Slashdot Mirror
IBM Pushing Microsoft-Free Desktops
walterbyrd and other readers are sending along the news that IBM is partnering worldwide with Canonical/Ubuntu, Novell, and Red Hat to offer Windows-free desktop PCs pre-loaded with Lotus software and ready for customizing by local ISVs for particular markets. The head of IBM's Lotus division is quoted: "The slow adoption of Vista among businesses and budget-conscious CIOs, coupled with the proven success of a new type of Microsoft-free PC in every region, provides an extraordinary window of opportunity for Linux." One example of the cooperation: "Canonical, which sells subscription support for Ubuntu, a Linux operating system that scores high marks on usability and 'the cool factor,' will re-distribute Lotus Symphony via their repositories. Symphony 1.1 will be available through the Ubuntu repositories by the end of August."
So iamhigh's argument is: Canonical's support contracts are too costly and doesn't give Windows desktops/server admins any reason to switch.
His argument rests on this straw man: reduced cost is allegedly the only reason to switch to Linux. This ignores Linux's advantages such as lower hardware/software cost, access to source code and thus customizability. It also ignores the possibility of adding a Linux desktop or server for testing purposes.
Notice: He doesn't tell you how much a Windows Vista Open License costs in addition to a full support contract (!) from Microsoft or partner vendors, let alone a Windows Server 2003/2008 CAL + contract. Notice that it would be costly to him in terms of both time and resources to transition to Linux, and so he wouldn't be motivated to switch over anyway. Nowhere should a Linux evangelist ever demand that all Windows shops convert to Linux, for this reason. No one's forcing him to use Linux if Windows is working just fine, so he's mostly ranting about nothing. Worst case, he's a Microsoft evangelist.
I'm sorry, but he doesn't deserve those Insightful mods. Ironic that he predicted Flamebait mods, but as of right now no one's tagged him as such.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
That's the point I think most people don't understand. Why you buy Vista Ultimate, it doesn't entitle you to any support. You get one or two phone calls, and you have to use them within the first 90 days of registering your software. After that you're on your own. $59 for each support request. If your computer came with Vista installed, you don't get any free support from MS, they want you to call the company who manufactured your computer. How is a company with access to the source code for windows supposed to give you proper support? At least when you pay Canonical for support, they are actually prepared to answer your questions without any additional fees, and are actually able to issue software patches against the product, as most (all??) of it is open source.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
IBM has been a technology company for over 100 years. The company was founded in 1896, back when information technology was a new idea. I think they learned about "change" long ago. They adapted to the invention of the vacuum tube and every other new technology of the 20th century. How many other tech companies from the late 1800's are still around?
I'm sure that you posted the revionist history tha the current AT&T managment would like to see, but it simply isn't true. The present AT&T is not the same as the old one. Another company assembled the pieces, not the old AT&T.
Who cares which company assembled all the pieces. The pieces are back together, so the old company is back together.
If only there were some old Lotus ideas in this. WordPro's (and 123s) InfoBox was the best user interface module I ever used. If was very easy to work proper (with format classes) and it was quick to use. I installed it in every company i worked, and soon everyone had it, and was used to it. There are still people who now have to work with that nightmare of an UI that Microsoft provides (a modal dialog to get to all formatting options... really??), the comparably bad imitation that Openoffice is (why does open source imitate more than innovate? and wort of all: imitate Microsoft? either you can say how bad MS is, or you can imitate it. you can't have both.), or another - strangely similar - office package, who tell me how bad that thing is, compared to SmartSuite. (Yes, this is all subjective. But for the vast majority i think they (would have) liked SmartSuite more.)
But instead of just implementing the InfoBox in OpenOffice (an idea that i would pay serious money to have), they just used the sidebar click-orgy paradigm + the gnome dumb-down* paradigm. ;)
Great... idea...
* No, I do not have anything against simplifying the UI, as long as it's only for people who WANT it simple [eg. don't want to spend much, or don't have much resources for it]. Make your UI *SCALABLE* and make everyone happy. :)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Because it feels like software designed by committee. "We need feature X, oh but we've run out of 'room' under the menu it should be under, so stick it under the Utility menu under the Tools menu." And so on. Good software takes usability into account, and that evidently didn't continue after IBM bought Lotus.
Back when IBM introduced the PS/2, they offered a hardware option they rather blithely dubbed the "Data Migration Facility." Otherwise known as a cable adapter for connecting two computers together. The style of thinking which produced that product name suffuses and pervades throughout IBM's corporate culture.
That's the best I can do to prepare you for the Lotus Notes experience.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
Because it breeds the thought that there are alternatives to MS software. It's easier to 'convert' someone that has an open mind.
The problem with Windows experience is that Microsoft is bound and
determined to make that 10 years of Windows experience obsolete with
each new release. I can learn something on SunOS in college and apply
it again on Ubuntu Linux 20 years later.
Not only will the Linuxen share the same underlying tools but those
tools will be similar if not identical to all the other Unixen. If
nothing else they will all share the same conceptual framework.
What 10 year old or 20 year old nugget of information still serves
you in WinDOS?
Does this years version of office even look like last years?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"Once upon a time, I worked at a company that used Linux as their primary desktop OS. The interface was horrible, ugly, cluttered, and didn't follow any of the conventions of the prior OS (Windows), or of any other possible prior OS." Good for you. How about evaluating a product on its current merits instead of issues you had "once upon a time." http://download.boulder.ibm.com/ibmdl/pub/software/lotus/lotusweb/product/nd8/demo/shell_popup.html There might be a lot to dislike about Lotus Notes, but your experience with it in a bad implementation 8 years ago is not sufficient justification to karma whore by attacking it now.
That it's actually attractive enough an idea to make it the theme of an advertising campaign is even better. Perhaps "Vista free" is this year's "Fat Free" of the computing world. Imagine the Vista logo with a red circle and strike on the box of PCs, phones, printers, scanners, external media, routers and switches along with the text: "Don't worry. This product does not contain or require Windows Vista." Or maybe this nice logo.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
OOo was always basically a clone of Microsoft Office, even back when it was a closed-source app called Star Office. It was the only way to get anyone to use it.
The reason, as far as I can tell, is that people tend to be confused by something that's different than what they're used to. For most people, that means that if it's not Office, it's confusing.
Back when SmartSuite was still around, Office didn't have complete dominance as it does now, so there was half a chance of something new actually working. Not anymore. Witness the general backlash against Office 2007's UI, for example. Or Vista. Or KDE 4. Or Mac OS X, back when it first came out. Or the number of clueless users who thought "hey, my browser's broken" when they first saw Internet Explorer 7. And so on.
OSS projects that try UI innovations tend to fail, because everyone invariably compares the software to some incumbent proprietary equivalent, and then complains that it doesn't work the same. Doesn't matter if it's better or not. Ultimately all the developer interest evaporates, and the project either dies, or slows to a crawl and never goes anywhere. Meanwhile, the lets-make-a-clone-of-[whatever] project is proceeding quite nicely.
Hell, the only reason Blender is still going is because it has people who actually do use it contributing to the project, so they're quite able to ignore all the "but it doesn't work like 3D Studio / Maya / Lightwave / whatever" people. Not that 3DS, Maya, Lightwave, or any other commercial 3D app has an interface that's anything like another one...