" I'd venture that plain ASCII email is better than one with a Word, or any word-processor, attachment."
It depends. Plain ASCII is better if the purpose of the e-mail is to inform me when the next company meeting is but it is not better if you are sending me the new corporate strategy guide which included corporate structure diagrams, budget related charts and graphs, etc.
"That doesn't mean I'd accept a car with a locked hood that could only be opened by the dealer."
You might if the car had more features, operated quieter, ran more fuel efficiently, and made driving more enjoyable.
Oh, BTW, cars today have many computers built into them and are 'closed' proprietary systems that you and even most mechanics cannot fix, alter or modify.
GE is not an access provider though. They make TVs but those TVs aren't made to make to viewing NBC TV stations easier while blocking out competing networks. Their TV adhere to open standards and work equally well with all TV stations. You can connect whoevers VCR, DVD, game console, etc. to them that you wish. You aren't restricted in any way.
AOL is another major combined content and access provider. In 10 years if things go down the path they are I suspect you will either be an AOL user or an MS user and it will be difficult to mix and match or use 3rd party services. That is if we are lucky. We might end up stuck with just Microsoft. (This is in the U.S. only. The rest of the world might be able to avoid this trend yet)
The problem is that Microsoft also sells content and services. GE doesn't force you to use GE lightbulbs if you are going to use a GE refridgerator. Do you honestly believe that Microsoft is going to easily allow you to use Yahoo search through their devices or access AOL services? Of course not. Want to do a web search you will likely be 'encourages' to use Microsofts own web search tools and when you search for 'national news' do you think CNN will be the first listed or msnbc.com? It's not about Microsoft being diversified it is about Microsoft influencing peoples behaviour and about Microsoft controlling the internet. It is about Microsoft decreasing peoples choice.
It's not the idea of the 'Homestation' that is the problem it is what Microsoft will do when it gets this technology in everyones living rooms. They aren't selling us XBox and Homestation they are selling themselves control of how people access the internet. Once they control the access point to the internet they will use it to push MSN online services on everyone shutting out others. Once again we will become dependent on Microsoft.
In some ways they are better than those annoying, moving, eye catching ads that we see around. For instance, the one on this web page http://www.canada.com/shopping/ which actually moves in front of the text you might be trying to read. With the pop up ads you close the window and they are gone. With these annoying eye catching ones they just distract the content you are trying to read and in some cases obstruct it.
Security and monopolistic activities aside, how many people actually want these features? How many people will actually use them? 90 percent of the features in Excel and Word go unused as it is and the last thing I want is stuff popping up whenever I type someone's name. I think this will make using computers more complex and confusing for everyone. As soon as you start integrating stuff and having things happen automatically and forcing users to choose what websites to visit people get upset. For those Linux developers out there developing software for Linux on the desktop keep things simple, integration minimal and don't make any assumptions on what the user wants and do it automatically.
One of the funniest things I heard about NASA wasting money is they spend hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of dollars trying to develop a pen that would work in space. The Russians on the other hand decided to use pencils.
The do nothing Liberals never actually start anything so there is no need for us to bring in a new government to cancel anything. It is the secret to their success. Nobody will ever get angry at what you are doing (and vote for someone else) if you never actually do anything.
You are correct, users want to be able to plug their new USB device in and start using it and they don't want to have to screw around with new drivers. Does Linux do this? If I bring home my brand new USB scanner and plug it in, can I begin scanning hassle free? I thought not. Make it happen and Linux will be one step closer to the desktop.
In addition to web, e-mail and tunes users want instant messaging, games, printing capabilities, ability to scan pictures and download pictures from their digital camera. Furthermore, everyone should expect that their $1000 computer has the flexibility to easily add new features like the latest enhanced web browser or instant messaging utility and all the new plug-ins that they can get for it.
How easy is it for a user to install ICQ on their Linux machine? What about upgrading their web browser or installing a more recent e-mail program? How about when the user upgrades from dial-up to high speed DSL? How easy is it for the average user to make that upgrade or for the high speed ISP to provide a simple set of instructions on how to do it? The fact is adding new software in a Linux environment is not as simple as under windows and the odds of success is much lower.
The problem with Linux on the desktop is, as you say, not the lack of an Office Suite but rather it is the little things that make life easy. Simple things like when you put a CD in your CD drive it automatically pops up a window asking you if you wish to install the piece of software. Simple things like when you plug in a USB device the drivers are autoloaded or a little window pops up asking for the location of the drivers. What users want is the ability to view whats on a floppy disk without having to mount the device. What users want is the ability to easily setup their internet connection. What users want is the ability to easily change the date and time in an intuitive manner. What users want is the ability to get a piece of software that advertises linux support, install it with just a few clicks of the mouse buttons and have it work with no further hassles. Users don't want to worry about what Linux kernel version they are running or whether they have a compatible version of glibc or some other library. Users don't want 6 text editors, 4 e-mail readers, 3 web browsers, and 2 GUI's installed. They just want one of each that is easy and intuitive to use and offers all the basic functionality. Users just expect things to work without hassles or having to read often outdated HOWTO's that may or may not be applicable to their system. Linux has a lot of useful tools and applications but the integration between the tools, the apps, the kernel, XFree86 and the GUI's is Linux's weaks spot.
And why can't open source advocates simply say "We think our development model is better and we are going to go out and prove it by developing great software to improve the end users computing experience."
Re:Open source vs Closed Source vs Shared Source
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 1
ISV's will always support Microsoft as long as Microsoft maintains a substantial market share. Just like Microsoft, ISV's are there to make money and they do that by targeting their software to large markets. Today the largest market is the Windows platform. Pissed or not, they will support Microsoft.
Why do we want Microsoft to open up their code? Why do we care? Who are we to tell Microsoft what to do. They own the code, they can do whatever they want with it and by gosh, they are making a hell of a lot of money doing what they do. Stop fighting Microsoft and produce a better product.
If you really insist on bashing Microsoft, don't bash them on their business strategy because as I said above, they have been hugely successful. What we should all be after is urging Microsoft (and AOL) to adhere to open standards so users have choices and can choose without worry of being incompatible with their family, friends, co-workers or business partners. This is everything from open standards in networking to instant messaging to spreadsheet, word processing and database file formats. With open standards corporations and open source developers alike can produce compatible products and the end user can choose the one that suits their needs best.
We should not get into my license is better than your license battles. We should strive towards an environment where Windows and Linux and PalmOS and BeOS can all work together seemlessly and flawlessly and let the user decide which product and which license is better.
Remember, the goal should not be to prove my development model is better than yours, the goal should be to give the user choice and in the end a better overall product.
Don't get caught up in this little battle
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 1
The battle of which software license is better is a useless battle for us to be involved in. Why? Because we can't win. In the end, Microsoft will do what they want with their software and distribute it how they want. We cannot influence the current methods of software distribution by debating the merits of their licenses. By getting into a licensing debate you are only playing into the hands of Microsoft by getting off the real issues. That being Microsofts heavy handed efforts to protect and capitalize on their monopoly.
Microsoft protects their monopoly by creating proprietary standards. They create a proprietary protocol or api and use their Windows monopoly to make it standard. If you want to hit Microsoft where it hurts don't debate the merits of software licenses, debate the benefits of choice and how the end user could benefit with open standards. Open standards for spreadsheet documents, for word processor documents, for instant messaging protocols, etc. Argue that open standards hurt innovation for everyone other than the Microsofts of the world. Argue that compatibility and competition are good things for the user. Argue that Microsoft (and AOL) are using their monopolies to create proprietary standards to protect and capitalize on their monopoly. Fight for open standards and open markets not open source. With open standards and open markets open source can thrive.
Currently DSL and Cable exist as high speed internet options and in the future you will see broadband Satellite and Wireless and possibly even broadband over the existing power lines. Then of course some new homes are being built with fibre right to the home. Then there is that group looking to using ethernet as a last mile solution. I wouldn't worry about getting stuck with no options for broadband internet access.
Choices are not bad but most users would choose to have one really good GUI with a set of quality apps that integrate very well into that GUI over having a large number of choices that are sometimes difficult to configure if you are not a computer whiz. You need to remember that you and I are not Microsofts target market. Microsofts target market is the mass of people that just want to use computers to perform a particular task or tasks and want to be able to do it in a simple straight forward way.
You make some good points but again, to claim that a closed source OS is inherently going to be lower quality software than an open source OS is wrong. Try using BeOS. It is very stable, easy to use, and fairly well engineered (i.e. the pieces all fit together nicely). The problem for BeOS is lack of quality apps because it's popularity hasn't hit critical mass. You say "general opinion is that software will continually break" and that is somewhat true. That also reflects sadly on the state of software engineering. Software should not be expected to break but it does and the reason for that is poor software engineering and poor management of software projects. This is where methodologies like extreme programming come in. Whether it works I can't say but it is interesting.
Unfortunately it has everything to do with it. What do users want to do with computers. Surf the net. Read/send e-mail. Do some word processing. Play some games. Have you tried doing this things on BeOS? If you have you will realize that there just aren't the apps available. I like BeOS. It is a nice OS and I enjoyed programming for it and it ran very well but I would never use it. I can't play games on it. Their web browsers and e-mail apps aren't anywhere near what I can get under Windows or even Linux. As nice as it is, it just isn't useful as an everyday OS because the quality apps aren't there.
Actually, I think most people don't want choices, they just want something that is easy to use and serves their needs which for most desktop users includes e-mail and web browsing, and some applications like a word processor, games, finance organizer, etc. Choices would be considered a bonus but if it comes at the expense of ease of use then it is a huge impedance to acceptance. Everyone needs to remember that we are not among the majority of people. The majority of people don't read Slashdot because the majority of people don't care that much about technology except what it can do for them to make their life simpler and/or more enjoyable. Until Linux can offer the ability to make the average persons life simpler or more enjoyable that the majority of people won't have a use for Linux.
Users may not be stupid but most care not to know. Users aren't interested in tweaking or making adjustments. Users just want something that is easy to use and allows them to get what they want quickly and easily. Ever wonder why AOL has such a large subscriber base? It's not because they offer lots of choices and variety and outstanding service, its because they offer a solution that is easy to use without endless tweaking or configurations. Not everyone has the time or interest in learning about all the possibilities of what Linux can do just as I have no interest in art and how to best mix and use colors to create a great looking sunset painting. If I want a painting to hang on the wall, I'll go to the gallery and buy one, not learn to paint one myself. Users may not be stupid bet they may not care and the Linux community must deal with that fact.
I agree 100%. I especially liked the answer to #10. Applications are what will make Linux successful on the desktop. The reality is that writing software for Linux is like shooting multiple moving targets. Variations among distributions, kernel versions, desktops, etc. make software development a real pain for commercial software developers. Can a company claim Linux support if it only works on Redhat 6.2? What if it only works on Linux kernel 2.2.x using XFree86 4.0.2 with KDE 2.0? Is that enough to claim Linux support? Do you think customers would understand that although we claim support for Linux that our software will not or may not work on a large number of configurations? This is a real issue for Linux that really needs to be tackled for Linux to really make it on the desktop. The nice thing about developing software for Windows or the Mac is that the API's for Windows 98 will be the same on all Windows machines. Windows 98 is firm target that won't change and isn't different on every machine.
I think that closed source software can in fact be quality software, and open source software can in fact suck big time. There are many closed source software packages that work great, are stable, relatively bug free and easy to use. There are also numerous open source projects that are unstable, filled with bugs, and just not worth using.
To say that open source inherently produces better software and closed source inherently produces poorer software is complete wrong. I think quality software can be developed in 2 way.
1. Brute force. Lots of developers. Lots of testers. Lots of implementations and choose the best one.
2. Smart project management and planning, a good software architecture and design and quality developers working as a close knit machine.
Open Source is generally #1 with a bit of #2. For the most part though it is a group of hackers developing, re-developing, hacking, implementing, bug fixing, testing, more bug fixing, etc. Now, I am generalizing a bit because there I have seen some good project management going on in the open source community but often that is not the case and projects are hacked together with vague goals or project specs from the start.
Closed source projects that I have been involved in are sometimes #1 with fewer developers so the results are often not that pleasing but genererally closed source strives to go with #2 because it is more efficient and cost effective. Unfortunately many closed source software development projects are poorly managed and/or managed by the wrong people (marketing people and non-technical people). With the right mix of management, project design, and good developers I honestly believe that quality closed source software can be developed. Extreme Programming is trying to formulate a method to create the right mix.
Slashdot Mirror
" I'd venture that plain ASCII email is better than one with a Word, or any word-processor, attachment."
It depends. Plain ASCII is better if the purpose of the e-mail is to inform me when the next company meeting is but it is not better if you are sending me the new corporate strategy guide which included corporate structure diagrams, budget related charts and graphs, etc.
"That doesn't mean I'd accept a car with a locked hood that could only be opened by the dealer."
You might if the car had more features, operated quieter, ran more fuel efficiently, and made driving more enjoyable.
Oh, BTW, cars today have many computers built into them and are 'closed' proprietary systems that you and even most mechanics cannot fix, alter or modify.
GE is not an access provider though. They make TVs but those TVs aren't made to make to viewing NBC TV stations easier while blocking out competing networks. Their TV adhere to open standards and work equally well with all TV stations. You can connect whoevers VCR, DVD, game console, etc. to them that you wish. You aren't restricted in any way.
AOL is another major combined content and access provider. In 10 years if things go down the path they are I suspect you will either be an AOL user or an MS user and it will be difficult to mix and match or use 3rd party services. That is if we are lucky. We might end up stuck with just Microsoft. (This is in the U.S. only. The rest of the world might be able to avoid this trend yet)
The problem is that Microsoft also sells content and services. GE doesn't force you to use GE lightbulbs if you are going to use a GE refridgerator. Do you honestly believe that Microsoft is going to easily allow you to use Yahoo search through their devices or access AOL services? Of course not. Want to do a web search you will likely be 'encourages' to use Microsofts own web search tools and when you search for 'national news' do you think CNN will be the first listed or msnbc.com? It's not about Microsoft being diversified it is about Microsoft influencing peoples behaviour and about Microsoft controlling the internet. It is about Microsoft decreasing peoples choice.
It's not the idea of the 'Homestation' that is the problem it is what Microsoft will do when it gets this technology in everyones living rooms. They aren't selling us XBox and Homestation they are selling themselves control of how people access the internet. Once they control the access point to the internet they will use it to push MSN online services on everyone shutting out others. Once again we will become dependent on Microsoft.
In some ways they are better than those annoying, moving, eye catching ads that we see around. For instance, the one on this web page http://www.canada.com/shopping/ which actually moves in front of the text you might be trying to read. With the pop up ads you close the window and they are gone. With these annoying eye catching ones they just distract the content you are trying to read and in some cases obstruct it.
Security and monopolistic activities aside, how many people actually want these features? How many people will actually use them? 90 percent of the features in Excel and Word go unused as it is and the last thing I want is stuff popping up whenever I type someone's name. I think this will make using computers more complex and confusing for everyone. As soon as you start integrating stuff and having things happen automatically and forcing users to choose what websites to visit people get upset. For those Linux developers out there developing software for Linux on the desktop keep things simple, integration minimal and don't make any assumptions on what the user wants and do it automatically.
But when we wipe out the world with all those ICBMs space exploration is our only hope in finding another place to live.
One of the funniest things I heard about NASA wasting money is they spend hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of dollars trying to develop a pen that would work in space. The Russians on the other hand decided to use pencils.
The do nothing Liberals never actually start anything so there is no need for us to bring in a new government to cancel anything. It is the secret to their success. Nobody will ever get angry at what you are doing (and vote for someone else) if you never actually do anything.
You are correct, users want to be able to plug their new USB device in and start using it and they don't want to have to screw around with new drivers. Does Linux do this? If I bring home my brand new USB scanner and plug it in, can I begin scanning hassle free? I thought not. Make it happen and Linux will be one step closer to the desktop.
In addition to web, e-mail and tunes users want instant messaging, games, printing capabilities, ability to scan pictures and download pictures from their digital camera. Furthermore, everyone should expect that their $1000 computer has the flexibility to easily add new features like the latest enhanced web browser or instant messaging utility and all the new plug-ins that they can get for it. How easy is it for a user to install ICQ on their Linux machine? What about upgrading their web browser or installing a more recent e-mail program? How about when the user upgrades from dial-up to high speed DSL? How easy is it for the average user to make that upgrade or for the high speed ISP to provide a simple set of instructions on how to do it? The fact is adding new software in a Linux environment is not as simple as under windows and the odds of success is much lower.
The problem with Linux on the desktop is, as you say, not the lack of an Office Suite but rather it is the little things that make life easy. Simple things like when you put a CD in your CD drive it automatically pops up a window asking you if you wish to install the piece of software. Simple things like when you plug in a USB device the drivers are autoloaded or a little window pops up asking for the location of the drivers. What users want is the ability to view whats on a floppy disk without having to mount the device. What users want is the ability to easily setup their internet connection. What users want is the ability to easily change the date and time in an intuitive manner. What users want is the ability to get a piece of software that advertises linux support, install it with just a few clicks of the mouse buttons and have it work with no further hassles. Users don't want to worry about what Linux kernel version they are running or whether they have a compatible version of glibc or some other library. Users don't want 6 text editors, 4 e-mail readers, 3 web browsers, and 2 GUI's installed. They just want one of each that is easy and intuitive to use and offers all the basic functionality. Users just expect things to work without hassles or having to read often outdated HOWTO's that may or may not be applicable to their system. Linux has a lot of useful tools and applications but the integration between the tools, the apps, the kernel, XFree86 and the GUI's is Linux's weaks spot.
And why can't open source advocates simply say "We think our development model is better and we are going to go out and prove it by developing great software to improve the end users computing experience."
ISV's will always support Microsoft as long as Microsoft maintains a substantial market share. Just like Microsoft, ISV's are there to make money and they do that by targeting their software to large markets. Today the largest market is the Windows platform. Pissed or not, they will support Microsoft. Why do we want Microsoft to open up their code? Why do we care? Who are we to tell Microsoft what to do. They own the code, they can do whatever they want with it and by gosh, they are making a hell of a lot of money doing what they do. Stop fighting Microsoft and produce a better product. If you really insist on bashing Microsoft, don't bash them on their business strategy because as I said above, they have been hugely successful. What we should all be after is urging Microsoft (and AOL) to adhere to open standards so users have choices and can choose without worry of being incompatible with their family, friends, co-workers or business partners. This is everything from open standards in networking to instant messaging to spreadsheet, word processing and database file formats. With open standards corporations and open source developers alike can produce compatible products and the end user can choose the one that suits their needs best. We should not get into my license is better than your license battles. We should strive towards an environment where Windows and Linux and PalmOS and BeOS can all work together seemlessly and flawlessly and let the user decide which product and which license is better. Remember, the goal should not be to prove my development model is better than yours, the goal should be to give the user choice and in the end a better overall product.
The battle of which software license is better is a useless battle for us to be involved in. Why? Because we can't win. In the end, Microsoft will do what they want with their software and distribute it how they want. We cannot influence the current methods of software distribution by debating the merits of their licenses. By getting into a licensing debate you are only playing into the hands of Microsoft by getting off the real issues. That being Microsofts heavy handed efforts to protect and capitalize on their monopoly. Microsoft protects their monopoly by creating proprietary standards. They create a proprietary protocol or api and use their Windows monopoly to make it standard. If you want to hit Microsoft where it hurts don't debate the merits of software licenses, debate the benefits of choice and how the end user could benefit with open standards. Open standards for spreadsheet documents, for word processor documents, for instant messaging protocols, etc. Argue that open standards hurt innovation for everyone other than the Microsofts of the world. Argue that compatibility and competition are good things for the user. Argue that Microsoft (and AOL) are using their monopolies to create proprietary standards to protect and capitalize on their monopoly. Fight for open standards and open markets not open source. With open standards and open markets open source can thrive.
Currently DSL and Cable exist as high speed internet options and in the future you will see broadband Satellite and Wireless and possibly even broadband over the existing power lines. Then of course some new homes are being built with fibre right to the home. Then there is that group looking to using ethernet as a last mile solution. I wouldn't worry about getting stuck with no options for broadband internet access.
Choices are not bad but most users would choose to have one really good GUI with a set of quality apps that integrate very well into that GUI over having a large number of choices that are sometimes difficult to configure if you are not a computer whiz. You need to remember that you and I are not Microsofts target market. Microsofts target market is the mass of people that just want to use computers to perform a particular task or tasks and want to be able to do it in a simple straight forward way.
You make some good points but again, to claim that a closed source OS is inherently going to be lower quality software than an open source OS is wrong. Try using BeOS. It is very stable, easy to use, and fairly well engineered (i.e. the pieces all fit together nicely). The problem for BeOS is lack of quality apps because it's popularity hasn't hit critical mass. You say "general opinion is that software will continually break" and that is somewhat true. That also reflects sadly on the state of software engineering. Software should not be expected to break but it does and the reason for that is poor software engineering and poor management of software projects. This is where methodologies like extreme programming come in. Whether it works I can't say but it is interesting.
Unfortunately it has everything to do with it. What do users want to do with computers. Surf the net. Read/send e-mail. Do some word processing. Play some games. Have you tried doing this things on BeOS? If you have you will realize that there just aren't the apps available. I like BeOS. It is a nice OS and I enjoyed programming for it and it ran very well but I would never use it. I can't play games on it. Their web browsers and e-mail apps aren't anywhere near what I can get under Windows or even Linux. As nice as it is, it just isn't useful as an everyday OS because the quality apps aren't there.
Actually, I think most people don't want choices, they just want something that is easy to use and serves their needs which for most desktop users includes e-mail and web browsing, and some applications like a word processor, games, finance organizer, etc. Choices would be considered a bonus but if it comes at the expense of ease of use then it is a huge impedance to acceptance. Everyone needs to remember that we are not among the majority of people. The majority of people don't read Slashdot because the majority of people don't care that much about technology except what it can do for them to make their life simpler and/or more enjoyable. Until Linux can offer the ability to make the average persons life simpler or more enjoyable that the majority of people won't have a use for Linux.
Users may not be stupid but most care not to know. Users aren't interested in tweaking or making adjustments. Users just want something that is easy to use and allows them to get what they want quickly and easily. Ever wonder why AOL has such a large subscriber base? It's not because they offer lots of choices and variety and outstanding service, its because they offer a solution that is easy to use without endless tweaking or configurations. Not everyone has the time or interest in learning about all the possibilities of what Linux can do just as I have no interest in art and how to best mix and use colors to create a great looking sunset painting. If I want a painting to hang on the wall, I'll go to the gallery and buy one, not learn to paint one myself. Users may not be stupid bet they may not care and the Linux community must deal with that fact.
I agree 100%. I especially liked the answer to #10. Applications are what will make Linux successful on the desktop. The reality is that writing software for Linux is like shooting multiple moving targets. Variations among distributions, kernel versions, desktops, etc. make software development a real pain for commercial software developers. Can a company claim Linux support if it only works on Redhat 6.2? What if it only works on Linux kernel 2.2.x using XFree86 4.0.2 with KDE 2.0? Is that enough to claim Linux support? Do you think customers would understand that although we claim support for Linux that our software will not or may not work on a large number of configurations? This is a real issue for Linux that really needs to be tackled for Linux to really make it on the desktop. The nice thing about developing software for Windows or the Mac is that the API's for Windows 98 will be the same on all Windows machines. Windows 98 is firm target that won't change and isn't different on every machine.
I think that closed source software can in fact be quality software, and open source software can in fact suck big time. There are many closed source software packages that work great, are stable, relatively bug free and easy to use. There are also numerous open source projects that are unstable, filled with bugs, and just not worth using. To say that open source inherently produces better software and closed source inherently produces poorer software is complete wrong. I think quality software can be developed in 2 way. 1. Brute force. Lots of developers. Lots of testers. Lots of implementations and choose the best one. 2. Smart project management and planning, a good software architecture and design and quality developers working as a close knit machine. Open Source is generally #1 with a bit of #2. For the most part though it is a group of hackers developing, re-developing, hacking, implementing, bug fixing, testing, more bug fixing, etc. Now, I am generalizing a bit because there I have seen some good project management going on in the open source community but often that is not the case and projects are hacked together with vague goals or project specs from the start. Closed source projects that I have been involved in are sometimes #1 with fewer developers so the results are often not that pleasing but genererally closed source strives to go with #2 because it is more efficient and cost effective. Unfortunately many closed source software development projects are poorly managed and/or managed by the wrong people (marketing people and non-technical people). With the right mix of management, project design, and good developers I honestly believe that quality closed source software can be developed. Extreme Programming is trying to formulate a method to create the right mix.