Actually, its not a misconception. OSS *does* threaten the bigger players most, because the products that they produce are those that are widely used, general purpose in nature (able to be used by many different persons and businesses from different industries), and therefore an attractive "target" for an OSS project.
Look at the most mature projects: Linux (an OS for a small computer), KDE/GNOME (desktop environment), OO.o (an office suite), Apache (web server), etc. All of these can (and are) used by a very wide-ranging group of people.
On the other hand, let's look at "niche" products. Niche means that your product does one thing very well, and you have a very limited audience. I have a friend who sells a reasonably simple package for fitness studios: it keeps track of client in and out, account payments, fitness achievements, etc. I would think that it would be highly unlikely that someone would create a Free project that duplicates the functionality and appropriateness of use of this package anytime soon. I would not be worried about Free software putting me out of business because any solution for a fitness studio would have to involve a lot of migration of proprietary data, and customization of a general database application. It would never be worth the bother for a business that probably employs no one who has ever seen a line of code in his/her life, and has no desire to contract someone who has.
You're running an operating system that is "state of the art" and comparing it to an OS which is over four years old.
Not that this is an excuse, but that's the way it is. A current distro (like Mandrake 10) is going to first cater to those with current hardware. With a recent AthlonXP or P4 you are less inconvenienced by the difference in speed.
The fact is, Linux distros like Fedora, SuSE, and Mandrake are resource hogs, particularly running a big desktop environment like KDE or GNOME. So, you've got the following options: 1) upgrade your hardware, 2) use a slimmer window manager, 3) try Gentoo (compiled specifically for your HW), or 4) live with it.
Yes, but Linux users would have a better hand to play for such an event. The facts are, in fact, in Linux's favour. Microsoft doesn't have that luxury.
How would you do a better job in their shoes? How could you attempt to make a presentation to IT people on why they should not migrate any services to Linux? Would they be better to just ignore Linux? That hasn't worked very well so far.
Seriously, I can't think of any better arguments to use than those stated in the article. All of them sound reasonable to the uninitiated, but only the smallest bit of research into FOSS would provide enough knowledge to dispute the arguments.
The only true reason MS has to not migrate to Linux is that they may push patent law to attempt to outlaw Linux. Unfortunately, that doesn't come across well as a sales pitch, so they use other sources (like AdTI) to spread that news.
Because (at least for me), email users get *really* irritated at ISPs going bankrupt, merging with other ISPs, or whatever else happens that causes your email address to suddenly be useless. I got my first email address in 1993, and until I got my own domain in 2001, I had to change my address FOUR TIMES due to these shenanegans. The collapse of @HOME on my cable provider was the last straw.
Yes, having separate ISP and domain hosts costs more, but the comfort and control (not to mention what you're allowed to do) make it easily worth it. I want my ISP to be absolutely nothing but a pipe to the internet. I want nothing to do with any other services, as they are designed only to keep you captive to them. As a result, I have no problem with contemplating (as I currently am) switching from cable to DSL.
You're not wrong. Linux, as much as it is developing quickly (and it is, if you're feeling the urge just download a newer distro sometime and try it again), it still doesn't stand up to your criteria. You still have to hack with your system to a degree that Windows does not require.
Your comment on the time required to tweak something is also spot on, in so far as these activities are generally rare in the Windows world. The tweaking, however, is *exactly* what most Linux users get a charge out of. Using an OS which is infinitely customizable, with dozens of options for most any type of application you can imagine, is appealing to many people (present company included).
Is this officially declared anywhere by Sympatico? Or is it more like you have to find a sympathetic 2nd-level support tech to whom you can demonstrate your degree of cluefullness? Oh, and how much extra do they charge for this? Is it one-time, or a monthly increase?
It may be a flat valley, but the drop-offs into the valley are quite steep.
Thanks to another poster above, check out this page, particularly the photo right at the bottom. You can see how difficult it would be to get an expressway down into the valley and then back up. The page also shows the various options considered, as well as the reasons for accepting the tall viaduct.
I'm pretty sure that VIA is the *only* mini-itx vendor. Other motherboard manufacturers build smaller-than-ATX forms (micro-atx, flex-atx), I don't think anyone has built a Pentium or Athlon board in the same size.
the copyrights to UNIX System V. Not as far as Linux is concerned, anyways.
I suppose there is a chance that IBM could be found liable for breaking some contract provision they had with SCO over UNIX code. Perhaps some of that code may have even found its way illegally into Linux (although absolutely zero proof has been presented as yet).
The bottom line is that SCO will never see Linux users pay licensing fees to them for their IP because the WHOLE POINT of free software that the code is free! If any code is found legally infringing, it will be gone and replaced with restriction-free code.
Persuing a business model of getting licensing fees from free software is a complete non-starter: it will never work! Baystar (and RBC) are either completely oblivious to this fact, or are acting on MS's behalf to slow Linux's adoption. Perhaps both.
Analog methods of storage (such as good old paper*) will pretty much always be able to outlast any method we have to digitally store information, at least for each "generation" of copies that are required.
The benefit of analog is that you can store the original content for a long time, perhaps even indefinately if properly cared for. Digital, so far, seems to suffer from a lack of "permanent" media onto which content can be written.
The big difference, however, is that with some effort it is not required to have long-life media for digital. Unlike analog content (which degrades with each generation of copy), digital content copies perfectly from one generation of media to the next. Sure, it'd be nice if you could just archive one physical copy and store it forever, but since we realistically cannot, it's pretty good that a perfect copy can be made before it degrades.
Think of it this way: for decent preservation of analog content, you must exercise excellent dilligence in physical care; for perfect preservation of digital content, you must exercise regular, but rare dilligence in copying to a new media.
Besides, even if a "permanent" media is created for digital content, that's no guarantee that years from now the content can even be read. What good is it for your great-grandchildren to pull out your CD-ROMs 100 years from now, and have them find that no-one has manufactured compatible devices for over 80 years, and no one has serviced one for over 50 years? That data is just as lost as it would have been if the CD had degraded.
* Yes, I also know that today's paper is unlikely to last very long (relatively speaking), either. The papers used centuries ago withstand the aging process much better than your standard photocopier paper will.
This is different than "smart tags" (or other Adware crap like Gator, I believe), which are integrated into the browser, overriding what the publisher was presenting.
This is hosted at the server end, and the effect is exactly what the publisher wants to happen. Of course, it seems like any old popup blocker will work here, no problem.
Speaking of popups, I've been using Mozilla for almost two years now, and of course I've never seen a popup in that time. X10 cameras are but a distant memory! Are popups still as bad a scourge on the Web as they were circa 2002? Worse? Anyone using (or supporting) unaltered IE care to comment?
Of course, you've already identified the reason that copyright infringment gets more resources than spamming and child porn. The parties that stand to benefit from the elimination of file sharing (the recording and software industries) have way more money and self-interest than any parties that are opposed to spamming and child porn.
Trust me, if there were any big corporate interests out there that, for some reason, would benefit from eliminating junk email or seeing kiddie porn gone from the net, it would be well under way. Amazingly enough, not a single one comes to mind.
Let me state this in another way: for uses that require oil, the earth has more than enough to outlast human existance. The cost to obtain this oil will increase enough in time that other sources that may serve as alternatives will become more economically desirable.
I don't have the source of information, but the quantity of oil that can be produced out of oil sands (in many, many parts of the world) way exceeds the total amount that has ever and will ever come out of the Middle East. Sure, it'll be harder and more expensive to produce, but it'll be there.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the conclusions of the essay: for the global economy, no oil and very expensive oil may well have the exact same impact. My statement was only that humanity will never, EVER see the day that there is no oil on earth. No way.
Not only that, but it is a fallacy that the earth will ever "run out" of oil. What we will run out of is easily obtainable oil. Oil that requires refining out of oil sands deposits are going to be far more expensive to produce than a nice oil well, but is in far, FAR greater supply on this earth. Where oil will continue to be needed (where an alternate fuel or source is not practical), oil will always be there.
Is this really such a good thing, in the long run?
It is if it increases SuSE's penetration as a distro. Before Novell (reasonably deep pockets) bought SuSE (pretty small pockets), the distro had to be a profit centre. Now Novell can afford to allow the entire distro to be free (a la Red Hat), so that more people use it and use Novell/SuSE's server and service offerings as a result.
Novell/SuSE will want as many people to try their software as possible: making their entire distro GPL-friendly will accomplish this, along with Red Hat's official abandonment of desktop Linux. Sure, short-term this may hurt them (I was planning on purchasing 9.1 soon, I may not now). It is *because* of the long-term benefits that this makes sense.
Re:What do you mean 99% useless to others?
on
KDE 3.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Your company is following the exact same business plan as Microsoft: provide a set of tools that become indispensible to a business, and lock them in to your applications by making it impossible to migrate their business processes off of your software. Hey, for the companies that have signed up with you, that's great news: you are likely to be receiving their money for a good while.
However, you have forgotten a critical thing here. All of the applications that you have mentioned (accounting, project management, estimating) are particularly well suited for a server-based networked environment, which Linux just happens to be better suited for architecturally than Windows. The only reason that, as you say, "the vast majority of these solutions run on Windows" is because Windows runs on the vast majority of business desktops right now. You can bet your bottom dollar that as potential new customers of your company reject your solutions because they only run on Windows, or your current customers start inquiring about running them on Linux, that your company should start creating a new version of your apps to run on Linux! This may not be happening right now (it might), but it will certainly be happening in the not-too-distant future.
This effort that is being put in to provide an alternative on the desktop is not bearing fruit quickly, but it will eventually. As I said in another thread, it is the beauty of Free software: there is no company who owns the code to go bankrupt while waiting for the software to become popular. We can afford to be patient, waiting for the rest of the computing world to use the software that the community created.
It won't happen because KDE is better than Windows UI, it will happen in a slow manner as many people and companies find that there is more advantage in switching to Linux than in staying on Windows.
Re:Free? No, not really...
on
KDE 3.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You know why I won't switch to linux on my desktop? Games.
Excellent reason not to use Linux. Others are a need to run MS Office, applications that won't WINE properly, no hardware support for some hardware, and (as we already both know) using Linux can be a pain in the ass sometimes.
The beauty, though, is that all of your concerns will eventually be met satisfactorily by Linux in due time. I don't believe that any Free solution will ever be truly better than a proprietary solution for a typical end user (after all, catering to the unwashed masses is a time-consuming, very un-fun task: it'll be hard to get volunteers to polish Free software for noobs the way Microsoft et al can), but it will be good enough. Drivers will be released by most manufacturers! Native ports to Linux will be published by most big software houses. Linux will be properly preinstalled and configured on most boxen you choose to purchase that way. And, yes, most game titles will be released on both Linux and Windows.
It'll take time, as I said, at least a couple of years (probably more like five) before everything is "good enough" for most people. But it doesn't matter how long it takes: there is no company to go bankrupt as they wait for popularity. Nobody can make Linux go away as it steadily improves itself. (Well, I suppose software patents might, at least in the USA. I may be cynical, but even I have faith that they won't allow the only viable competition to a convicted monopoly be just legislated out of existance by asinine patent claims that are sure to come. But then I've always wanted to be more cynical:-)
Re:Free? No, not really...
on
KDE 3.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Your points are entirely realistic. If there is no reason to switch an existing computer from Windows (if the switch will inconvenience the user more than Windows already does), then it shouldn't be done.
For many here, the effort is the reward itself. This is not an argument that will win many converts from Windows. For others, who have the ability and attitude to accept change very quickly and not be locked into a set way of doing things, making the change may very well be worth it, as they may find (at least I do) that I get things done faster using Linux. No, not the tweaking part (that can consume days at a time!), but the everyday tasks that I use my computer for. But this is STILL a very small cross section of the total desktop users out there.
The fact remains, however, that Linux, KDE, etc. provide a very good desktop experience once installed properly, and it is free. These may not be good enough reasons for virtually anyone to convert over an existing machine, but it sure sounds like a recipe that will lead to pre-installations on new computers. THIS is where all this effort will eventually bear fruit. Corporate environments (where security, customizability, and lack of vendor lock-in are becoming big pluses) are where Free software will certainly continue getting more wins. Plus, a fully functional PC that can be sold without the Windows tax can start to look attractive to home users, too.
Think new PCs, not existing ones. Still, this won't be common anytime soon (I'd say at least a couple more years) before your average computer user will seriously be comfortable buying a new machine with something other than Windows on it. But it will come in due time.
In the meantime, don't let the trolls bother you. For your needs (and frankly most people's needs), Windows is still the correct OS for your computer. Thankfully, this will not be the case for much longer;-)
Yes, but SUN is only getting into the Linux game very reluctantly. SUN would like nothing more than to have Linux disappear and stop looking like an inexpensive and solid replacement for Solaris.
They would stand to gain tremendously if Linux were to become somehow "illegal". They are currently sticking their toe into the Linux waters because they realize that if the FUD fails, they will have to be a player in the Linux world to survive in the future.
Without those fud money donations, what will 2004 look like?
If the case is allowed to move forward all the way to trial (over a year away, remember), then I would expect that there will be more FUD money where that came from! SUN and MS would love to have SCO keep going: they benefit the most from SCO's legal diaherra. Given the court's blessing for SCO's behavior to continue unchanged, expect many more millions in "licencing fees" to be charged from SCO to SUN and Microsoft, and for them to pay the invoice immediately. A excellent investment for them in the FUD war against Linux. A financially healthy SCO makes for two happy companies that stand to lose the most from Linux long-term.
If, however, the court orders SCO to show their cards or get out of Dodge, then SCO's done real fast! SUN and Microsoft won't send them any money if they cannot be a "legitimate" source of FUD against Linux.
The fact that they are so brazen as to suggest that they would have been profitable without their legal schemery is fantastic - there's no chance Sun or MS would have been paying them off without the games they've been playing.
Ummm, I'd say exactly the opposite! SUN and Microsoft happen to be two companies that benefit the most from SCO FUD (makers of the most predominant UNIX and "other" operating systems, respectively). They are cheering SCO on in their battle against Linux. Why would they submit "licencing" fees to SCO for UNIX when: (1)SUN owns a perpetual claim to Solaris UNIX (claims they are the only ones who do) and (2)Microsoft has no need for one!
I submit that neither SUN nor Microsoft are stupid. I also submit that neither is the rest of the world, all of whom have ignored SCO. Therefore, it is actually in SUN and MS's best interest to pay SCO for "licencing".
Don't be at all surprised if very shortly (presuming this mess is not stopped by the courts shortly), these two companies are again asked by SCO to "licence SCO's UNIX technology", and lo and behold another $15 million or so flows in to keep the lawyers busy!
for some strange reason, there seems to be a perception that the GPL needs to be tested in court before it is enforceable. I don't know where this perception comes from (it certainly isn't true) but Redhat vs. SCO is probably the best test case we could possibly hope for. No doubt that the GPL will prevail.
It would prevail, if it were to actually come up in court as a relevant point. But it won't. The GPL was brought into this debate only in IBM's counter-suit (the "second" suit in this mess), and I believe SCO will be a smoking hole in Utah before the first suit even begins!
I agree, the GPL is "untested" in court. Well, so are EULAs. The difference is clear, however: the legality of EULAs are in jeopardy if they get tested (since some of their provisions go beyond what copyright law says is enforceable), while the GPL would pass a court challange unscathed (since it adds no additional restrictions, it only grants rights to the code).
The GPL will never be tested in court. The interest doing the testing will lose, and grant instant legitimacy to GPL'ed software. The ability to FUD would be completely destroyed. Better to leave it as "untested in court", and therefore somehow appear risky.
In the U.S., and a few other countries I know of, it's generally been the case that you are ALLOWED to make a backup copy of digital media, but you do not have the RIGHT to it.
I may be mistaken (and often am), but I believe that under the doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing" (or other similar doctrines, depending on the country's law) you are, in fact, granted the RIGHT to do whatever you wish to do with a copyrighted work that is in your legal possession, as long as it is for personal, non-commercial use. This means that you can make as many copies as you like of anything that is copyrighted, so long as you do not distribute any of them. The EULA of a piece of software can grant you the right make one backup copy, but it is BS: you can make as many as you wish, with or without the EULA's permission, as long as you are technically capable of making the copies.
As I understand the DMCA, it doesn't *directly* remove the right to fair use. You are allowed to do whatever you wish with your copyrighted work, include disable any copy protections on it. It does, however, make it illegal to tell anyone how you performed the operation of removing the copy protection, as trivial as it may be. What this does is it *effectively* removes the right to fair use (unless you are a software engineer).
Add to this the fact that I very much doubt that this mess will reach any sort of satisfying conclusion.
My personal feeling is that SCO will drag this out as long as possible outside of the courthouse, then fold up shop just before being held accountable for its statements. The FUD thrown at Linux for two years will be unanswered: there will be no court case to "legitimise" Linux.
Shortly thereafter, expect another smallish interest (with a quasi-legitimate-sounding IP claim) to step up to bat for another two years or so of FUD. (Yes, I'm implicating Microsoft as being behind all of this. Anonomously sicing 3rd-party companies on Linux seems to be the only way to spread FUD and attempt to slow down Linux adoption until they can figure out a way to get OSS outlawed through legislation.)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, its not a misconception. OSS *does* threaten the bigger players most, because the products that they produce are those that are widely used, general purpose in nature (able to be used by many different persons and businesses from different industries), and therefore an attractive "target" for an OSS project.
Look at the most mature projects: Linux (an OS for a small computer), KDE/GNOME (desktop environment), OO.o (an office suite), Apache (web server), etc. All of these can (and are) used by a very wide-ranging group of people.
On the other hand, let's look at "niche" products. Niche means that your product does one thing very well, and you have a very limited audience. I have a friend who sells a reasonably simple package for fitness studios: it keeps track of client in and out, account payments, fitness achievements, etc. I would think that it would be highly unlikely that someone would create a Free project that duplicates the functionality and appropriateness of use of this package anytime soon. I would not be worried about Free software putting me out of business because any solution for a fitness studio would have to involve a lot of migration of proprietary data, and customization of a general database application. It would never be worth the bother for a business that probably employs no one who has ever seen a line of code in his/her life, and has no desire to contract someone who has.
You're running an operating system that is "state of the art" and comparing it to an OS which is over four years old.
Not that this is an excuse, but that's the way it is. A current distro (like Mandrake 10) is going to first cater to those with current hardware. With a recent AthlonXP or P4 you are less inconvenienced by the difference in speed.
The fact is, Linux distros like Fedora, SuSE, and Mandrake are resource hogs, particularly running a big desktop environment like KDE or GNOME. So, you've got the following options: 1) upgrade your hardware, 2) use a slimmer window manager, 3) try Gentoo (compiled specifically for your HW), or 4) live with it.
Sorry!
Yes, but Linux users would have a better hand to play for such an event. The facts are, in fact, in Linux's favour. Microsoft doesn't have that luxury.
How would you do a better job in their shoes? How could you attempt to make a presentation to IT people on why they should not migrate any services to Linux? Would they be better to just ignore Linux? That hasn't worked very well so far.
Seriously, I can't think of any better arguments to use than those stated in the article. All of them sound reasonable to the uninitiated, but only the smallest bit of research into FOSS would provide enough knowledge to dispute the arguments.
The only true reason MS has to not migrate to Linux is that they may push patent law to attempt to outlaw Linux. Unfortunately, that doesn't come across well as a sales pitch, so they use other sources (like AdTI) to spread that news.
Because (at least for me), email users get *really* irritated at ISPs going bankrupt, merging with other ISPs, or whatever else happens that causes your email address to suddenly be useless. I got my first email address in 1993, and until I got my own domain in 2001, I had to change my address FOUR TIMES due to these shenanegans. The collapse of @HOME on my cable provider was the last straw.
Yes, having separate ISP and domain hosts costs more, but the comfort and control (not to mention what you're allowed to do) make it easily worth it. I want my ISP to be absolutely nothing but a pipe to the internet. I want nothing to do with any other services, as they are designed only to keep you captive to them. As a result, I have no problem with contemplating (as I currently am) switching from cable to DSL.
You're not wrong. Linux, as much as it is developing quickly (and it is, if you're feeling the urge just download a newer distro sometime and try it again), it still doesn't stand up to your criteria. You still have to hack with your system to a degree that Windows does not require.
Your comment on the time required to tweak something is also spot on, in so far as these activities are generally rare in the Windows world. The tweaking, however, is *exactly* what most Linux users get a charge out of. Using an OS which is infinitely customizable, with dozens of options for most any type of application you can imagine, is appealing to many people (present company included).
I know at least in Ontario, Sympatico does this.
Is this officially declared anywhere by Sympatico? Or is it more like you have to find a sympathetic 2nd-level support tech to whom you can demonstrate your degree of cluefullness? Oh, and how much extra do they charge for this? Is it one-time, or a monthly increase?
It may be a flat valley, but the drop-offs into the valley are quite steep.
Thanks to another poster above, check out this page, particularly the photo right at the bottom. You can see how difficult it would be to get an expressway down into the valley and then back up. The page also shows the various options considered, as well as the reasons for accepting the tall viaduct.
I'm pretty sure that VIA is the *only* mini-itx vendor. Other motherboard manufacturers build smaller-than-ATX forms (micro-atx, flex-atx), I don't think anyone has built a Pentium or Athlon board in the same size.
I've got 5 IBM Model M's in my arsenal. Is that the equivalent of pulling out a machine gun in a fight like this?
the copyrights to UNIX System V. Not as far as Linux is concerned, anyways.
I suppose there is a chance that IBM could be found liable for breaking some contract provision they had with SCO over UNIX code. Perhaps some of that code may have even found its way illegally into Linux (although absolutely zero proof has been presented as yet).
The bottom line is that SCO will never see Linux users pay licensing fees to them for their IP because the WHOLE POINT of free software that the code is free! If any code is found legally infringing, it will be gone and replaced with restriction-free code.
Persuing a business model of getting licensing fees from free software is a complete non-starter: it will never work! Baystar (and RBC) are either completely oblivious to this fact, or are acting on MS's behalf to slow Linux's adoption. Perhaps both.
Analog methods of storage (such as good old paper*) will pretty much always be able to outlast any method we have to digitally store information, at least for each "generation" of copies that are required.
The benefit of analog is that you can store the original content for a long time, perhaps even indefinately if properly cared for. Digital, so far, seems to suffer from a lack of "permanent" media onto which content can be written.
The big difference, however, is that with some effort it is not required to have long-life media for digital. Unlike analog content (which degrades with each generation of copy), digital content copies perfectly from one generation of media to the next. Sure, it'd be nice if you could just archive one physical copy and store it forever, but since we realistically cannot, it's pretty good that a perfect copy can be made before it degrades.
Think of it this way: for decent preservation of analog content, you must exercise excellent dilligence in physical care; for perfect preservation of digital content, you must exercise regular, but rare dilligence in copying to a new media.
Besides, even if a "permanent" media is created for digital content, that's no guarantee that years from now the content can even be read. What good is it for your great-grandchildren to pull out your CD-ROMs 100 years from now, and have them find that no-one has manufactured compatible devices for over 80 years, and no one has serviced one for over 50 years? That data is just as lost as it would have been if the CD had degraded.
* Yes, I also know that today's paper is unlikely to last very long (relatively speaking), either. The papers used centuries ago withstand the aging process much better than your standard photocopier paper will.
This is different than "smart tags" (or other Adware crap like Gator, I believe), which are integrated into the browser, overriding what the publisher was presenting.
This is hosted at the server end, and the effect is exactly what the publisher wants to happen. Of course, it seems like any old popup blocker will work here, no problem.
Speaking of popups, I've been using Mozilla for almost two years now, and of course I've never seen a popup in that time. X10 cameras are but a distant memory! Are popups still as bad a scourge on the Web as they were circa 2002? Worse? Anyone using (or supporting) unaltered IE care to comment?
Of course, you've already identified the reason that copyright infringment gets more resources than spamming and child porn. The parties that stand to benefit from the elimination of file sharing (the recording and software industries) have way more money and self-interest than any parties that are opposed to spamming and child porn.
Trust me, if there were any big corporate interests out there that, for some reason, would benefit from eliminating junk email or seeing kiddie porn gone from the net, it would be well under way. Amazingly enough, not a single one comes to mind.
Let me state this in another way: for uses that require oil, the earth has more than enough to outlast human existance. The cost to obtain this oil will increase enough in time that other sources that may serve as alternatives will become more economically desirable.
I don't have the source of information, but the quantity of oil that can be produced out of oil sands (in many, many parts of the world) way exceeds the total amount that has ever and will ever come out of the Middle East. Sure, it'll be harder and more expensive to produce, but it'll be there.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the conclusions of the essay: for the global economy, no oil and very expensive oil may well have the exact same impact. My statement was only that humanity will never, EVER see the day that there is no oil on earth. No way.
Not only that, but it is a fallacy that the earth will ever "run out" of oil. What we will run out of is easily obtainable oil. Oil that requires refining out of oil sands deposits are going to be far more expensive to produce than a nice oil well, but is in far, FAR greater supply on this earth. Where oil will continue to be needed (where an alternate fuel or source is not practical), oil will always be there.
Is this really such a good thing, in the long run?
It is if it increases SuSE's penetration as a distro. Before Novell (reasonably deep pockets) bought SuSE (pretty small pockets), the distro had to be a profit centre. Now Novell can afford to allow the entire distro to be free (a la Red Hat), so that more people use it and use Novell/SuSE's server and service offerings as a result.
Novell/SuSE will want as many people to try their software as possible: making their entire distro GPL-friendly will accomplish this, along with Red Hat's official abandonment of desktop Linux. Sure, short-term this may hurt them (I was planning on purchasing 9.1 soon, I may not now). It is *because* of the long-term benefits that this makes sense.
Your company is following the exact same business plan as Microsoft: provide a set of tools that become indispensible to a business, and lock them in to your applications by making it impossible to migrate their business processes off of your software. Hey, for the companies that have signed up with you, that's great news: you are likely to be receiving their money for a good while.
However, you have forgotten a critical thing here. All of the applications that you have mentioned (accounting, project management, estimating) are particularly well suited for a server-based networked environment, which Linux just happens to be better suited for architecturally than Windows. The only reason that, as you say, "the vast majority of these solutions run on Windows" is because Windows runs on the vast majority of business desktops right now. You can bet your bottom dollar that as potential new customers of your company reject your solutions because they only run on Windows, or your current customers start inquiring about running them on Linux, that your company should start creating a new version of your apps to run on Linux! This may not be happening right now (it might), but it will certainly be happening in the not-too-distant future.
This effort that is being put in to provide an alternative on the desktop is not bearing fruit quickly, but it will eventually. As I said in another thread, it is the beauty of Free software: there is no company who owns the code to go bankrupt while waiting for the software to become popular. We can afford to be patient, waiting for the rest of the computing world to use the software that the community created.
It won't happen because KDE is better than Windows UI, it will happen in a slow manner as many people and companies find that there is more advantage in switching to Linux than in staying on Windows.
You know why I won't switch to linux on my desktop? Games.
:-)
Excellent reason not to use Linux. Others are a need to run MS Office, applications that won't WINE properly, no hardware support for some hardware, and (as we already both know) using Linux can be a pain in the ass sometimes.
The beauty, though, is that all of your concerns will eventually be met satisfactorily by Linux in due time. I don't believe that any Free solution will ever be truly better than a proprietary solution for a typical end user (after all, catering to the unwashed masses is a time-consuming, very un-fun task: it'll be hard to get volunteers to polish Free software for noobs the way Microsoft et al can), but it will be good enough. Drivers will be released by most manufacturers! Native ports to Linux will be published by most big software houses. Linux will be properly preinstalled and configured on most boxen you choose to purchase that way. And, yes, most game titles will be released on both Linux and Windows.
It'll take time, as I said, at least a couple of years (probably more like five) before everything is "good enough" for most people. But it doesn't matter how long it takes: there is no company to go bankrupt as they wait for popularity. Nobody can make Linux go away as it steadily improves itself. (Well, I suppose software patents might, at least in the USA. I may be cynical, but even I have faith that they won't allow the only viable competition to a convicted monopoly be just legislated out of existance by asinine patent claims that are sure to come. But then I've always wanted to be more cynical
Your points are entirely realistic. If there is no reason to switch an existing computer from Windows (if the switch will inconvenience the user more than Windows already does), then it shouldn't be done.
;-)
For many here, the effort is the reward itself. This is not an argument that will win many converts from Windows. For others, who have the ability and attitude to accept change very quickly and not be locked into a set way of doing things, making the change may very well be worth it, as they may find (at least I do) that I get things done faster using Linux. No, not the tweaking part (that can consume days at a time!), but the everyday tasks that I use my computer for. But this is STILL a very small cross section of the total desktop users out there.
The fact remains, however, that Linux, KDE, etc. provide a very good desktop experience once installed properly, and it is free. These may not be good enough reasons for virtually anyone to convert over an existing machine, but it sure sounds like a recipe that will lead to pre-installations on new computers. THIS is where all this effort will eventually bear fruit. Corporate environments (where security, customizability, and lack of vendor lock-in are becoming big pluses) are where Free software will certainly continue getting more wins. Plus, a fully functional PC that can be sold without the Windows tax can start to look attractive to home users, too.
Think new PCs, not existing ones. Still, this won't be common anytime soon (I'd say at least a couple more years) before your average computer user will seriously be comfortable buying a new machine with something other than Windows on it. But it will come in due time.
In the meantime, don't let the trolls bother you. For your needs (and frankly most people's needs), Windows is still the correct OS for your computer. Thankfully, this will not be the case for much longer
Yes, but SUN is only getting into the Linux game very reluctantly. SUN would like nothing more than to have Linux disappear and stop looking like an inexpensive and solid replacement for Solaris.
They would stand to gain tremendously if Linux were to become somehow "illegal". They are currently sticking their toe into the Linux waters because they realize that if the FUD fails, they will have to be a player in the Linux world to survive in the future.
Without those fud money donations, what will 2004 look like?
If the case is allowed to move forward all the way to trial (over a year away, remember), then I would expect that there will be more FUD money where that came from! SUN and MS would love to have SCO keep going: they benefit the most from SCO's legal diaherra. Given the court's blessing for SCO's behavior to continue unchanged, expect many more millions in "licencing fees" to be charged from SCO to SUN and Microsoft, and for them to pay the invoice immediately. A excellent investment for them in the FUD war against Linux. A financially healthy SCO makes for two happy companies that stand to lose the most from Linux long-term.
If, however, the court orders SCO to show their cards or get out of Dodge, then SCO's done real fast! SUN and Microsoft won't send them any money if they cannot be a "legitimate" source of FUD against Linux.
The fact that they are so brazen as to suggest that they would have been profitable without their legal schemery is fantastic - there's no chance Sun or MS would have been paying them off without the games they've been playing.
Ummm, I'd say exactly the opposite! SUN and Microsoft happen to be two companies that benefit the most from SCO FUD (makers of the most predominant UNIX and "other" operating systems, respectively). They are cheering SCO on in their battle against Linux. Why would they submit "licencing" fees to SCO for UNIX when: (1)SUN owns a perpetual claim to Solaris UNIX (claims they are the only ones who do) and (2)Microsoft has no need for one!
I submit that neither SUN nor Microsoft are stupid. I also submit that neither is the rest of the world, all of whom have ignored SCO. Therefore, it is actually in SUN and MS's best interest to pay SCO for "licencing".
Don't be at all surprised if very shortly (presuming this mess is not stopped by the courts shortly), these two companies are again asked by SCO to "licence SCO's UNIX technology", and lo and behold another $15 million or so flows in to keep the lawyers busy!
for some strange reason, there seems to be a perception that the GPL needs to be tested in court before it is enforceable. I don't know where this perception comes from (it certainly isn't true) but Redhat vs. SCO is probably the best test case we could possibly hope for. No doubt that the GPL will prevail.
It would prevail, if it were to actually come up in court as a relevant point. But it won't. The GPL was brought into this debate only in IBM's counter-suit (the "second" suit in this mess), and I believe SCO will be a smoking hole in Utah before the first suit even begins!
I agree, the GPL is "untested" in court. Well, so are EULAs. The difference is clear, however: the legality of EULAs are in jeopardy if they get tested (since some of their provisions go beyond what copyright law says is enforceable), while the GPL would pass a court challange unscathed (since it adds no additional restrictions, it only grants rights to the code).
The GPL will never be tested in court. The interest doing the testing will lose, and grant instant legitimacy to GPL'ed software. The ability to FUD would be completely destroyed. Better to leave it as "untested in court", and therefore somehow appear risky.
In the U.S., and a few other countries I know of, it's generally been the case that you are ALLOWED to make a backup copy of digital media, but you do not have the RIGHT to it.
I may be mistaken (and often am), but I believe that under the doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing" (or other similar doctrines, depending on the country's law) you are, in fact, granted the RIGHT to do whatever you wish to do with a copyrighted work that is in your legal possession, as long as it is for personal, non-commercial use. This means that you can make as many copies as you like of anything that is copyrighted, so long as you do not distribute any of them. The EULA of a piece of software can grant you the right make one backup copy, but it is BS: you can make as many as you wish, with or without the EULA's permission, as long as you are technically capable of making the copies.
As I understand the DMCA, it doesn't *directly* remove the right to fair use. You are allowed to do whatever you wish with your copyrighted work, include disable any copy protections on it. It does, however, make it illegal to tell anyone how you performed the operation of removing the copy protection, as trivial as it may be. What this does is it *effectively* removes the right to fair use (unless you are a software engineer).
Add to this the fact that I very much doubt that this mess will reach any sort of satisfying conclusion.
My personal feeling is that SCO will drag this out as long as possible outside of the courthouse, then fold up shop just before being held accountable for its statements. The FUD thrown at Linux for two years will be unanswered: there will be no court case to "legitimise" Linux.
Shortly thereafter, expect another smallish interest (with a quasi-legitimate-sounding IP claim) to step up to bat for another two years or so of FUD. (Yes, I'm implicating Microsoft as being behind all of this. Anonomously sicing 3rd-party companies on Linux seems to be the only way to spread FUD and attempt to slow down Linux adoption until they can figure out a way to get OSS outlawed through legislation.)