Slashdot Mirror
Interview with Tony 'Say No to Windows' Bove
An anonymous reader writes "XYZ has an interview with Tony Bove, author of the upcoming book, "Just Say No to Microsoft". From the article: 'With this book Bove intends to help readers rid Microsoft from their life- this is easier said that done, but it is certainly possible. The book goes on to list alternatives to the Microsoft programs on which people have become dependent and probably think they cannot give up.'"
From experience, any thing more than 11 steps is not worth it!
And from the average user's perspective, anything more than 0 steps is too many.
MS and Windows is not all Bad. Not to mention how much software is avaialable for special industry only on windows not linux or macs.
Most of us can't, and don't really want to "just say no". For example I have clients that are lawyers and doctors that are very happy with their windows software.
Stuff that isn't available in linux. The just say no or linux only group always propose stuff for you to get by without ms, but some of us need to do more then use word and excel, or don't want some custom jerry rigged solution.
...a replacement for Microsoft Exchange. His only mention is how "...Microsoft designs its software products -- especially Outlook and Exchange -- to lock people into using it...". Until a good replacement is found for Exchange you will have a hard time prying it from the cold, dead hands of thousands of businesses worldwide...
(And I work in a shop where most of us do dev work on linux boxes... but we all have windows partitions for Exchange. So damn handy for scheduling meetings, knowing who is in and who is out of town...)
-everphilski-
I dont believe its about riding of Microsoft, I believe its about giving a fair chance for alternatives. Only with competition will the end user benefit. If Microsoft isnt the one that everyone is supposed to hate it would have been another company. I am not a fan of Microsoft either as I do NOT run any windows software at home, but it was because of Microsoft's so called "crappy software" that pushed the open source community to create these great alternatives such as openoffice.org, linux etc ...
GL HF!
1) It assumes there's a good reason for people to abandon MS. Security is close, but as we've seen with recent holes in Firefox/Mozilla, as other tools get popular, their security will come under attack, too. The price, perhaps, but 'free' versions of anything lack meaningful support, which kills it for a significant number of end users. Therefore, if there were a convincing reason for everyone to change (other than personal bias), this would be much more meaningful.
2) It assumes that it's the MS programs holding people back, when many desktops are tied because of third party software. For example, in my every-day job, I support dozens of workstations with Macromedia and Adobe software installed - neither of these run natively under Linux, and they run horribly under emulation. Yes, you can find replacement photo editors, but not really replacement video editors that are on par with After Effects, or replacements for Flash that have 95%+ installation base.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Which will make being enslaved in the corporate underground salt mines that much more pleasant.
The baby's fine -- please stop sending business cards.
I can understand if you prefer Linux to Windows or don't like Word or something (I **hate** Powerpoint), but the whole not using any Microsoft products for the sake of feeling alternative/rebellious is just really immature and annoying. Microsoft makes a lot of good software.
I'd say "no" to Microsoft but Windows is easy to use, fairly intuitive on the surface (fine-tuning it is a big hassle, I admit), and with XP it's finally stable enough for me to use day-in and day-out. I despise it as a development platform, I'm guess I'm a stubborn old UNIX kind of guy. Give me ANSI C and a dumb terminal, and I'll vi up some code for you. But for day-to-day productivity, gaming, websurfing, etc, I'll take it. I'm aware of its myriad shortcomings and MS's sketchville business practices, but the reality is that I need a Windows machine around. Too many things I do require one. There are a handful of web sites that just will not work properly in Firefox, nor even on my Powerbook. These tend to be sites that I find very convenient to use and have available. It may because the site authors have stupidly mated themselves to the Win IE platform. It might be worth it to your principles to boycott such a site, but my convenience > your principles. There is only one non-renewable resource in my life, and that's time. I just won't boycott a web site that saves me time and adds convenience to my life because I am teh hatez when it comes to MS. Sorry, guys.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
To be honest I have never heard of this guy, but that's alright, I am a sophomore in college... don't really know everyone who made programs on punch cards.
Either way, the guy seems to have such a big problem with MS products but never really mentions user error. I don't care what kind of OS you use, the problem is, most of the time, between the keyboard and the chair. He is also obviously some sort of mac fanatic, if you read the third page. He is fine with Apple controlling what people can use with a mac, because no one else has a problem with it. I don't see grandma complaining about MS's monopoly. Every time he mentions Apple, its always "superb design" or something fo that sort, but when it comes to MS, its "they suck because of this or that". I personally like XP. I also like Visual Studio. Hell, I even like Office. I don't see where this person feels its less productive to use Windows. He is making some sort of generalization based on HIS experience.
"Seriously, the easiest step, though costly, is to switch to a Mac. In one step you can be free not only of Windows but also of hardware that relies on Windows yet is not supported by Microsoft. You have one source for support -- Apple -- and less finger-pointing when something goes wrong." -- If someone thinks thats a good thing... you are indeed beyond help... Having a choice of parts or support is a good thing. I can go to my local store and talk to the guy I have bought stuff from for years and he can maybe give me a refund even if my warranty is void or whatever. I did like to see that from an Apple store.
My two cents.
I really wish that the Linux community wouldn't sink down to the level that Microsoft has reached. Releasing subjective papers on what works and what doesn't will not do anything for people except cause political arguments. Since most TCO and benchmark data is skewed one way or another, releasing whitepapers and books becomes irrelevant. Most budget managers and IT managers realize this. The people in charge (given that they know what they are doing) researches data from other companies. They ask questions like it worked for Company A so could it work for us? They do not look at opinions and unreliable sources. IMHO, this is one reason why Linux has not made it to the desktop - many companies are scared to move their user base over to a radically different interface. Not many companies have made the move, so everyone else is scared to jump first. They are not scared to move their servers over, since only a small handful of people interface with it - provided the services retain a high level of reliability.
Victory shall be mine!
to make our lives easier? I mean Linux has come around to make it easier for user to work to an extent (I still don't see anything as friendly to computer newbies on the linux systems as windows, but it is getting closer and closer), but to go 100 percent away from Microsoft is almost unrealistic for most people. Remember most people don't even know that you can network iTunes for playback with out buying the songs. Nor do they know what a MKV is, what the different of an OGM and XVID is, or what TCP/IP settings are needed to use a VPN (the last one puzzled me for a couple days.. turned out I was given the wrong IP... from a tech guy)
Microsoft might be a monolpolistic company but for many people it makes their lives easier. I'd love it if they didn't have the same business practices as they currently do but let's not make our lives more inconvient.
This interview sounds like another ranting guy. But yes I don't support Microsoft wholy (I got my Windows heavily discounted from school, I don't use Microsoft Office at home (At work we get it through Compaq, so it's already paid for) but going insanely against them will not help save anyone. Apple would love to step up and set themselves up as the next Microsoft. I'm sure their a little piss with what Microsoft did (with grabbing Apple's own Windows style technology, that they in turn took from Xerox who took it from their programmer who created it), and if they could trade places they would love to be the next giant, and with their love of "Apple approved" hardware, I'm sure could find some ways to close off competition. (remember if Apple was in charge, ATI and NVIDIA wouldn't compete like they do now, each trying to make radical strives, nor would there be any other sound cards except for the one or two companies apple approves of)
Besides all his problems with Microsoft seem to stem from either hatred, or the fact that people who use Windows are stupid. (claiming never to get a virus on a mac isn't a small miracle, I never get virii on PCs... Why? Because I do the same shit he does. I have a anti virus program that has been completely dorment since installation, except when I actually test it, and it performs perfectly then)
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see why this is "news", when a guy writes a book or something about this stuff, let's hear info about book, not his ramblings..
And my one quote from him?
But if there is a monopoly, let's get out the rocket launchers and take our shots, please!
advocating wholesale violence... tsk tsk.
As usual, it's all about the applications. People want things to "just work", and they don't care about software politics. That's the reason that Apple is only 3% marketshare -- people don't want to have to think about whether their software is compatible or not.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Eliminating Microsoft is a good way of increasing your computer costs.
It might be hard to see from the end user perspective, but it's crystal clear from a developer perspective. But don't take my word for it, take Joel's:
If someone's going to do a new application, it's much more likely to be a Windows application. If someone's going to offer technical support services, they're much more likely to focus on Windows support. If someone's going to make hardware, they're much more likely to focus on getting Windows supported first.
This all means if you're not using Windows, you're going to pay for it with time or money.
(Read the whole article at http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog00000000 51.html)
My company runs on Mac clients and Linux servers. We never wish for a Windows app and only curse the Windows machine when we need to use it for testing.
The purpose of the book is to outline the alternatives you're talking about. Personally I've never found a standard corporate app on Windows that didn't have a good alternative on Linux and/or Mac. I spent 10 years on Windows in the financial industry. I pushed hard to get companies to switch, but they don't even want to listen to what alternatives are out there. The biggest problem is the custom apps.
BTW, MS Project is just a Gantt chart writer. An equivalent came with my Mac Mini.
Developers: We can use your help.
They act like drug dealers. They let people copy their software "illegally" for years until it became almost ubiquitous. Then they cracked down after everyone was already "addicted" to make huge profits.
Developers: We can use your help.
Microsoft Project is the most widely used project management software that corporations use, and it's only available for one platform: Microsoft Windows. Not OSX, Not Linux, Not BSD, Not Sun, Not Palm, Not Amiga, etc. This means that anybody who manages work in a company *has* to use Windows. And yes, I know that Microsoft Project actually sucks for complex project management, and that there are better Project Management packages out there, but most of them only work for Windows also and they don't have the base or support that Microsoft has. Until that lock is broken, its going to be very hard for companies to switch.
Tristan Yates
Other than those two mountains, yes, it's perfectly fine advice. I own a Mac, so I chose the "expensive" route with a PowerBook. It's worth every penny, but it cost a lot of pennies.
This isn't necessarily the case - the Mac Mini, which can be used with the former PC monitor and probably the keyboard and maybe even the printer - offers a cheaper than Wintel route for moving to Mac. I'll not read the book (applied those lessons a few ago;-) but an interesting appendix would be going with a Mac Mini. A breakdown of cost and software alternatives would be interesting from a ROI perspective.
The Luddites were ahead of their time.
There isn't a "drop-in" replacement for exchange because the protocols are binary and not documented.
If you will be a little less lazy, there are Outlook plugins for both Kolab and OpenExchange that will let your users use the same client while you replace the server, they should not notice anything different at all.
But there is no way you are ever going to just replace the server and do nothing else. It is impossible - that is why the Outlook/Exchange combo is so horrible, it is not compatible with anything.
too fragging lazy
Those are the operative words. And please note, I said 'average user' meaning the general public. By the way, I have been using linux as my main desktop since the days when hanging yourself sometimes seemed like a better option than using linux.
There's nothing about being a doctor or lawyer that intrinsically requires a MS operating system or software.
You're right to a point. Being a doctor or lawyer does not mean you need MS software.
But if you want to use one of the many of industry-specific, specialized software libraries, you might just have to run Windows.
Before I get flamed on this, I just wanna point out that there is a big difference between being an advocate and being a fanatic against Microsoft. Now you want to tell people not to use MS because the corporation is a pig... ok fine. I can agree that Windows is a poor operating system because of all the patches and the fact that it is based off of DOS, instead of a rock solid, open solution like *nix. That said, do you really expect your average user that "Just uses MS Word to edit lists, or if the list has two colums, use MS Excel" to have any clue about using Linux? Granted that in recent months the Linux world has gotten mush easier to handle, for example Ubuntu 5.10 installs like a dream, with 3D acceleration supported out of the box! But to your average user in general, having config scripts everywhere is just not reasonable. Linux is not ready for the masses. Sorry. Not yet anyway. On the other hand you have Mac OS X, which IMO is a much more viable, and even preferred solution. "It just works" is so true. When you have the prettiest looking user interface of all time, and you build your own hardware (don't have to worry about drivers) and write your own software to work on it, not to mention a rock solid *nix base that's easy to use, then you have the perfect computing solution. Everybody is capable of running a Mac, and it has the perfect mix of *nix to make the geeks happy, and eye candy and functionallity to make anyone happy. OS X is your winner.
Personally I find the idea of someone wishing they had Windows laughable. I guess that's just what you're used to.
I have to use a Wintel PC at work and find it to be the computational equivalent of a straightjacket. Sure, by installing the correct software you can make it almost as capable as a basic Linux install, but why doesn't it just work that way out of the box? I was appalled, for instance, that there's no preinstalled SSH or SFTP client. Similarly, no rsync, no capability for command-line pipes, etc. Obviously no universally available free compiler.
And it's not just geeky stuff, either. I've yet to find a Windows browser that has a decent integrated spell-checker (Firefox with SpellBound is marginally acceptable, but even it doesn't work transparently as you type, like Mac OS X's Safari [or Konquerer] does). Maybe there's one out there that I haven't found yet (Opera?) but it seems ridiculous to have to look this hard for such an obvious and useful feature.
I'll stop before this turns into a complete rant, but my point is that Windows seems significantly more limited in terms of features than competiting OSes, and the only advantage it possesses, in my opinion, is a large base of software which it maintains by virtue of its virtual monopoly in the business-desktop market. I really feel like I've given it a fair shot, and it's a mediocre OS at the end of the day. It's a pity that mediocrity is all most people demand from their computers.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Then how on earth to i run.... *clears throat.... Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Acrobar, Dreamweaver, Flash, 3D Studio MAX or Adobe Premiere... PVR software, a decent media player
GAMES FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!
Until software developers start writing every windows app that isnt an email client or office application for linux, then I'm sticking with windows. The rest? I hate Office, IE gets me down, and Outlook can get stuffed!
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
What we need in our open projects is some people who have degrees in industrial design, or have experience with commercial software design. No one cares what is under the hood, they care about stability, ease of use, and ascetics. You got to have all three to push a good product. When you open a Microsoft product out of the box, the interface is always professional, and clean cut, (mind Windows XP and it's dog). I mean, look at this. The bubbly looking icons are out of style, and why the hell do you have a smile face as the calendar button? You can say that you can change it to however you see fit, but the problem is that people don't change things, and base their opinion based on the out of the box experience. If you want to look professional, you will have icons with the same color tone that aren't so huge, and you will have icons that relate to what they do. Consistency is another must. You can't have a professional looking program without it. Sadly, I think Windows 2000 is the peak of user interface design with Microsoft, and if you want anything that looks good, and acts right, you will be going with Mac OS X.
Sig: I stole this sig.
In fact, until its ability to import and export Office documents is at least as good as Office's ability to import and export files from older versions of Office, it's useless in a wide variety of situations.
.doc files. If OpenOffice's ability to import .doc files is only, say, "99% perfect", that 1% could seriously fuck me over. Say, if I inserted a page break at the end of a section which, on Word, ends 90% down the page, but when imported into OpenOffice, the table sizes in tables X, Y and Z in that section don't exactly match the sizes I set in Word, so instead of 90% down the page, it's 10% onto the next page.
.doc made in Word. If I edited it in OpenOffice, I'd probably have to tweak a bunch of things to make things look the way that they originally did in Word, in OpenOffice.
.doc import and .doc export features are 100% "perfect" (read: they do not change layout in any way, no matter how subtle), OpenOffice.org is, as much as I hate to admit it, 100% worthless to me.
I work, among many other things, on manuals. Long manuals. Long, long
End result: The document ends up looking unprofessional.
The problem is that the only way to [mostly] guarantee documents will look right (where "right" is "WYSIWYG") is to either:
A) Use NOTHING but MS Word from start to finish
B) Use NOTHING but OpenOffice.org (or another "alternative" (read: non-MS) word processor/office suite) from start to finish.
I deal with non-techies all day. They hand me a
These are NOT simple, long strings of text. They are complex documents with lots of formatting, tables, bullet points, numbered lists, etc. etc. etc... The chances of something subtle being "a bit off"-- say, if OpenOffice.org decides that the default border of a table cell should be 0.125" instead of 0.1", just to pull an example out of my arse-- are pretty large.
Then, making matters worse, after I'm done with the document, I have to mail it back to them. And they will open it in... you guessed it... MS Word.
So unless OpenOffice.org's
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Step 1: Think of all the viruses you have gotten.
Step 2: Remember all the spyware that you got.
Step 3: Remember of all the BSODs you have gotten.
Step 4: Think of all the documents you have lost.
Step 5: Think of the countless white nights you have spent.
Step 6: Think of the time you have wasted.
Step 7: Think of the monopole that Microsoft has created.
Step 8: Think of the money that you have wasted.
Step 9: Think of the RAM that has been wasted without caching.
Step 10: Think of all the hard disk drives wasted through defragmentation.
Step 11: Think of the children!
And then....
Step 12: Install Linux
Yup...
The hip way to get your IP. No ads, ever.
I think you may have missed his point accidentally.
If the general public can take steps to learn how to drive (I know, the amount of actual drivers who obey the commonly accepted rules of the road seems small), then learning how to use Windows/Linux can't be that bad if you learned from absolute scratch.
Hell, in high school we learn about multiplication and exponents, learn dates in modern history, and how to write. What can be so hard about learning about a few key presses and mouse clicks in either OS? Nothing, except patience.
I think the GP really is driving at the fact that if we (as in the average user in the general public) put our minds at it and stayed at it, we could learn ANY operating system like learning how to ride a bike. All it takes is patience.
Apple came up with and uses the G* prefix. Mot/IBM had their own names (PPC 755 etc). Apple may very well simply rebrand whatever chip from Intel they settle upon as the G6. Of course I am just guessing they may decide to go with Intels official name. My point though is Apple came up with the G names, not Mot or IBM.