if the people you're supporting don't buy in, they can make your life hell and cause the project to fail miserably.
This is not good news. A total of ZERO machines have been converted. A full conversion is expected to take 3 years. The pilot has been scaled back from Linux to Windows/Open office.
When faced with a project that cannot be cancelled there are two tatics that can be employed:
1. Delay
2. Reduce scope
Both of these seem to be happening.
Honestly I expect to see Munich eventually walk away from this project. It may take a couple of years... but if the day to day management throw enough road blocks and delays eventual a bean counter is going to go "free? this project has cost X million so far and only Y% have converted". At that point success will be declared and no further conversions will occur.
So basically, despite trying to sound like you know what you're talking about, you don't know enough about large scale human-office-computer dynamics to closely estimate the completion time.
I came up with that estimate based on my experience working at major corporations and seeing how they made migrations. An OS migration on the desktop has to be one of the most painful migrations you can put an organization through.
I would also point out that so far the large migrations in progress are either being scaled back or are moving towards the 4-year timeline (+/- a year).
There are also some other good reasons for this estimate. Often this is the OS upgrade lifecycle (and sometimes even line of business tools lifecycle) in many organizations, so it makes sense that you can phase out other line of business apps in favor of those that are cross-platform in this length of time. In essence, I figure one can probably go with a 4-year migration plan without spending a huge sum more on the migration.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
It's easier said than done to switch over to Linux like that in a business/government environment. Obviously you've never worked in a place where you've been responsible for the uptime of a network - especially one which services over 5000 host machines or anything like that.
When you manage a large network, doing some of the thing you take for granted as a computer hobbyist just don't cut it. At home if I boot up upgrade FreeBSD and it borks... no harm done. It's just my PC. I know I can fix it eventually with time. However, if you 're doing this on a currently running server that's handling all the mail of your organization and it borks.... you are in serious crap from upper management and all your users when they discover that their email is not working, stopping them from getting their jobs done, and costing the company a lot of money in lost productivity. Meanwhile you scrape around reading online documentation to fix the problem.
As an admin you have to take a lot of extra variables into account, in addition to having tech skills, you need to calculate maintenace downtime, handle announcements, write install documentation, and deal with user issues, plan upgrades, write more documentation, write reports, and be paranoid that something is going to come along and screw your network up at any second. You need to make backups and write documents to deal with disaster recovery as well.
You simply don't do this when you're just playing around with your boxen at home.
I suspect that they want to unroll Open Office on Windows first is so that they can easily switch back to MS Office in case something doesn't work in OpenOffice. Always having something on standby is typical system administration paranoia at work.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
"Isn't OpenOffice on Windows the same as OpenOffice on Linux? I see in the story at The Register that they have various office templates and scripts that they want to port to OpenOffice, yet why waste time removing Office from each machine, then installing OpenOffice, then getting all the scripts and templates to work, then having to recreate things when done again in the Linux environment? Why not just cut out the middle steps and go directly from Office on Windows, to OpenOffice on Linux?"
It is about the migration path. Obviously it goes like this.
the problem for the city is not OO.org or other software. It is their own taylored software. So they first switch to OpenOffice and then change the OS component when the other software is ported to Linux. Further it makes sense to wait with the Linux transformation and switch oo.org first.
OO switch and Linux switch are two seperate issues.
Perhaps, this might be the other reason there is some administrative resistence. But usually it goes like this. First the lead apes are switched, then the others want to follow.
basically, all the desktops that aren't running apps that will be hard to replace with linux implimentations will get the full switch, while the others will get OOo first (probably along with FireFox and other assorted goodies) and linux later, after they've ironed out the bugs WRT the full transition.
makes sense from a technological aspect. they want to insure that they will cause a minimal amount of disruption to normal work flow (hey, it's a government office we're talking about here. anything that disrupts the little work they actually get done is a Bad Thing(TM))..
Rise up in the cafeteria and STAB them with your plastic forks!
The idea is the users will have a chance to get use to OpenOffice, before they have to get use to linux.
Which quite honestly is a bigger change than changing from M$ Office to OpenOffice.
You and I may have no problem changing OS'es just like that, but they are dealing with general users that wont be, and will simply be expecting there computers to just work.
Having performed exactly this sort of migration, I completely disagree. It is the switch between Office systems that is the main issue. For a typical commercial user of workstations a Linux desktop can, if set up right, be immediately useable by anyone who has used a typical Windows desktop: icons for office applications, directory exploring, browser, e-mail etc. can made visible and then the user can get started - the computer 'just works'.
The big transition is in the way that the user will do various tasks in the office suite - multiple document management, mail merge etc.
How many times? Free as in speech not free as in beer.
The advantages of using OpenOffice are not, primarily, cost based (although that is a consideration), it's the fact that the City of Munich has ultimate control over what happens with their software. They can review the source code, they can modify the source code, and they are beholden to one less American corporation.
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
VBA code stuffed inside the gentle spreadsheet and word doc. There are cubic miles of it in banks.
I'm beginning to feel sick. Hope they do not use *that* for anything related to client ownings.
My opinion is that spreadsheets are evil when are included at product process line. If they also contain scripts, then they are evil**2. Sure it is easy to do lots of things with spreadsheets (and scripts) but their nature is out of process control, and versions control is almost impossible, IMHO, since anyone ends up having her customized version of the spreadsheet. Of course, having compiled apps is more costly but probably generates so less problems at the end so their cost might even be lower than the spreadsheets one.
It seems that perhaps this is the direction that the GPL 2 drafters have in mind?
I think you mean GPL3, GPL 2 is what we're using now.
And by the way, it's not GPL2006 either, since there is no agreement on the release date yet.
yeah right, and the moon was once part of the earth, and you were once an unfortunate accident waiting to happen.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
The biggest problem with this proposal is that is costs a *lot* of money to make patents and even more money to take patents violators to court. Sure, some of this money *might* be raised by donations but it kind of removes the whole free-as-in-beer advantage of opensource (leaving the speech option for all us die hard OSS people...).
It's a nice suggestion and all but i have a hard time seeing it work. Perhaps in a few limited occassions like for some kernel stuff where the patents could be used for cross licencing with some big companies.
Nonetheless, the disadvantage would be that the reputation and credibility of the non-software-patent and OSS communities would be damaged.
Is having a few windows boxes that one can vnc on to if one really needs a VBA based Microsoft Office document, or one really needs Microsoft Internet Explorer. Microsoft may want to get paid per user...
Works both ways, smoother even to (ssh cygwinX) have some GNU/Linux boxes if you want it, but one does not own/have complete control of the GNU/Linux box.
I am just a wanna be, technically challenged, but GNU/Linux is not just for servers, if one has occasional access to Windows.
Just 0.02
Be Free: Free Software Tuition
> Is having a few windows boxes that one can vnc on to if one really needs a VBA based Microsoft Office document, or one really needs Microsoft Internet Explorer. Microsoft may want to get paid per user...
Nice if I finished the sentance, basically a Linux only shop can be enriched by a few windows boxes, and a Windows only shop can be enriched by a few Linux boxes. Support costs would rise a bit, but the few boxes could be plain systems, or unsupported.
[I am not sure about the GNU/Linux Linux divide.]
Be Free: Free Software Tuition
"Munich's attempt to migrate to Open Source ends in total disaster! Billions wasted! Budget destroyed! Fires! Floods! Dogs and cats living together! MASS HYSTERIA!"
];)
Regards;
Nikita Kruschev. The company is plain evil and will stop at nothing to be on top. No matter the cost. That is why their employees are leaving in droves.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well, the problem is, patenting takes up both time and money. Supposing all free software developers wanted to patent the inventions contained in their software (not likely), only a small fraction would have the means to obtain and enforce a patent.
And then there is of course the cross-licensing problem: suppose free software developer foo patents the inventions in his software and wants to enforce his patents against proprietary developer bar. When he comes to bar saying "you're infinging my patents A and B", Bar will just answer "yeah, well, you're infringing my patents C, D, E and F, so whatcha gonna do boy?".
That's the big problem with patents. The big guy wins, end of story.
Well, I'm supposedly an MS Shill because I don't believe the usual Linux bullshit, but whatever...
;-)
First (but not foremost) in my opinion the sooner "compatibility with Microsoft" is dropped as the IT yardstick (really it is just a canard), the better.
This is correct, in a larger sense. The only way OpenOffice will be successful is if they can drop the "compatibility with Microsoft" claim. That is to say, when your primary measuring stick is comparing your product to the other guys and saying "Hey, we're almost as good." there is an incentive for the customer to just get the other guys product.
You don't see GM saying "Almost as good as Toyota, only available in red!"
The other standards aren't necessarily better (since that's an esoteric discussion unto itself anyway), but I can think of one that in the long run if adopted hints at greater interoperability than seen in a long time.
This is where your point fails. If these other standards(beyond Microsoft) aren't better, then there is no compelling technical reason for consumers to adapt them.
My point is, when you can drop the compatibility claim, then you've got marketshare potential, but that won't happen unless your product is better than the competitors.
How many times have you wasted valuable time at a meeting while attendees share paper copies of the pre-distributed incompatible (with their version of WORD) Word documents?
Not very often. Everyone at my company has Word XP.
The only time I had an issue with this was when I wrote a paper up on Word XP at home, brought it into the office and loaded it with Word 97. Features in XP dealing with stylesheets weren't available in 97.
No, this is a rather lame excuse. It was far more of an issue pre-2000 than it is today.
It's just not OpenOffice's fault anymore, and it's time to start defending it. I know it's a long shot. I know it's a long haul. And I know I'm getting modded troll and flamebait.
I know I'll get modded troll and flamebait for this, but really I think you claimed you were going to get modded as troll and flamebait in an appeal to get your post modded higher.
Seriously, I don't think you understand how the industry works if you think the way to counter technical claims is with spin. That might work for Karl Rove dealing with Bushies approval ratings, but in the tech industry? Not so sure.
If a peice of software is released under GPL v2 OR later, you can choose to continue to use GPL v2 for the software even after GPL v8 is available.
If the software was released under with an "AND" instead of the "OR" then it would require you to follow future revisions of the GPL (although the AND clause is fairly foggy and it should be better written then that.) If the license said "You must follow the latest revision of the GPL" then you'd obviously have to honor that.
Personally, I prefer the LGPL for most core software such as kernels and even Office packages, but the GPL ain't bad. Commercial vendors don't seem to have a problem working around it.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
That's the point.
As I've thought about it more, the way to use patents in the FOSS world wouldn't be as an 'offensive' weapon, something that you'd use against a commercial company just because they weren't liked, but as a deterrent.
It's the reverse of the above scenario. The commercial company says that some piece of Free Software violates its patents. The FS people can come back and show that the commercial software is also violating a number of their patents.
The result is a sort of 'mexican standoff.'
By not striking first, you save a lot of funds -- since the FOSS community would only have to respond to the occasional threat when a commercial company came after an open source product for infringement, instead of actively litigating every patent in the positive, aggressive sense (as most corporations do).
The presence of the patents themselves, plus enough of a financial 'war chest' (which could be in promised services and not just money -- e.g. if a law firm promised to help with any litigation that might occur) to respond to an attack, would have a deterrent effect. It wouldn't really be much of a weapon against commercial software or infringers, but it would at least guarantee the status quo.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Agreed.
Also a lot of the Free Software works better on Linux. Certainly I've seen far less issues with Firefox and Thunderbird on well set-up Debian installs.
Although no doubt a lot of that is "systems decay", due to far too mellow policies on software installation.
A well known strategy called graceful degradation.
It is quite possible that someone either releases a patented piece of original software, or adds patented code to an existing codebase and redistributes it. The GPL's protection, like any other copyright license, extends only to copying and (re)distribution. Unless it contains language specifically sublicensing all patents on the code to all recipients (and the GPL does NOT), its powers can only terminate the right of someone who does not hold the copyright on the original GPL codebase to redistribute the code. It cannot prevent anyone who already received a copy of the patented code from being sued for continuing to use that copy!
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
> For instance, Word doesn't have word completiom
And that's supposed to be a bad thing? OO2's word completion is utter crap. It should't insert the word when you try to enter a return instead of a letter - typing while something is selected replaces the selection... except if you type return. This is completely contrary to any GUI interface guideline I know of, and is very, very dumb.
What kind of M$ fantasy world are you living in? VB business systems? Bullshit. That kind of garbage is something co-ops do and it's never expected to last. You can nail 100% of it tomorrow and tell big dumb companies to use OpenOffice and it will be indistinguishable from any M$ "upgrade" where the new Office or the new VB or a new printer breaks everything anyway. The only difference will be that Open Office won't blow up with a new printer or other trivial changes and you will be able to share the pdfs with everyone and quit killing trees.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Not sure if the status quo could be maintained. It might be the case in huge projects where the free software patent portfolio could be quite large (think linux kernel), but in smaller projects, the free software portfolio, being largely inferior to that of the commercial software company's, would not be an effective deterrent. The problem would be like this:
Proprietary company: ok, I have 10 patents on your software. Pay me 10.
Free software project: Yeah, but I have two patents on your software.
Proprietary company: ok then, pay me 8.
Free software project: But I only have 4.
Proprietary company: oh, so I'm driving you out of business am I? Oh well, life is tough.
The problem is thus that we are unsure that a "patent war chest" for FLOSS would be a good enough deterrent. It wouldn't hurt I suppose, but I fear it wouldn't be enough.
Every journey starts with the first step, and switching the OS first means you have to switch every application on that OS too! That's not a step, that is a giant leap.
The step-by-step approach first replaces the no-impact applications like IE->Firefox, or mail->Thunderbird. These make users see that non-MS can actually be better, and soften the fear for change.
Then you look for the biggest bang for the euro: MSOffice. It is much more expensive than Windows, which comes prebought with most PCs anyway (regretfully). By building an OSS application suite on top of Windows, you can migrate everyone in their own pace. As soon as all your applications are OSS, you can switch to Linux. Remaining training time getting used to KDE is minimal.