It's a nice idea but I don't really see it happening.
True, Microsoft have no interest in IE anymore because it fulfilled its job in destroying Netscape. Add to that the fact that IE is a free product, there's no commercial sense to them expending any effort into developing it further.
Also, in theory, Microsoft could take the source code to Firefox or the Gecko engine, develop it for a new Windows browser and as long as they released the modified source code, be perfectly within the remits of the GPL.
Unfortunately, Microsoft's own arrogance will stop this happening - with Ballmer having declared Open Source a "cancer", MS embracing Open Source code would mean a huge U-turn and loss of face in the eyes of the public.
My guess is that MS will just work harder towards proprietary lock-in and DRM to simply stop any other browsers working on their platforms for reasons of "security".
The future of the browser simply depends on getting the word out to "Joe Public" on the alternatives and hoping that IE eventually becomes the "minority" browser, even for Windows users.
I appreciate the contents of your comments but I do get slightly annoyed by people who expect Open Source software to always be released as finished, feature-rich products that do everything every user could desire the moment they install them. This is not the way the Open Source community works.
If you buy a piece of commercial software, you're making the assumption that you have a product that "does what it says on the box" that the vendor will support with fixes and future upgrades. As a user, you probably have very little input into the future development of that product because future enhancements will be dictated by what is commercially viable to implement.
If you use a piece of free software, then you must take an entirely different attitude. Firstly, the product may not be a finished one (as is the case with Firefox) but has been released early for anyone who wants to to have a go at using. The expectation from the developers is that you report problems with that software back to them and suggest enhancements. It might be that any enhancements you suggest are not deemed as good ideas by the development team but if enough people request an enhancement, and it's a good one, then it usually gets implemented.
No software can be "all things to all men" and many browsers users will actually think of Flash as being a pointless graphical exercise that simply consumes bandwidth - neither you or they are right or wrong, it's just a difference of perception of "usability".
The real point I am trying to make here is that if you're expecting to suddenly wake up one day and find a desktop Linux system that you deem to be ready "for the desktop", then that is the wrong attitude to take, I'm afraid.
The Open Source developer community does not have an agenda to displace Microsoft from the desktop, despite what many people seem to believe. The community's only agenda is to make good, free software and to listen to users of that software to make it better - remember that much of that free software is available to run on Windows as well as Linux or a BSD OS.
If you (and others) want to have a Linux OS that you consider is ready to displace Windows from your own machines, then it is your remit to let the Open Source developers know that you need "this feature" because "this commercial package" already has it.
The only important thing is that you have a choice, albeit that to use an Open Source alternative may require extra effort on your part or being more involved in the development of that alternative by giving feedback as to what you want out of it.
The so-called "revolution" in software is not just about free software but a change in the mindset of the people that use software. Although there has always been an "underground" Public Domain/Shareware/Free Software/Open Source movement, most people have gotten into the mindset of going into their local computer store and browsing the shelves of pre-packaged software products until they find something that fits their needs at a price they're prepared to pay, exactly as they would select food products at the local supermarket - perfectly fine if that's the way you want it.
However, you do now have a voice in getting the software you want if you care enough about it and speak up enough - that's the mindset change.
The whole issue has been blown entirely out of proportion by two corporations - one huge corporation flexing its muscle like it always does, the other trying to position itself as "David" taking on "Goliath". However, both corporations have an agenda of seeking as much publicity as possible out of this.
This is one huge publicity stunt, both corporations are as bad as each other and true Linux non-zealots do not actually give a damn. I doubt many Windows users care either...
Linux existed perfectly happy before Lindows and will continue to do so afterwards.
A factually incorrect article published in a public place is bad journalism, whether its a news article or an editorial. The distinction is irrelevant.
you can offer your opinion via their feedback form
I have already (read down) and challenged Mr Evans to contribute on here.
This is my second and final email commenting about Stephen Evans' poorly researched article entitled "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty".
It appears that many of the contributors on Slashdot, an open forum to discuss technology news and issues, have sent similar comments to the BBC with regard to the article.
While I have no wish to repeat what I or others have said previously, can I invite Mr Evans to submit some input into the Slashdot forum article at:
Mr Evans will have an opportunity there to explain why he composed the article in such a way or indeed to make an apology to the Linux / Open Source community, many of whom subscribe to Slashdot.
Okay, perhaps "never" was the wrong word (hell, I was really p*ssed at the BBC at the time) but it does sound as though (even if it happens) it will be optional.
Linus has made his feelings clear on the matter but if the DRM binaries or modules are closed source, they still "taint" the kernel anyway.
As a license payer, I have always been happy that the BBC, to the best of its ability, maintains a high quality, unbiased news service.
However, as a Linux user, I am thoroughly appalled at the comments made by Stephen Evans in his article "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" (URL below).
Mr Evans seems to imply that anyone who chooses to maintain his right to open Internet protocols and open data standards by using the free Linux operating system is, in fact, a malicious criminal.
While I accept that there are possibly a very small percentage of "cracker" activists within the Linux community who might be extreme enough to launch DDoS (Distributed Denial Of Service) attacks against SCO and Microsoft via the MyDoom virus, Mr Evans has demonstrated how little he knows about the topic he has chosen to discuss in his article.
Firstly, writing a virus is no easy task and an irresponsible programmer that chooses to create a new virus needs to have a very deep understanding of the inherent weaknesses in the application or operating system that the virus is intended to propagate through. Since the MyDoom virus spreads via Microsoft Windows & Outlook, it is therefore safe to assume that the creator is an expert Windows programmer.
Secondly, the Linux community is made of knowledgeable computer users who have chosen to use a free operating system rather than the majority choice, Microsoft Windows. Each member of the community has his/her own reasons for making this choice but, essentially, those reasons are encompassed in the following list:
1) Microsoft and other commercial vendors have quite clearly demonstrated support for a rental license model for their software such that, in future, their userbase will be forced to make regular payments to those vendors for continued use of their operating systems and applications. The Open Source movement, which incorporates Linux as one of its "flagship" products (others being free Unix-type operating systems of the BSD family) believes that software can be created freely and handed out to the community to use and improve freely. This movement has grown despite Microsoft and continues to do so, thus demonstrating there is no need to wage some (non-existent) "war" against commercial software vendors.
2) Some commercial hardware and software vendors (including Intel and Microsoft) are keen to implement DRM (Digital Rights Management) technologies in their existing and future platforms. The purpose of DRM is to create hardware and operating system combination platforms that "decide" whether or not a particular application or piece of data can be run or used on that platform. These vendors have chosen to do this not for any concerns of security of their users but because this allows them to license this technology, at cost, to other vendors and their userbase while, at the same time, allowing them to cover up security weaknesses in their own products. The only people that will lose out with DRM are the users who will find that they no longer have the "fair use" of music CDs, DVDs and software that they previously enjoyed to create MP3s/MPEGs of CDs/DVDs they own for portable players, personal backups, etc. The Linux community defends the right of any commercial enterprise to combat piracy and loss of revenue but not through DRM technologies that restrict the basic rights of all users, not just the criminals, from having fair use of products they legitimately own. Linux will never support DRM technology and Linux users can therefore guarantee themselves a future whereby they maintain responsibility for their dats, not some commercial enterprise.
3) Virus attacks via Microsoft Windows are reported in the media on a weekly basis yet I do not recall a Linux virus ever gaining media attention. Whilst I would not define Linux as totally secure, the open source model and regular peer code review of open source applications means that security bugs are detected & fixed very quickly. Added to this tha
I would never pay MS prices for their software. If MS could (would?) enforce their copyrights (such that every XP was legitimate), it would be the best thing to happen to the OpenSource movement.
I disagree. Firstly, what does the Open Source movement itself want? I don't believe that the prime goal of the OS movement is to displace Microsoft products but to maintain open standards - after all, even MS has every right to use Open Source software provided that any changes to it follow the license agreement - usually the GPL, but not always.
What I am trying to say here is that much of the Windows and Linux communities believe that there is some kind of war going on here when in fact it's a case of Microsoft waging the war against Linux - I don't even have a problem with that as a concept because any business has a right to protect its profits; unfortunately, the dirty way MS fights that war is the issue and no member of the Open Source community will simply sit back & let MS spread FUD and untruths. The Linux community is simply maintaining a defensive position.
From my own personal perspective, I really do not care whether people use closed or open source software. What I do care about is maintaining my basic rights of access to open standards and being left to do what I damn well like with my own data.
I therefore want to ensure that people know that by using MS software, they are essentially supporting closed protocols and DRM which ultimately hands over control of their data to MS and to whoever chooses to pay licensing to MS for their closed protocols. That's applies whether or not they pay for or copy MS software...
OpenOffice and OfficeXP can't be compared because one has financial contributions and the other does not. Correct?
No, they cannot be compared because you are not comparing "like-for-like". Read on...
Once again I disagree. I'm not debating the fairness of this comparison, I am simply taking you through the users mind. "Should I get 100% functionality from product A for free, or 90% functionality from product B for free?"
Okay, maybe you personally have a need for most or all of the functionality of MS Office.
Maybe you program VB stuff to link spreadsheets to documents, etc. etc.
Maybe you have complex work documents that you need to work on from home and need 100% compatibility, etc. etc.
All the above are valid justifications for choosing MS Office.
However, most people choose to go against the MS Licensing Agreement and use copied versions of MS Office that gives them a whole load of features of which they will never use 80% or so. (While I don't use MS Office anymore, I never used 80% of its features and I'm a fairly techie person.)
What I am saying to those people is that there is no point in them using MS Office - they're using it illegally (that's their choice, I'm not moralising here on the rights and wrongs of copied software) in which case MS do not care about those people having problems with that software, those people cannot ask MS for particular features to be changed or added plus they're allowing MS to impose on them closed standards that will ultimately take their control away from them - and make it difficult for the rest of us in the process.
Instead, those people would be better off using a OpenOffice where they get all the features they need, they can use it legitimatlely, their documents are saved in an open standard format and they can give their input on features and changes into the OpenOffice development team. In turn, the product gets better and more usable.
Fairness and level playing fields are irrelevent to this mindset and the choice of the consumer.
Of course they're not irrelevant! Many consumers think it's unfair that MS charge the money that they do for their products (yourself included). They consider it fair to copy those products and use them free of charge.
Now let's pretend that every MS user takes the same attitude and pirates their Windows OS and MS applications...
Microsoft go bankrupt...
No more Windows or MS Office development...
No new drivers for all that lovely new hardware coming out...
Hardware becomes obsolete and unusable unless you install another developed OS...
INSTALL LINUX! Hoorah!
-------------
Ah, apologies. Sorry, I didn't see the rest of your argument. What you're saying is it's perfectly okay for businesses to subsides your illegal Windows use by them paying higher licensing costs..
This means businesses have to spend more money on IT...
Is this an excuse? Is OpenOffice an inferior product and that is why it costs less?
No, it's a fact.
Whether OpenOffice is inferior or not depends on what you expect an office package to do. I certainly made no comment on whether OO or MS Office was better, I just asked for the comparisons to be made based on the fact that one is a free product and the other costs money if you use both legitimately under the terms of their respective licensing agreements.
If you need about 90% of the functionality of MS Office then it's a better product because it costs no money, runs on multiple OSes, is downloadable free from the Internet, etc.
If you need Visual Basic support and 100% compatibility with all MS (proprietary) formats, then OO cannot help you.
Remember for AT-HOME DESKTOP users illegal or legal is not the issue, it's competetion.
Keep that one back to use in front of the judge if and when you're ever caught for using software illegally.
Paying for XP/Office is insanity, every copy I have ever seen is a copy.
You've kind of defeated your own argument there. You've said that you use MS Office because you can get it free. Does that mean that if you had to pay for it, you would do so? Or would you look at alternative packages? Or would you simply stop creating documents, spreadsheets & presentations?
While it may be 'immoral' it doesn't preclude that OpenOffice must still compete, in the users mind, against a free product.
So if you and I sat down to play chess, for example, and I knew you were the better chess player, it would be perfectly fair of me to insist that you play the game without your queen piece, would it? According to your logic, it would be...
If you, or anyone else, is going to compare to pieces of software against each other, then do so on a level-playing field, that's all I'm asking.
Most people use 10-15% of the capabilities of MS Office in which case OO serves a perfectly good, stable alternative while also being truly free.
Ah, so you're defining "zealot" as somebody who cares about the fact that when people comment on Open Source software, they do so from a valid opinion rather than FUD... You're the one throwing out the abuse and expletives, one might view that as "zealot" behaviour.
The guy was explaining to you - using short easy to understand words - why free isn't good enough
No, the guy took the attitude that he was being forced to switch from Windows to Linux purely because the original poster described this as an "opportunity". Again, he's the one displaying "zealot" behaviour.
You are the reason why people still prefer MS on the desktop. Yes, you personally. It's your fault.
Hey, guess what... I don't care!
Software is a tool to get a job done, use the tool that best does the job.
All I do is try to let people know what types of tools are available they may not already be aware of. What they use is their choice.
On your last point, in future please go to hell.
Hmmm... abuse, huh? Are you really sure I'm the "zealot"?
If you are honestly incapable of undestanding why someone would rather pay for MS Office than use free OO
No, I am not incapable of understanding this. I am incapable of someone who criticises a free tool, has the ability to feed his/her opinions about that tool into the developers but does nothing apart from sitting back and whining about it.
However, my original comment still stands. If every user of MS Office had no choice but to go into a computer store and pay several hundred dollars/pounds/euros for it as they should be doing legitimately, then OO would be compared on much more favourable terms.
your head is so far up your arse that you should be able to lick the back of your own tonsils.
Possibly, but I can also get my point across and express myself coherently without resorting to direct abuse. That gives me one over you, my friend...
You don't need to stop using Windows and suddenly start using Linux.
Make some free unpartitioned disk space (some distros will make space for you from existing Windows partitions, possibly Mandrake does it) and install a distro. It'll recognise your Windows installation and create a dual booting menu for you.
The installation will be no more difficult than a Windows one and you can they play with Linux and decide for yourself whether it meets your needs.
You lose nothing (apart from a few gigs of disk space and a little time) by just trying it out...
Re:I've been using it for the past week
on
KDE 3.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I've not used KDE much recently but I recall Konqueror could be quite temperamental as a browser.
It may have improved recently but if you find it is a problem, I can thoroughly recommend Mozilla Firebird.
Re:What does it do that's so special?
on
KDE 3.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
If I have the time, I usually install Gentoo Linux from scratch and, provided I'm installing on a reasonably fast machine for myself, I'll compile and install a minimal Gnome installation as my desktop.
If I'm installing Linux for an interested Windows user, I'll generally install Mandrake Linux and give them a KDE desktop, purely because it gives a "familiar" interface to them plus similar types of apps that they're accustomed to in Windows.
KDE is quite bloated and has lots of additional apps that I will never use. But it is "pretty" and acts as a good way to "sell" newbies the concept of Linux.
And with litestep no Linux WM can compare, cause it's real customizable.
Litestep is based on After Step which is a WM for X-Windows. X-Windows (XFree86) provides the Linux GUI.
It's a good Windows front end but in the Linux world we have BlackBox, FluxBox, FVWM, FVWM95, Enlightenment, etc., etc. all of which are equally customisable or more so... believe me.
The desktop might be free but my time isn't. See, I already own Windows. It's installed, working fine, and arranged just the way I like it. It doesn't cost me a thing as it's already paid for.
Let me requote the line you opened up your post with:
"This is a good opportunity for Windows users to migrate to a free desktop."
The first line did not say:
"Fuhrer Linus Torvalds & the rest of his Linux-loving Nazi Brownshirts demand that you scrap Windows & install Linux now."
If you like XP, stick with XP - you have a choice. But don't criticise the Linux community for publicising its own good work.
If for some reason I was dissatisfied with my Windows experience I would have to get and install a new OS, install this updated free desktop (assuming it didn't come with the distro), download the apps I need to be productive (as a Java developer I could pretty much continue to work without impact), and learn to use the new OS/desktop combo.
So you feel that you have to justify to us why you've chosen to stick with XP now...
On a tangential note, I'm about to dump OpenOffice. What a dog. I gave my wife my copy of Office XP and I've been using OO for the occasional letter or spreadsheet.
Now this is an interesting comment. You gave your wife a copy of Office XP which implies that you went against the terms of Microsoft's Licensing Agreement. Hmmm, okay, let's read on a little more, shall we?
Even for that limited work I find its performance to be unacceptable.
And presumably you sent a communication to OpenOffice.org telling them why you didn't like the software? As an open source development team, they need to know how to improve their software based on feedback from users. If you don't tell them what's wrong, they can't fix it.
Another driving factor - through the Microsoft Home Use program in conjunction with my day job I can get the latest Office (professional version) or Project for $20 each. Full retail? I wouldn't switch. $20? Oh yeah, I'll pay $20 for improved performance.
Yes, you get use of Office and Project for $20 each but does your wife? I believe that under the terms of the Home License Agreement, if your employer has Microsoft Licensing then you can be granted Home Use, as you rightly say. If you gave your wife a copy of Office XP, she must therefore work for your company also (in which case why did she not just get the CD from your office herself?) or must also have her own Home Use License.
In future, please compare "like-for-like". If you're going to compare OpenOffice to MS Office, please remember that OO is free whereas MS Office is not free unless you are using a very restrictive MS License or are so used to not paying for your MS software, that you are using it illegally anyway.
I have no problem with people arguing a contrary opinion, provided that it's valid. Unfortunately, yours isn't.
USB 1.0 support has been in the Linux kernel since about version 2.0 while USB 2.0 support came in the 2.5 development kernels and is now in the 2.6 release kernels.
If you had said that some USB devices are difficult to get working under Linux, then there would have been some validity to your statements and we'd have been given some indication that you knew what you were talking about.
However, by the same token, if you knew anything about Linux and kernels, you would understand that as long as hardware manufacturers keep their hardware specifications closed and do not provide Linux drivers for their hardware, then driver development for Linux, which is reliant on the kernel community, will always be behind. What really annoys me is you seem to have this attitude that this is something the Linux community should be ashamed of rather than being proud, as we are, that the kernel driver people work damned hard to backwards engineer drivers to get some degree of functionality under Linux.
Oh, and finally, nobody cares whether you personally use Linux or Windows XP. Use whatever OS you feel comfortable with because you'd be a complete hypocrite trying to switch to alternative system purely as a fashion statement.
Just remember that hardware gets supported under Windows because manufacturers work with Microsoft to get drivers written so do not treat this as a Linux failure.
It shows I must be from a different, older generation - it got me thinking about "Monty Mole" and "Monty On The Run" from my good old ZX Spectrum days.
Sorry, you misunderstand the strategy.
I would own the consulting company in India.
I personally would still get the same money, the Indian programmers would still get their low pay.
The only loser would be the US gov and their flawed protectionist strategy.
Okay, I see the difference but it still changes nothing. If your program is made entirely by Indian programmers but sold in the US, I can levy a sales/import/other duty on every program you sell in the US. Sorry, I'm not an economist or a US citizen but if I bring anything into the UK, I pay an import duty and Value Added Tax on it which , to me, is a similar type of taxation.
However, in my scenario, I would levy a variable tax on your product based on the percentage of your workforce that you employed in the US.
Incidentally, I'm talking about applying this principle globally so, equally, a Korean or Indian company would pay less tax on their profits the more of their own citizens they employ.
Okay, tax all my profits. I'll just shift them somewhere else.
I will pay the Indian contracting company $200k per programmer per year.
I won't make any profit, and the Indian company can make the profit.
Then the US gov can't tax any of my profit because I don't have any, and all the money goes offshore.
That's absolutely fine because that fits in perfectly with my model. If it costs you as much to make your software as it does to sell it in the US, you make 0 profit on which I cannot tax you.
As a plus, you also start to drive up the salary expectations in India which means that ultimately we can all enjoy the same salaries and people will get offered jobs based on their abilities, rather than how cheaply they can be employed.
Give yourself a gold star for being a socio-economic friendly employer!:-)
The free software foundation is a political movement ONLY; it doesn't have anything to do with technology itself.
Quite possibly but irrelevant. I mentioned The Open Source community and didn't mention The Free Software Foundation once. There is a distinct difference between the two...
If the work is done by low-salary workers the total costs and also revenue will in the end go down, leaving you with 30% of a smaller number of revenue.
Mathematically incorrect.
If I pay 10 US programmers $50K a year for a year to write a piece of software, it costs me $500K to produce that software.
If I pay 10 Indian programmers $10K a year (I have no idea of what true Indian salary comparisons are, this is just for illustration) for a year, it costs me $100K to produce that software.
However, if the software is the same quality, I can sell it for the same price in the US in both cases - therefore, by employing Indian programmers, I make more profit. Revenue is unaffected.
The reason why outsourcing is happening is that both products and services are incredibly cheap and free.
You can't make a generic statement like that, especially when your previous argument is flawed.
The cost of a product is determined by how many you manufacture and how much competition there is.
The cost of a service is based on the size of your user base, how reliable your product is and how much you can feasibly get the customer to pay for your service.
The only thing that realistically can change the tide is that the value of products and services in this industry is raised so that it can sustain high salaries.
Wrong again. All that can change the tide is shareholders, CEO's and (to a degree) the workforce not being greedy. As long as profits matter, cutting workforce expense will be equally as important.
Slashdot Mirror
True, Microsoft have no interest in IE anymore because it fulfilled its job in destroying Netscape. Add to that the fact that IE is a free product, there's no commercial sense to them expending any effort into developing it further.
Also, in theory, Microsoft could take the source code to Firefox or the Gecko engine, develop it for a new Windows browser and as long as they released the modified source code, be perfectly within the remits of the GPL.
Unfortunately, Microsoft's own arrogance will stop this happening - with Ballmer having declared Open Source a "cancer", MS embracing Open Source code would mean a huge U-turn and loss of face in the eyes of the public.
My guess is that MS will just work harder towards proprietary lock-in and DRM to simply stop any other browsers working on their platforms for reasons of "security".
The future of the browser simply depends on getting the word out to "Joe Public" on the alternatives and hoping that IE eventually becomes the "minority" browser, even for Windows users.
If you buy a piece of commercial software, you're making the assumption that you have a product that "does what it says on the box" that the vendor will support with fixes and future upgrades. As a user, you probably have very little input into the future development of that product because future enhancements will be dictated by what is commercially viable to implement.
If you use a piece of free software, then you must take an entirely different attitude. Firstly, the product may not be a finished one (as is the case with Firefox) but has been released early for anyone who wants to to have a go at using. The expectation from the developers is that you report problems with that software back to them and suggest enhancements. It might be that any enhancements you suggest are not deemed as good ideas by the development team but if enough people request an enhancement, and it's a good one, then it usually gets implemented.
No software can be "all things to all men" and many browsers users will actually think of Flash as being a pointless graphical exercise that simply consumes bandwidth - neither you or they are right or wrong, it's just a difference of perception of "usability".
The real point I am trying to make here is that if you're expecting to suddenly wake up one day and find a desktop Linux system that you deem to be ready "for the desktop", then that is the wrong attitude to take, I'm afraid.
The Open Source developer community does not have an agenda to displace Microsoft from the desktop, despite what many people seem to believe. The community's only agenda is to make good, free software and to listen to users of that software to make it better - remember that much of that free software is available to run on Windows as well as Linux or a BSD OS.
If you (and others) want to have a Linux OS that you consider is ready to displace Windows from your own machines, then it is your remit to let the Open Source developers know that you need "this feature" because "this commercial package" already has it.
The only important thing is that you have a choice, albeit that to use an Open Source alternative may require extra effort on your part or being more involved in the development of that alternative by giving feedback as to what you want out of it.
The so-called "revolution" in software is not just about free software but a change in the mindset of the people that use software. Although there has always been an "underground" Public Domain/Shareware/Free Software/Open Source movement, most people have gotten into the mindset of going into their local computer store and browsing the shelves of pre-packaged software products until they find something that fits their needs at a price they're prepared to pay, exactly as they would select food products at the local supermarket - perfectly fine if that's the way you want it.
However, you do now have a voice in getting the software you want if you care enough about it and speak up enough - that's the mindset change.
This is one huge publicity stunt, both corporations are as bad as each other and true Linux non-zealots do not actually give a damn. I doubt many Windows users care either...
Linux existed perfectly happy before Lindows and will continue to do so afterwards.
In other news...
A factually incorrect article published in a public place is bad journalism, whether its a news article or an editorial. The distinction is irrelevant.
you can offer your opinion via their feedback form
I have already (read down) and challenged Mr Evans to contribute on here.
Dear Sir or Madam
8 22 9&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=185&tid=187&tid= 88
This is my second and final email commenting about Stephen Evans' poorly researched article entitled "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty".
It appears that many of the contributors on Slashdot, an open forum to discuss technology news and issues, have sent similar comments to the BBC with regard to the article.
While I have no wish to repeat what I or others have said previously, can I invite Mr Evans to submit some input into the Slashdot forum article at:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/05/081
Mr Evans will have an opportunity there to explain why he composed the article in such a way or indeed to make an apology to the Linux / Open Source community, many of whom subscribe to Slashdot.
I see no distinction between the two. It was still a badly researched piece of journalism that was published in a public place.
Linus has made his feelings clear on the matter but if the DRM binaries or modules are closed source, they still "taint" the kernel anyway.
Auntie Beeb must be being deluged with irate Linux-using Slashdotters.
Could this be the first manually Distributed Denial of Service attack on the Beebs email servers? :-)
Dear Sir Or Madam
As a license payer, I have always been happy that the BBC, to the best of its ability, maintains a high quality, unbiased news service.
However, as a Linux user, I am thoroughly appalled at the comments made by Stephen Evans in his article "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" (URL below).
Mr Evans seems to imply that anyone who chooses to maintain his right to open Internet protocols and open data standards by using the free Linux operating system is, in fact, a malicious criminal.
While I accept that there are possibly a very small percentage of "cracker" activists within the Linux community who might be extreme enough to launch DDoS (Distributed Denial Of Service) attacks against SCO and Microsoft via the MyDoom virus, Mr Evans has demonstrated how little he knows about the topic he has chosen to discuss in his article.
Firstly, writing a virus is no easy task and an irresponsible programmer that chooses to create a new virus needs to have a very deep understanding of the inherent weaknesses in the application or operating system that the virus is intended to propagate through. Since the MyDoom virus spreads via Microsoft Windows & Outlook, it is therefore safe to assume that the creator is an expert Windows programmer.
Secondly, the Linux community is made of knowledgeable computer users who have chosen to use a free operating system rather than the majority choice, Microsoft Windows. Each member of the community has his/her own reasons for making this choice but, essentially, those reasons are encompassed in the following list:
1) Microsoft and other commercial vendors have quite clearly demonstrated support for a rental license model for their software such that, in future, their userbase will be forced to make regular payments to those vendors for continued use of their operating systems and applications.
The Open Source movement, which incorporates Linux as one of its "flagship" products (others being free Unix-type operating systems of the BSD family) believes that software can be created freely and handed out to the community to use and improve freely. This movement has grown despite Microsoft and continues to do so, thus demonstrating there is no need to wage some (non-existent) "war" against commercial software vendors.
2) Some commercial hardware and software vendors (including Intel and Microsoft) are keen to implement DRM (Digital Rights Management) technologies in their existing and future platforms. The purpose of DRM is to create hardware and operating system combination platforms that "decide" whether or not a particular application or piece of data can be run or used on that platform. These vendors have chosen to do this not for any concerns of security of their users but because this allows them to license this technology, at cost, to other vendors and their userbase while, at the same time, allowing them to cover up security weaknesses in their own products. The only people that will lose out with DRM are the users who will find that they no longer have the "fair use" of music CDs, DVDs and software that they previously enjoyed to create MP3s/MPEGs of CDs/DVDs they own for portable players, personal backups, etc.
The Linux community defends the right of any commercial enterprise to combat piracy and loss of revenue but not through DRM technologies that restrict the basic rights of all users, not just the criminals, from having fair use of products they legitimately own. Linux will never support DRM technology and Linux users can therefore guarantee themselves a future whereby they maintain responsibility for their dats, not some commercial enterprise.
3) Virus attacks via Microsoft Windows are reported in the media on a weekly basis yet I do not recall a Linux virus ever gaining media attention.
Whilst I would not define Linux as totally secure, the open source model and regular peer code review of open source applications means that security bugs are detected & fixed very quickly. Added to this tha
It's been a pleasure and great to have an intelligent argument with someone for a change :-)
I disagree. Firstly, what does the Open Source movement itself want? I don't believe that the prime goal of the OS movement is to displace Microsoft products but to maintain open standards - after all, even MS has every right to use Open Source software provided that any changes to it follow the license agreement - usually the GPL, but not always.
What I am trying to say here is that much of the Windows and Linux communities believe that there is some kind of war going on here when in fact it's a case of Microsoft waging the war against Linux - I don't even have a problem with that as a concept because any business has a right to protect its profits; unfortunately, the dirty way MS fights that war is the issue and no member of the Open Source community will simply sit back & let MS spread FUD and untruths. The Linux community is simply maintaining a defensive position.
From my own personal perspective, I really do not care whether people use closed or open source software. What I do care about is maintaining my basic rights of access to open standards and being left to do what I damn well like with my own data.
I therefore want to ensure that people know that by using MS software, they are essentially supporting closed protocols and DRM which ultimately hands over control of their data to MS and to whoever chooses to pay licensing to MS for their closed protocols. That's applies whether or not they pay for or copy MS software...
OpenOffice and OfficeXP can't be compared because one has financial contributions and the other does not. Correct?
No, they cannot be compared because you are not comparing "like-for-like". Read on...
Once again I disagree. I'm not debating the fairness of this comparison, I am simply taking you through the users mind. "Should I get 100% functionality from product A for free, or 90% functionality from product B for free?"
Okay, maybe you personally have a need for most or all of the functionality of MS Office.
Maybe you program VB stuff to link spreadsheets to documents, etc. etc.
Maybe you have complex work documents that you need to work on from home and need 100% compatibility, etc. etc.
All the above are valid justifications for choosing MS Office.
However, most people choose to go against the MS Licensing Agreement and use copied versions of MS Office that gives them a whole load of features of which they will never use 80% or so. (While I don't use MS Office anymore, I never used 80% of its features and I'm a fairly techie person.)
What I am saying to those people is that there is no point in them using MS Office - they're using it illegally (that's their choice, I'm not moralising here on the rights and wrongs of copied software) in which case MS do not care about those people having problems with that software, those people cannot ask MS for particular features to be changed or added plus they're allowing MS to impose on them closed standards that will ultimately take their control away from them - and make it difficult for the rest of us in the process.
Instead, those people would be better off using a OpenOffice where they get all the features they need, they can use it legitimatlely, their documents are saved in an open standard format and they can give their input on features and changes into the OpenOffice development team. In turn, the product gets better and more usable.
Fairness and level playing fields are irrelevent to this mindset and the choice of the consumer.
Of course they're not irrelevant! Many consumers think it's unfair that MS charge the money that they do for their products (yourself included). They consider it fair to copy those products and use them free of charge.
On the
Microsoft go bankrupt...
No more Windows or MS Office development...
No new drivers for all that lovely new hardware coming out...
Hardware becomes obsolete and unusable unless you install another developed OS...
INSTALL LINUX! Hoorah!
-------------
Ah, apologies. Sorry, I didn't see the rest of your argument. What you're saying is it's perfectly okay for businesses to subsides your illegal Windows use by them paying higher licensing costs..
This means businesses have to spend more money on IT...
More businesses look at cheaper alternatives...
INSTALL LINUX! Hoorah!
No, it's a fact.
Whether OpenOffice is inferior or not depends on what you expect an office package to do. I certainly made no comment on whether OO or MS Office was better, I just asked for the comparisons to be made based on the fact that one is a free product and the other costs money if you use both legitimately under the terms of their respective licensing agreements.
If you need about 90% of the functionality of MS Office then it's a better product because it costs no money, runs on multiple OSes, is downloadable free from the Internet, etc.
If you need Visual Basic support and 100% compatibility with all MS (proprietary) formats, then OO cannot help you.
Remember for AT-HOME DESKTOP users illegal or legal is not the issue, it's competetion.
Keep that one back to use in front of the judge if and when you're ever caught for using software illegally.
Paying for XP/Office is insanity, every copy I have ever seen is a copy.
You've kind of defeated your own argument there. You've said that you use MS Office because you can get it free. Does that mean that if you had to pay for it, you would do so? Or would you look at alternative packages? Or would you simply stop creating documents, spreadsheets & presentations?
While it may be 'immoral' it doesn't preclude that OpenOffice must still compete, in the users mind, against a free product.
So if you and I sat down to play chess, for example, and I knew you were the better chess player, it would be perfectly fair of me to insist that you play the game without your queen piece, would it? According to your logic, it would be...
If you, or anyone else, is going to compare to pieces of software against each other, then do so on a level-playing field, that's all I'm asking.
Most people use 10-15% of the capabilities of MS Office in which case OO serves a perfectly good, stable alternative while also being truly free.
Ah, so you're defining "zealot" as somebody who cares about the fact that when people comment on Open Source software, they do so from a valid opinion rather than FUD... You're the one throwing out the abuse and expletives, one might view that as "zealot" behaviour.
The guy was explaining to you - using short easy to understand words - why free isn't good enough
No, the guy took the attitude that he was being forced to switch from Windows to Linux purely because the original poster described this as an "opportunity". Again, he's the one displaying "zealot" behaviour.
You are the reason why people still prefer MS on the desktop. Yes, you personally. It's your fault.
Hey, guess what... I don't care!
Software is a tool to get a job done, use the tool that best does the job.
All I do is try to let people know what types of tools are available they may not already be aware of. What they use is their choice.
On your last point, in future please go to hell.
Hmmm... abuse, huh? Are you really sure I'm the "zealot"?
If you are honestly incapable of undestanding why someone would rather pay for MS Office than use free OO
No, I am not incapable of understanding this. I am incapable of someone who criticises a free tool, has the ability to feed his/her opinions about that tool into the developers but does nothing apart from sitting back and whining about it.
However, my original comment still stands. If every user of MS Office had no choice but to go into a computer store and pay several hundred dollars/pounds/euros for it as they should be doing legitimately, then OO would be compared on much more favourable terms.
your head is so far up your arse that you should be able to lick the back of your own tonsils.
Possibly, but I can also get my point across and express myself coherently without resorting to direct abuse. That gives me one over you, my friend...
Make some free unpartitioned disk space (some distros will make space for you from existing Windows partitions, possibly Mandrake does it) and install a distro. It'll recognise your Windows installation and create a dual booting menu for you.
The installation will be no more difficult than a Windows one and you can they play with Linux and decide for yourself whether it meets your needs.
You lose nothing (apart from a few gigs of disk space and a little time) by just trying it out...
It may have improved recently but if you find it is a problem, I can thoroughly recommend Mozilla Firebird.
If I'm installing Linux for an interested Windows user, I'll generally install Mandrake Linux and give them a KDE desktop, purely because it gives a "familiar" interface to them plus similar types of apps that they're accustomed to in Windows.
KDE is quite bloated and has lots of additional apps that I will never use. But it is "pretty" and acts as a good way to "sell" newbies the concept of Linux.
Litestep is based on After Step which is a WM for X-Windows. X-Windows (XFree86) provides the Linux GUI.
It's a good Windows front end but in the Linux world we have BlackBox, FluxBox, FVWM, FVWM95, Enlightenment, etc., etc. all of which are equally customisable or more so... believe me.
Let me requote the line you opened up your post with:
"This is a good opportunity for Windows users to migrate to a free desktop."
The first line did not say:
"Fuhrer Linus Torvalds & the rest of his Linux-loving Nazi Brownshirts demand that you scrap Windows & install Linux now."
If you like XP, stick with XP - you have a choice. But don't criticise the Linux community for publicising its own good work.
If for some reason I was dissatisfied with my Windows experience I would have to get and install a new OS, install this updated free desktop (assuming it didn't come with the distro), download the apps I need to be productive (as a Java developer I could pretty much continue to work without impact), and learn to use the new OS/desktop combo.
So you feel that you have to justify to us why you've chosen to stick with XP now...
On a tangential note, I'm about to dump OpenOffice. What a dog. I gave my wife my copy of Office XP and I've been using OO for the occasional letter or spreadsheet.
Now this is an interesting comment. You gave your wife a copy of Office XP which implies that you went against the terms of Microsoft's Licensing Agreement. Hmmm, okay, let's read on a little more, shall we?
Even for that limited work I find its performance to be unacceptable.
And presumably you sent a communication to OpenOffice.org telling them why you didn't like the software? As an open source development team, they need to know how to improve their software based on feedback from users. If you don't tell them what's wrong, they can't fix it.
Another driving factor - through the Microsoft Home Use program in conjunction with my day job I can get the latest Office (professional version) or Project for $20 each. Full retail? I wouldn't switch. $20? Oh yeah, I'll pay $20 for improved performance.
Yes, you get use of Office and Project for $20 each but does your wife? I believe that under the terms of the Home License Agreement, if your employer has Microsoft Licensing then you can be granted Home Use, as you rightly say. If you gave your wife a copy of Office XP, she must therefore work for your company also (in which case why did she not just get the CD from your office herself?) or must also have her own Home Use License.
In future, please compare "like-for-like". If you're going to compare OpenOffice to MS Office, please remember that OO is free whereas MS Office is not free unless you are using a very restrictive MS License or are so used to not paying for your MS software, that you are using it illegally anyway.
Just because Linux is free doesn't mean that there's not someone out there wanting you to give it a go...
Sure, you have a choice but that's meaningless unless you actually try and exercise that choice.
USB 1.0 support has been in the Linux kernel since about version 2.0 while USB 2.0 support came in the 2.5 development kernels and is now in the 2.6 release kernels.
If you had said that some USB devices are difficult to get working under Linux, then there would have been some validity to your statements and we'd have been given some indication that you knew what you were talking about.
However, by the same token, if you knew anything about Linux and kernels, you would understand that as long as hardware manufacturers keep their hardware specifications closed and do not provide Linux drivers for their hardware, then driver development for Linux, which is reliant on the kernel community, will always be behind. What really annoys me is you seem to have this attitude that this is something the Linux community should be ashamed of rather than being proud, as we are, that the kernel driver people work damned hard to backwards engineer drivers to get some degree of functionality under Linux.
Oh, and finally, nobody cares whether you personally use Linux or Windows XP. Use whatever OS you feel comfortable with because you'd be a complete hypocrite trying to switch to alternative system purely as a fashion statement.
Just remember that hardware gets supported under Windows because manufacturers work with Microsoft to get drivers written so do not treat this as a Linux failure.
It shows I must be from a different, older generation - it got me thinking about "Monty Mole" and "Monty On The Run" from my good old ZX Spectrum days.
Okay, I see the difference but it still changes nothing. If your program is made entirely by Indian programmers but sold in the US, I can levy a sales/import/other duty on every program you sell in the US.
Sorry, I'm not an economist or a US citizen but if I bring anything into the UK, I pay an import duty and Value Added Tax on it which , to me, is a similar type of taxation.
However, in my scenario, I would levy a variable tax on your product based on the percentage of your workforce that you employed in the US.
Incidentally, I'm talking about applying this principle globally so, equally, a Korean or Indian company would pay less tax on their profits the more of their own citizens they employ.
That's absolutely fine because that fits in perfectly with my model. If it costs you as much to make your software as it does to sell it in the US, you make 0 profit on which I cannot tax you.
As a plus, you also start to drive up the salary expectations in India which means that ultimately we can all enjoy the same salaries and people will get offered jobs based on their abilities, rather than how cheaply they can be employed.
Give yourself a gold star for being a socio-economic friendly employer! :-)
Quite possibly but irrelevant. I mentioned The Open Source community and didn't mention The Free Software Foundation once. There is a distinct difference between the two...
If the work is done by low-salary workers the total costs and also revenue will in the end go down, leaving you with 30% of a smaller number of revenue.
Mathematically incorrect.
If I pay 10 US programmers $50K a year for a year to write a piece of software, it costs me $500K to produce that software.
If I pay 10 Indian programmers $10K a year (I have no idea of what true Indian salary comparisons are, this is just for illustration) for a year, it costs me $100K to produce that software.
However, if the software is the same quality, I can sell it for the same price in the US in both cases - therefore, by employing Indian programmers, I make more profit. Revenue is unaffected.
The reason why outsourcing is happening is that both products and services are incredibly cheap and free.
You can't make a generic statement like that, especially when your previous argument is flawed. The cost of a product is determined by how many you manufacture and how much competition there is. The cost of a service is based on the size of your user base, how reliable your product is and how much you can feasibly get the customer to pay for your service.
The only thing that realistically can change the tide is that the value of products and services in this industry is raised so that it can sustain high salaries.
Wrong again. All that can change the tide is shareholders, CEO's and (to a degree) the workforce not being greedy. As long as profits matter, cutting workforce expense will be equally as important.