Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Closed Source Software and Linux
slashy writes "What is the future of closed source software and Linux? OSWeekly.com delves into the subject and emerges with a possible answer. Quote: "I have been struggling with one major problem lately with the Linux operating system and that problem is the amazing lack of new and exciting software. It's frustrating because by the time said software does finally make its way down to the Linux user, the Windows crowd has been using it for nearly a year or longer.
Perhaps some of this is because there does not appear to be a clear, simple to follow outline cooperative for companies to design for the open source operating system. Arguably this is because of the perceived need to keep things "open," however, I feel it's time for Linux to grow up and find some kind of common ground with the closed source community. I am a firm believer that both parties could learn a lot from each other; unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon."
"Lack of new exciting software"? Try xgl/compiz! It's the most exciting software I've seen since a windowing environment!
If you find there isn't enough software for Linux, you haven't browsed your repositories. I'm not saying that "I miss software X" isn't valid but if you think there isn't enough new things to try in general, you are not trying very hard !
Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
Summary: I like Outlook, but its not available for Linux. Evolution doesn't work enough like it, and Microsoft is unlikely to release a Linux version of Outlook. Boo-hoo. Why can't we all get along?
I was kind of hoping for something a bit broader than one example heaped with a few generalities...
Apache, mosaic, jabber, etc were started on *nix. But these are server apps. There are many more desktop apps that were started on Windows and then FINALLY ported to *nix. What it will take is to make Linux a competitive place for desktop. Hopefully, as Google moves their apps on over linxu and forces other companies to compete on the same platform, then things may change.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"I feel it's time for Linux to grow up and find some kind of common ground with the closed source community"
I believe it is time for the closed source community to grow up and find some common ground with Linux.
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
What is he talking about? Linux doesn't need new or exciting features, it needs further usability improvements and for the products currently available to mature. Feature bloat is not something I wish to see in the GNU/Linux world - function over flash has always been the mantra and it is definitely not outdated.
When there is a gap for new programs, they will be created. When someone needs to get a task done and there isn't a tool, he will scratch that itch - eventually, if enough people have the itch it becomes widespread. I also have no idea where he is coming from about this release gap between windows and linux, unless we're talking about games which is a whole other can of worms.
And finally, has he checked out XGL/compiz? That is some bleeding edge technology that is unmatched currently and definitely some cool stuff to play with. Basically I don't understand what this guy's beef is and how it relates to closed/open source - GNU/linux has all the software it needs being developed and the few closed source vendors who don't want to play nice and port are not the fault of the open vision.
Of course, I am basing this entirely on the summary so who knows. *shrug*
are you kidding me? most innovations now start at the linux level. Aero? Vista eye candy? compiz did it a year BEFORE not AFTER. Workspaces? windows still doesn't have that. all the new desktop usability comes from linux, while windows kept the windows 95 desktop going for 10+ years with minor changes. linux thinks AHEAD not 3 year ago like closed source. OPEN means you can risk new ideas, while CLOSED means risks can rouin you. I chose to take bold new innovations out for a spin.
People who have no sig are cool
without respecting the owners chosen license, their code does belong to them after all.
What you do with your code on top of that is entirely up to you including the license terms and cost model.
Isn't it about time proprietary coders grow up and start working within the law with open source licenses?
rgds
Here is what i have learned from closed source
1. reverse engineering
2. who to be friends with in the pirate scene
3. why Free software is so much better
Here is what i have learned from open source
1 Everything.
Ironically it's the pro applications now that port first. Things like Maya are more and more focasing on Linux. I doubt you'll see most consumer applications paying much attention to Linux anytime soon but the professionals are adopting it faster than any group. The 3D realm likes the power and stability. Photoshop is still dragging it's feet as far as I know but but there are plenty of higher end 3d animating and modelling apps availible and they tend to be released before even the Mac versions.
If you're excited, it's probably because it barely works. We don't need more of that type of software on any OS.
Except thet the time it takes windows to finally get my favorite stuff is, uh, never. I guess I won't be migrating to windows any time soon.
So, what he's saying is that Linux people aren't trying hard enough to make closed software available on Linux? ...
I almost feel like Obviousman here. Linux can't accomodate closed-source software easily BECAUSE IT'S CLOSED AND THUS IMPOSSIBLE TO INTEGRATE SEAMLESSLY INTO OTHER APPLICATIONS. Linux has no obligations whatsoever when it comes to compatibility -- they've published all their docs, spotty though they may be, and they use standards. Microsoft, Adobe, and now-defunct Macromedia have done neither, with some exceptions such as SWF and PDF formats.
If this guy wants more integration, he should stop bitching at Linux, which has an open kernel API; he should stop bitching at GNU, which is completely and totally open. He should be directing his trolling at Microsoft, who has made no efforts to make their software work on top of Linux kernels.
~ C.
Perhaps some of this is because there does not appear to be a clear, simple to follow outline cooperative for companies to design for the open source operating system. Arguably this is because of the perceived need to keep things "open," however, I feel it's time for Linux to grow up and find some kind of common ground with the closed source community. I am a firm believer that both parties could learn a lot from each other; unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon."
/. Sorry if you don't like it or don't believe it, but that doesn't make it less true. Or at least, that doesn't it make it less true in the eyes of software developers.
Actually, this is exactly what I have heard from a number of software vendors. I review software and gadgets for a few web sites. One of my testing criteria, particularly for hardware, is if the hardware is Linux-compatible. When it comes to software I always ask if there are any plans to offer a Linux version of the software. The answer that I hear the most often is in regards to a lack of available resources, which I certainly can understand since I review a lot of software form independent companies. But when I question further about asking Linux coders to help with the conversion, the major of companies that have shown an interest in a Linux port say that they've attempted to do so, but the programmers that they approached expect the software to be open-sourced if the company is to get their help. I've even had some developers of software that's geared more towards a particular science admit that they think there would be a huge demand on their software for Linux, but the "requirement" by Linux coders that the software is open-sourced killed the prospect of releasing a Linux version.
As much as I'd like to brush that off as "just an excuse", look at a lot of the replies here on Slashdot about Linux and open-source and you'll quickly see that HE'S RIGHT! I love open-source (or at the very least open standards) just as much as anyone else here and I use it whenever feasible. But there is definitely an assumption among a lot of Linux users that if it's available on Linux the course code has got to be made available or else it doesn't belong on Linux, like it's some kind of plague.
Now, I'll confess that this attitude has been diminishing as Linux eeks its way into the mainstream. The attitude is shifting away from open source and more towards open standards. But there is still a big movement and big preconception that "Linux == Open Source" and "Closed Source != Welcome On Linux".
NOT flaming here, folks. Just relaying what I've been told by software developers and what I've seen here on
No coherent vision with a bunch of competing vendors. One target needs to emerge with the kind of support that Windows has down the whole stack. I've been hearing about Linux taking over this and that for 6 years now, I only see it replacing UNIX.
Its really quite simple.
Linux, and most of the other software distros bundle with it, is all licensed under the GPL, and is generally licensed as such for a reason: the developers are dedicated to Free Software. The question of proprietary kernel drivers, and many other issues, are consistently decided in favour of continuing to strictly adhere to GNU/Free Software standards.
On the other side of the fence, proprietary software is Closed Source in order to maximize revenue. Much of it will stay closed forever, due to legal red-tape, patent skullduggery, shareholder interests, and good old fashioned greed.
And then, most importantly (believe it or not) we have the Users. Sometimes they get what they want, either thanks to a commercial development, or the teeming F/OSS community.
Sometimes, however, they don't get what they want -- they get shafted -- thanks to the interests of whomever controls the copyrights of the technology at issue.
If linux isn't good enough for you, then you're not good enough for linux.
like, if all i cared about was reproducing cool audio software, i wouldn't say *nothing* was going on, but rather that XXN0YXX was lacking development momentum.
as for me, i like amarok. screw itunes, love ya xmms, but bye, and the featureset for 1.4.2 is actually better than any other alternative, period.
and since i listen to music ALL day while working, this is not a minor thing for me... it's great.
god bless amarok and all who sail with it.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
... however, I feel it's time for Linux to grow up and ...
OK Gang, Slashy feels it's time, so let's get 'er done.
Woohoo, I get to recycle my +5 comment from last night
Proprietary software, as long as it doesn't make the system less free, is not necessarily bad.
For example a proprietary document system that uses open formats and has open APIs does very little to harm the user and potentially fills a niche that cannot be served by free software very well (eg handles certain legal compliance issues, which requires expensive insurance and research).
As long as you *could* write your own software to replace bits of the system, or interoperate with the system, then you dont necessarily have to for the benefit to be very real indeed.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
As has been stated, this article is nothing more than "I want outlook on Linux".
If you take a good look at real world closed source software (ie sold by companies not based in Redmond, WA) you will find most of the top app providers already selling Linux versions of their products. For many, this was a no brainer as they already had Unix (of various flavours) versions of their key products.
Then you get companies like IBM who are (IMHO) actually looking at replacing windows with Linux as the key dev platform. For example, if you look as some of the WebSphere range of products. Until fairly recently, there was always a need for at leat one windows system to act as the dev host. Now, with the switch to Eclipse based dev tools they can also use linux instead of Windows in this key area. Ok, they are not betting the farm on linux succeeding in this area but with each release the need to use windows grows less and less.
Finally,
We don't need Outlook on Linux. What we need is a decent email/groupware client that will interact seamlessly with MS Exchange that provides all the functionality of Outlook but without the underlying problems that it has.
What bugs me about Office 2003 is that outlook had lost its ability to export the account settings. What you have to use is the office exporter which produces a file which is a horrible missmash of Binary & XML (no the binary is not wrapped in XML) that only the office imported can read. I know this is part of the M$ lock in policy but previous versions of lookout so that other email clients can read them easily. So now, you have to import them manually. I get really annoyed with M$ when the go on about their interoperability policy. It if nothing more than pure FUD.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
mazing lack of new and exciting software
Yes, sire, I shalt bow before thee. Am I alone to think such opinions come from the usual thinking-to-be professionals who don't actually use those "exciting" software but find it fashionable to talk about having it and using it and knowing it, etc. ? What is "exciting software" anyway ? There are of course applications which have some purpose and are designed nicer, slicker than the others, some even are more usable than others, some are more professional, etc. Still, "new and exciting software" is a so broad and bland formulation that it makes the whole opinion unworthy of any serious consideration.
Apart from the above, OSes other than Windows happen to have very many good applications for a wide variety of goals (and yes, the job and the goal is what defines what software to use, we don't just use a software because it's "exciting" and "new", unless the special family of what I usually call toy apps), and surprisingly (well, not for us) they are usually developed in a much faster pace than in the case of some other OS. Also, needs of the crowds and recognition of some missing niche software (and the implementation of it) usually happens more frequently and faster in the non-Windows world.
If just talking about the number of maintained and developed apps, and the number of areas these applications target, then Linux is better performing in some of these areas than any other OS out there. There are probably a lot of people who at least once thought how nice would it be if this app existed also on Windows, and guess what, these wishes come true more frequently than not. In my world this is one of the biggest strenghts of FOSS development which also makes such developers much more evolved in my book, since they are mostly developing to be platform-agnostic.
If I were wearing my troll-boots, I'd tell you where to go with those new and exciting software you so hardly seek, but I can't find them so there you go, all I can advise you now is to take a much broader point of view upon the Linux and FOSS world, formulate goals and try to find existing software to achieve your goals, and after experimentation you still feel the lack of those exciting pieces of software, than all you can do is search for other pastures where exciting-software-trees grow by the dozen.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Go ask Microsoft why they lock down their products the way they do, it's not really the OSS community's fault.
the fact remains that I am tired of having to boot back into my Windows install to do some pretty basic stuff. [...] There is one application that cannot be run at all because of its dependency on Internet Explorer - Outlook 2003.
Well if you're sooo dependent on Microsoft products, and you admit it, then you should now understand WHY OSS is so important. We're seeking to empower the individuals, who in today's setup are at the mercy of software companies. And your experience of Linux has only highlighted even more this need to have an open alternative to Windows and its flagship "products".
If you want to exclusively use Linux, then the first thing you need to learn to do is to COMPROMISE. Understand that you'll be better off not using MSN messenger or Outlook, and start looking at the alternatives. We're not here to emulate windows, we're here to offer a different desktop experience.
As for the lack of new interesting things in the OSS world, well I'll just say that you haven't been looking hard enough. Not all the interesting stuff comes in a .deb or .rpm ...
From TFA:
OK, so let's take it up a notch. Shockwave for Linux, iTunes for Linux, and so on. There are specific tools and software that is very much being left out of the loop in the Linux world.
Can we get some specifics here, please? What tools? iTunes? Apple has no incentive to cater to Linux because the vast majority of users are anti-DRM to begin with. Apple's model directly conflicts with the philosophy of open source. Shockwave? Please. That is so 1999. Besides, designers who are still coding Flash-based web sites deserve swift kicks to their buttocks.
But the fact remains that I am tired of having to boot back into my Windows install to do some pretty basic stuff.
I find his Evolution vs. Outlook comparison to be nothing more than a rant. I've tried Evolution and it runs circles around Outlook. But seriously, does that single issue merit the main complaint that Linux isn't good enough to the point where it requires a reboot into Windows?
Seems to me he is a little bitter because expects Linux programs to behave like Windows.
The answer is yes, depending on how you link to any GPL'd libraries you use.
rgds
I'm not sure why companies would need any special outline for Linux. That it's open-source is irrelevant for most software, really. If you're making a kernel module the issue comes into play, but very few things other than actual hardware devices need kernel modules. If you include GPL'd libraries in your software there's a licensing issue, but then if you include any libraries licensed from third parties you've got a licensing issue when you start distributing them and you're going to have to do some negotiating and cough up some money. I don't think there's any GPL'd libraries that apps on Linux have to use, so any app should be able to avoid the issue if they want to. The only thing left is integration into the system:
- Installation of the software. Not much to say here. A simple tar file that can be unpacked and copied under
/usr/local, or that's got an installation script that does the work, should work on any Unix out there including Linux. At worst you've got to add a library directory to /etc/ld.so.conf, but usually a small wrapper script that sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH appropriately obviates the need for that. If you want to use the native packaging system you've got to build binary packages, but that's usually straightforward and covered in the documentation for each distro.
- Integration into the system startup scripts. There's a couple of different layouts for the startup script directories, and each distro has it's own little customizations you have to accomodate for perfect integration (things like how the script should check for the software already being started during runlevel changes, stuff like that). But how much software really needs to be set running during startup? Most doesn't, but the few packages that do have some complexity on their hands.
- Desktop integration. This isn't a Linux issue, it's a Gnome and KDE issue (those being the two major ones these days). Their Web sites have guides on how to do this right IIRC, and if you follow them it should work for that desktop on any platform the desktop runs on. Linux is simply another platform.
- Integration with the desktop. Um, this is Unix. There is no single desktop. Any user on the system can run any desktop, and in fact run different desktops at different times. Best bet is to follow the guides for integration, check for each desktop and integrate with all that're installed, and provide a single executable (or a wrapper script) that a user can run from the command line that'll start your app. That last insures users can use your app without any desktop integration at all by simply manually creating a launcher for it where they want one.
- Copy protection. This can be an issue. The world outside Windows is remarkably hostile to the sorts of copy-protection schemes seen in Windows software, and Linux isn't unique in this. License key servers can be used, but they tend to cause more headaches for your customers (even when working properly) than for pirates. Hardware keying is a pain since Unixes tend to hide the hardware so well the detailed information isn't readily available (you can get it, but it takes a fair amount of hackery).
Have I missed anything? I don't think I have, and aside from the issue of copy protection none of the above needs any special communication or coordination between the software vendor and the Linux community or distributions to deal with beyond reading the relevant docs. Maybe it's that the vendors have a problem believing it can be that simple after all these years of dealing with the complexities of Windows?I am a novice linux user who is currently struggling through converting my computers completely to Ubuntu.
It has really been a challenge for me, not so much due to anything wrong with Ubuntu, but because the "aftermarket" software just doesn't exist, or is really poor.
For example, can you believe that there are no good graphical FTP clients for linux? It's true. I have been using gFTP, which most people consider to be the best one, for about a week. It crashes almost daily, isn't very good option-wise, and it is soooo slow. I want something simple, say something like WSFTP for windows, and lo and behold it just doesn't exist. Seems remarkable that a good graphical FTP client doesn't even exist.
The same can be said for a Mavis-esque typing program, and a simple photo editor like the immensely popular Irfanview.
Indeed these are the stumbling blocks for me. Not the distribution, but rather the software inavailability.
"The television is the retina of the mind's eye" - Videodrome
Businesses do not really care if something is open source or closed source or whatever. This is a fallacy. Businesses care about ROI, pure and simple. And when you care about ROI you want to maximize your returns for a given size of effort. Which in our case, in a very watered down analysis, would mean:
/coralsaw
1. Tapping into high-margin customer segments (server software, niche workstation software)
2. Tapping into the mass market (read: consumer)
In case 1. Linux is King (TM). Look at Amazon, Google, e-Bay, with more coming aboard.
In vase 2. XP is King. Which means there are more desktops to tap, and more consumers that are used to pay for software (or need the software) that run XP on their machines rather than Linux. We all know why, major reason being that traditionally Linux was not Desktop-Newbie-Consumer friendly. With the advent of DNC-friendly distros like Ubuntu, Xandros, Linspire (observe: paid or not!), the segment grows, more business plans result into positive ROI, more new software is written for Linux.
Granted, there are secondary problems in terms of supporting many distros, the fact that FOSS repositories have zillions of "new and exciting" software already for free (if only one could take the time and look at it), etc.
But the initial assertion of the article: open source viz closed source -> no new and exiciting software is a false assertion, I'm sorry to say.
<before>now</before>
As I said, I'm just relaying what other developers have told me. That's all. Take it at face value.
However, you cannot deny that there it a very strong sense of "Make the source code available!" in the Linux community. I'm NOT saying that it's right or wrong, just that it's there. And don't say that Linux coders do not require open source! I've seen postings on Slashdot and other Linux communities that have actually criticized companies for releasing software on Linux but not making their source code available as though it's some kind of expectation! I know enough to take such postings with a grain of salt, knowing that there are extremists in every crowd who will never be satisfied, but what the hell do you expect a developer to think if they had plans on releasing their software but then saw that there's an expectation of releasing their source code?
The phrase tipping point or angle of repose is a sociological term that refers to that dramatic moment when something unique becomes common. It [has also] become applied to the popular acceptance of new technologies and serves as a good explanation of the success of VHS over Betamax, for instance. Adopted from Wikipedia.
It is only a matter of time. If the open source community learns the critical lessons offered by the VHS/Betamax wars, the adoption histories of analog to digital sound and imaging, and the marketing stratagies of IBM & clones vs Apple, then the result is ordained.
If the open source community doesn't learn those lessons? Oh well....
http://sourceforge.net/
rgds
But I don't want any goddamn closed source crap on my boxen.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
"I am a firm believer that both parties could learn a lot from each other; unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon." Like, how to get your face photoshoped into a Borg and made a topic icon on /.?
Great Intellect...
All the software you mention probably exists in Linux, it's just so insanely named that you have no idea it's what you need until you take a chance and install it.
I still love the Penguin (well, actually, I'm more of a BSD fan); but that's been my experience, software-wise.
So the main purpose of a system is to "excite" this guy with "new" stuff? What about being useful?
Cry Cry Cry.
Outlook doesn't work.
Sulk Sulk Sulk
Can't find any decent software.
Bla bla bla. Ra ra ra.
Diddums.
- write up a great idea for a proprietary product, stressing that it will run on millions of Windows desktops;
- look for venture capital;
- develop and market product;
- profit!!!
or- write up a great idea for an open source product, stressing that geeks will love it;
- look for venture capital;
- develop and market product;
- attract praise for its open and innovative nature!!!
There is some tremendous stuff running in the Linux/BSD world (especially server oriented tools). Much of it is desperately needed by Windows (appArmor, SELinux type functionality, for instance). However, the reason for the focus on MS Windows for consumer desktop products is no mystery.WINE is a good alternative if you absolutely need a Windoze program on your Linux box. And remember kids, WINE is not an emulator.
For sale: Parachute. Used once. Never opened. Small stain.
There are more uses for a computer other than a glass typewriter, a ledger book or a toy.
One last comment about the example - Outlook not so good. Nearly every other email client stores data in a form that can be recovered by a even a text editor or by tools from the same vendor - not an obfiscated database that requires dodgy shareware tools to fix.
I think it's time for closed source community to get real and stop hoping, that someone will do their work for them and they will cash out on this. Go, write software, if it's good people will buy it. It may not be. Well, tough.
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
Here is a point many Slashdotters are missing, when they see the word "Closed Source".
Closed source should not be defined as anything packaged in disks or as installable on the local machines. The majority of closed source is now disguised as Web Applications. When we raise arms against Microsoft, we are supportive or at best silent about the dozens of useful web applications that spring up. Google Maps, Spreadsheets, BaseCamp and the rest are as closed source as Microsoft are. And so are the algorithms that power things like search engines.
As Google and others bring newer applications on the Web, and as the desktop applications get replaced by Web Applications we will have "Closed Source 2.0".
Actually they might be worse that the current breed of closed source.
- When Web Applications shut down you have nothing!
- You dont have code to reverse engineer
- Hell, you don't even have the data with you
- You have no idea what they do with your data!
- Can we depend on their security?
Life is a conviction.
Ok, admittedly I'm new to linux and still ask a lot of questions and spend lots of time on forums, but so far I haven't any major problems getting an e-mail client to work. I never used Outlook, never liked it, but I have used Thunderbird and haven't had any problems getting it set up and will be setting up Evolution when I get the chance to do so. Really, it just seems like this guy doesn't have the desire to actually learn something new or do something for their self. A fine example of a M$ drone?
So many choices, so little tolerance.
You want Outlook on your screen - no problem - just export it via X windows from your MS windows box to wherever you are. You mean that hasn't worked since NT 3.51? OK - it looks like you are stuck with MS windows since VNC is too much of a pain for constant use - but you can do things the other way with an X server on your windows box letting you run things remotely at full speed on other machines on the network. Exceed, cygwin and many other implementations of X Windows on MS Windows let you do this.
The single user non network aware model still exists with MS Windows - the idea of exporting an entire terminal session is still about as clunky as an IBM 3270 terminal from decades past. Thankfully it only cuts one way - almost everything else works OK with MS Windows over a network even if MS Windows works with practicly nothing else.
"there does not appear to be a clear, simple to follow outline cooperative for companies to design for the open source operating system." Is this no what the Linux Standard Base (LSB) addreses?
Yes, you are right that people who are "coding Flash-based web sites deserve swift kicks to the buttocks." But, that does not change the fact that they ARE still coding them, and people want an OS or browser that works well with them.
There's two major reasons:
(1) Linux is a relatively small user base compared to Windows or even Mac.
(2) On the whole, most Linux users don't like paying money for software.
So Linux is a tiny, tiny market for closed source applications developers.
Oh wait, he's not done. He seems to spend the bulk of the rest of his diatribe complaining that he can't use Outlook in "the Linux world".
Sure, Linux (and OSS in general) has a lot of obstacles to overcome before it will be widely adopted. I'm not sure that Shockwave, iTunes, and Outlook are the best examples of those obstacles.
As a long time Gentoo user I have dealt with many problems over the years trying to use a Linux distro as a main desktop OS. And I have finally come to the conclusion that Linux on the desktop is not only dead, but never really got started.
I sit in chatrooms trying to help newbies and all I hear is "is there a Linux app that works like " And when you point them to the Linux equivalent they come back stating that the product you pointed them to is incomplete. Take Office and Openoffice.org for example. Sure Office is very bloated, but it is also the defacto standard and Openoffice has never been and probably never will be 100% compatible.
Another example is the day to day life of a web surfer, videos and flash from the web. All the interfaces available for Linux to stream video are so clunky that they are nearly unusable. And don't even get me started on Flash. It just sucks on Linux.
And then you have the poor hardware support. I have two laptops and two desktops. My two laptops are completely out of the question as most of the hardware is too new to be fully supported. Everything from native LCD resolutions to no native support for the wireless card. And on my desktops, one still runs Gentoo as a server, which Linux is ideally suited for, the other, in order to play games (which once again is pathetic on Linux) I have to run that other OS.
So to all the fanatics and fanboys, Linux will never be a force on the consumer's desktop. It's not bad on the business desktop because of its management capabilities and actually because of some of the flaws listed above (no worrying about employees watching movies or wasting time on Flash games). And in the back room Linux is the light in a once dark world with its power and plethora of server software.
Until the hardware manufacturers start writing native drivers (and aren't vilified for keeping their company secrets hidden) and until the major software manufacturers begin to believe that Linux is a viable consumer platform, Linux on the desktop is dead.
The author made some good points, but I'm confused why he didn't mention the Linux Standards Base. Aren't these issues exactly what the LSB is supposed to address?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think closed source software is really the main issue for most Linux users. New software is what we lack. Many people are using NVidia video cards with a closed source driver and playing Doom 3 which is also closed source. For example, I want Photoshop and Dreamweaver and Nero (the real one) to run natively in Linux.
-- Ghodmode
"the closed source community" ??
yeah, that's like saying "the borg individuality"!
Closed source "community"? I don't even really feel there is much of a real community in open source, but if there's one there, there's even less of a one in proprietary software. It's not two big blobs of people totally separate from each other forming different opposing communities that are bound together and will work with each other. A lot of people that have a job coding proprietary software spend some of their non work time coding open source software.
I've worked at two different (proprietary) software companies so far, and there has been zero sense of a community with other software companies - it's mostly outright hostility, with very ocassional cooperative work when we were doing some work with a hardware company, and some very basic, half arsed file format interop when customers demanded it.
This is the same problem that has been happening for over 10 years.
There was even a famous court case involving Microsoft's "applications barrier to entry" in their illegal monopoly.
apt-get install gqview and spend a few second setting the preferences, bang, irfanview is history.
/etc or /usr or something.
Change to PASV mode in gftp on those sites that keep crashing you, and problem will be mostly solved.
The best part about ubuntu is it's so easy to install vmware server and run windows reasonably safely while still enjoying the power of a linux desktop. Compare that to the fun sounding prospect of install vmware server in disaster prone windows and running ubuntu inside it.
The only stumbling block I see here is development of meaningful APIs, like a standard built in mono/.NET file serving system that would allow me to install a "windows appliance" and have it automatically locate and connect to the shared hard drive space on the machine. Ubuntu tries, but still doesn't properly install samba in such a way one has "plug and play" function - they always seem to leave out one little detail that has to be fixed up by editing some not so obscure text file deep in
Oh, and a fucking cd burner that also burns dvds and doesn't just magically flake out on its own as if it had a personality. Twq years I've been using uubuntu, they still haven't got this right. If Shuttleworth would shuttle some of that money into 'encouraging" a replacement for the pain in the ass cdrecord package it would be a boon to... prety much everyone.
If they don't do what I need them to do, then no, 126,119 programs is not enough. When it comes to doing exactly what I need done, it's simple - one program is enough.
Take the bibliographic program "EndNote," for example. Nothing in the Linux world comes close to what this program does in conjunction with MS Word. Nothing. OpenOffice? No. Bibus? A good project, but not there yet...(I can't wait until it is).
Qantity can simply not make up for quality when it comes to specialized software. If EndNote was ported to Linux, along with a solid statistics program with a good GUI, I'll bet many more academics would make the switch. (WINE doesn't work with EndNote, nor does SPSS or STATA.)
The lack of these types of specialized programs has kept me and others in my field from being a full-time Linux users. In this day and age, our department (and I'm sure most others) would benefit greatly, monetarily, by using Linux.
Replying to this Flamebait Troll of an article? This is what I was doing when I refereshed my Slashdot page and found this chump spewing misinformation:
In our site, we've got Active Directory for a group of 700 systems, and about 1200 users. I think Craptive Directory is a better word for this piece of junk. We tried migrating from Win2K server to Win2K3, and the damn thing called domain-prep and forest-prep threw out an error page some 500 meters long. Smoke's coming outta' my ears just reading reams and reams of error messages.
So, I ask the security chap..
What if we migrate to a better Directory server.. we're thinking of OpenLDAP or Fedora Directory Services. I asked this bloke to backup Active Directory, just in case. He says It Can't Be Done!!! It's just not possible to take a backup of the bloody damn POS s/w that's used to store the company's most valuable information. It's JUST NOT POSSIBLE TO transfer it to a better config. or even upgrade to a higher version smoothly. Seriously, why people ever choose Crapware like Active Directory, Exchange, LookOut or Office is beyond me.
And so, we're sitting down, thinking long hard thoughts... wondering what we should be doing, to ensure we're fine, atleast 2 years from now... some points: (Actually this bloke Matt Hartley may have done us a big favour - he's made all the wrong arguments and points in one piece!)
I. Use ONLY open standards and specs. No compromise on this at any cost.
1a. We've decided to go in with HTML for 'documents'. Why do we need docs? We need to look at them, we need to print them, we need to email them so others can see, and we need to be able to write tools that can manipulate OUR data in OUR docs. And so, it's gonna be HTML from here on out. The Nvu editor seems the best suited for this thing, so we're going with it.
1b. We don't use spreadsheets a lot. For those rare cases, we've decided to go in for Gnumeric, and csv as the format. No more of those bloody macros in the a/cs dept. We've developed all their apps on a server, we're giving them Import and Export to cvf where needed, and that's it.
1c. PowerPoint: We've told the suits to go in with Impress for the time being... under OpenOffice. Until we figure out the best Open Source tool for presentations, that works to Open Standards, that is. All told, we have very few suits.. less than a dozen, so let them start picking up these skills NOW!
II. Groupware: No more fiddling around with the Exchange Server or the Notes server trying to figure out how to build some site-specific features we need. No point. We've figured the only thing MS or IBM care about is licensing money, not adherence to standards, delivering something useful to us, or anything. They just want license money, so we're looking elsewhere.
We're also trying to build in some CRM functions... we heard Dynamics works only under Craptive Directory, so we're giving it a miss. SugarCRM seems useless without their commercial license, so we're ditching it too.
We're experimenting with vTiger, Drupal, Mambo, phpBB and Moodle.. yes, Moodle. It looks the easiest of the lot to actually build community-oriented features, and has the most elegant of interfaces. No need for any client, no Evolution, no Zimbra, no nothing. Just a customised Groupware client that does the job for us. That works the way we like. That helps our users relate to what software we provide them.
So, we asked ourselves, what are we doing with our email system?
1. Announcements, Circulars and Notifications: We've decided to have them at the top of our Groupware page. Every intended recipient to indicate they've read the message.. some option for a feedback. No more tons of "Read" messages to the sender, no more Acknowledgement emails... no nothing. Just a one-page report to the Sender of which users have Read, Not Read, and Comments. That's it for this category of mails.
2. Calendaring: We figured out this is not really important for all users, and the few who need it, need it in diffe
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Look, I have no problem with people using Windows (I do myself a little), I have no problem with people disliking command-line tools in Windows or Linux but can *both types* of people please STOP imposing their view of the world on the rest of us! Now!
The fact is that NOBODY (repeat N-O-B-O-D-Y) can appreciate the power of a Linux or UNIX operating system until you dive into the command line, learn shell, Python, Perl or another scripting language and start putting together INCREDIBLY POWERFUL AND VERSATILE TOOLS yourself.
For the uninitiated, from the shell prompt in Linux or UNIX you can log into remote systems, view web pages, burn CDs, rip CDs, play MP3s, convert images, perform countless system diagnostics, edit files, etc. etc. On top of this, you can do some of the most amazingly powerful text manipulation using complex regular expressions that end up looking like a spider has crawled across your screen with inky feet. Admittedly, to a GUI-based user, none of this looks particularly "exciting" but when all of these tasks can be combined in countless ways within scripts, NOTHING (repeat N-O-T-H-I-N-G) within a GUI environment comes CLOSE for automation and sheer power.
No, I'm not a command line zealot. I believe it's up to the user to decide what software/OS they are comfortable with, I personally have favourite tools in Windows, Gnome, KDE, BASH and even MS-DOS and I just use whatever I need to use to get a job done as quickly as possible. But the fact is that the UNIX command line is the most common place for me to work in.
But to all the uninitiated out there, please do not voice opinions on a subject you do not fully understand. Linux and Open Source is NOT waging some kind of anti-Windows war with the goal of total Microsoft destruction - it's an ALTERNATIVE way of doing things where everything is done in an open fashion and the sole aim is to write useful, usable but NOT NECESSARILY PRETTY software, nothing more.
And if you're waiting for Linux to drop into your lap as a ready-packaged alternative to Windows that you can immediately start using like Windows from day one, then I'm afraid you're in for a long wait. To become a Linux user means taking more time to learn about how your computer works and, to be an effective Linux user, ramping up your learning curve so that you know how to take best advantage of the wealth of excellent free software that has become available to you.
If you're not willing to devote that time then, so be it. Stick with what you are comfortable with and enjoy it with my blessing - just don't be so quick to judge the rest of us.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I think that it is true that a lot of commercial software that is available for Windows would utterly fail if it were ported to Linux, but I think that the reason has less to do with some aversion to proprietary software than the fact that Linux users value different things from their software than Windows users. /Applications. In either case, it's perfectly acceptable to users of those OSes to go to the companies website and download the software, or to buy a boxed set and run the installer from the CD.
I think that Windows users in general value simplicity and consistency, while Linux users tend to value robustness and efficiency. It's not a matter of one being "better than" the other, it is simply a matter of having a different target audience. I think they key difference is that most windows users (and computer illiterate people of all OSes) want software that is written for them. Linux users (and geeks of all OSes) want software that is written for a task. Joe Windows User says "I want a program to let me burn DVDs", but Tom Linux User says "I need a program that burns DVDs". The difference seems subtle, but software made for one group rarely satisfies people in the other group.
Another big difference is Consistency. Windows (and Mac) users like things to have a consistent look and feel, and to work generally the same way. I think that's true of Linux users as well, except that no two Linux users can agree on what that same way should be, and so they want the option to customize that software to work how they want it.
I think the final big thing that is a non-issue on Windows and OS X that can make or break the deal with many Linux users is how the software is packaged. On Windows you pretty much run an installer off of a CD or download the installer. On Mac you pretty much either run an installer, or drag a folder into
With Linux though, a lot of software won't get on a users machine unless the user can grab it from a large repository through emerge or synaptic or packman or yum or whatever package management system that user uses. Of course, this distribution method doesn't really work well for selling proprietary software (I guess a company could set up a repository for their software, and let anyone install it, then require registration the first time it's run or whatever, but that would require users to go in and add that repository to their package management system, etc.). This isn't such a big deal with big high profile applications, but it can really be a stopping point for small independent software vendors.
I think that, as much as companies make a fuss about Linux users not wanting to pay for software, and Linux not having enough market share, and the GPL being viral, it's really the problems that I've outlined that makes getting proprietary software on Linux a hurdle for many developers.
Personally, I have a number of proprietary applications running on my Linux machine, both very expensive high profile programs and less expensive applications, as well as some free-as-in-beer stuff (flash plugin, etc.). Cost wasn't an issue (if the program makes me more productive or allows me to do something I otherwise could not do, then it's worth the money), nor was the fact that it wasn't open sourced (I think that there are some domains of applications where free software is better, others where free software is catching up, and I think there are domains where proprietary software will always be ahead of free software, I always pick the program that best meets my needs- sometimes I need the source, most of the time I don't and I pick based on the merits of the program without considering it's license). The problems I outlined above were issues however, and if those problems were solved I think that it would be more reasonable for companies to release proprietary software for Linux, and I think that buying and using that proprietary software would be more appealing to myself and other Linux users.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
Seriously now...
...and if you are indeed arguing that desktop Linux is nonexistant, then you're a goddamned ignorant troll.
when Linux shows multi-BILLION dollar profits
Linux and the GPL weren't designed to make money (though some people do make money off of Linux); they SAVE people money.
SUCCESSFUL business strategy
News flash: "Linux" in and of itself is not a business. And last I checked Red Hat and IBM were doing alright.
With the exception of servers and anti-virus software, Linux is far, far away from being a serious threat to Windows (and Macs.)
I have 5 machines in active use in my house. All of them dual boot XP/Ubuntu. No matter what machine I'm working with, when (re)installing XP I have to deal with the installer's MBR-related retardation and I have to hunt down and manually install the drivers for the network card, video card, and sound card. With the latest release of Ubuntu, ALL of my hardware is detected right out of the box. 3d-acceleration doesn't work, of course, but there are a few third party applications such as EasyUbuntu which automatically set this up for me. Installing Ubuntu and running EasyUbuntu is easier and by default requires less user input than XP and doesn't require hunting down drivers, and after it's done I can watch DVDs, check my email, surf the web, open or create MS Office documents using OpenOffice.org, play from a vast selection of Linux games (no, they're not Battlefield 2 but they're hella better than just Pinball, Minesweeper, Solitaire, Freecell, and Hearts... varients of which are all of which are included in the Ubuntu repositories, btw), easily install and run most simple Windows programs under Wine, and easily upgrade every single application on my computer with two mouse clicks.
Yes, there are still plenty of rough spots, but its flaws aren't 1/100 as bad as the flaws Windows 98SE had. 99% of XP's non-gaming desktop functionality is there, and the remaining 1% is largely a result of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices and/or Window's momentum (Windows-only programs/drivers/APIs, IE-only websites, etc.) And on top of Window's functionality, you get immunity to most forms of malware, the benefits of the Debian package managment (makes InstallShield look like rocket science in comparison, and it automatically keeps your stuff up to date), and all-around predictability and stability--weird stuff still occasionally happens, but it isn't an constant, everpresent fact of life like it is with XP. (And don't give me that "XP/2000 is just as stable as *nix" argument--that'scrap. It's a big improvement over 9x, but that's akin to saying Ramen noodles is an improvement over eating dog crap. It still crashes. It still causes apps to crash. It still behaves in an extremely unpredictable fashion--problems seemingly coming out of nowhere--at least a couple times a month.)
In terms of market share no, no it isn't a threat, but then Linux isn't a business, so market share isn't a terribly fair metric. Linux can thrive (and indeed has) even on an extremely small user base; Windows cannot.
I hearby pronounce the neverending joke about this finally being the "year of the Linux Desktop" officially dead. Linux IS on the desktop, and my grandmother DOES use it for everything most people use Windows for--email, web browsing, music, watching movies, casual gaming.
I'd just like to say my PC was propping up dust until I discovered MythTV. After I read the myth features page I immediately backed up my personal stuff, wiped WinXP and installed Ubuntu Breezy. I've not been this excited about computing since I went to university and started using the web for the first time.
I was disappointed when I learned of all the limitations of XP MCE (*why* can't I play a DVD on one machine and watch it on a different TV?? It's mine isn't it?) and Mr. Demerijan off of the Inq mentioned mythtv to me.
Now I dream of multi TB servers with many DVB-T and S tuners and diddy mini ITX boxes under every TV.
Some day, eh? Not exciting my rosy red arse.
J1M.
Linux and the GPL weren't designed to make money (though some people do make money off of Linux); they SAVE people money.
I should clarify-- by "people", I meant companies as well. Hence, close sourced companies should learn to grow up and play well with Linux not because they can sell it, but because they can save money. Plus, since it's open source, they can easily modify any part of it as needed (they don't even have to redistribute the changes, so long as they don't distribute the binaries outside the company.)
As far as business desktop vs. home desktop needs go, I'd say Linux is even more suited for work environments because gaming is (usually) discouraged, user rights management is much better, and there's certainly no lack of development tools available for Linux.
Well - at first Linux was not taken seriously at all..
Then they complained it was not ready for dayly use - we got Linux servers everywere..
Then they complained we had no usefull desktop - we got GNOME, KDE and a lot of others..
Then they complained Linux could not run windows software - we got wine, Crossover Office etc.
Then they complained ther where no games - we got native games and wine/Cedega
Then they complained we could not watch DVD's etc. - we got libdvdcss and a way to incorporate a wole bunch of other formats.
Then they complained... oh well, you got the idea..
First they complain about BIG issuses. Now those issues are resolved, they keep complaining. Only - it's getting harder and harder to find things to complain about.
Now the only thing they can complain about is that Linux does not have a substitute for Outlook. Well - just wait a while. As soon as Microsoft is forced by the EU to release enough information there will be a Outlook-ish client for Linux.
You see - the problem is not Linux does not have a "Outlook". The problem is that Microsoft is keeping all the information to create such a "Outlook" close to his chest. It is impossible to create something "out of the blue" and expect to be compatible with Micosoft software. So - complain to the Big Brother in Redmond, because they are the ones keeping progress in Linux at minimum at this point..
And - last but not least...
There ARE realy exiting things happening. Only - the author seems to ignore them and is whining about Outlook and flash (oooohhh exiting, exiting - wow, wow, wow). The Outlook thingie is explained above, and flash? Well - there is a up-to-date flash for Linux coming (version 9) - its been worked on for some time now. Just have some patience please?
Fact is - Linux is growing every day. Wat was not possible yesterday is possible today, and what is not possible today will be tomorrow....
Still - I think people like the auhtor will allways find something to whine about. He never ever wil be satisfied about anything that isn't Windows. And thats the very core of the problem...
Note: sorry about my English - it's not my native language, so spelling mistake will occure now and then...
There main technique the hardcore FOSS zealots use that will ensure that there in no proprietary applications on Linux is that they hack and reverse engineer the code of anyone foolish enough to try and release code on "their turf". Imagine if Microsoft reverse engineered every piece of code that was released for windows with the intention of making their own and shipping it with Windows - how is it different that the Linux community does this.
it needs kurt cobains song: "hello how low? how low, how low?" yes...how low slashdot will sink.This comment is not on the post or the article.They don't deserve it.But what abt, slashdot editors?
The only thing this dude correctly predicted was that hate mail would start flowing in!
The good news with respect to Linux graphics is that it's almost there. XaraExtreme already looks pretty good, as does Krita (which just crashed when I tried closing it)... I think we're within a year of having pro-quality (if you think GIMP is pro-grade, I don't want any of what you're smoking) raster paint software and I think Inkscape will provide pro-quality vector graphics when it finally gets to v1.0.
As for a simple photo editing tool, have you tried gthumb (might be called photo tool in your distro)? It combines an image browser with a set of easy to use image manipulaton tools... brightness / contrast / gamma , plus cropping and resizing.
Tech Public Policy stuff
We don't want linux applications. We want open source applications. We like linux because it is open and is the OS with has the more open applications.
I use linux on a daily basis but I'd rather see more open-source windows application than closed-source linux application.
It isn't about linux. It is about open source.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Thing is, everyone listed their current e-mail client. What do you think those with the problems were using? Yeah, Outlook. "Why can't we all get along?" (says TFA) - more like "Why can't everyone else get along with me?". Lamenting non-compliance to 'anti'-standards makes no sense.
Hopefully, Microsoft will never release a Linux version of that rubbish.
I suppose you can argue about the value of Outlook as an E-mail client but Exchange is a bit more than just an E-mail client. It one of the most widely used groupware products available and to be fair to Microsoft it does it's job fairly well. If there was at least an open source alternative to Exchange+Outlook/Entourage, a cohesive well integrated package that shipped with it's own client and web client that was of similar quality to the Apache web server (Which is by far one of the finest examples of OSS software out there) alot of companies would consider deploying it with the same confidnence they deploy Apache. In fact if you are an OSS developer and want to stick it to Microsoft producing a rival to Exchange as a gropuware product is one of the best things you can do. Just look at what trouble Apache has caused Microsoft in their attempts to gain market share in the web servers market, IIS 7 is even copying features from Apache now imagine what an quality OSS alternative to Exchange would do. In the mean time, if lack of an Exchange client and the Office pack is the only lament that people can come up with about Linux as a Desktop system they should take a look at Wine & Crossover Office. As far as I know crossover supports Office, Outlook and Lotus Notes.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Hah. People still use Flash, which works fine on 32-bit x86 Linux (only). Shockwave, however, is just not an issue. I briefly tried to find a Linux version, gave up, and since then have simply not come across any sites using it...
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
The world of free and open source stimulates and encourages learning. I have learned almost all of what I know from *reading* other peoples code, and *writing* my own code. First it was Olli Pavarian's WavFile class, then it was Rosegarden's use of QCanvas, now I'm getting paid to write new technologies that other people could benifit from, but won't because it's commercial code.
I've written Python bindings for ISC dhcpctl so a major local telephone company to do cable modem provisioning with Zope, but no one else can use it or learn from it's perfect examples for using the dhcpctl API because it will never be published. I am currently writing high-performance audio software for a major recording company using Qt, but no one will ever be able to learn how to write a crystal-clear, scalable block-grid or a dynamite wave display because my client is afraid to release it.
Writing good code is all about learning, and we all know that the best way to learn to program is to read other people's work, and try it out for yourself. If we want better code we need to see better code, and all the companies out there that choose to profit from hiding source code are not contributing. Instead, they are stopping a potentially fruitful branch of knowledge. It's ignorant, and it's wrong.
The funny part is that closed source people don't understand that they'll get better code with the open source model [insert buddhist golden-rule lesson here]. Good projects get good publicity, and community is invaluable. I think Microsoft would attest to that if you asked them how their beta-testing worked for them in the nineties.
-P
http://fromisraeltolebanon.info
This is YOUR WAR yanks. Even more blood on your hands. Barbaric, greedy egomaniacs the lot of you. How many children are killed and maimed each year for the benefit of your "way of life"? Fuck off and die.
Grow up? F**k you! Closed source bitches should grow up and stop stealing from people! Open source rules and everything closed-source should be burned! Linux people don't have to accept closed-source shit, Windows&Mac people should start making open-source software.
It's about time the linux community got it's head out of it's collective ass, and started catering to proprietary software developers, or any kind of developer for that matter.
.blahrc files and most of the contents of /etc in favor of either xml config files in regular locations, or a registry equivalent. It's cumbersome to have dozens of different configurations files, all with their own made up syntax that are difficult to parse programmatically. Apache, I'm looking at you.
Right now, linux isn't really a coherrent operating system, but a large collection of different products that various distros coble together in different ways. There isn't even a single coherent API to code against that is equivalent to win32. Differing package management systems make it more difficult to install software packaged for redhat/debian.
To keep linux stocked with the latest and greatest software, a single coherrent standard must be made available to code against. Also, some unnecessary duplicate libraries *cough* QT *cough* need to be deprecated and a single API settled on for things like GUI, sound, etc.
Also, it's really time to start evaluating integrating some of the technologies microsoft has developed, primarily COM. It seems like a lot of good ideas that have come out of microsoft have been ignored out of some stupid sense of competition. Linux particularly suffers from a lack of a language independent way to call into libraries. As a consequence, virtually all libraries in linux are written in C, and export simple C functions and no objects.
Finally, it's time to ditch all of the
Linux has come a long way, but it's pretty obvious that the community lacks any kind of strategy for success, and that it is overly disorganized. Frankly, I'm seriously worried about the future relevence of linux. As the competition has removed most of it's major flaws and linux has not, it's become increasingly hard to say that linux is the better operating system. At this point the best argument I can come up with against windows is that it is made by microsoft, and you have to pay for it, which frankly isn't a very good argument as to which operating system is objectively "best".
but not in this case. the article smells of mindphuking scriptdead ?pr firm? propagandist hypenosys.
from previous post: many demand corepirate nazi execrable stop abusing US
we the peepoles?
how is it allowed? just like corn passing through a bird's butt eye gas.
all they (the felonious nazi execrable) want is... everything. at what cost to US?
lookout bullow.
for many of US, the only way out is up.
don't forget, for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.
'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.
some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.
it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....
as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.
concern about the course of events that will occur should the corepirate nazi life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.
'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.
consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?
Open source model is great, but everyone has to eat and most want much more than that. So the real point is not closed or open source, but the fact that if you have a new, exciting and possibly revolutionary technical idea then there is huge monetary incentive to sell it. That's why even most Slashdot geeks would form a startup and queue for VC injection the day they invent The Next Big Thing.
That is not to say that open source developers and community are not an important part of technology landscape or even modern society as a whole. I would even say that their existence is an indicator of society's health in the area of technology, IT etc. However, open source has its place in the "technological food chain" and it is clearly not bringing breakthroughs. It's rather perfecting the known and making it ubiquitously available to everyone.
Last line of TFA: "Now I guess we will have to wait and see if this will in fact happen."
Yeah, thats exactly how standards get done...
To the GP:
You say that OSS community doesn't want Nvidia to open source their driver (which is wrong, I've seen many demands for just that), they only want them to provide an open spec so the OSS community can write its own drivers.
Did you ever think that Nvidia doesn't want their hardware run by homebrew drivers, because they'll catch the flack when those drivers act whacky? Joe Blow buys some Lindows machine with some OSS Nvidia driver written by who-the-hell-knows, and when that driver acts up, Nvidia gets the blame. I understand Nvidia perfectly on this issue.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
The wars in the 80s and 90s were nefarious to UNIX because there were *competing UNIX vendors*.
m e-win2K-systems").
Each one, alone in his corner, building its own incompatible stuff, not playing nice with its concurrent, breaking standarts, not documenting everything, etc.
The UNIX vendors were doing the shit, and shit came back to them.
Today the situation is different. In the linux realm, you have whole bunch of open-source application that can be re-compiled for specific distributions and, because source is available, small bugs leading to incompatibilities can be fixed.
There no real *Linux vendors competing against each other*. There are distributors, which basically make different distribution including not-exactly-the-same package collection, and with different defaut package for some tasks. But all of these are mostly open-source application that are still available to anyone else, and even to windows users.
The end-user, because application are open, will always benefit of improvement done by distributor and shared back to application developper.
Interoperability is another point that has much more improved since the unix-wars days. Most Freedom software today is designed to use open and documented standarts. No such free software is singling itself out of the community because it uses something closed, un-documented, proprietary or patent-covered.
What you have in fact today, that can be related to the unix wars, is a bunch of *competing prorietary software vendor*, trying to kill each other and competing in a landscape comprising a bunch of such similar vendors and in one corner a huge community using and developping free[dom] and open solutions (Linux, BSD, etc) that are mostly inter-compatible, open to outside and even partially running on the proprietary vendors' solutions.
As long as the open spirit is kept, there's no real need to emerge a "one-single-ring-to-fit-them-all" target. In fact, keeping the diversity has numerous advantages such as giving freedom of choice to the end user (although the distributor has to pay attention to provide a 'default' solution, so user not interested in wasting time to compare and choose products can have a quick solution - see problems encountered by users whining because they have to much choice to choose from. Most modern distributions always highlight a 'prefered' choice to avoid such hassles), and providing more security thru diversity (see example of virus shutting down the most popular target. With heterogenous environnement like linux, this is less likely to happen than with a "single-virus-able-to-shut-down-most-WinXP-and-so
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
He's a customer. He's buying the hardware. That gives him EVERY RIGHT to say what his problem with NVidia's decision is.
Additionally, he was responding to a question from the parent post to his, so anything he puts down as an answer is valid AS an answer. Turning on him for answering is ridiculous. You may counter his answer with a reason why NVidia should keep the driver closed, but their answer to the question "why are NVidia closed drivers not liked" is still their answer and still an answer for many people. Those who don't agree (like you) aren't complaining about NVidia's drivers, so you cannot answer why people don't like the closed drivers, so what are YOU doing writing this?
ALL the defenses of NVidia closing their driver are based either on
1) Well 'cos they can
2) Well, they cannot because of other's "IP"
3) Well, they cannot because people would otherwise "steal" the ideas from NVidia
#1 isn't an answer
#2 is COMPLETELY the reason for OSS: if OSS was the norm, NVidia wouldn't have a problem
#3 is the reason why they shouldn't BSD their driver. GPLing means that if someone steals their idea and then improves it, NVidia get that development work back ("stealing" their ideas in return).
At least for me open source is a mandatory requirement in itself. Closed source does not meet this criterion and therefore is not even considered being used. That narrows the options but so does any requirement.
It's nothing against the respective vendors or their products or closed source, they just don't fit.
cb
It's not our problem, though - the desktop sucks. It's full of stupid people who are scared at the thought of thing new or different from what they're used to, people with no common sense who bury their heads in the sand whenever something goes wrong, people used to the released-software model where anything not in a shiny shrink-wrapped box is no good.
You say you sit in chatrooms trying to help people. You should know that.
Heck, the guy in the article was complaining that Evolution doesn't work like Outlook. Well, yeah. I think that's a good thing, as I don't like Outlook, but he's too narrow-minded (or possibly prejudiced) and thinks that Evolution is bad because it's different.
The obvious fix to this "problem", to stop people complaining, is to give them something that they're used to. And to do that, Linux would have to be more like Windows.
I'll say that again, if you're just skimming and didn't catch it: To make Linux ready for the desktop, it would have to be more like Windows - that is, worse.
I've had people say that Emacs sucks because it uses funny combinations like C-x C-s and C-c. I mean, why can't it just use normal shortcuts, like Word does? I for one cringe when C-w closes a window instead of deleting a word, and M-t doesn't swap words instead of doing whatever the hell it does in Word (opens the Tools menu?) and think that C-k is far too important to waste on a stupid function like adding a hyperlink, but I'm not part of the different-is-bad crowd.
These same people throw up their arms and complain when OpenOffice doesn't do things the same way as Word, or The GIMP doesn't do things the same way as Photoshop. It's not a case of unlearning the old way and learning the new, it's flat-out refusing to do anything. There's more of a case for OpenOffice than The GIMP here, but Microsoft Office isn't the epitome of good user interface design, and OpenOffice is allowed to change things for the better here and there. (Soooo many toolbars)
Linux doesn't "need" anything. Linux won't "die" if it doesn't support the "killer aps". I don't use Flash or Photoshop or Office or any of those things. Oh no, I must be dead.
I'm going to agree with your point here, but possibly not for the reasons you imagined. To all the fanatics and fanboys, Linux will not be on the consumer's desktop for a long time. It's intrinsic. Linux won't become popular unless it's more like Windows, and becoming more like Windows is not a direction I want it to go in.
Linux has, however, reached a point where anyone self-determined can download Linux, install it, and use it with a minimum of fuss. There might be problems on the way, and things might be a little bit different, but if someone is clever enough to install Linux then they're unlikely to be swayed by things like that.
That's far from "dead".
Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
"that problem is the amazing lack of new and exciting software .. the Windows crowd has been using it for nearly a year or longer"
What new and exciting software are you refering. Please provide specifics. I don't mean some marketing phrase eg 'business ready' I mean what in functionality isn't represented on Linux.
"Take the Evolution vs. Outlook 2003"
Does Outlook work with Open-Xchange Server
davecb5620@gmail.com
but he's not really talking about software, is he? He's talking about Microsoftcompatibleware and Buzzware.
5 .pdf), especially about the first top inhibitor of the Linux desktop adoption.
Well there are alway several oposite point of views about what's exciting SW. But when you look what the majority of the Linux users consider useful SW the article is just right. Read the OSDL survey about what users think of the Linux applications (http://www.osdl.org/dtl/DTL_Survey_Report_Nov200
O. Wyss
See http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html
Four reasons why there is no future for Closed Source software, on Linux or any platform:
THE RIGHT TO ENJOY
We believe that everyone has the right to use software that they have legitimately acquired, for any purpose: it is for the user to determine whether it is suitable for a particular application. If the supplier of a program were somehow unfairly to impose their will upon the user, perhaps by stipulating that the program should not be used for certain purposes, that would constitute an act of violence.
THE RIGHT TO STUDY
We believe that every user of a program has the right to study how that program works. If the user of a program wishes to replicate a particular piece of functionality from that program, they have the right to examine the program in order to determine how the functionality is performed. Nobody should be forced to re-invent the wheel. The supplier of a program does not have the right to keep secret from any rightful user how the program works: by allowing someone else to use the program, they have invited that person in on the secret.
If the creator of a process wishes to keep secret the details of a process, then that is their prerogative. Effectively, they are providing a service: a customer supplies the materials; the provider of the service takes them away, does something secret, and later returns a finished product to the customer. The customer has certain rights in respect of the transaction, including the right to decline the transaction altogether based upon the level of secrecy expected by the supplier. Where the right to study a program is denied, the user {customer} is expected to provide the supplier with not just the raw materials {input to the program}, but also the resources to carry out the process {computer time and disk space}. This diminishes the quid pro quo, and so is potentially an unfair transaction.
Access to the source code is highly desirable in the exercise of this right.
THE RIGHT TO SHARE
We believe that all the fruits of all human endeavour properly belong to all of humankind.
Software can be shared without being diminished by the act of sharing: if I give a copy of a program to my neighbour, I still have a copy. {Of course, I no longer have the exclusive use of that software. This exclusivity is a form of artificial scarcity.} Nobody has the right to impose their will on my neighbour and say that they should not use a particular program: to do so would be a form of violence.
THE RIGHT TO ADAPT
We believe that every user of a program has the right to adapt that program to their own needs. Nobody should be forced to adapt their method of working to suit the way that someone else believes that the job should be done that would constitute unfairly imposing one's will on another, which is a form of violence.
Access to the source code is highly desirable in the exercise of this right.
RIGHTS, NOT PRIVILEGES
These are not privileges granted by some licence: they are your birthrights and mine, human rights every bit as fundamental as the right not to be discriminated against for your sex or skin colour, punished without due process of law or held in slavery, which spring directly from the existence of software. We believe that, whenever these rights are violated, the use of reasonable force -- as little as possible, but as much as necessary -- in their pursuit is absolutely justified.
POLITICS VS. TECHNOLOGY
Although these are clearly political issues, technology has the power to go behind the back and over the head of politics. Technology does not obey the laws of humans, answering directly to the laws of Nature. It is technology that shapes the future; politics occasionally contrives to slow it down, but in the end, technology will win out. We get our human rights because, in the end, it's just too darn difficult to deny u
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I truly don't understand open source fanatics. The marketplace is huge! There is room for everyone, from closed source, to open source.
The beauty of open source is that it greatly reduces the barrier to entry for anybody with more time than money to create a business. Four years ago I had an idea for an online business, so I asked a couple of engineer buddies of mine of how to implement it as I had no programming experience whatsoever, except that one semester of Pascal in highschool. I didn't have the money to drop $1,000+ for SQL Server or Oracle, but open source and the plethora of online tutorials were there for anyone willing to spend the time and learn.
Too many people think that open source has to compete with closed source, and more times than not, it doesn't. Every time someone chooses an open source solution, it doesn't necessarily mean that a closed source solution has lost a sale, it could mean that someone has decided to offer a product or service that he otherwise would not have due to lack of capital, as was my case.
Now, sometimes we use open source solutions, sometimes closed source, whatever happens to be the best solution (as far as we can tell) at the time. Quit worrying about open source having to create the best, cutting edge, products, and be happy with what it has allowed small companies around the world to do--compete affectively with the big boys.
So don't worry about it; there's a place for both and quit being so insecure about it.
Whith this Linex crap, where do I get a copy of Outlook? Norton AV? SpyBot? MS Pop-up Blocker? ZoneAlarm? And what about those fun, free, animated emoticons? Where are they? In fact, with Linix I've completely lost the little blue tray guy that pops up when a friend wants to chat. Can you believe it? Talk about boooooorrriiiing!
...I have mod points (same here)... still. Part of the problem is a lot of software, but very little *good* software
I'll one-up you. The major problem isn't there little good software, but very few good software engineers.
I wouldn't say it's the fault of the developers, it's just many don't know how to write good SW. Yet even that isn't their fault because they never were taught how to write good SW since even teachers and professors mostly don't know.
Writing good SW is quite simple all you have to do is follow some good guidelines, the tricky part is what or where are these guidelines. A few years ago when I started writing OSS I was faced with exactly this question and couldn't find any. So I decided to create my own guidelines : wyoGuide (http://wyoguide.sf.net/). Sure they might not be as good as they should be but so far they have suited me quite well.
O. Wyss
See http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html
When you've solved that, you might see a lot more software for Linux.
No sig today...
haha please! my linux software crashes all the time, and while I'd love to spend thousands of hours tracking down every bug, I don't even have the skills even if I had that time. What I do is put up with the crashes.
I'm not wasting my time on further debate, any analogy between proprietry software and web services is foolish.
They are busy patenting every obvious thing on the planet trying to make sure that something exciting and origional CANT be created. OSS programmers do not have multi million dollar LEgal teams to fight the asshole companies that believe they own exclusive rights to something as trivial as a bubble sort or something that has been done for hundreds of years but now "on a computer" so either the programmers must work in secret and release in a country that is not stupid enough to have redicilous IP laws or risk getting sued.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
So basically, he's saying that the problem with open source is that he can't use outlook 2003, and hasn't pulled his head out of his ass long enough to realize that there is already an exact itunes clone for linux that runs native. Banshee for one, and dozens of other great players that exceed far beyond iTunes anyway, such as Rythmbox. If you want to buy music online, allofmp3 provides better quality, non-DRM music anyway. This man is a fool.
Of *course* I don't see OSS vs. non-OSS as Us v. Them but rather everybody working together for the good of the s/w industry, but IF it was, I sure am glad this guy's on the other side.
Yes Outlook is a very good program... I am partial to it myself when I use a windors box... HOWEVER you must consider Kontact. It is very powerful NOTE the "very powerful" part.... I like it much better now than Outlook... It you also add in all the plugs for all manner of thingys , then pretty much anything for windors is just left in the dust... IMHO
http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_con tent&task=view&id=2255
He's got some issues with Linux and he's inventing problems out of his ass. Wonder who paid him. Probably some company in Seattle.
If Adobe ported most of their apps on Linux I think we would see a huge boost in Linux desktop market share. That, along with Crossover office could make some companies drop Windows entirely. Moving to open source is not going to happen over night. By using popular closed source software on Linux is the first step to going completely open source.
Sugar CRM open source edition, and a closed edition.
VTiger - take sugar CRM and don't even comply with the licence to say "powered by" sugar CRM at the bottom with the logo.
Rip out all the noise ["open source should grow up"] and what are you left with:
... Ubunto ... should set standards ... and make those standards available to closed source developers ..."
o de. Just move on.
"Red Hat and
Ummm. Where do I start?
1. Those things are _standards_ dropkick. They're already available to closed source developers ("CSD"), and the only thing stopping access is closed minds in the closed source world. Red Hat, Ubunto and the rest can't stop CSD using/adopting/supporting them, and can't make CSD do it either.
2. Without the above statement, the whole article is just content-free-standard-lazy-journalist-operating-m
Hmm... but what of the benefits? Some other group of open-source devs or some other company (like, say, Trolltech) would soon build a reputation for writing the best possible NVidia drivers. Trouble over. Besides, that would free NVidia from writing software, a task which is definitely not part of their core business. Imo, and in that of people more informed than I am, what's keeping NVidia from releasing an open spec is that
1. they don't want to risk being slapped with patent-infringement lawsuits
2. they don't want to fess up to mistakes which somehow slipped into the production-run hardware
3. and this is almost pure conjecture, they are possibly bound by (secret) agreements with M$, on the lines of "we'll let you in on the dirty little secrets of DirectX so you can whoop the competition in benchmarks, but you have to promise you'll never ever tell".
Same goes for ATI. I just have to hope some new company steps up and takes the high road (OpenGL and extensions thereof, open specs) from the very beginning.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
The whole point of an OS is to run your apps. If an OS doesn't do that, it's useless. I don't care if the OS is free, how fast it boots, how stable, how secure, how nice it looks, how evil msft is, or anything like that - if an OS doesn't run the apps, the OS is of no use. Period.
Since msft owns 90% - 95% of the desktop, who do you suppose most developers will develop for first? If anything OSX is a distant after-thought, and Linux even more so.
Also, any great F/OSS (Apache, Firefox, OpenOffice, etc.) will be ported to windows. So windows users enjoy the best of both worlds - in that respect.
One last thing, unknown to many Linux advocates: there is more to software than office-apps and mp3 players. There are thousands of verticle market applications that only run on msft.
It's a huge problem for desktop linux acceptance, and I don't see any way around it.
BTW: I use debian most of the time, but I still have to keep a windows partition. If I had to live with one OS, it would have to windows. *Sigh*.
I'm being hard pressed to think of any exciting new software that has been released for Windows yet this century, except games. What exciting software is he talking about?
--
Harvey
Either that or he genuinely doesn't know how to distribute a binary. In which case, thanks pal, perhaps we'll wait until you've learned how to use your computer before we try your code.
This is a common theme that I've heard now from this guy all the way to Linux Journal. People complaining about things that they aren't certain about and have ignorance to. How about the nice Bit Torrent technology or productivity software that comes standard with most Linux distros? Oh no wait, these people are too busy complaining about what's not 'like' Windows. Screw Windows, you never beat a Behemoth like Microsoft or Wal-Mart by being like them. You have to shoot ahead of them as many of the projects already mentioned are doing. Computability & interoperability are one things, mimicking is another. We all as part of the community should just take this as an incentive to document (wikis) and publicize things even more to counter ignorance such as this.
As a Gentoo user I have been struggling keeping my machine up to date with the 11248 packages that are continually. I find this astounding! Back in 1990 I could keep track of all free software development (20 or so packages) by checking 1 site.
an ill wind that blows no good
Well others have shot holes in your argument, and the latest GPL will finish it off. But SOA (SaaS) is just a more grown-up version of what use to be called a service bureau (ASP) If you remember your history and timesharing. Then you'll remember that most of computing's luminaries got their start on a form of SOA (dedicated leased lines before there was an Internet)
Your admin doesn't know what he's talking about. All you have to do is back up a domain controller, or two. It backs up Active Directory at the same time. I've done it several times in the lab, to get back to a known good state for the next test.
o ws2000serv/technologies/activedirectory/maintain/o psguide/part1/adogd03.mspx
It was the first hit on Google, even: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/wind
Seen Amarok? Friend of mine (happy XP user) wants to convert just to use it. Maybe soon there will be KDE for XP, then he will be happy. Another example would be GnuCash (maybe it has already happened for you Windoze lusers, but we got it earlier). I can't think of others right now, but then again I use console based stuff and I like the console apps in Linux much more than in Windows. But I suppose that would not fit your criteria of "killer apps".
Cheers
Hell, don't get me wrong, I run linux myself. But an innovator? I'm sorry but MOST of the innovation on the desktop (currently) comes from one place, and it isn't Linux, nor is it Windows.
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
I love Linux. I use Linux. Your 'spirit' argument and the 'single-virus-able-to-shut-down-most-WinXP-and-som e-win2K-systems' comment shows exactly why I believe Linux will remain a niche player and how it is that a lot of Linux users don't understand why it is that companies make the decisions they make.
I just want it to work. Why does it have to be new and exciting? I prefer old and reliable.
I'm usually frustrated because by the time I've used the paid for Windows crowd software for nearly a year or longer I'm being nagged to pay more to upgrade to the next release for reasons other than my own.
red herring. That's exactly the situation for anyone who buys gear shipped with Ubuntu, Suse SLED 10, or any of a half dozen other big distros. They ship with the nv driver only. No one blames Nvidia, they contact their vendor and ask for help.
This attitude is one of the major turnoffs for using OpenSource.
If I'm using Software X (and I'm not the hacker/developer), I'm either using it (the software) as an Appliance [Office Tools, E-Mail etc] or I'm using it to support software for which _I_ have an interest. I'm focused on solving issues relating to my project.
At this level, whining about other not helping you fix a problem in your software, reduces your software to hacker level (not-ready-for-prime time) software.
For example you are not allowed to use gcc or emacs or X-Windows or perl unless you are willing to help fix each and every problem that arises in those products.
Thank God that these problems are few and far between. Your software focus breaking and causing my project (what ever it might be) to be non-functional is a major irritation.
Attitude (as described above) is one of the major reasons why people/companies will put up with less than perfect code (read that as MicroSoft) rather than having to deal with these types of support issues. This is =WHY= software won't be developed on this platform (in spite of having some better tools)
This is one of the major issues that get's consistent reported as that companies have continued to use Non-Linux machines, and is a major stumbling block to conversion.
If closed software is the method to avoid this issue and attitude, then OpenSoftware will lose.
* If I want to develop software to sell economics tells me to develop for the platform with the largest number of usres.
* Windows has the largest user base
* 'Linux' doesn't count as a single platform since there are so many incompatible distros.
-- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
Here's something he might find a little interesting. It's the Aero 3D - windowing interface Vista has ripped off the OSS community and Sun Microsystems, only the name is Project Looking Glass 3D and it's not only an app, it's a 3D desktop environment.
As for "interesting" software, Linux is not striving to be a form of entertainment with useless software that just looks good. Linux is about being a proper OS, with all consequential implications. People who develop software for Linux do not waste their time, because most of the FOSS does not reap monetary profit, so the author wants to make a difference with something really useful, and possibly pretty too.
If you want to have fun: play a game, or get a wife and kids. A religion. A pet. A russian prostitute. Do something other than troll the Linux people for issues that exist only in your funny little head.
You don't want to mess with us, dude.
Did you ever think that Nvidia doesn't want their hardware run by homebrew drivers, because they'll catch the flack when those drivers act whacky?Joe Blow buys some Lindows machine with some OSS Nvidia driver written by who-the-hell-knows, and when that driver acts up, Nvidia gets the blame. I understand Nvidia perfectly on this issue.
Only if they were foolish with branding and assignment of responsibility. They're not that foolish.
Just look at the reliability or otherwise of pretty much any other hardware subsystem on Linux to see what would actually happen in reality. If an OSS driver has problems or is incomplete I see no evidence that hardware vendors get blamed. In any case the closed source graphics drivers (both windows and linux) are flakey enough that any problems with OSS drivers would be a second order effect.
---
I'm not worried about the use of DRM. I'm worried about the abuse.
The comments regarding this post remind me that the greatest threat to widespread Linux adoption are the attitudes reflected by its most vocal proponents.
Speaking of exciting vs. boring.. I find FC5 on my wireless laptop to be incredibly exciting. I can develop, develop, develop using LAMP all on one machine while listening to my tunes. I would guess that the average user would find development BORING.
:)
However, to impress my friends I was wondering if GNOME had a fisheye application menu like OSX. I realize it is just eye candy, but it's cool! Also, for those of you wishing to add to the anemic Redhat FC5 distro, Stanton has a great guide. Next release, someone should script adding all the plugins and media players
I made the switch to Linux for two killer apps.... The Gimp and Apache. Then I discovered Open Office (which, at the time, was killer). Then I discovered Firefox which destroys IE (IMHO) and TuxRacer - and then came my favorite of all time - the inbox monitor. Seriously, I love that little icon more than anything.
I don't miss MS Office. I don't miss the games - If I want to play a game, I'll go buy a Game Cube or something. I bought Neverwinter Nights which plays great under Linux. I have VGAP working fine.
I think what is missing is a killer app in the SVG area that can compete with Corel Draw and a spell checker plugin for Gedit (actually I haven't checked on the later, it might be out there).
But I think the #1 thing that this article misses is the #1 reason I made the switch - if it doesn't exist - Do It Yourself! So if the spell checker for Gedit isn't out there, I'm all over it.
Make open-source worth a company's time and effort. If a company relies on its source being closed to make money, show them how opening their source will provide potential rewards that are greater than the risks of providing something for free, exposing company secrets to their competitors, and investing in the R&D necessary to make their hardware/software Linux compatiable.
If this can not be done, then there is no reason for XYZ company to open their source and/or make its product work on Linux. I won't blame them for that either. Typical responses like "It's not the fault of Linux/OSS that corporations are greedy" are not valid. Every product, company, organization, collective, etc has strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. It is difficult to make tons of money off of something open source when the source code itself (compiled or otherwise) is what generates the revenue. That is a huge weakness that Linux needs to overcome to "make it to the next level". Show an NVidia or a Microsoft how losing money on their proprietary code is a strength and creates opportunity for them. Otherwise provide a method for companies to keep their source closed and still legally make their products fully Linux compatiable so they can sell their product on Linux the same way they sell it on Windows.
I just installed Picasa in a P3-400mhz machine with Ubuntu Linux!
:).
It rocks and it is a typical IAgree->Next->Next installer
The only thing that is lacking is a User installing option (i.e. not installing as ROOT but in the User homepage) but it is cool anyways.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
I do understand why the university where I work choose as much as possible to use unix variant on servers (Linux, Solaris, etc...) and to avoid using windows on servers unless no other way and still putting a unix proxy between the server and the rest of the world.
I do understand why the hospital where I studied and were I work doesn't desperatly need to have the same Windows-logo on the desktops and the PDAs used there.
I do understand why, here around, some european country decide to try to switch to more open platforms.
I don't see why one couldn't understand the decisions about which you speak...
Oh ! You mean those companies that translate the old "never get fired for buying IBM" adage to microsoft-branded products ?
You know, some people happen not to work in such companies...
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Like when IE innovated tabbed browsing and pop-up blockers, and then Firefox finally implemented the technology?
Oh, wait...
The responses to the article so far kind of miss one point. One man's new and exciting is not necessary everyone's. Every person who works in IT walks the line between the geek and the business world.
Theorem #1 of IT-Business Interaction:
- "Normal" business people do not care _at all_ about the intricacies of computers.
Corollary:
- "IT people" care deeply about the intricacies of computers.
Inference:
- "Normals" and "IT people" do not find the same things exciting.
Business people could care less if their website was hosted in IIS, LAMP or whatever. As long as they can connect to it and customers can spend money on it, they're happy. Same thing with office software. Business users use Microsoft Office or some other package. They don't care that Linux has 5 or 6 YetAnotherCoolUltraRadOfficeSuite titles in the source repository. They care that Office functions exactly the way they learned it in training class, and what's going on tonight when they get home. Period. Anyone who says otherwise has never supported pure business users of computers.
IT people live for this stuff. We love tweaking and tuning our computers. We'll run 19 different Office applications and six different window managers/app frameworks because we can. That's why Linux has such a following in the geek community and on the server end of IT. It's less popular on the desktop simply because there's no reason for "normals" to switch.
If Microsoft ported Office to Linux, I could see business people considering a switch. Same thing goes for Autodesk porting AutoCAD or something similar. Until then, there's nothing compelling to get non-geeks to switch. On the other hand, there's tons and tons of cool stuff that geeks get excited over on the Linux side.
The benefits you cite for muscular companies "promoting" GNU/Linux systems is a little bit dubious.
//vendors// out of the goodness of our hearts. We do it for //users//. Any closed source vendor who thinks that a FOS geek should fall all over himself to port a closed app to GNU/Linux sheerly because it would be THAT GOOD for that platform is fooling himself. In terms of popularity, sure, maybe a killer app would make GNU/Linux more *popuplar*, and "sell" more copies. But in terms of contributing to useful software liberty, the net effect is ZERO. As GNU/Linux's popularity grows, sheer popularity becomes less useful, and thus, a much less tantalizing carrot to wave in front of the community. Eventually, it's closed vendors that need to grow up.
The success of Windows is measured by it's marketshare; by it's revenue. The problem with applying this model to GNU/Linux is that it accepts for granted this industrial framing. In so doing, it misses the entire point.
FOS software's success, in order to measured properly, has to be measured in terms that match the motivation for its creation: liberty. FOS is created with the interests of the user in mind. Non-free software is created with the interests of the vendor foremost.
So Adobe's marketing muscle may well bring a bevy of new users. That may well get more developers to develop for the platform. But if the users aren't contributors, and the developers aren't either, why should *I* care?
As a FOS user and developer I want useful software, and liberty. The popularity of my platform is secondary, and I care about that only insofar as it serves the primary end. Popularity does make contributions in that direction, but not nearly so much, or so directly, as it does to the commercial goals held by closed vendors.
Now, the desire to pay the bills and make some money certainly prompts us to compromise, and that's perfectly understandable. We get a paycheck, and our employers get to revoke our liberty on the code we write. Fine. What I don't understand is why people like this expect the "open source community" to port their apps **for free**, removing the paycheck from the equation.
We don't write software for
GNU/Linux has pretty much long left the point where it desperately needs users and marketing. Now, it exists pretty much permanently, remaining afloat mostly by competing on features. And the most important feature is not a feature of the code, but of the license.
body massage!
(no, the other rule one) use the right tool for the job. The author apparently wants to do what he does in Windows, but with Linux - this makes no sense to me. If all you want to do is what you're already doing in Windows, why bother to run something else? Just run Windows (or OS X) - you'll be able to do all the "exciting" consumer-grade stuff the author makes a fuss about (Outlook - woohoo! iTunes - hold me back!), and those of us who are interested in boring things like render farms, security research, virtualization, managing large-scale networks and getting actual work done (hello, CLI) will continue to be "bored" with UN*X, as we have been for 30 years. :)
/me rolls his eyes
The author appears to be a prime candidate for Windows or OS X - he has no apparently interest in the free software philosophy, or in the underlying power of UN*X, so why is he wasting his time running Linux (aside from finding a source of obvious and long-since-negated whining material)?
illum oportet crescere me autem minui
First, as a side note, who the hell cares whether an application you want/need arrived on a platform 10 years ago, or 10 minutes ago? If it's there when you want/need it, isn't that enough? If you're in a position to choose an OS based on how often its set of apps is updated, rather than the set of apps it has, then you're basically unconcerned with your ability to actually use the computer for a given purpose. In that case, I think none of us really cares about satisfying your concerns.
So I'm going to skip that silly concern and move to the more reasonable one: Does Linux have the apps that excite a person? It depends on what category of software you care about:
If games are the only category of software you find exciting, then yeah, Windows beats Linux hands down. (Yes, yes, I know there are some fun Linux games. But we all know which OS is the first to get FEAR, HL-2, etc. And regarding Cedega: it helps, but it's not perfect.)
But for applications I care about, I'm like a kid in a candy store:
- Music performance / production? JACK, plus all of the *free* synthesizers, audio effects, digital recorders, sequencers, drum machines, mixers, etc. that are available for it.
- Programming? Heck, what more could I want? All for FREE. Languages? Python, C/C++, Objective-C, Java, C#, Perl, Scheme, Lisp, ADA, etc. GUIs: Qt, Gtk, Qt-designer, Glade, wxWidgets, etc. IDEs? Eclipse, KDevelop, Emacs (for those so inclined), etc. Database development? MySQL, PostgreSQL, BerkelyDB, etc.
- DVD writing? Last I checked, Windows XP Pro doesn't even support this natively. I always had to install some stupid 3rd party app from Roxio or someone else. On Linux there are LOTS of tools for this, although k3b is my personal favorite.
- Music playing? OK, Linux lacks a good iTMS client, which kind of blows. But it DOES have an almost goofily large collection of music rippers, players, and streamers. Oh, and stream recorders, for those who want to time-shift their listening of streamed music.
- Web/email? This one is too obvious, so I'm not even going to bother.
What common ground does free software have with the proprietary software vendors? We all breathe oxygen, yes, but I think it stops pretty soon after that. Free software is about freedom, about having the ability to see, modify and distribute the source to the software one uses. The will never be compatible with the proprietary software model of user enslavement.
I don't know why MainActor isn't more widely known. It's very, very, solid.
Get the authors of such software to port them to Linux instead of writing them exclusively for Windows!
It's quite simple. Get authors to write more software for Linux, and you'll have more software to play with.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Holy shit, someone writing their own code? That never happens. You obviously have to assume that they're going to steal it first, call them an asshole, and insult them six or seven times before considering that possibility.
Asshole.
"...I feel it's time for Linux to grow up and find some kind of common ground with the closed source community."
...and I feel that the closed source community should accept the evolution and find some kind of common ground with the OSS community.
--
We are everywhere... but we don't need a "Powered by Linux" or "Linux Inside" tag...
He is right. I can see this attitude prevalent in several areas. As I mentioned above, even when a game is finally ported to Linux, there are still rumblings and mumblings about how "it'd be better if it was open source". There is also a lack of exciting software for Linux, mainly gaming software. While Linux has a wide range of productivity choices, its gaming library is old and tired. Sure there is the occasional gem, and lots of little interesting open source games being made, but in reality the amount pales in comparison to Windows. This is a major sticking point for a lot of people. Wine is all right, but not reliable. Linux needs these companies to make these products available for the OS so it can grow and bring in fresh blood. In order to do that, these companies need to feel welcome on their own terms.
Wrong.
I don't know why you'd say that, as Apache and Perl come installed by default on OS X. (I don't know about PHP, I wouldn't use that heap of crap if you paid me.) There are nice 1-click installers for Rails too.
Yup. That's why I paid $30 for a copy of Photoshop Elements, which blows away The GIMP for usability and has all the functionality I need. Frankly, I wish there was something to compare with Elements on Linux. I use the GIMP, but every time I do it does something weird and inexplicable.
False. What you apparently missed is that when you save to QuickTime from iMovie, it's not saving to QuickTime file format—it's saving to the QuickTime multimedia subsystem. From there you can set your output format to anything you like. Hence iMovie can save to MPEG-4 with H.264, DivX, 3ivX, MPEG-1, DV files, whatever the hell you like.
QuickTime file format is the basis of the MPEG-4 file format. Maybe MPEG-4 is "proprietary", but it's the closest thing to a usable open standard that exists in the world of video. The QuickTime and MPEG-4 formats are both open documented specifications.
If your Windows software is so crap that it can't open QuickTime, it presumably isn't one of the well-known movie editing packages like Adobe Premier, which is built on QuickTime for Windows. In which case, export from iMovie to whatever format your software needs. To use Windows Media on OS X, you simply need to install the Flip4Mac WMV QuickTime codec plugins, which you can download from Microsoft's web site. Then you can drag-drop your WMV video straight into iMovie.
Nobody uses them because you can do the exact same thing with Graphic Converter, PhotoShop or QuickTime, script using AppleScript, and not have to actually write the code. But netpbm and ImageMagick are available for OS X if you'd rather do batch image processing the hard way. (I speak as someone who's done batch processing with ImageMagick and with GraphicConverter.)
So download the latest netpbm from DarwinPorts.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
The major problem isn't there little good software, but very few good software engineers... Code is inflated, buggy, a log of it written via trial & error, and if an actual review were to audit a sizeable fraction of code when prepared to be used, there'd be a lot of rewritten code or better coders who keep their jobs.
Having worked on "Class A" mission critical software for NASA, I can assure you that it is entirely possible to get code that does not have these problems (even if you do not exclusively use top-5% software developers), provided that companies are willing to pay, both in time and in money, for software to be developed in a more strict, reviewed and well-thought-out fashion.
The real problem is not that there are no good software engineers in Redmond or wherever, but that the end users are not willing to pay the premium that such well-crafted software would cost them - either because it is already "good enough" for them, or due to a sense of false economy. Either way, it does not make sense for a company, in the current market, to write this kind of program for anything except perhaps servers. If someone's WoW client crashes ever thousand hours, that isn't the kind of problem it would be for, say, a missile defense radar system.
If end users cared more about program stability and reliability (i.e. were willing to pay significantly more for it, and wait longer to buy a good piece of software) this would be much, much less of an issue. Software developed for the DoD, which is one such customer, is exactly what you want (and the price premium for that kind of development is almost absurd). Having the smartest/best engineers in world doesn't help if they are understaffed, underfunded, and rushed to market, like much software currently is.
As for the lack of new interesting things in the OSS world, well I'll just say that you haven't been looking hard enough. Not all the interesting stuff comes in a .deb or .rpm
Not all of the interesting things are new, and that shows that this article is written by someone with very little free software experience or perspective. Some things, like excellent Window Managers, have been around for a decade in free software. Some of those capabilities, like pagers and virtual screens, are just making it into the M$ tree. Other things, like KDE's complete desktop, device and network integration will never make it because non free device makers won't co-operate and M$'s networking is second rate and insecure. Using a windows box for SFTP is a really bad idea. All of the things that make the Linux desktop productive can be found in distribution repositories and most of them come by default.
It's really aggravating to see that people still write articles like this. He has cluessly rejected two superior client applications, Evolution and Kontact, in favor of the worst of class because M$ makes it hard to work with their stuff. Not only does he reject the technically superior clients, he seems to be unaware of technically superior server side technology that does all the same things. Because M$ sucks life, he goes on to tell free developers that they need to work harder to be like and please M$. That's kind of like telling rape victims that they need to be tougher and less provocative. He's simply wrong and from that mistake he generalizes into the entire desktop. Shame on you OSWeekly.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If you find there isn't enough software for Linux, you haven't browsed your repositories.
.wmv and MS-only codecs and the idiots who conjured up the crappy DVD movie encryption scheme that put Free dvd playing software in legal limbo). Fortunately these things aren't crucial for me--I watch movies in the living room, not at the office desk. I can do email, web, word-processing, spreadsheets, database, image scanning, photo editing, chat with MSN, Yahoo and Jabber contacts, play MP3s, rip and burn CDs and DVDs, CAD....I can't think of much that has made me regret deleting the Win2k partition on my desktop.
You're right--he hasn't browsed repositories. In fact, he hasn't done much investigation at all judging by how he has written his article. For example:
But the fact remains that I am tired of having to boot back into my Windows install to do some pretty basic stuff.
I was really hoping that he would explain exactly WHAT "pretty basic stuff" he has trouble with in Linux. If he'd done that, then he might've done himself a favour as I'm sure many Linux fans would point him to software that at the very least makes it possible if not pretty, and at best soes the job better than Windows. In my observation about the ONLY things that present a challenge are games (seems to be a culture thing...MacOS has endured being second-fiddle here too) and movies (cursed things like
Evolution is a very clumsy feeling program with a lack of fluidity.
Again, examples would be nice. This statement puzzles me because in its current state Evolution seems fine to me. In fact I was quite disappointed with Kontact. Of course, I haven't seen Kontact lately so it wouldn't be a fair comparison. Perhaps the author had the same problem--he seems to be a KDE devotee who perhaps hasn't used Evolution for awhile, or the GNOMEish way of doing things isn't to his personal taste. Or, perhaps it is MSExchange interoperability specifically that he finds cumbersome. We can't really know because he just doesn't day.
It's being tolerated; however, there is one application that cannot be run at all because of its dependency on Internet Explorer - Outlook 2003
There really isn't much at all we can do about this--MS has deliberately made things difficult and I don't think any amount of lobbying will convince MS to make fundamental changes to their MS Office development strategy. I suspect the next version or two of MSOffice will in fact make it even MORE difficult and intertwine with IE compononets even MORE. The best solution here--if you INSIST that you need to run Outlook 2K3 on Linux, would be to help move towards including emulation of IE6 libraries in WINE. OR, if he really likes Kontact then strive to make it interoperate with Exchange. End users of Free software really do have more influence on development than will EVER exist with commercial software.
they work very hard with Windows developers and they provide a single standard in which to draw from. With Linux, not so much
[...]
In my opinion, the best we could ask for is to allow Novell or Red Hat to set business distribution standards and Ubuntu to set end user standards.
[...]
The idea of clear, defined standards is certainly nothing new nor should be something that is forced across the board either. But darn it, they should be available for the software developers who wish to take the plunge into the world of Linux. And those standards should also be open to the closed source developers as well.
He rants on and on and on about lack of standards and how we should have standards (then says they should be voluntary because choice is what makes Linux so great--after complaining about the LACK of choices for software....hmmm...). I agree that forcng mandatory standards are of no use in Free software community, but I DISagree that there is a LACK of standards.
WE DON'T NEED yet ANOTHER standard (or MORE than one as he advocates for "business a
"What is the future of monarchy and the United States? kingworship.com delves into the subject and emerges with a possible answer. Quote: "I have been struggling with one major problem lately with the concept of democracy and that problem is the amazing lack of new and exciting countries. It's frustrating because by the time a country does finally make its way to democracy, the Kingdom it replaced had been around for hundreds or thousands of years or longer. Perhaps some of this is because there does not appear to be a clear, simple to follow outline cooperative for countries to move towards democracy. Arguably this is because of the perceived need to keep things "fair," however, I feel it's time for the USA to grow up and find some kind of common ground with the concept of having a Kingdom. I am a firm believer that both parties could learn a lot from each other; unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon."
I think he got wrapped up in buzzwords at some point, and can't get out. Evolution is not his PIM (Personal Information Manager) of choice. Outlook is. My PIM of choice blows both of those away: it's my #$%^ing brain. Evolution is an email client. And a calendar I don't use. (In point of fact I use thunderbird). On a side-note, just 'cause I don't feel like finding another place to post: "by the time said software does finally make its way down to the Linux user, the Windows crowd has been using it for nearly a year or longer." Funniest line ever. I wasn't aware that Windows users have had beagle-esque integrated search, 3D desktops, genuine multi-user permission security, built-in firewall, etc. for years. What's that movie where Keanu and Sandra live in different times? Or Meg Ryan and Hugh Jackman do the same thing? Are windows users living in Jan 2008 now?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
How the hell else are you supposed to know whether you paid enough money for your OS?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
There's another def at work in a lot of the FUD. For TFA's author, Matt Harley "desktop user" means "user who got locked into a bunch of Microsoft or windows-based closed-source applications, often despite warnings about the potential for lock-in if heshe chose that stuff."
Now they're ready to check out Linux, and they're pist b/c there are only 17 email/calendar apps available. There should be 18! And the 18th has to be Outlook!
Now, it's not polite for the Lx crowd to just go "told you so" -- but the fact that this user is locked in is not a flaw in Linux. And when they open up the conversation in that way, they're going to get snide responses.My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
The world needs a lot more software than can be produced by the 2% or 5% that you believe would qualify as actually belonging in the industry. Let's be fair, there is elite technical work and there is everyday technical work.
This is the free market in action. It would be great if every piece of software were lovingly designed and coded, crafted like a piece of art, from a philosophical standpoint. But the world doesn't run on art -- it runs mostly on "everyday good enough crap." So if the world needs "good enough crap," it's going to be filled with people who can do good enough crap, and a minority who are better. Nobody is going to pay twice as much for their DVD player because only a bunch of NASA PhDs were qualified to write the firmware.
How much of that 2-5% elite would put up with the typical non-technical BS that surrounds nearly any software project? Arguments about whether it should be Microsoft Bob or Microsoft Phil, subpar project planning, loose requirements analysis, marketing, making sure someone is there to say "yes, sir" to the Client Big Man all the time?
I would take it further and say that only 2-5% of ANYONE is qualified to do what many of us would consider to be excellent work, whether it's marketing, art, commerce, executive management, or what-have-you. Technical fields probably have a higher percentage of qualified people because of the raw intelligence required to master the subject.
I would also say that most of the people who are passionate about Linux do not want to do everyday crap, and so there is not a lot of everyday crap available.
--- JurassicPizza
I run XP on my home PC, not because I like the OS, but because I like how easy it is to try new applications on, and the vast availablity of games that never have a hope of becoming popular enough for a port. I run Mac OSX at work because it is the best operating system for me to be using in my design job with light code requirements. I run Ubuntu 6.06 on my laptop because it's a nice general OS for communicating with friends, blogging, and coding on. If I tried to switch any of those duties around, I'd come up short. The reality, in my opinion is that there can't be a 'winner'. We need each and every OS available to us. Heck, at home I've still got room enough on my desk for an Amiga 3000, and to this day, there are things that I prefer it for.
I think Linux could seriously be helped with more closed-source programs. .. heck,i would even pay some money for it. . .
.. . .
For example, i would like a (hey, don't kill me for this) 'microsoft' msn client with the audio and video stuff etc. .
The problem at the moment is that the Linux Standard Base is just not good enough to make complex multi media applications (sound is still a mess, V4L2 is not exactly up to date). . .
I think there should be some kind of way to let vendors make closed source drivers that could work over kernel versions (without needing to recompile), there should be a LSB that allowed for user interfaces, multi media etc, to be programmed in a way that it would not need recompiling every time a kernel version changed or everytime one would like to run it on another distribution. . .
i really think that could help linux in the long run
Grtz drz
Part of the problem is that there USED to be all of these wonderful programs that were only available via linux due to the FOSS idealism. The creators eventually created them to work on Windows for free also and low-and-behold, there is no longer as strong a motivation to boot into Linux. Examples include GIMP, Scribus, Sodipodi, etc.
There used to be some incredible tools solely available in Linux but now that they are also available in Windows I don't have the strong urge to boot into Linux anymore. FOSS shot themselves in the foot.
You're either running a development/experimental branch (so crashes are expected) or you have hardware problems. Try running some diagnostic tools and see what bad RAM you have, or if problems go away if you stop overclocking, etc.
Either that, or you're running Bill & Ted's Bogus-brand Motherboard.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Personal-computer software today is broadly the same as it was twenty years ago. There has been little real progress, because no one has a vision for the future.
He who looks to software for his excitement needs to GET A LIFE...
"The fact is that NOBODY (repeat N-O-B-O-D-Y) can appreciate the power of a Linux or UNIX operating system until you dive into the command line, learn shell, Python, Perl or another scripting language and start putting together INCREDIBLY POWERFUL AND VERSATILE TOOLS yourself."
I use Lisp, Forth and some other non-mainstream languages and a couple non-mainstream OSs. Some of us don't need to be schooled in power, and are wondering when the rest of you are going to catch up.
FYI: Open Source has been around a long time - almost as long as so called proprietary software; it just wasn't called "Open Source" back then. I'll argue that proprietary software development can't exist without some sort of open information exchange between developers.
Linux "grew up" when it adopted a free license such as the GPL to promote free information exchange among developers. Proprietary software has yet to understand its need for free information exchange, or is just in a state of denial about it.
I've succeeded in ignoring proprietary software for the past 10 years, and as a result have managed to retire about 17 years early. The only way proprietary developers can retire early is if they have a royalty interest in a patent - or significant shares in a proprietary based software company.
Proprietary software will "grow up" when the perpetuators of closed source software realize the economics of modern software development can't be maintained with a closed model.
I'm always disturbed by this type of parallel, but I just looked in your posting history and not two days ago you did the same thing: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=192576&cid=158 09445
What is this fixation with rape? I sincerely hope you or someone you love never have to go through an ordeal like rape. But I'm sure if that ever happened you wouldn't use the comparison so readily. I find it insulting and disturbing that anyone - especially someone with a family - would resort to this type of thing to support an ultimately worthless argument.
There IS no Linux at the PC-user level. There is NO standard for high-level functionality. There is no personal computing platform that includes the Linux kernel.
And you can't write attractive user-facing apps and games using just the kernel.
Creative software engineers and tech support departments are repelled by what we call "Linux"... a confusing pile of kinda-sorta-compatible seperate operating systems. This results in potential authors feeling profoundly insecure about whether their work will run successfully on any other "Linux" machine. And no default development environment like Apple Xcode+ADC means that budding talent will cut their teeth on Apple and MS systems (and probably stay there).
Even Michael Dell would like to try a FOSS OS in the consumer market. Problem is, there's just no standard available for the level of functionality (PC) that he needs to deliver, and that would translate into intractible problems in support.
amaroK, XGL/Compiz, Beagle, OpenOffice.ORg, Firefox, e17, inkscape, Xara, Qt4, Thunderbird, Songbird, KDE 3.5 and the unreleased KDE4 ...
I think he should use Linux before writing TFA.
(english isn't my native language, so excuse me)
Personaly, I think AD is fine. I have little issues with it. However, I it requires someone who understands what it is and how it works to make things effective. FSMO roles, Group Policy Objects, DNS, Profiles and the like are all things that need to be considered. AD (and most microsoft enterprise products) are double edged swords: they are really easy to set up. This means that a bellow average admin could "design" a whole forest, and it would work. More or less. However it wouldn't work as well as it should, it would likely be prone to security issues and it would probably break sooner or later. It requires real knowledge and a skill set to design a good AD system. Based on the not being able to backup AD comment I'd guess that it probably wasn't designed as effectively as it should have been. (One of the easiest ways to tell is to see if your Admins are using the Administrator account, or are members of Domain Admins rather than having delegated roles out.)
Regardless of this, it sounds like you're taking on a major overhall for the system. If this doesn't affect your current business processes than great, go for it (so long as you have the right adminsitrator team to pull it off and maintain it.) In my expereince though, this tends to be the most costly thing. If you're doing pilots and getting feed back from the customer baseline then great. Otherwise you're libably to get seriously screwed over.
In gernal, so long as you know what you want it probably doesn't matter wheter you go with open source or closed source. Most of the projects I'm invovled in use a bit of both. We find that customers that don't have inhouse coders and do a lot of colaberation tend to fair better with a COTS solution (so long as it is designed by an expert). The Open source solutions tend to be more for general office productivity. (This is of course only viewing it from an office automation approach. If we're talking about number crunching, hosting or other types of activities Open source (and some Unix) products tend to be far more effective.)