In 1993-1995 I recall using (at work) a fairly early, pre-Office version of the Word. It had the fountain pen on the splash screen. I don't remember exactly what was the release name, but I suspect it was Word 6.0 (1993.) It worked quite well. This is why it pushed competing products (WordPerfect, AmiPro etc.) out of the way
Did Word push compeating product out because it was better or because it came bundled with PCs? I bet it's the later. Many people buying computers want it to come with software such as an office suite bundled, they don't want to buy software separately then install it. The exceptions would be specialized software and games. But the only suite most OEMs will offer bundled is MS Office. Actually I bet if I look the only suite the major OEMs will bundle with Windows PCs is MS Office.
MS WordPad
On Windows I preferred TextPad. Then again within it I could compile and run Java programs, preview html, PERL, and other things. With WordPad the commandline or another program was needed.
StarOffice (which I tried) was a strange thing. On one hand, it had excellent functionality that Word never had to begin with. On the other hand, it was too complex for most users. Add a few bugs, and the recipe for disaster is ready.
What I hated, yes hated, about StarOffice was it took over the whole desktop. I tried it then went back to Word 97. After Open Office replaced it I waited a few months before trying it, and it did what I wanted without getting in the way.
You see why MS Word, being priced at a few hundred dollars, quickly appeared to be a great solution to our problems?
WordPerfect didn't have those problems, and for a while it was the most widely used office suite.
Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu's forums before you try and tell me it is stable.
Because I plan on installing Ubuntu on my Mac I have spent more than 100 hours in the the Ubuntu forums, photo.net, and elsewhere. In all this tyme I haven't run into any complaints about Ubuntu not being stable. I have however run into incompatibilities, and the fixes for them. Then again maybe it's just because of what I'm looking for, how to install Ubuntu on my Mac. I've been researching how to before I do it so I can make a plan which includes any problems that may come up.
Instead of Windows, they went with OS/2, which bombed, at least in mainstream terms.
It wasn't IBM's bomb. IBM and MS was working on OS/2 together when MS pulled out and did Windows instead.
Ubuntu is the proverbial dog with fleas, of Linux distributions.
Then why has Ubuntu been the most popular Linux distro this past year? Of course that link is just for those who visit Distro Watch. Starry Hope asks Ubuntu: Still Popular? Using metrics from various sites it concludes Ubuntu is still popular.
I find it interesting that these stories never seem to talk about the cost of retraining in that switch from Windows to Linux in the work place.
I find it interesting that people talk about the cost of retraining when switching from Windows to OS X or Linux yet don't talk about the cost of retraining after upgrading Windows.
Anyone who thinks the Microsoft license and the cost of the hardware are the only expenses has no business being a decision-maker in their company's IT.
Exactly, like vendor lock-in and proprietary formats.
1. Executives should ALWAYS be last in line for any forced migration like that... The right way to do it is: ...
B - staged rollout, starting with bottom teir employees in batches, gradually progressing up the organizational chart. ...
So obviously the accounting department would be transitioned first
You, and most others may not think of the accounting department as being important but they are vary important, and they should not be the testers of new systems.
Calc is the Hyundai of spreadsheets. Works fine for ma and pa, but it sucks for anything significantly complicated.
As someone above posted, if you have to do complicated spreadsheets why not use Mathematica or Matlab? Financial calculations can be pretty complicated yet with a quick Google I found this: Documentation/How Tos/Calc: Derivation of Financial Formulas.
paragraphs would jump from one page to another; three ways to anchor an image, all wrong; table of contents is way too complex and not matching the pagination of the hour. I'm sure there were other issues also. That was pre-2.x OpenOffice, something like 1.4.x,
And early production versions of MS Office worked perfectly? Or are you using a double standard?
But reliability-wise MS Office is probably still better.
The MS product I have used that was the most reliable was Windows NT4 Workstation, which I still have. However because it's installed on a PC with a DEC Alpha CPU I haven't used it much. It is the only version of Windows that has not crashed on me, and that includes XP. Heck the first tyme I used XP the PC froze while booting up.
As for Open Office, well the native Mac version, NeoOffice, I have had only one problem. When I downloaded a Word 2007 document NeoOffice could not open it. I mentioned that to someone else and they said to upgrade it, so I did. After the upgrade I had no problem opening the Word document.
You aren't making any sense. Yes the Windows licence is more than Ubuntu, but not $2,000 more. What on earth are you actually trying to say?
In your post I replied to you included costs for Ubuntu but not Windows. If that does not make sense to you then I don't know what does. And the cost of a Windows license isn't the total cost of upgrading to Windows 7. Besides the license for it there's the license for MS Office, if you're not using Office then why do you need to stay with Windows? Uhm, let's see which 2007 Office suite is right for you, there are 5 versions. The cheapest is Home and Student for $150. An upgrade to the next version, Standard, costs $239.95 and Ultimate costs $539.95. Then there's the cost of re-training as well as lost productivity. An upgrade to Windows 7 can easily cost $2000.
But you and Windows fanbois, I don't know if you're one or not, refuse to acknowledge those costs. If you're going to spend that much and you don't really need Windows 7, why not replace Windows with Ubuntu? The only reason to stay with Windows for most shops is because of inertia or staying with what familiar. However if a business isn't willing or able to adapt then how are they going to stay in business?
I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $2000. Because I'm pretty sure that out of the 150k people that I work with that 3/4 of them will take months to adjust to Linux and be completely pissed off the entire time. At an internal rate of $100-$150 per person per hour... uh... lol, right.
And upgrading to Window 7 will not have any of those costs?
This is what most of the company uses: Outlook, Word, Excel, Powerpoint. Project. File shares. Blackberry/Phone. Online web conferences. PDF. That's about it.
Almost all of the task these programs do Ubuntu has the software that can do it as well. Outlook? Even when I used Windows I used Eudora then switched to Thunderbird, which I also use on my Linux PC and Mac. Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and Project? I'm not sure about Project but Open Office, which I also used with Windows, does the rest of these.
And don't give me crap about open office solutions. It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office, you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything?
And users don't have to go through crap when Office is upgraded? BS!
I bet people stay with Windows because they don't know of an alternative, they think they need it, or because they would rather work with the devil they know than the one they don't know. People ask what Linux is. Or if Macs can run Windows, asked why they need Windows and they can't give an answer other than "because my software needs it". Ask them what they want to do, specific tasks not applications and if they don't stammer or hum you might get write. There are word processors that let you do that on Linux and Macs in OS X. They need a spread sheet to do calculations, same there. The same applies to everything MS Office does. The London Stock Exchange Rejects.NET For Open Source. For every proprietary app that runs only in Windows, except in-house software, I bet there's software available that can do it on Linux and or OS X.
If you need to spend $2k doing an install on W7 then surely you'd need to spend the same installing Ubuntu?
Windows requires a license to be paid for on each installation, Ubuntu is a free download and can be installed on as many PCs as you want. Even if a Windows 7 license cost only $50, for a volume business license, in an installation on 1000 PCs that's $50,000. And what of individual Win7 upgrades? If I recall right the cheapest upgrade version of Vista was $200, let's see what it is now... Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate with SP2 (32bit) cost $100. Uhm, this is interesting. If you have qualifying purchase of Windows Vista Home Premium, Business or Ultimate that is bought a Vista "retail packaged product between June 26, 2009 and January 31, 2010" you can order the Windows 7 upgrade for $10, the price of shipping and handling.
Or does that just install itself and re-train the users automagically?
Gee the Windows 7 installs itself and retrains users automagically.
On an interesting side note, I wonder if they calculated all the man hours and reworking of customized code that most shops would have to put in to go from a Microsoft shop to all Linux
And upgrading Windows doesn't have those costs? Then why did a bunch of people complain their XP software would not run on Vista? Why are businesses still using, and why did MS extend service for, XP? MS even released XP for netbooks.
That's not exactly true. The economic development argument states that the presence of a streetcar line increases foot traffic in that area, which tends to increase the customer base for local businesses.
But it reduces foot traffic in other areas, or are you saying there is more foot traffic everywhere?
By making transportation easier (via infrastructure improvements) the government allows commerce to flow more quickly and cheaply, increasing economic activity by reducing transaction costs.
Actually economic activity is increased by allowing trade between the different areas. No one area can produce everything residents in the area may need or want. Take oranges, oranges grown in California or Florida can be shipped all over the country, to where oranges will not grow. Georgia peaches are also shipped all over the country. The same with other produce. Or take copper, Arizona is a major producer of copper in the US. Without trade between different regions and states some states would lack some supplies. The same applies internationally.
So you think you should benefit from others work but not share yourself?
Sure those licenses let you but it seems rather hypocritical.
If those other programmers didn't like it they didn't have to use the license they chose to use. The fact that they did use the license means they have no problem with others closing their own code. Why does it bother you when it doesn't bother the programmer who's code is being used?
Besides if you clearly believe it would not harm you, as you suggest "it's done and you don't keep mucking with it besides fixing any major bugs", then why not open source it?
Why not open it? To prevent others from taking your software and giving it away. Programmers have to eat too. It's one thing if you can get a big business to pay you for programming, but not everyone can, or wants to be (run) a software business themselves. I want to start a photography business, but I can't afford the thousands of dollars pro photo software costs. Since I know programming (not well but I'll learn) I can take the source code of software and program it to do what I want, however if I'm going to spent that much tyme programming I'd like to be able to sell the software, and BSD licenses allow programmers to close their own code. If my source is open there's nothing I can do to prevent others from giving it away, which negates the reason to sell it. However if I can close my source, not the source I started with but my own, I can prevent others from selling or giving it away too. The person or people who's code I used had the same choice, to close or open their code and they choice to open it.
So you think you should benefit from others work but not share yourself?
Those other programmers had the same choice, if they didn't want to they did not have to release their code. Like GP I want to use a BSD license. I am hoping to start working as as photographer/developer, mostly do photography but also some programing and web development. Those so I can sell online. However if I'm going to spend much tyme programming then I'd like to be able to sell my software to other photographers as well, a second income source. And because I want to be a photographer, I want to be able to sell my software and not offer software services. So I want to be able to close my source.
I'll have you know that using a strawman argument can be used to make a valid argument, which I did.
But you didn't. You can still move around in an elevator. But when your seatbelt gets jammed while wearing it you are not free to move much if at all. At least in an elevator you're not strapped down so that if the doors opens you can jump out. Wasn't there something in the news recently about a couple of kids being trapped in a burning car and how some bystanders rushed to save them got burnt too? Here, I think this might be it, Off-duty firefighters, bystanders rescue woman, 2 children from burning SUV in Milwaukee. Ah here we go, "John Rechlitz reached in again but couldn't find the seat belt release; someone gave him a knife to cut the car seat's restraints."
The only problem with Ubuntu is that it needs more testing and validation before each release cycle. I've had basic functionality break between releases and this will not be acceptable for business use.
And of course Microsoft never had any problems with upgrades. Ubuntu has had plenty of testing and validation, Hardy Heron is more than 2 year old. For upgrades it's always a good idea to have a test bed, a PC that can be upgraded and tested without affecting other systems. It's wise for even those businesses upgrading Windows.
As Linux geek myself, this doesn't justify going with Windows in my mind, but to a business, its all about reliability and support.
Unfortunately it isn't all about reliability, otherwise Microsoft would not have lasted as long as it has. It is well known MS products have had problems with reliability. Personally, I've used versions of Windows from 3.x to XP and the only one I found that was reliable was NT4 Workstation. Heck the first tyme I used XP the brand new Dell it was installed on froze while booting up. Vista is supposedly a lot more reliable, but it is demanding of hardware. Many of the supposedly "Vista Ready" PCs in the months before Vista was released were anything but Vista ready. Then the software wasn't ready for Vista either. There were a number of horror stories about new software that ran fine on XP just would not run on Vista.
On the other hand, I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro which came with Tiger, 10.4. I'm running Leopard on it now and am getting ready to upgrade to Snow Leopard. Of the software I got that ran on Tiger I only need to upgrade one, my anti-virus software.
Try to convince your CTO or CEO to go with a Linux desktop and lock it down using open source tools and hire expensive and expert Linux Admins
That's an MS straw man. Windows admins are expensive too, according to indeed a Windows administrator salary is $75,000 whereas a mac administrator's salary is $61,000. That was just a quick google, there may be different results if more tyme is spent looking.
But if you have an issue with the Windows GUI, call up one of those many Vendors who sell lock down software or call up Microsoft. And for $100 a ticket or whatever they charge, they will be happy to tell you how to piss off your employees even more when they have to call IT in order to change their classpath for Java on their machine, because that tab in the system properties gives an "Inaccessible, Please Contact Your System Admin" when you click on it...
Ergo Windows is expensive. What was really expensive for me was constantly having my Windows PCs crashing, having to replace hardware (admittedly not MS's fault), and having to reinstall Windows and my software. Switching saved me a lot, of tyme, money, and frustration.
I don't know how it is now, but I checked into a Dell netbook with Ubuntu pre-installed. It costs the same as getting a Windows license with the machine.
That's BS! Not what you say but Dell selling netbooks with Ubuntu for the same price as netbooks with Windows. With the same configurations, maybe there's a difference in them, the Ubuntu netbook should be cheaper. Wait,... Dell shows mini netbooks, what's that?, with Windows XP Home Edition or Ubuntu Linux for the same price. Now if XP doesn't require Activation, I'd get one with XP. Actually I'd try to get both.
On another page though Dell shows a netbook with either Ubuntu or XP or Vista. With Ubuntu installed it's $30 cheaper.
*nix is a ground up built for multiple users, Windows has been built in the opposite direction.
There is no such thing as just "Windows", historically. There was Win9x, which grew out of DOS, and was really a single-user OS; and then there was WinNT, which was designed from scratch but under heavy influence from VMS, and which was built for multiple users just like Unix was.
Win9x grew out of DOS only after Windows versions before it, Windows 1,... 3.x. Windows 95 was the first version that did not need to be installed on top of DOS. Sure DOS was still there but you didn't install DOS then 95.
I've been running corporate versions of Windows XP for years -- never once had to activate anything.
Early versions of XP didn't require activation. I'm not sure but I think starting with Service Pack 1 XP required Activation. Now business or multi-user versions didn't require it either. But if you picked up XP boxed in a store and installed it it would ask to be allowed to contact Microsoft servers to activate itself. If after, I believe a month, it wasn't allowed to contact MS servers or the user didn't call MS for a key XP would drop into a reduced functionality mode.
I even went into a Best Buy, years ago, and asked if a new PC with XP required activation and I was told yes. The person I asked said Best Buy could set everything up there at purchase, for free.
I am sure that you or I could get it up and running in less than 30 minutes doing pretty much whatever we need it to.
Thanks for the confidence but I know Windows, and now OS X, more but there's plenty I'm not knowledgeable about with either one.
What about all the non-technical people? For them doing anything other than inserting an install CD, waiting for Auto-Play to start the installation wizard, is probably pretty difficult.
I agree however Linux is getting easier and easier to install and use software. A big problem is buying that game or productivity disk at the store. I haven't seen many stores, even chain stores, that carry much Mac software either. Many people's perception is that Microsoft is the software universe.
As for installing software in Linux, earlier I posted ClickNRun. With the client software installed, though not available for all Linux distros, all it takes to install software is access to that site and a click. Say Opera, just click on the Install button. CNR will download and install Opera. It's just as easy to uninstall software.
Given all that I can only conclude that IBM is not really targeting the whole market but a small portion of it. The poster I replied to stated this was a way to shut Microsoft out the market completely, and I just don't see how it would have that effect.
I totally agree. I've seen different theories why IBM is teaming with Ubuntu, but most are wrong. One poster said it was to sell hardware, but IBM sold the PC hardware part to a Chinese company, Levono. IBM is moving away from hardware to become a services business, they've been working on that for years. Company X wants a computer system, IBM will analyze their needs and put together a system, hardware AND software. Another company needs software to do X and IBM will put a package together.
Slashdot Mirror
In 1993-1995 I recall using (at work) a fairly early, pre-Office version of the Word. It had the fountain pen on the splash screen. I don't remember exactly what was the release name, but I suspect it was Word 6.0 (1993.) It worked quite well. This is why it pushed competing products (WordPerfect, AmiPro etc.) out of the way
Did Word push compeating product out because it was better or because it came bundled with PCs? I bet it's the later. Many people buying computers want it to come with software such as an office suite bundled, they don't want to buy software separately then install it. The exceptions would be specialized software and games. But the only suite most OEMs will offer bundled is MS Office. Actually I bet if I look the only suite the major OEMs will bundle with Windows PCs is MS Office.
MS WordPad
On Windows I preferred TextPad. Then again within it I could compile and run Java programs, preview html, PERL, and other things. With WordPad the commandline or another program was needed.
StarOffice (which I tried) was a strange thing. On one hand, it had excellent functionality that Word never had to begin with. On the other hand, it was too complex for most users. Add a few bugs, and the recipe for disaster is ready.
What I hated, yes hated, about StarOffice was it took over the whole desktop. I tried it then went back to Word 97. After Open Office replaced it I waited a few months before trying it, and it did what I wanted without getting in the way.
You see why MS Word, being priced at a few hundred dollars, quickly appeared to be a great solution to our problems?
WordPerfect didn't have those problems, and for a while it was the most widely used office suite.
Falcon
Ubuntu is nowhere near ready for prime time
Ubuntu is already being used by businesses.
Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu's forums before you try and tell me it is stable.
Because I plan on installing Ubuntu on my Mac I have spent more than 100 hours in the the Ubuntu forums, photo.net, and elsewhere. In all this tyme I haven't run into any complaints about Ubuntu not being stable. I have however run into incompatibilities, and the fixes for them. Then again maybe it's just because of what I'm looking for, how to install Ubuntu on my Mac. I've been researching how to before I do it so I can make a plan which includes any problems that may come up.
Instead of Windows, they went with OS/2, which bombed, at least in mainstream terms.
It wasn't IBM's bomb. IBM and MS was working on OS/2 together when MS pulled out and did Windows instead.
Ubuntu is the proverbial dog with fleas, of Linux distributions.
Then why has Ubuntu been the most popular Linux distro this past year? Of course that link is just for those who visit Distro Watch. Starry Hope asks Ubuntu: Still Popular? Using metrics from various sites it concludes Ubuntu is still popular.
Falcon
I find it interesting that these stories never seem to talk about the cost of retraining in that switch from Windows to Linux in the work place.
I find it interesting that people talk about the cost of retraining when switching from Windows to OS X or Linux yet don't talk about the cost of retraining after upgrading Windows.
Anyone who thinks the Microsoft license and the cost of the hardware are the only expenses has no business being a decision-maker in their company's IT.
Exactly, like vendor lock-in and proprietary formats.
Falcon
MS is anti-Linux otherwise they'd shut up and stop spreading FUD. If they were pro Linux MS would release Office for Linux.
Falcon
1. Executives should ALWAYS be last in line for any forced migration like that... The right way to do it is:
...
...
B - staged rollout, starting with bottom teir employees in batches, gradually progressing up the organizational chart.
So obviously the accounting department would be transitioned first
You, and most others may not think of the accounting department as being important but they are vary important, and they should not be the testers of new systems.
Falcon
Calc is the Hyundai of spreadsheets. Works fine for ma and pa, but it sucks for anything significantly complicated.
As someone above posted, if you have to do complicated spreadsheets why not use Mathematica or Matlab? Financial calculations can be pretty complicated yet with a quick Google I found this: Documentation/How Tos/Calc: Derivation of Financial Formulas.
Falcon
paragraphs would jump from one page to another; three ways to anchor an image, all wrong; table of contents is way too complex and not matching the pagination of the hour. I'm sure there were other issues also. That was pre-2.x OpenOffice, something like 1.4.x,
And early production versions of MS Office worked perfectly? Or are you using a double standard?
But reliability-wise MS Office is probably still better.
The MS product I have used that was the most reliable was Windows NT4 Workstation, which I still have. However because it's installed on a PC with a DEC Alpha CPU I haven't used it much. It is the only version of Windows that has not crashed on me, and that includes XP. Heck the first tyme I used XP the PC froze while booting up.
As for Open Office, well the native Mac version, NeoOffice, I have had only one problem. When I downloaded a Word 2007 document NeoOffice could not open it. I mentioned that to someone else and they said to upgrade it, so I did. After the upgrade I had no problem opening the Word document.
FYI, you can double-blockquote (if that's what I understand the bold to be);
I and others have been using bold and italic for ages. I started using them after seeing others on Slashdot use them and I see no reason to change.
Falcon
You aren't making any sense. Yes the Windows licence is more than Ubuntu, but not $2,000 more. What on earth are you actually trying to say?
In your post I replied to you included costs for Ubuntu but not Windows. If that does not make sense to you then I don't know what does. And the cost of a Windows license isn't the total cost of upgrading to Windows 7. Besides the license for it there's the license for MS Office, if you're not using Office then why do you need to stay with Windows? Uhm, let's see which 2007 Office suite is right for you, there are 5 versions. The cheapest is Home and Student for $150. An upgrade to the next version, Standard, costs $239.95 and Ultimate costs $539.95. Then there's the cost of re-training as well as lost productivity. An upgrade to Windows 7 can easily cost $2000.
But you and Windows fanbois, I don't know if you're one or not, refuse to acknowledge those costs. If you're going to spend that much and you don't really need Windows 7, why not replace Windows with Ubuntu? The only reason to stay with Windows for most shops is because of inertia or staying with what familiar. However if a business isn't willing or able to adapt then how are they going to stay in business?
Falcon
I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $2000. Because I'm pretty sure that out of the 150k people that I work with that 3/4 of them will take months to adjust to Linux and be completely pissed off the entire time. At an internal rate of $100-$150 per person per hour... uh... lol, right.
And upgrading to Window 7 will not have any of those costs?
This is what most of the company uses: Outlook, Word, Excel, Powerpoint. Project. File shares. Blackberry/Phone. Online web conferences. PDF. That's about it.
Almost all of the task these programs do Ubuntu has the software that can do it as well. Outlook? Even when I used Windows I used Eudora then switched to Thunderbird, which I also use on my Linux PC and Mac. Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and Project? I'm not sure about Project but Open Office, which I also used with Windows, does the rest of these.
And don't give me crap about open office solutions. It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office, you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything?
And users don't have to go through crap when Office is upgraded? BS!
Falcon
prefer it
Citation needed.
I bet people stay with Windows because they don't know of an alternative, they think they need it, or because they would rather work with the devil they know than the one they don't know. People ask what Linux is. Or if Macs can run Windows, asked why they need Windows and they can't give an answer other than "because my software needs it". Ask them what they want to do, specific tasks not applications and if they don't stammer or hum you might get write. There are word processors that let you do that on Linux and Macs in OS X. They need a spread sheet to do calculations, same there. The same applies to everything MS Office does. The London Stock Exchange Rejects .NET For Open Source. For every proprietary app that runs only in Windows, except in-house software, I bet there's software available that can do it on Linux and or OS X.
Falcon
If you need to spend $2k doing an install on W7 then surely you'd need to spend the same installing Ubuntu?
Windows requires a license to be paid for on each installation, Ubuntu is a free download and can be installed on as many PCs as you want. Even if a Windows 7 license cost only $50, for a volume business license, in an installation on 1000 PCs that's $50,000. And what of individual Win7 upgrades? If I recall right the cheapest upgrade version of Vista was $200, let's see what it is now... Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate with SP2 (32bit) cost $100. Uhm, this is interesting. If you have qualifying purchase of Windows Vista Home Premium, Business or Ultimate that is bought a Vista "retail packaged product between June 26, 2009 and January 31, 2010" you can order the Windows 7 upgrade for $10, the price of shipping and handling.
Or does that just install itself and re-train the users automagically?
Gee the Windows 7 installs itself and retrains users automagically.
Falcon
On an interesting side note, I wonder if they calculated all the man hours and reworking of customized code that most shops would have to put in to go from a Microsoft shop to all Linux
And upgrading Windows doesn't have those costs? Then why did a bunch of people complain their XP software would not run on Vista? Why are businesses still using, and why did MS extend service for, XP? MS even released XP for netbooks.
All upgrades as well as switches have costs.
Falcon
That's not exactly true. The economic development argument states that the presence of a streetcar line increases foot traffic in that area, which tends to increase the customer base for local businesses.
But it reduces foot traffic in other areas, or are you saying there is more foot traffic everywhere?
By making transportation easier (via infrastructure improvements) the government allows commerce to flow more quickly and cheaply, increasing economic activity by reducing transaction costs.
Actually economic activity is increased by allowing trade between the different areas. No one area can produce everything residents in the area may need or want. Take oranges, oranges grown in California or Florida can be shipped all over the country, to where oranges will not grow. Georgia peaches are also shipped all over the country. The same with other produce. Or take copper, Arizona is a major producer of copper in the US. Without trade between different regions and states some states would lack some supplies. The same applies internationally.
Falcon
So you think you should benefit from others work but not share yourself?
Sure those licenses let you but it seems rather hypocritical.
If those other programmers didn't like it they didn't have to use the license they chose to use. The fact that they did use the license means they have no problem with others closing their own code. Why does it bother you when it doesn't bother the programmer who's code is being used?
Falcon
Besides if you clearly believe it would not harm you, as you suggest "it's done and you don't keep mucking with it besides fixing any major bugs", then why not open source it?
Why not open it? To prevent others from taking your software and giving it away. Programmers have to eat too. It's one thing if you can get a big business to pay you for programming, but not everyone can, or wants to be (run) a software business themselves. I want to start a photography business, but I can't afford the thousands of dollars pro photo software costs. Since I know programming (not well but I'll learn) I can take the source code of software and program it to do what I want, however if I'm going to spent that much tyme programming I'd like to be able to sell the software, and BSD licenses allow programmers to close their own code. If my source is open there's nothing I can do to prevent others from giving it away, which negates the reason to sell it. However if I can close my source, not the source I started with but my own, I can prevent others from selling or giving it away too. The person or people who's code I used had the same choice, to close or open their code and they choice to open it.
Falcon
So other people's software is about your benefits and your own software is about your benefits? Hmm.
They had the same choice, to close or open their source. Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to open it.
Falcon
So you think you should benefit from others work but not share yourself?
Those other programmers had the same choice, if they didn't want to they did not have to release their code. Like GP I want to use a BSD license. I am hoping to start working as as photographer/developer, mostly do photography but also some programing and web development. Those so I can sell online. However if I'm going to spend much tyme programming then I'd like to be able to sell my software to other photographers as well, a second income source. And because I want to be a photographer, I want to be able to sell my software and not offer software services. So I want to be able to close my source.
Falcon
I'll have you know that using a strawman argument can be used to make a valid argument, which I did.
But you didn't. You can still move around in an elevator. But when your seatbelt gets jammed while wearing it you are not free to move much if at all. At least in an elevator you're not strapped down so that if the doors opens you can jump out. Wasn't there something in the news recently about a couple of kids being trapped in a burning car and how some bystanders rushed to save them got burnt too? Here, I think this might be it, Off-duty firefighters, bystanders rescue woman, 2 children from burning SUV in Milwaukee. Ah here we go, "John Rechlitz reached in again but couldn't find the seat belt release; someone gave him a knife to cut the car seat's restraints."
Falcon
The only problem with Ubuntu is that it needs more testing and validation before each release cycle. I've had basic functionality break between releases and this will not be acceptable for business use.
And of course Microsoft never had any problems with upgrades. Ubuntu has had plenty of testing and validation, Hardy Heron is more than 2 year old. For upgrades it's always a good idea to have a test bed, a PC that can be upgraded and tested without affecting other systems. It's wise for even those businesses upgrading Windows.
Falcon
As Linux geek myself, this doesn't justify going with Windows in my mind, but to a business, its all about reliability and support.
Unfortunately it isn't all about reliability, otherwise Microsoft would not have lasted as long as it has. It is well known MS products have had problems with reliability. Personally, I've used versions of Windows from 3.x to XP and the only one I found that was reliable was NT4 Workstation. Heck the first tyme I used XP the brand new Dell it was installed on froze while booting up. Vista is supposedly a lot more reliable, but it is demanding of hardware. Many of the supposedly "Vista Ready" PCs in the months before Vista was released were anything but Vista ready. Then the software wasn't ready for Vista either. There were a number of horror stories about new software that ran fine on XP just would not run on Vista.
On the other hand, I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro which came with Tiger, 10.4. I'm running Leopard on it now and am getting ready to upgrade to Snow Leopard. Of the software I got that ran on Tiger I only need to upgrade one, my anti-virus software.
Try to convince your CTO or CEO to go with a Linux desktop and lock it down using open source tools and hire expensive and expert Linux Admins
That's an MS straw man. Windows admins are expensive too, according to indeed a Windows administrator salary is $75,000 whereas a mac administrator's salary is $61,000. That was just a quick google, there may be different results if more tyme is spent looking.
But if you have an issue with the Windows GUI, call up one of those many Vendors who sell lock down software or call up Microsoft. And for $100 a ticket or whatever they charge, they will be happy to tell you how to piss off your employees even more when they have to call IT in order to change their classpath for Java on their machine, because that tab in the system properties gives an "Inaccessible, Please Contact Your System Admin" when you click on it...
Ergo Windows is expensive. What was really expensive for me was constantly having my Windows PCs crashing, having to replace hardware (admittedly not MS's fault), and having to reinstall Windows and my software. Switching saved me a lot, of tyme, money, and frustration.
Falcon
I don't know how it is now, but I checked into a Dell netbook with Ubuntu pre-installed. It costs the same as getting a Windows license with the machine.
That's BS! Not what you say but Dell selling netbooks with Ubuntu for the same price as netbooks with Windows. With the same configurations, maybe there's a difference in them, the Ubuntu netbook should be cheaper. Wait,... Dell shows mini netbooks, what's that?, with Windows XP Home Edition or Ubuntu Linux for the same price. Now if XP doesn't require Activation, I'd get one with XP. Actually I'd try to get both.
On another page though Dell shows a netbook with either Ubuntu or XP or Vista. With Ubuntu installed it's $30 cheaper.
Falcon
*nix is a ground up built for multiple users, Windows has been built in the opposite direction.
There is no such thing as just "Windows", historically. There was Win9x, which grew out of DOS, and was really a single-user OS; and then there was WinNT, which was designed from scratch but under heavy influence from VMS, and which was built for multiple users just like Unix was.
Win9x grew out of DOS only after Windows versions before it, Windows 1, ... 3.x. Windows 95 was the first version that did not need to be installed on top of DOS. Sure DOS was still there but you didn't install DOS then 95.
Falcon
I've been running corporate versions of Windows XP for years -- never once had to activate anything.
Early versions of XP didn't require activation. I'm not sure but I think starting with Service Pack 1 XP required Activation. Now business or multi-user versions didn't require it either. But if you picked up XP boxed in a store and installed it it would ask to be allowed to contact Microsoft servers to activate itself. If after, I believe a month, it wasn't allowed to contact MS servers or the user didn't call MS for a key XP would drop into a reduced functionality mode.
I even went into a Best Buy, years ago, and asked if a new PC with XP required activation and I was told yes. The person I asked said Best Buy could set everything up there at purchase, for free.
Falcon
As do all OSes and other software.
I am sure that you or I could get it up and running in less than 30 minutes doing pretty much whatever we need it to.
Thanks for the confidence but I know Windows, and now OS X, more but there's plenty I'm not knowledgeable about with either one.
What about all the non-technical people? For them doing anything other than inserting an install CD, waiting for Auto-Play to start the installation wizard, is probably pretty difficult.
I agree however Linux is getting easier and easier to install and use software. A big problem is buying that game or productivity disk at the store. I haven't seen many stores, even chain stores, that carry much Mac software either. Many people's perception is that Microsoft is the software universe.
As for installing software in Linux, earlier I posted ClickNRun. With the client software installed, though not available for all Linux distros, all it takes to install software is access to that site and a click. Say Opera, just click on the Install button. CNR will download and install Opera. It's just as easy to uninstall software.
Given all that I can only conclude that IBM is not really targeting the whole market but a small portion of it. The poster I replied to stated this was a way to shut Microsoft out the market completely, and I just don't see how it would have that effect.
I totally agree. I've seen different theories why IBM is teaming with Ubuntu, but most are wrong. One poster said it was to sell hardware, but IBM sold the PC hardware part to a Chinese company, Levono. IBM is moving away from hardware to become a services business, they've been working on that for years. Company X wants a computer system, IBM will analyze their needs and put together a system, hardware AND software. Another company needs software to do X and IBM will put a package together.
Falcon