Choice between Open Source and Simplicity

The idea of choice is part of the bedrock of open source. But open source
also wants to replace Microsoft on the desktop, or at least make a serious
dent in Microsoft's hegemony. To do that, the open source community must
recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code,
and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user.

Choice, to most users, is the ability to choose any program they wish, and
have it install and run seamlessly, without affecting any other application
already installed; without requiring them to know which GUI they're running
(or even that they're running a GUI); without altering path statements;
without editing configuration files; without facing a command prompt; and
without having to compile any source code; create any makefiles, or any
other programming task that only developers are fond of.

They don't care that they can't see or change the source code to their
current programs. They don't care that they don't actually own the software,
as long as they only have to pay for it once. They don't care that most of
their software comes from a single source. In short, they don't care about
the fundamental issues behind open source software at all. But they do care
about price, quality, availability, security, simplicity, and
interoperability. Supply these, and open source will be the software choice.

So far, the open source community has been highly sensitive to the needs of
power users, hobbyists, and centralized IT departments, but highly
insensitive to the needs of average, technically (and sometimes literally)
illiterate users. Many people will argue that the public should be educated
to value software choice and to see Microsoft's impositions and removal of
choice for what it is. But it is a grave mistake to stake Linux' future on
the hope that millions of people will be inspired to software activism, that
they will take the ideological high road when all they want is to buy a
piece of software that works with a piece of electronics.

It looks like Windows and Microsoft will be the dominant force for many
years to come.

Unfortunately, the Linux zealots do not see it that way. They want you to
switch over to Linux. They then abandon you.

I asked a simple question on a Ubuntu help group about a year ago. I
introduced myself as a new user, without any experience what-so-ever.

My question was: Can you please tell me, in numbered steps (including the
exact verbiage I need in command lines or in fill-in areas), exactly what I
have to do to install the VMWare extensions in Linux. After about 15-20
derogatory comments and sneers I decided it was not worth the effort. I
still run Ubuntu under VMWare Workstations without the extensions installed.

That is no way to gain converts!

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)



"Bill Yanaire" <bill@yanaire.com> wrote in message
news:ewoUncBtHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> The idea of choice is part of the bedrock of open source. But open source
> also wants to replace Microsoft on the desktop, or at least make a serious
> dent in Microsoft's hegemony. To do that, the open source community must
> recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source
> code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average
> user.
>
> Choice, to most users, is the ability to choose any program they wish, and
> have it install and run seamlessly, without affecting any other
> application already installed; without requiring them to know which GUI
> they're running (or even that they're running a GUI); without altering
> path statements; without editing configuration files; without facing a
> command prompt; and without having to compile any source code; create any
> makefiles, or any other programming task that only developers are fond of.
>
> They don't care that they can't see or change the source code to their
> current programs. They don't care that they don't actually own the
> software, as long as they only have to pay for it once. They don't care
> that most of their software comes from a single source. In short, they
> don't care about the fundamental issues behind open source software at
> all. But they do care about price, quality, availability, security,
> simplicity, and interoperability. Supply these, and open source will be
> the software choice.
>
> So far, the open source community has been highly sensitive to the needs
> of power users, hobbyists, and centralized IT departments, but highly
> insensitive to the needs of average, technically (and sometimes literally)
> illiterate users. Many people will argue that the public should be
> educated to value software choice and to see Microsoft's impositions and
> removal of choice for what it is. But it is a grave mistake to stake
> Linux' future on the hope that millions of people will be inspired to
> software activism, that they will take the ideological high road when all
> they want is to buy a piece of software that works with a piece of
> electronics.
>
> It looks like Windows and Microsoft will be the dominant force for many
> years to come.
>
>
>
>

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:16:30 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

> The idea of choice is part of the bedrock of open source. But open source
> also wants to replace Microsoft on the desktop, or at least make a serious
> dent in Microsoft's hegemony. To do that, the open source community must
> recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code,
> and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user.
>
> Choice, to most users, is the ability to choose any program they wish, and
> have it install and run seamlessly, without affecting any other application
> already installed; without requiring them to know which GUI they're running
> (or even that they're running a GUI); without altering path statements;
> without editing configuration files; without facing a command prompt; and
> without having to compile any source code; create any makefiles, or any
> other programming task that only developers are fond of.

Ah - you mean like Linux does. Running programs developed for other
desktops without issue, and running a lot of MS software under WINE.

>
> They don't care that they can't see or change the source code to their
> current programs. They don't care that they don't actually own the software,
> as long as they only have to pay for it once. They don't care that most of
> their software comes from a single source. In short, they don't care about
> the fundamental issues behind open source software at all. But they do care
> about price, quality, availability, security, simplicity, and
> interoperability. Supply these, and open source will be the software choice.

That would be the kicker would it not? Pay for MS when you get it, then
pay to upgrade it every few years. The phrase 'nickel and diming' would be
appropriate except that we're talking about significant pieces of money
here. Whith Linux, on the other hand, you can upgrade every few months or
every few years, for nothing.

>
> So far, the open source community has been highly sensitive to the needs of
> power users, hobbyists, and centralized IT departments, but highly
> insensitive to the needs of average, technically (and sometimes literally)
> illiterate users. Many people will argue that the public should be educated
> to value software choice and to see Microsoft's impositions and removal of
> choice for what it is. But it is a grave mistake to stake Linux' future on
> the hope that millions of people will be inspired to software activism, that
> they will take the ideological high road when all they want is to buy a
> piece of software that works with a piece of electronics.
>
> It looks like Windows and Microsoft will be the dominant force for many
> years to come.

Hmmm. When they put out products like vista, I wonder.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:16:30 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

> The idea of choice is part of the bedrock of open source. But open source
> also wants to replace Microsoft on the desktop, or at least make a serious
> dent in Microsoft's hegemony. To do that, the open source community must
> recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code,
> and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user.
>
> Choice, to most users, is the ability to choose any program they wish, and
> have it install and run seamlessly, without affecting any other application
> already installed; without requiring them to know which GUI they're running
> (or even that they're running a GUI); without altering path statements;
> without editing configuration files; without facing a command prompt; and
> without having to compile any source code; create any makefiles, or any
> other programming task that only developers are fond of.
>
> They don't care that they can't see or change the source code to their
> current programs. They don't care that they don't actually own the software,
> as long as they only have to pay for it once. They don't care that most of
> their software comes from a single source. In short, they don't care about
> the fundamental issues behind open source software at all. But they do care
> about price, quality, availability, security, simplicity, and
> interoperability. Supply these, and open source will be the software choice.
>
> So far, the open source community has been highly sensitive to the needs of
> power users, hobbyists, and centralized IT departments, but highly
> insensitive to the needs of average, technically (and sometimes literally)
> illiterate users. Many people will argue that the public should be educated
> to value software choice and to see Microsoft's impositions and removal of
> choice for what it is. But it is a grave mistake to stake Linux' future on
> the hope that millions of people will be inspired to software activism, that
> they will take the ideological high road when all they want is to buy a
> piece of software that works with a piece of electronics.

I agree with you all the way and that's why distributions such as Ubuntu
exist. It does exactly what you say, just includes said freedoms in its
concepts.

I like ubuntu's stance though where someone can go down the "free
software" road, or the standard every user who doesn't care about all that
stuff road.

The latest addition of the restricted driver manager, which automatically
installs non-open source drivers, is a step in the right direction. So
don't think that the Linux Developers are not listening. They are, and
they are closing the gap very quickly.

I can name things where Ubuntu is ahead of Windows.
I can name things where Windows is ahead of Ubuntu.

Neither OS is perfect for *every one*. There will always be people who
like one better over the other.

Taking out all the OS vs OS fights, quality, feature differences, etc. I do
wonder though how well a company such as MS can survive in the future. The
reason I say that is, it's not the 1990's anymore.

In the 1990's we went from command line based operating systems to GUI
based operating systems to now in the mid 2000's to advanced GUI based
operating systems. We also went from only programmers and developers
having computers to every single household having at least one. What's
next? Telepathic operating systems? Sell to aliens?

Sure, there will always be some feature can be improved. Some new neat
technology here or there. But how much is the fundamental operating system
going to change? As far as I am concerned, operating systems today are at
a point where they can't be improved on much further in terms of what we,
as humans, can reasonably and efficiently interact with.

We may see some 3D Elements beyond hardware acceleration introduced in
desktops over time in terms of eye candy. But the fundamentally, what
would you change? Going to a full 3D Environment I don't perceive as all
that useful beyond the coolness factor. Quite the contrary, a 3rd
dimension of movement would only make things more complex. If I need to
run across some 3 dimensional desktop world to start an app instead of
just moving my mouse pointer over the icon and clicking it...I haven't
gained anything from it.

What I am trying to get to is, all the operating systems, be they Linux,
Windows, MacOS, etc. are all going to reach a point over the next few
years where it'll be difficult to make them any more efficient to use for
a human.

So what is a company such as MS going to do at that point in time? Move a
button from left to right and call it a revolutionary new feature? Wait,
they already do that...but...that's beside the point.

I think MS is going to find it to be difficult in the future to find new
things to add to the operating system in terms of actual real features and
not artificially created ones like DirectX dependencies.

One problem that MS might potentially face is that it is a huge company
with products that nobody is going to be really all that interested in
anymore because nobody truly *needs* them anymore. They already have
everything they need and don't care that the start button has been changed
from a circle shape to a star shape now is called something different and
is located somewhere else on the screen.

At that point in time, an OS such as Linux might just simply gain the
advantage not due to one being better than the other, but simply due to
the fact that one does not have the financial overhead and dependency on
sales that the other has. Which in turn only compounds the problem for the
one that is dependent on sales.

Just my 2 cents...

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

"Bill Yanaire" <bill@yanaire.com> wrote in message
news:ewoUncBtHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> The idea of choice is part of the bedrock of open source. But open source
> also wants to replace Microsoft on the desktop, or at least make a serious
> dent in Microsoft's hegemony. To do that, the open source community must
> recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source
> code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average
> user.
>
> Choice, to most users, is the ability to choose any program they wish, and
> have it install and run seamlessly, without affecting any other
> application already installed; without requiring them to know which GUI
> they're running (or even that they're running a GUI); without altering
> path statements; without editing configuration files; without facing a
> command prompt; and without having to compile any source code; create any
> makefiles, or any other programming task that only developers are fond of.
>
> They don't care that they can't see or change the source code to their
> current programs. They don't care that they don't actually own the
> software, as long as they only have to pay for it once. They don't care
> that most of their software comes from a single source. In short, they
> don't care about the fundamental issues behind open source software at
> all. But they do care about price, quality, availability, security,
> simplicity, and interoperability. Supply these, and open source will be
> the software choice.
>
> So far, the open source community has been highly sensitive to the needs
> of power users, hobbyists, and centralized IT departments, but highly
> insensitive to the needs of average, technically (and sometimes literally)
> illiterate users. Many people will argue that the public should be
> educated to value software choice and to see Microsoft's impositions and
> removal of choice for what it is. But it is a grave mistake to stake
> Linux' future on the hope that millions of people will be inspired to
> software activism, that they will take the ideological high road when all
> they want is to buy a piece of software that works with a piece of
> electronics.
>
> It looks like Windows and Microsoft will be the dominant force for many
> years to come.
>

Bill,

Good post.

Every couple of years I dip my toes into the Linux pool. I am, after all, a
big fan of computers. I have no binding need to use Windows, except for the
fact that it works with all my hardware. But the point is; I'm not
Anti-Linux or Anti-Mac or really Anti-AnyOS. (Who used OS/2 here?)

That said... considering the fact that I work in IT and should be somewhat
more adept at using OS's than Joe Blow... I've always had at least one major
faux-pas occur when trying out Linux as an end-user. There can be no doubt
that Linux is a powerful multi-user OS. None whatsoever. And... as a desktop
OS... it's just not there. None of the distros I've seen come anywhere close
to Windows in terms of, for example, ease of use in installing new apps.
Even in Ubuntu 7.04, it's like one must know more than one should need to
know (IMHO) to make things move forward in a simple manner. As far as I'm
concerned, there's no debate here. Yes, one can say "well, these other folks
are having problems installing apps on Vista" and they'd be right... but
they'd be right because of incompatibilities or poorly written
installations, not the core structure of the installation tools themselves
that are available in Vista. (Or XP, for that matter...)

So... to recap for those who like to read only the negative and then fly off
the handle with flaming defensive responses: I'm no Linux hater. I like
Linux. Wish I could like it more.

Lang

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:28:18 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:

> "Bill Yanaire" <bill@yanaire.com> wrote in message
> news:ewoUncBtHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> The idea of choice is part of the bedrock of open source. But open source
>> also wants to replace Microsoft on the desktop, or at least make a serious
>> dent in Microsoft's hegemony. To do that, the open source community must
>> recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source
>> code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average
>> user.
>>
>> Choice, to most users, is the ability to choose any program they wish, and
>> have it install and run seamlessly, without affecting any other
>> application already installed; without requiring them to know which GUI
>> they're running (or even that they're running a GUI); without altering
>> path statements; without editing configuration files; without facing a
>> command prompt; and without having to compile any source code; create any
>> makefiles, or any other programming task that only developers are fond of.
>>
>> They don't care that they can't see or change the source code to their
>> current programs. They don't care that they don't actually own the
>> software, as long as they only have to pay for it once. They don't care
>> that most of their software comes from a single source. In short, they
>> don't care about the fundamental issues behind open source software at
>> all. But they do care about price, quality, availability, security,
>> simplicity, and interoperability. Supply these, and open source will be
>> the software choice.
>>
>> So far, the open source community has been highly sensitive to the needs
>> of power users, hobbyists, and centralized IT departments, but highly
>> insensitive to the needs of average, technically (and sometimes literally)
>> illiterate users. Many people will argue that the public should be
>> educated to value software choice and to see Microsoft's impositions and
>> removal of choice for what it is. But it is a grave mistake to stake
>> Linux' future on the hope that millions of people will be inspired to
>> software activism, that they will take the ideological high road when all
>> they want is to buy a piece of software that works with a piece of
>> electronics.
>>
>> It looks like Windows and Microsoft will be the dominant force for many
>> years to come.
>>
>
> Bill,
>
> Good post.
>
> Every couple of years I dip my toes into the Linux pool. I am, after all, a
> big fan of computers. I have no binding need to use Windows, except for the
> fact that it works with all my hardware. But the point is; I'm not
> Anti-Linux or Anti-Mac or really Anti-AnyOS. (Who used OS/2 here?)
>
> That said... considering the fact that I work in IT and should be somewhat
> more adept at using OS's than Joe Blow... I've always had at least one major
> faux-pas occur when trying out Linux as an end-user. There can be no doubt
> that Linux is a powerful multi-user OS. None whatsoever. And... as a desktop
> OS... it's just not there. None of the distros I've seen come anywhere close
> to Windows in terms of, for example, ease of use in installing new apps.
> Even in Ubuntu 7.04, it's like one must know more than one should need to
> know (IMHO) to make things move forward in a simple manner. As far as I'm
> concerned, there's no debate here. Yes, one can say "well, these other folks
> are having problems installing apps on Vista" and they'd be right... but
> they'd be right because of incompatibilities or poorly written
> installations, not the core structure of the installation tools themselves
> that are available in Vista. (Or XP, for that matter...)

What installation tools? Installshield is 3rd party. =)
Ok, there is MSI but I don't see it used much. I think I can count the
apps I've personally seen use it on one hand. Usually the #1 thing I see
MSI used for are small packages that are included into Installshield
installations.

And actually, there is an equivalent in the Debian Linux world (such as
Ubuntu) being the .deb packages. They actually work identical to the MS
..msi files. Download. Double click. Wait for install to finish. Use
application.

>
> So... to recap for those who like to read only the negative and then fly off
> the handle with flaming defensive responses: I'm no Linux hater. I like
> Linux. Wish I could like it more.
>

No negative and flaming here. I can without a problem see where you are
coming from. I myself see a few problems still as well for the general
desktop market, though I see different ones. I do think though, and I
myself am actually included in this, that we both have one major problem
using any Linux system.

Too much windows experience.

Nothing to do with one OS being better than the other. Everything to do
with that we expect things to work in a certain way and when they don't
it's generally perceived at a disadvantage. You have to learn to do things
different and we as humans generally tend to like to go the path of least
resistance and not do that. =)

I think the best person to evaluate any OS, does not matter which one,
would be someone that barely has ever seen a computer before and doesn't
have any pre-existing OS experience to compare against.

Kind of a similar concept as to why I am an exceedingly bad beta tester or
my own software. I know too much about how it's supposed to work.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

"Lang Murphy" <lang_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Every couple of years I dip my toes into the Linux pool.

Ditto.

> I have no binding need to use Windows, except for the fact that it
> works with all my hardware.

For me, Linux does also, the latest version of Mandriva installs
everything and I'm delighted with that but software is a different
matter. Until more software folks port their software to Linux (are
you listening, Intuit?) Windows will be my OS when I want/need to do
any useful work.

--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:28:18 -0400, "Lang Murphy"
<lang_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Every couple of years I dip my toes into the Linux pool. I am, after all, a
>big fan of computers. I have no binding need to use Windows, except for the
>fact that it works with all my hardware. But the point is; I'm not
>Anti-Linux or Anti-Mac or really Anti-AnyOS. (Who used OS/2 here?)

I used to use OS/2 (this was when Win 3.1 was the competition). My
machine at the time came with 8MB RAM, this was when most came with 4
MB and OS/2 was pretty damn good unfortunatly it did suffer from lack
of native apps.

I've also used Linux now and then and have to admit I do like Ubuntu
(prefer kubuntu though) but at the moment my machine is purely Vista
Ultimate.

--
Kevin

XS11E wrote:
> "Lang Murphy" <lang_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Every couple of years I dip my toes into the Linux pool.
>
> Ditto.
>
>> I have no binding need to use Windows, except for the fact that it
>> works with all my hardware.
>
> For me, Linux does also, the latest version of Mandriva installs
> everything and I'm delighted with that but software is a different
> matter. Until more software folks port their software to Linux (are
> you listening, Intuit?) Windows will be my OS when I want/need to do
> any useful work.
>

Intuit's QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions Embraces Linux
http://www.intuit.com/about_intuit/p...07/06-13.jhtml

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):
"They hacked the Microsoft website to make it think a linux box was a
windows box. Thats called hacking. People who do hacking are called
hackers."

"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot

The poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy <none@none.not> wrote:

> XS11E wrote:
>> Until more software folks port their software to Linux (are you
>> listening, Intuit?) Windows will be my OS when I want/need to do
>> any useful work.

> Intuit's QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions Embraces Linux
> http://www.intuit.com/about_intuit/p...elease/2007/06
> -13.jhtml

They're starting, I'm glad but that does me no good as I don't use
QuickBooks...



--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html