That's a good MS promoter!
If it doesn't run on Windows, it's Jerry-rigged, and pushing companies to write cross-platform software would just be pushy.
Here's a little-known-fact about linux: Many major software manufacturers write software that runs on linux. The ones that don't, are doing it based on marketing strategies. If the market changed, so would their coding practices. As a business owner, I do not have the type of money to back up a Microsoft platform, and I also cannot justify using the software due to quality and corporate tie-ins. When I'm bigger, maybe I'll dig myself a hole and dive in head first (Microsoft said they already have it started for me whenever I feel like jumping).
Honestly, if Adobe made their software for Linux, then I would guess at least another 29 million people would switch over to linux. I just love how software like Blender 3d, Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org, Zend Studio, Star Office, MySQL, Oracle, Apache, PHP, and many many others all work on Windows and Linux, and oftentimes MacOSX, but lazy companies like Adobe/Macromedia, Autodesk, and most gaming companies choose to single out one or two platforms to target simply because of marketing strategies.
Microsoft has chosen time and time again to refuse to implement global standards simply because they want to lock people into using their software. Your post proves that their marketing strategy works.
Also keep in mind that hardware working with the operating system says more about the hardware manufacturers than the operating system. Microsoft has been known to strongarm hardware manufacturers to not create linux drivers, and many hardware manufacturers are just too lazy to work with the linux community.
So while Linux, being about half the age of windows, is still lacking in a few areas, it is still more stable and provides enough features for me to use. I still keep a windows box around at work for troubleshooting other users' microsoft office problems, and for running the Adobe Creative Suite, but you can bet I'll be formating every windows box I own as soon as Adobe releases Linux binaries. (considering how closely related OSX and Linux are, I still don't understand why they don't make a linux port)
In short, if industries really did shift to linux, companies that write software wouldn't hesitate to change as well. It is our fear of something different that keeps us on Windows, and keeps software developers from writing linux code, resulting in jerry-rigged solutions like Firefox, Thunderbird, PHP, Apache, Oracle Enterprise server, and others. (note the sarcasm)
Maybe, maybe not. It's nice to see a proposed release month, which was not mentioned in the other article. This was a welcome and informative headline in my RSS reader.
...And just one month after I switched to PostGres for those features!
Actually, the sad thing is, when shifts in something as large as document file formats, the Government almost has to be a role model.
For the past 3 years I have been using OpenOffice.org, and I switched to version 2.0 as soon as the beta was released. Guess how much that impacted the way society, the society I am a member of, views documents? Not at all. But, when a government body offering documents to the public shifts to a different file format, people are forced to change. While this would normally seem bad, this change is in a positive direction. This change brings equality to the table. I cannot afford, nor would I purchase if I could afford, Microsoft Office. On top of that, it does not run on my Operating System. By switching to something that makes electronic documents available to everyone with a computer, we are bringing society one step closer to the government, making the government less of a tryant capable of offering us documents we are entitled to with a large $300 string attached.
Now that they have decided on OpenDocument, any user can use any software that supports it. This is one of the few cases the government being a role model for society is going to benefit everyone (except Microsoft). It will only be a matter of time before OpenDocument format is viewable with a simple browser plugin, and I wouldn't be surprised to see an AJAX powered OpenDocument editor pop up on the web soon either.
I am currently working to change my university to OpenDocument, so we can become a role model to our community. Imagine trying to fill out a form for Financial Aid, or to apply for a job, but having that form require a piece of software that you can't afford. I understand OOo can read.doc files, as can other office suites, but what happens when Microsoft finally gets their patent on their file formats and does not allow 3rd party companies to reverse engineer their filetype? I for one would rather tie myself to a standard offered and accepted to the global community that is freely available to anyone than to tie myself to a format that is offered by a single company that is notorious for suing its customers and requiring new software to view new versions of its documents.
If governmental role models are required to shift us from.doc to.odt, then I welcome it with open arms. But I think we miss the point to say the government is trying to be a role model here, I think they are doing the exact opposite. They have realized they were being a role model, and imposing restrictions on the use of documents that are public domain, and they are now cutting those strings, meaning it is up to us, the end user, to choose what software to use.
If your software doesn't support the new format, then that isn't the government's fault, that is the software manufacturer's fault. Every developer is free to use the OpenDocument standard, including Microsoft. So why don't we yell at Microsoft for trying to be a role model instead?
After trying gentoo, slackware, debian, mandrake/mandriva, and suse, I finally tried out Ubuntu. While most of my systems dual booted windows and linux, my new laptop boots only Ubuntu, because it has all the features of debian, but a friendly user community and a desktop/marketing strategy geared towards the end user. (that's me... not a kernel hacker, not a C developer fluent in perl, an end user trying to check his mail)
And along the same lines of other users, things just work (for the most part).
I am downloading 5.10 now, but I'm running 5.04 on my wide-screen laptop with fully functioning wireless networking, sound, touchpad, and 1280x800 screen resolution. (Wireless involved installing a proprietary driver, but that was freely available from the manufacturer's website.) Another interesting note is that under 64-bit windows XP I could never get sound to work, even after trying various 64-bit drivers from the manufacturer. Yet 64-bit Ubuntu was able to use the sound card right out of the box!
I would also like to mention that for $100 I can submit up to 10 incedents within a year and have them solve the issue for me. I have never had to use the support, but they do offer it, and much cheaper than what our existing operating systems at my work charge. (we pay around $150 per issue on our windows network)
By creating a web-based office suite, or even just a web based document creator for that matter, would give companies no excuse for purchasing $400 office software for each of their employees to be able to write memos.
Right now IT departments everywhere loathe the idea of switching to a free/cheap office suite such as openoffice.org/StarOffice. This is probably because it is never fun to install office software on hundreds of computers. Training is also an issue, but given 10 minutes, I'm sure the least technical secretary could switch from Word to OpenOffice.org's Writer.
Imagine if not a single piece of software needed to be installed and everyone with internet access could create, modify and view a standard document format. It sounds like the type of thing needed to break consumers of their habit of purchasing expensive software to accomplish simple tasks.
I understand lazy developers may still want to use Microsoft Office for their VBA capabilities, but the average user has no need for such an extensive software package simply to write memos, reports, and papers.
Fortunately, google doesn't have to do this, anyone willing to put forth the effort and bandwidth is free to do this, since the OpenDocument format is well documented, free to use, and non-proprietary.
It appears as though the author of the article feels that microsoft has invested much in creating a very wide, broad reaching network of products, file formats, and hardware that makes an overall seamless work environment for MSCE IT departments to play in.
The only problem is, Microsoft products Only work with Microsoft products. Whereas the Open Source community chooses to use more global standards. What should I bring up? OpenDocument beating out Microsoft XML format, the fact that Microsoft still doesn't adhere to W3C standards? Or maybe the fact that the goal of the Open Source community is for everything to talk with everything, whereas Microsoft's goal is for Microsoft Products to talk with Microsoft Products.
That's not innovation, that's pigeon-holing your customers into using your product, and your product alone.
Funny enough, my Mozilla Browser has yet to have a problem displaying a web page just because it is on a Linux or Windows server. Brand consistency is only important when you are being narrow minded and working without standards. Maybe if Microsoft adopted more of an open source mentality about things, they could be even more far reaching, but I think that will be something Microsoft will never be able to do to catch up with the Open Source Community.
I think you said "they care about price and if it does the job" when you meant to say "they care how to most easily conform to current trends in software, reguardless of price."
I use openoffice.org 2 (beta, I know), and while I felt MS Office was better than the first openoffice.org, I think version 2 does just as much as Office XP (which is what my wife uses at home).
When it comes to typing up documents, making graphs, spreadsheets, etc. There are probably at least 50 products that "do the job" for much cheaper than Microsoft's tools. There are probably 3 or 4 that could easily replace MS Office with little or no training. So that's why articles like this point less towards the downsides (or updsides) of Open Source development, and more towards the dangerous line Microsoft is walking, where on their left is a cliff they could easily fall off of due to the other products on the market, but on their right is the amount of FUD, Marketing, proprietary tie-ins, and momentum which currently keep them afloat.
Honestly, this type of news should spawn discussion that leads to people realizing that there are open document standards out there, and microsoft does not conform to them, and have no intention of doing so. Open Source isn't the best, but Open Standards are.
Re:Stop giving them money
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I used to listen to a band called Pillar that posted every single song in full length as MP3 on their website.
Now that they signed with a RIAA label, all of their MP3's were taken down. I still like the band, but I just listen to them on the radio and live now.
Boycotting isn't the solution though, that's like the hippies that hold posters to protest petrolium use in the United States. Why do that when you can start a company that provides an alternative?
What we need is a GNULabel, something that allows the GNU community (which would be increased to include music fans, not just linux fans) to help with advertising and promoting bands. Artwork for posters could be cheap, if not free, and as much money as possible would go to the artists, with a little saved for GNULabel to start producing other bands. But not enough for anyone to get rich, because it should be about good music, not getting rich.
And let me correct myself, I do not mean to start a label, but an association of labels geared towards producing bands that want to make more money, while spreading their music further at the same time. (and yes, we would still charge a decent amount for radio play, TV, and movie spots.)
Someone already took an open source operating system and slapped a pretty GUI on it, that was Apple. But I agree, google might do the one thing Apple has left to do: be hardware independent.
I don't know about a Google OS, but I wouldn't be surprised if Google replaced all of our day-to-day software with complex AJAX sites, making us not need anything else, other than a browser and possibly a hard drive to save sensitive information. (everything else will probably be on Google's server, making it even easier to publish stuff you want to go public with)
The opportunity Google has with this, is you can have an entire workstation that is not only hardware independent, but Operating System independent as well. I can check gmail just fine in linux, windows, and MacOSX and have the same experience on all 3. Why not do something similar to that for all desktop applications?
The problem with traditionally high costs, is that means you can probably find someone else that offers cheaper support.
Take Ubuntu's support for example. For $100 USD I can make 10 online requests for help for one year, or I can pay $250/year for up to 25 support requests, which includes phone support as well.
My university uses Mulberry, and the individuals in the office often ask where the mulberry icon is (we then show them how to use the start bar, and they can usually manage from there).
Because my university refuses to see the ignorance in requiring an advanced program to be used by non-technical individuals, I am glad that we will finally be forced to stop using the product. I said, and I meant, that I am sad they going out of business. I do wish them the best, and they do seem to be good coders. I am just happy to never have to support that program again. This will mean 25% of my time each week will be freed up.
I personally am happy to accept the 2 second difference between mulberry and thunderbird simply because thunderbird works well for me and doesn't require reading a manual just to send an email. I have worked at a fortune 100 company that used Microsoft's Mail Server and clients and they worked well, quickly, and efficiently. But, I have also worked at other companies that just used open source alternatives for server and clients (and with more employees!) and it worked just as well. So I don't see the big deal about making a bigger and better wheel when all they do is roll.
So in the end, I do not wish anyone to die, I wish cyrusoft to come out of this alive and well in the end, and for my university to stop using their product. I do not mind what an individual chooses to use, but when a company decides to use a product and there are over 3,000 employees (most of which don't have computers at home), they should think before using advanced software to do something simple.
For that matter, software manufacturers should think before making advanced software to do something simple, especially when their target audience seems to be large corporations.
As a technical support individual who has supported this piece of software to only 75 individuals, all I can say is: WooHoo! (homer style)
The guys were very imaginative, bright, and wrote good code, but the human interface of this seems to be geared towards Computer Science and Engineering majors. Mulberry was one of those amazing IMAP clients that could do everything. No really, everything.
The downside, is it is email, I don't want it to do everything, I just want it to send and receive email, perhaps with a simple filter feature as well.
Since our network administrator left, I have been using Thunderbird, and while the actual typing and sending of mail is slower, receiving mail is far more responsive than ever. Plus there aren't over 299,792,458 options to possibly go wrong, preventing each of my 75 users from getting their mail for roughly 3,997,232 different reasons each.
Goodbye to a well written horrible program. I wish the guys the best of luck, but I'll be glad to never support that product again.
Now, for the cake and ice cream!
Seriously though... *chew chew* the guys who wrote it did well on the software *chew chew* but it was far too complicated for its own good. (good cake, btw)
I think this depends on the companies. Consider the number of large corporations already using open source software for primary functions. (I'm thinking not even Linux servers, but any servers running Apache, PHP, MySQL or PostgreSQL, Python, etc.)
I work at a major university, and we have different departments with different operating systems, primarily Windows, OSX, and *nix, while MS Office comes in Windows and OSXish versions, Star Office and OpenOffice.org provide a much wider range of cross-platform operability. Being on a Novell network, I have been trying to switch a few users to the Novell Linux Desktop, but MS Office is the only thing holding them back. If I were to install OpenOffice.org 2.0 (when it comes out) or StarOffice, I think the change would be much more welcome. StarOffice, and it's codebase OpenOffice are both far more advanced than any open source, free, or even cheap office suite has ever been.
I would not have made this argument last year, as OpenOffice.org was still in its infancy, but it has come a long way, and most of the problems my users have today, would be solved by the simplicity and logic of OpenOffice.org. As soon as more developers tweak the database portion a little more, I think we'll have no trouble at all switching over. Surprisingly, this is a new erra for non-MS software, and StarOffice is really on the ball. I wouldn't be surprised if this suite caught on, especially for the home user, but also eventually (maybe a version or two down the road) to the enterprise IT department.
Kind of like Thunderbird has been for the past year, not to mention Mozilla Calendar, and even Google's Gmail/Google Mail. All of which run happily on windows/linux/bsd/OSX. Apparently being closed-sourced, closed-minded, and budget-driven hasn't had the positive end-user impact that the GNU-ish communities have had on things.
I hate to say it, but by keeping things closed-source, yahoo and even google risk turning into smaller, more open minded microsofts, which wouldn't neccessarily be a bad thing, but still not as good as they could be.
But, more importantly, this whole online application scenario is a real threat, and will continue to be one as long as Microsoft considers being a member of the end-user community a threat. As soon as they loose customers and gain users, they feel they've lost, when really they haven't. It's all a matter of perspective, and this just shows the perspective Microsoft has on it's end-users, and it is represented more in sales and market shares than it is in customer satisfaction.
From an end user perspective, when using debian, I just go to the "add remove" programs (synaptic), and choose what I want to install, then install it. (notice I didn't say download, find where I downloaded it, double-click it, follow the installation guide, and hope it didn't install spyware)
If a product isn't offered there, I can usually download a platform-independent installer. You are confusing the flexibility of linux with chaos.
Besides, it's all the same stuff anyway. Most linux apps aren't perfect, neither are Microsoft apps, the funny part is, I don't pay for most of my software, and it gets fixed quicker. I hated linux in the past because of the FUD effect, but now that I've given it a chance, I've learned it is easier to use and maintain. The reason Windows will "win" is marketing, momentum, and the fact that they don't make horrible software. (the just don't make great software either, but marketing covers that nicely)
I'm curious how they are going to make profit off of a free browser... (maybe the same way open source products make profit?) The only difference would be allowing users to have ownership of the product.
But, unfortunately I haven't had a life-changing experience by using opera just yet, so I don't see the big deal.
I for one, like my source code open, and if an open source product is available, I use it over its closed source equivalent, especially if there isn't a cut-and-dry one is better than the other.
Unless I'm thinking of the wrong acid test, FF 1.0.6 still doesn't spit out the smiling face at WaSP's acid 2 test, so it can't say much, but then again, ever try to load the acid2 test in IE? horrible.
I just want to be able to use the same CSS file for IE as I do for Firefox, and have it be standards compliant. Oh well, good thing I don't care about how my sites look in IE, but it is nice that they are trying to be compliant!
Actually, I used to love IE, until I started researching web standards. Primarily, the CSS box model. Now that I'm into using the DOM with CSS and javascript, I'm even more IE opposed.
If IE7 cut activex support, adhered to w3c based standards, and used normal javascript instead of the microsoft version, then I would happily use it. The fact that firefox does this, AND has extensions, AND has the DOM inspector, and more, that makes me ask why go back to IE?
I've even read IE7 won't adhere to W3C standards, because microsoft doesn't like the standards. Great, now I get to develop and design websites, then spend twice as long getting it to work in IE.
If only microsoft didn't insist on creating their own standards, maybe I wouldn't be so against purchasing their software. Glad it's finally having an impact on them, even if it is only in the media realm.
This 16TB paging-file has been holding me back, 512TB here I come!
Now, how many of us are running Windows XP on a system with 16TB lying around for paging-files much less 512? Isn't that type of system reserved for *real* server software?
(I use XP at home and love it, and will probably buy XP64 for my laptop next week, but all my servers are belong to *nix!)
Aside from the fact that demand begets supply, let's also take into consideration the human logic processes. If I see that every time I drop a ball, it falls to the ground, I'm going to assume it is natural for things to fall to the ground when dropped.
If a straight person watches tons of gay porn, they will decide being gay is okay, and watching/creating gay porn is okay. (whether it is or isn't is a theological debate that doesn't belong here.)
If a "normal" person watches child porn, they will more than likely decide child porn is okay. (wether it is conscious or subconscious is another story)
If it means I'm getting a better product in the end, I'm game. I still use winamp 5... Besides, from what I've noticed, I prefer Firefox 1.0 anyway, so the numbering system is a moot point anyway for me. (I'm sure there's tons of things I don't notice that are better, which is why I stick with 1.0.1 though)
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good MS promoter!
If it doesn't run on Windows, it's Jerry-rigged, and pushing companies to write cross-platform software would just be pushy.
Here's a little-known-fact about linux: Many major software manufacturers write software that runs on linux. The ones that don't, are doing it based on marketing strategies. If the market changed, so would their coding practices. As a business owner, I do not have the type of money to back up a Microsoft platform, and I also cannot justify using the software due to quality and corporate tie-ins. When I'm bigger, maybe I'll dig myself a hole and dive in head first (Microsoft said they already have it started for me whenever I feel like jumping).
Honestly, if Adobe made their software for Linux, then I would guess at least another 29 million people would switch over to linux. I just love how software like Blender 3d, Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org, Zend Studio, Star Office, MySQL, Oracle, Apache, PHP, and many many others all work on Windows and Linux, and oftentimes MacOSX, but lazy companies like Adobe/Macromedia, Autodesk, and most gaming companies choose to single out one or two platforms to target simply because of marketing strategies.
Microsoft has chosen time and time again to refuse to implement global standards simply because they want to lock people into using their software. Your post proves that their marketing strategy works.
Also keep in mind that hardware working with the operating system says more about the hardware manufacturers than the operating system. Microsoft has been known to strongarm hardware manufacturers to not create linux drivers, and many hardware manufacturers are just too lazy to work with the linux community.
So while Linux, being about half the age of windows, is still lacking in a few areas, it is still more stable and provides enough features for me to use. I still keep a windows box around at work for troubleshooting other users' microsoft office problems, and for running the Adobe Creative Suite, but you can bet I'll be formating every windows box I own as soon as Adobe releases Linux binaries. (considering how closely related OSX and Linux are, I still don't understand why they don't make a linux port)
In short, if industries really did shift to linux, companies that write software wouldn't hesitate to change as well. It is our fear of something different that keeps us on Windows, and keeps software developers from writing linux code, resulting in jerry-rigged solutions like Firefox, Thunderbird, PHP, Apache, Oracle Enterprise server, and others. (note the sarcasm)
Maybe, maybe not. It's nice to see a proposed release month, which was not mentioned in the other article. This was a welcome and informative headline in my RSS reader.
...And just one month after I switched to PostGres for those features!
Actually, the sad thing is, when shifts in something as large as document file formats, the Government almost has to be a role model.
For the past 3 years I have been using OpenOffice.org, and I switched to version 2.0 as soon as the beta was released. Guess how much that impacted the way society, the society I am a member of, views documents? Not at all. But, when a government body offering documents to the public shifts to a different file format, people are forced to change. While this would normally seem bad, this change is in a positive direction. This change brings equality to the table. I cannot afford, nor would I purchase if I could afford, Microsoft Office. On top of that, it does not run on my Operating System. By switching to something that makes electronic documents available to everyone with a computer, we are bringing society one step closer to the government, making the government less of a tryant capable of offering us documents we are entitled to with a large $300 string attached.
Now that they have decided on OpenDocument, any user can use any software that supports it. This is one of the few cases the government being a role model for society is going to benefit everyone (except Microsoft). It will only be a matter of time before OpenDocument format is viewable with a simple browser plugin, and I wouldn't be surprised to see an AJAX powered OpenDocument editor pop up on the web soon either.
I am currently working to change my university to OpenDocument, so we can become a role model to our community. Imagine trying to fill out a form for Financial Aid, or to apply for a job, but having that form require a piece of software that you can't afford. I understand OOo can read .doc files, as can other office suites, but what happens when Microsoft finally gets their patent on their file formats and does not allow 3rd party companies to reverse engineer their filetype? I for one would rather tie myself to a standard offered and accepted to the global community that is freely available to anyone than to tie myself to a format that is offered by a single company that is notorious for suing its customers and requiring new software to view new versions of its documents.
If governmental role models are required to shift us from .doc to .odt, then I welcome it with open arms. But I think we miss the point to say the government is trying to be a role model here, I think they are doing the exact opposite. They have realized they were being a role model, and imposing restrictions on the use of documents that are public domain, and they are now cutting those strings, meaning it is up to us, the end user, to choose what software to use.
If your software doesn't support the new format, then that isn't the government's fault, that is the software manufacturer's fault. Every developer is free to use the OpenDocument standard, including Microsoft. So why don't we yell at Microsoft for trying to be a role model instead?
After trying gentoo, slackware, debian, mandrake/mandriva, and suse, I finally tried out Ubuntu. While most of my systems dual booted windows and linux, my new laptop boots only Ubuntu, because it has all the features of debian, but a friendly user community and a desktop/marketing strategy geared towards the end user. (that's me... not a kernel hacker, not a C developer fluent in perl, an end user trying to check his mail)
And along the same lines of other users, things just work (for the most part).
I am downloading 5.10 now, but I'm running 5.04 on my wide-screen laptop with fully functioning wireless networking, sound, touchpad, and 1280x800 screen resolution. (Wireless involved installing a proprietary driver, but that was freely available from the manufacturer's website.) Another interesting note is that under 64-bit windows XP I could never get sound to work, even after trying various 64-bit drivers from the manufacturer. Yet 64-bit Ubuntu was able to use the sound card right out of the box!
I would also like to mention that for $100 I can submit up to 10 incedents within a year and have them solve the issue for me. I have never had to use the support, but they do offer it, and much cheaper than what our existing operating systems at my work charge. (we pay around $150 per issue on our windows network)
Plus, isn't that a cool and simple logo?
By creating a web-based office suite, or even just a web based document creator for that matter, would give companies no excuse for purchasing $400 office software for each of their employees to be able to write memos.
Right now IT departments everywhere loathe the idea of switching to a free/cheap office suite such as openoffice.org/StarOffice. This is probably because it is never fun to install office software on hundreds of computers. Training is also an issue, but given 10 minutes, I'm sure the least technical secretary could switch from Word to OpenOffice.org's Writer.
Imagine if not a single piece of software needed to be installed and everyone with internet access could create, modify and view a standard document format. It sounds like the type of thing needed to break consumers of their habit of purchasing expensive software to accomplish simple tasks.
I understand lazy developers may still want to use Microsoft Office for their VBA capabilities, but the average user has no need for such an extensive software package simply to write memos, reports, and papers.
Fortunately, google doesn't have to do this, anyone willing to put forth the effort and bandwidth is free to do this, since the OpenDocument format is well documented, free to use, and non-proprietary.
It appears as though the author of the article feels that microsoft has invested much in creating a very wide, broad reaching network of products, file formats, and hardware that makes an overall seamless work environment for MSCE IT departments to play in.
The only problem is, Microsoft products Only work with Microsoft products. Whereas the Open Source community chooses to use more global standards. What should I bring up? OpenDocument beating out Microsoft XML format, the fact that Microsoft still doesn't adhere to W3C standards? Or maybe the fact that the goal of the Open Source community is for everything to talk with everything, whereas Microsoft's goal is for Microsoft Products to talk with Microsoft Products.
That's not innovation, that's pigeon-holing your customers into using your product, and your product alone.
Funny enough, my Mozilla Browser has yet to have a problem displaying a web page just because it is on a Linux or Windows server. Brand consistency is only important when you are being narrow minded and working without standards. Maybe if Microsoft adopted more of an open source mentality about things, they could be even more far reaching, but I think that will be something Microsoft will never be able to do to catch up with the Open Source Community.
I think you said "they care about price and if it does the job" when you meant to say "they care how to most easily conform to current trends in software, reguardless of price."
I use openoffice.org 2 (beta, I know), and while I felt MS Office was better than the first openoffice.org, I think version 2 does just as much as Office XP (which is what my wife uses at home).
When it comes to typing up documents, making graphs, spreadsheets, etc. There are probably at least 50 products that "do the job" for much cheaper than Microsoft's tools. There are probably 3 or 4 that could easily replace MS Office with little or no training. So that's why articles like this point less towards the downsides (or updsides) of Open Source development, and more towards the dangerous line Microsoft is walking, where on their left is a cliff they could easily fall off of due to the other products on the market, but on their right is the amount of FUD, Marketing, proprietary tie-ins, and momentum which currently keep them afloat.
Honestly, this type of news should spawn discussion that leads to people realizing that there are open document standards out there, and microsoft does not conform to them, and have no intention of doing so. Open Source isn't the best, but Open Standards are.
I used to listen to a band called Pillar that posted every single song in full length as MP3 on their website.
Now that they signed with a RIAA label, all of their MP3's were taken down. I still like the band, but I just listen to them on the radio and live now.
Boycotting isn't the solution though, that's like the hippies that hold posters to protest petrolium use in the United States. Why do that when you can start a company that provides an alternative?
What we need is a GNULabel, something that allows the GNU community (which would be increased to include music fans, not just linux fans) to help with advertising and promoting bands. Artwork for posters could be cheap, if not free, and as much money as possible would go to the artists, with a little saved for GNULabel to start producing other bands. But not enough for anyone to get rich, because it should be about good music, not getting rich.
And let me correct myself, I do not mean to start a label, but an association of labels geared towards producing bands that want to make more money, while spreading their music further at the same time. (and yes, we would still charge a decent amount for radio play, TV, and movie spots.)
Someone already took an open source operating system and slapped a pretty GUI on it, that was Apple. But I agree, google might do the one thing Apple has left to do: be hardware independent.
I don't know about a Google OS, but I wouldn't be surprised if Google replaced all of our day-to-day software with complex AJAX sites, making us not need anything else, other than a browser and possibly a hard drive to save sensitive information. (everything else will probably be on Google's server, making it even easier to publish stuff you want to go public with)
The opportunity Google has with this, is you can have an entire workstation that is not only hardware independent, but Operating System independent as well. I can check gmail just fine in linux, windows, and MacOSX and have the same experience on all 3. Why not do something similar to that for all desktop applications?
The problem with traditionally high costs, is that means you can probably find someone else that offers cheaper support.
Take Ubuntu's support for example. For $100 USD I can make 10 online requests for help for one year, or I can pay $250/year for up to 25 support requests, which includes phone support as well.
Let me rephrase:
My university uses Mulberry, and the individuals in the office often ask where the mulberry icon is (we then show them how to use the start bar, and they can usually manage from there).
Because my university refuses to see the ignorance in requiring an advanced program to be used by non-technical individuals, I am glad that we will finally be forced to stop using the product. I said, and I meant, that I am sad they going out of business. I do wish them the best, and they do seem to be good coders. I am just happy to never have to support that program again. This will mean 25% of my time each week will be freed up.
I personally am happy to accept the 2 second difference between mulberry and thunderbird simply because thunderbird works well for me and doesn't require reading a manual just to send an email. I have worked at a fortune 100 company that used Microsoft's Mail Server and clients and they worked well, quickly, and efficiently. But, I have also worked at other companies that just used open source alternatives for server and clients (and with more employees!) and it worked just as well. So I don't see the big deal about making a bigger and better wheel when all they do is roll.
So in the end, I do not wish anyone to die, I wish cyrusoft to come out of this alive and well in the end, and for my university to stop using their product. I do not mind what an individual chooses to use, but when a company decides to use a product and there are over 3,000 employees (most of which don't have computers at home), they should think before using advanced software to do something simple.
For that matter, software manufacturers should think before making advanced software to do something simple, especially when their target audience seems to be large corporations.
As a technical support individual who has supported this piece of software to only 75 individuals, all I can say is: WooHoo! (homer style)
The guys were very imaginative, bright, and wrote good code, but the human interface of this seems to be geared towards Computer Science and Engineering majors. Mulberry was one of those amazing IMAP clients that could do everything. No really, everything.
The downside, is it is email, I don't want it to do everything, I just want it to send and receive email, perhaps with a simple filter feature as well.
Since our network administrator left, I have been using Thunderbird, and while the actual typing and sending of mail is slower, receiving mail is far more responsive than ever. Plus there aren't over 299,792,458 options to possibly go wrong, preventing each of my 75 users from getting their mail for roughly 3,997,232 different reasons each.
Goodbye to a well written horrible program. I wish the guys the best of luck, but I'll be glad to never support that product again.
Now, for the cake and ice cream!
Seriously though... *chew chew* the guys who wrote it did well on the software *chew chew* but it was far too complicated for its own good. (good cake, btw)
I think this depends on the companies. Consider the number of large corporations already using open source software for primary functions. (I'm thinking not even Linux servers, but any servers running Apache, PHP, MySQL or PostgreSQL, Python, etc.)
I work at a major university, and we have different departments with different operating systems, primarily Windows, OSX, and *nix, while MS Office comes in Windows and OSXish versions, Star Office and OpenOffice.org provide a much wider range of cross-platform operability. Being on a Novell network, I have been trying to switch a few users to the Novell Linux Desktop, but MS Office is the only thing holding them back. If I were to install OpenOffice.org 2.0 (when it comes out) or StarOffice, I think the change would be much more welcome. StarOffice, and it's codebase OpenOffice are both far more advanced than any open source, free, or even cheap office suite has ever been.
I would not have made this argument last year, as OpenOffice.org was still in its infancy, but it has come a long way, and most of the problems my users have today, would be solved by the simplicity and logic of OpenOffice.org. As soon as more developers tweak the database portion a little more, I think we'll have no trouble at all switching over. Surprisingly, this is a new erra for non-MS software, and StarOffice is really on the ball. I wouldn't be surprised if this suite caught on, especially for the home user, but also eventually (maybe a version or two down the road) to the enterprise IT department.
Kind of like Thunderbird has been for the past year, not to mention Mozilla Calendar, and even Google's Gmail/Google Mail. All of which run happily on windows/linux/bsd/OSX. Apparently being closed-sourced, closed-minded, and budget-driven hasn't had the positive end-user impact that the GNU-ish communities have had on things.
I hate to say it, but by keeping things closed-source, yahoo and even google risk turning into smaller, more open minded microsofts, which wouldn't neccessarily be a bad thing, but still not as good as they could be.
But, more importantly, this whole online application scenario is a real threat, and will continue to be one as long as Microsoft considers being a member of the end-user community a threat. As soon as they loose customers and gain users, they feel they've lost, when really they haven't. It's all a matter of perspective, and this just shows the perspective Microsoft has on it's end-users, and it is represented more in sales and market shares than it is in customer satisfaction.
From an end user perspective, when using debian, I just go to the "add remove" programs (synaptic), and choose what I want to install, then install it. (notice I didn't say download, find where I downloaded it, double-click it, follow the installation guide, and hope it didn't install spyware)
If a product isn't offered there, I can usually download a platform-independent installer. You are confusing the flexibility of linux with chaos.
Besides, it's all the same stuff anyway. Most linux apps aren't perfect, neither are Microsoft apps, the funny part is, I don't pay for most of my software, and it gets fixed quicker. I hated linux in the past because of the FUD effect, but now that I've given it a chance, I've learned it is easier to use and maintain. The reason Windows will "win" is marketing, momentum, and the fact that they don't make horrible software. (the just don't make great software either, but marketing covers that nicely)
I'm curious how they are going to make profit off of a free browser... (maybe the same way open source products make profit?) The only difference would be allowing users to have ownership of the product. But, unfortunately I haven't had a life-changing experience by using opera just yet, so I don't see the big deal. I for one, like my source code open, and if an open source product is available, I use it over its closed source equivalent, especially if there isn't a cut-and-dry one is better than the other.
How about releasing their address and calling off their local governments?
Or just let everyone install open source software and stop wining about surprises that come in closed source software.
Unless I'm thinking of the wrong acid test, FF 1.0.6 still doesn't spit out the smiling face at WaSP's acid 2 test, so it can't say much, but then again, ever try to load the acid2 test in IE? horrible. I just want to be able to use the same CSS file for IE as I do for Firefox, and have it be standards compliant. Oh well, good thing I don't care about how my sites look in IE, but it is nice that they are trying to be compliant!
Actually, I used to love IE, until I started researching web standards. Primarily, the CSS box model. Now that I'm into using the DOM with CSS and javascript, I'm even more IE opposed.
If IE7 cut activex support, adhered to w3c based standards, and used normal javascript instead of the microsoft version, then I would happily use it. The fact that firefox does this, AND has extensions, AND has the DOM inspector, and more, that makes me ask why go back to IE?
I've even read IE7 won't adhere to W3C standards, because microsoft doesn't like the standards. Great, now I get to develop and design websites, then spend twice as long getting it to work in IE.
If only microsoft didn't insist on creating their own standards, maybe I wouldn't be so against purchasing their software. Glad it's finally having an impact on them, even if it is only in the media realm.
This 16TB paging-file has been holding me back, 512TB here I come! Now, how many of us are running Windows XP on a system with 16TB lying around for paging-files much less 512? Isn't that type of system reserved for *real* server software? (I use XP at home and love it, and will probably buy XP64 for my laptop next week, but all my servers are belong to *nix!)
Aside from the fact that demand begets supply, let's also take into consideration the human logic processes. If I see that every time I drop a ball, it falls to the ground, I'm going to assume it is natural for things to fall to the ground when dropped.
If a straight person watches tons of gay porn, they will decide being gay is okay, and watching/creating gay porn is okay. (whether it is or isn't is a theological debate that doesn't belong here.)
If a "normal" person watches child porn, they will more than likely decide child porn is okay. (wether it is conscious or subconscious is another story)
If it means I'm getting a better product in the end, I'm game. I still use winamp 5... Besides, from what I've noticed, I prefer Firefox 1.0 anyway, so the numbering system is a moot point anyway for me. (I'm sure there's tons of things I don't notice that are better, which is why I stick with 1.0.1 though)