- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Ubuntu, Macintosh and Windows XP
All three desktop operating systems have admirable qualities. Each has some weaknesses. Attending a recent User Group Fair, I had another chance to see them at work. Having used and programmed on each platform provides some unbiased insights. BackgroundI have owned several Macintosh computers. I had new world and old world bios machines including several older 6500s, 7600s, etc. that would not take OS X. I also had a blue and white, a beige workgroup server, Power Mac G4s, a Cube, iBook, etc. I remember making the transition from OS 9 to OS X. I liked it. I used Microsoft from the DOS days to early Windows 2.0, 3.0, 3.11, Windows 95, 98, ME, NT3.51 - 4.0, 2000 and XP. I still have the licenses and media for everything since Windows 3.1. I managed large IBM networks with OS/2 on the desktop and LAN Server 3 as the server. I won't get into my NetWare experience. I used Solaris, AIX and Linux starting with Slackware 3x. I even ran Red Hat on Sun IPCs, Sparc 5 and 10 workstations. I'm now using SUSE SLES and Pro, RHEL, Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu for daily use on servers and workstations. Each system has different programing architectures with OS X a little closer to Linux than Windows. OS X uses a UNIX architecture to run its internals. However, the OS X desktop interface does not resemble Linux or other UNICES which depend on X. You can use X on the Mac natively. Windows has a completely different programing structure from OS X and Linux. Windows relies heavily on its user interface which has evolved over time. Programing involves using Windows shell extensions. XP uses the NT kernel to manage file systems, internals and communication with the graphical shell. OS X and Linux use completely different schemes with kernel extensions and independent programs running inside the user interface shell. The UNIX shell runs independently in what kernel developers call userland. UNIX and Linux programmers consider their programing methods preferable to Windows. Windows developers consider the interface extensions easier to use and providing for more rapid application development. Each have merit when you look at them objectively. Of course, Macintosh developers will say that since they moved to the UNIX method that they experience more stability. MacintoshI started with the first Mac configured as a desktop publishing machine. I remember liking it because it cut costs we otherwise spent on type setting and graphics, paste up ,etc. Then I started using the Mac as a production machine at a DoE lab.For personal use, I used the Mac for graphics, audio productions and developing web sites. OS X made a huge difference since I didn't have to reboot in the middle of working. I also knew my way around UNIX and that allowed me to use Internet applications I hadn't used previously. I found the developers tools useful. I enjoyed the interface. I found myself exploring more of the system when I purchased "OS X, the Missing Manual". The same book helped me discover ways of using Windows and Linux I hadn't known previously. Windows XPI recall using XP for three months without having to reboot it. I don't remember that happening before. I started collecting Microsoft Certs when Windows 95 arrived. I had used Excel 5 and Access to develop financial tools. Later, I became a sysadmin and ran a couple of large NT networks. XP appeared safe behind our firewall. After three months, my system became sluggish and prone to malware. I did maintenance on the system regularly including defraging the disk, deleting unnecessary files and checking the registry. I liked XP better than any previous Microsoft OS and still have one workstation running in my lab. I programmed on XP when it first arrived to help build a plug-in or Exchange Client Extension for Outlook that allowed it to run on a Linux groupware server. The server peered with Exchange and used free software components like exim, apache, OpenLDAP, Cyrus IMAP, etc. ComparisonI have combined information from surveys, analysts reports and personal experience to prepare this comparison of each system. I have a personal bias for Free Software, but I'm wearing my certified analyst hat in an effort to remain objective.Ubuntu For programming, administration, a replacement for an UNIX workstation and a moderately performing desktop Linux works well. Using key applications such as Openoffice.org productivity suite, Evolution for a mail client, GAIM for instant messaging, Firefox as a web browser, GIMP for graphics, CUPS for printing, Samba for interoperability, Linux has a lot going for it. It also uses less resources than other operating systems. Ubuntu works fine for comparison purposes. Ubuntu has in excess of 25% of the Linux desktop market which compares to number two SUSE with 11.4% of the market. So, I'll use Ubuntu to represent the Linux desktop in this report. Like all Linux desktops, Ubuntu has limitations. It lacks applications such as Photoshop, Framemaker, Pagemaker, Visio, Access, Quickbooks, a PDF converter, legal DVD players and most importantly income tax preparation software. Without those applications ported directly to Linux, Ubuntu remains a mid-level desktop. I use Ubuntu for 12 or more hours a day. So, I'm not complaining about the lack of those applications. I have found GIMP an adequate replacement for Photoshop and I just completed a 30 day testing period for the latest distribution of Photoshop. The Linux desktop has many advantages over its counter parts for developers especially when it comes to programming web services, porting applications and engineering tasks. It runs on moderately priced hardware and takes less memory for graphic intensive software. I can use 512MB of RAM to perform the same jobs that require 1GB of RAM on other systems. All in all, Ubuntu does an exceptional job replacing UNIX workstations and has a superior desktop. It fits mid-level desktop users and works for about 80 to 90% of enterprise users. Home users find it a good operating system especially for stability, ease of use and for those who can legally use applications like Xine, Mplayer, etc. for audio and video software which only plays on the Mac and Windows in the US. A modified Ubuntu will give the user all he or she might want with the exception of tax preparation software. With that in mind, you will find software preparation capabilities on-line at tax prep web sites. For other applications, Codeweavers Crossover office provides an environment for using Windows applications in Linux. VMware and Win4Lin work for some users who need some Windows applications. TransGaming Technologies provides similar emulation for popular Windows Games. Windows XP XP provides an adequate operating system for hosting a number of applications. The large volume of sales seduces Independent Software vendors like Adobe, AutoDesk, Intuit, Corel, Cyberlink, RIM and others to primarily write to the Win32 API. Microsoft's own applications run well under the XP environment. Windows XP comes preinstalled on every computer manufacturers' products with the exception of Apple. The lower cost of the software to OEMs versus the high cost to retail customers keeps XP on the vast majority of computers. The low cost to manufacturers like IBM, HP, Dell, Gateway and second tier or white box manufacturers allows them to modify their software and hardware to run XP. Microsoft has improved Windows XP since its debut by adding numerous security patches and service packs. With the large number of systems deployed, Windows XP has vulnerabilities to malware. XP remains popular with the majority of PC users. Windows XP does not compare favorably with Linux, Macintosh or UNIX variants as a development platform. Microsoft's development tools work strictly on Windows and do not allow for interoperability amongst desktops such as the Mac, Linux or systems running non-Intel based processors. That doesn't seem to bother XP users since their access to Microsoft Windows based applications remains abundant. Windows installed base means many people already have training on the system as end users. That creates a barrier for adoption to other systems. A large number of Microsoft Certified System Engineers exits. Those engineers and product specialists can fix user problems quickly. They also see no need to move to a different platform. Cost savings do not play to Microsoft's advantage despite their attempt to convince people with their "Get the Facts" campaign. Macintosh OS X Macintosh OS X runs on a limited number of hardware devices which allows Apple Computers to offer a stable and high-performance product overall. Apple's entry level products such as the Mac mini provides a low-cost, high-value multimedia platform. Apple's high-end desktops such as the Power Mac G5 with Dual and Quad dual-core PowerPC processors provides remarkable performance for the graphics and multimedia user. The Powerbook occupies a similar place for developers and authors. A number of people also use the high-end products as servers and for development. Apple remains the major innovator in the PC space. Apple makes superior display units and peripherals. Users have shown they will pay more money for Apple's products because of the high levels of performance and innovation. While Apple has had critics in the past for its lack of software offerings much of that has changed. OS X provides more than just an adequate host for proprietary offerings such as Intuit financial products, the majority of Adobe offerings and Microsoft's productivity suite. Apple also benefits from the Free Software offerings Linux users have become accustomed to seeing. Apple also provides a wide range of native applications such as DVD players and multimedia utilities. Apple Macintosh does not fare well for mid-level PC users the way Linux might. The lack of operability on commodity hardware makes Apple a specialty product in the enterprise. People who can afford Apple products have a special devotion to the Mac and OS X. A Closer LookMacintosh with OS X and Microsoft Windows XP have an advantage over Linux in the area of education where curriculum demands exists for things such as foreign languages courses. The inability to provide for educational demand holds Linux back. Until commodity hardware manufacturers and Independent Software Vendors make their products available for Linux, the demographics in the desktop area will remain fairly constant. The exception remains in the mid-level desktop area. Analysts will continue to tout Windows for enterprises until ISVs port their software offerings to Linux or until adequate replacements exist. For both hardware and software manufacturers the prospects of creating offerings for Linux involve significant risks. For example, an ISV may not recover Research and Development costs since the Linux community prefers free software. Secondly, the continuous development cycle concerns companies like Adobe and Intuit whose cost could increase with every release and upgrade of Linux. Ubuntu has a six month release cycle and replaces applications and libraries continuously. This scares ISVs. If ISVs could come up with a solution to Linux's continuous upgrade cycles, they still have unknowns with regard to whether Linux would take off as a desktop alternative to Microsoft. Possibly, the availability of Adobe and Intuit products could supercharge Linux. Some companies have taken that risk with UNIX desktops and got burned badly. In the interim, Windows will remain the preferred desktop for the masses. Macintosh will remain the connoisseur's choice of operating systems. Ubuntu will continue as a mid-level desktop and a popular platform for developers. |
|
|
Comments (88)
Questions on a few things...
Sure. For examle, the Learning Company, Instant Immersion by Topics Entertainment, Inspiration Software, Zengobi, Riverdeep and on and on. Thousands of educational CD's and DVD's exist and they only play on Windows and Mac. Also, home schooling curriculum and Berlitz, etc. only available on Windows and Mac.
On the upgrade cycle, ISV's won't believe you because Sun and Red Hat have burned them by changing compilers, etc.
On the upgrade cycle, ISV's won't believe you because Sun and Red Hat have burned them by changing compilers, etc.
"For examle, the Learning Company, Instant Immersion by Topics Entertainment, Inspiration Software, Zengobi, Riverdeep and on and on."
These are brands. What do they _do_? A man going into a hardware store asking about shovels is probably really wanting a hole. If he asks for an Acme (R, TM, pat.pend.), you really can't tell what tool might be needed.
http://www.k12linux.org/ http://edu.kde.org/ http://schoolforge.net/software.php http://www.seul.org/ http://richtech.ca/seul/ (Note most of the "Edugames" at http://richtech.ca/cgi-bin/seul/seulvw.pl?category=Edugames are under GPL) http://www.ofset.org/freeduc-cd/ http://www.skolelinux.org/portal/
These are brands. What do they _do_? A man going into a hardware store asking about shovels is probably really wanting a hole. If he asks for an Acme (R, TM, pat.pend.), you really can't tell what tool might be needed.
http://www.k12linux.org/ http://edu.kde.org/ http://schoolforge.net/software.php http://www.seul.org/ http://richtech.ca/seul/ (Note most of the "Edugames" at http://richtech.ca/cgi-bin/seul/seulvw.pl?category=Edugames are under GPL) http://www.ofset.org/freeduc-cd/ http://www.skolelinux.org/portal/
hmmm as far as educational software goes.... its pretty bad unless anything's changed drastically.
I learned some things on logo on apple II's in first grade, and mavis beacon typing was fun for about 5 mins... and Iv'e never seen anything else that was supposed to be educational that actually was... Linux as your OS as far as I've experience just makes you learn more about what you are doing but as far as educational offerings (I've worked at Sylvan learnign center, and on the DD(x) training element) to me educational software doesn't exist in any form worth actually using... to be good educational mateial it needs to be interactive content driven and most of all not hurt the user's brain (this is probaly why I don't like them I've experienced too much bad ones) so as far as educational app's (not collabrative meeting software or glorified group chats, not games with facts in them a la Carmen Sandeigo) what is the eactly out there that you are refering to, that you yourself, or your kids, would use and learn from? I'm intrested
I learned some things on logo on apple II's in first grade, and mavis beacon typing was fun for about 5 mins... and Iv'e never seen anything else that was supposed to be educational that actually was... Linux as your OS as far as I've experience just makes you learn more about what you are doing but as far as educational offerings (I've worked at Sylvan learnign center, and on the DD(x) training element) to me educational software doesn't exist in any form worth actually using... to be good educational mateial it needs to be interactive content driven and most of all not hurt the user's brain (this is probaly why I don't like them I've experienced too much bad ones) so as far as educational app's (not collabrative meeting software or glorified group chats, not games with facts in them a la Carmen Sandeigo) what is the eactly out there that you are refering to, that you yourself, or your kids, would use and learn from? I'm intrested
Things have changed drastically and with amazing rapidity.
You have me dusting off some old gray matter. My son was well into high school before I figured much out in GNU/Linux. The first computer he messed with was a Kaypro 1 (9" green screen luggable). I made a menu for him to be able to start programs by just typing a letter, but I can't recall what he chose most often. There were several of those scrolling arcade-like games to teach about typing and numbers. Something must have clicked because he enjoyed typing in WordStar. Just random words and sentences. Doom became his obsession later. The only educational use he made of a computer then was for typing and printing homework.
My daughter gravitated toward those Apogee shareware edutainment programs. When she was about 12 or so, she began using Linux and became fascinated with writing stories, illustrating them (first with PaintShop Pro by dual-boot, then with Gimp), and creating HTML pages from them. She enjoyed TuxTyping when she discovered it. She really got a kick out of warping her desktop; constantly changing the configuration of the thing. It looked and acted bizarre to me. The only way I could use her computer was via ssh. I think she tried every off-beat window manager out there. "How do you use that thing? It's a cluttered, cartoon mess!" "But it's so pretty!"
When I finally let her set up her own page on the Web, she went nuts. The thing was so graphics-heavy it took 5 minutes to load on our dial-up. She was helping fix things at school, too. Teachers came to her with dead Windows boxes or ugly HTML. By the time she got into high school, she had her own website and was learning PHP. She would spend hours "fixing" her site, then rip it all apart and do it again. She's a CS major now, on full scholarship.
I'm thinking educational software is for teachers -- to assist them in doing what they know needs to be done. That's where sites like EduForge, SchoolForge and K12Linux come in. Teachers can swap war stories and ideas there and make contact with developers who can implement those ideas.
For home, turn 'em loose with a system that _allows_ them to be creative beyond desktop backgrounds and downloaded icons. Set up a system that does the basics and let them make it their own. They will find their own interest. Don't stifle the creativity.
My daughter gravitated toward those Apogee shareware edutainment programs. When she was about 12 or so, she began using Linux and became fascinated with writing stories, illustrating them (first with PaintShop Pro by dual-boot, then with Gimp), and creating HTML pages from them. She enjoyed TuxTyping when she discovered it. She really got a kick out of warping her desktop; constantly changing the configuration of the thing. It looked and acted bizarre to me. The only way I could use her computer was via ssh. I think she tried every off-beat window manager out there. "How do you use that thing? It's a cluttered, cartoon mess!" "But it's so pretty!"
When I finally let her set up her own page on the Web, she went nuts. The thing was so graphics-heavy it took 5 minutes to load on our dial-up. She was helping fix things at school, too. Teachers came to her with dead Windows boxes or ugly HTML. By the time she got into high school, she had her own website and was learning PHP. She would spend hours "fixing" her site, then rip it all apart and do it again. She's a CS major now, on full scholarship.
I'm thinking educational software is for teachers -- to assist them in doing what they know needs to be done. That's where sites like EduForge, SchoolForge and K12Linux come in. Teachers can swap war stories and ideas there and make contact with developers who can implement those ideas.
For home, turn 'em loose with a system that _allows_ them to be creative beyond desktop backgrounds and downloaded icons. Set up a system that does the basics and let them make it their own. They will find their own interest. Don't stifle the creativity.
where's the beef?
15 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:What a nice way to twist an argument. So I am stuck and unable to represent my ideals because I stand firmly by them instead of wavering from them on the next wind of so called "reality"?
You haven't got a clue about what I said. I'm absolutely sure you know how to present your ideas. You also know how to deal with content but you could master the art of context.
Until you do, don't go around with the arrogance that you represent me or any other person who believes in furthering the cause of software freedom unless you have their permission. You don't have my permission.
Right now, you're a self-appointment emissary.
I'll try to reach you another way. I'll define the difference between an enlightened person and a jerk.
A jerk doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
An enlighten person doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and knows it.
Do you know it? Or are you simply a machine?
I'm sorry if what I said offended you. Maybe I could have put it better or just leave out the piece you quoted.
I just found your post too misrepresenting of my overall attitude in regards to the Free Software ideology and reality. I dind't, and still don't think we're on the same wavelength on that.
Well, we don't need to be. We are free to disagree, but let's not crash this discussion into flames, please.
Thanks Daniel
I just found your post too misrepresenting of my overall attitude in regards to the Free Software ideology and reality. I dind't, and still don't think we're on the same wavelength on that.
Well, we don't need to be. We are free to disagree, but let's not crash this discussion into flames, please.
Thanks Daniel
I agree. We have too much at stake. We may not find ourselves on the same wavelength but I'd pick up a musket and fight beside you anytime, any place.
I reread the discussion and my posts and I can see my tone was a bit arrogant. I apologize for that. Your post stroke a chord at me it shouldn't have, and I sure could have presented my response in a nicer way.
> Yes, but why? Why should they use Free Software?
They should use free software if, and only if, it meets their needs better than proprietary software. For people who value freedom over convenience, this will be true most of the time. Most people don't value freedom over convenience, so for them, free software often doesn't meet their needs. That's what Tom is pointing out.
In order to solve a problem, you usually have to realize you have a problem which needs to be solved. I suspect that Tom, by pointing out the problem, is hoping to jumpstart the process of solving it.
They should use free software if, and only if, it meets their needs better than proprietary software. For people who value freedom over convenience, this will be true most of the time. Most people don't value freedom over convenience, so for them, free software often doesn't meet their needs. That's what Tom is pointing out.
In order to solve a problem, you usually have to realize you have a problem which needs to be solved. I suspect that Tom, by pointing out the problem, is hoping to jumpstart the process of solving it.
Quoting:Most people don't value freedom over convenience, so for them, free software often doesn't meet their needs. That's what Tom is pointing out.
Yes. I see that, but then I think we shouldn't be helping them to continue to not value their freedom by offering them ways to switch to GNU/Linux because of proprietary software ported to it.
I think that the cause IS (or at least should be) our mission. I don't see much of a point for Free Software anywhere else, but in the Free Software philosophy and the value of freedom. As soon as we omit that in any context thinking that in that context it somehow doesn't matter, I think we're actually going against our mission.
To clarify myself, I am not here to tell Tom what and how to write. I'm here to express my opinion and make suggestions, as a reader and a Free Software advocate. My suggestion isn't even that the article should *emphasize* freedom. No, it is not an article about Free Software philosophy. However, it should at least include it in the "feature list" as grouch put it. At least say that one of the biggest advantages of GNU/Linux over Windows XP and Mac OS X is that it gives you more freedom and control over your computer, just as the "feature" worth considering.
I also wouldn't suggest proprietary ports as solutions, though I agree with acknowledging that people miss this or that proprietary tool on GNU/Linux. I just think that in light of what our real mission should be, the way one is to respond to this acknowledgment is by encouraging the community to develop or perfect alternatives so that we can one day say to people: "here is this program, it is not (insert wanted proprietary program), but it is just as good if not better and with a familiar interface and best of all you're in control, because it's Free Software".
Help them become free, even if they yet don't value being free, because that is the whole point of Free Software from the beginning, to give people freedom, to put them in control.
Thanks Daniel
Here is my view being both a developer of 16 years and a computer user of longer. As a developer, Linux has a lot going for it, with exceptions. Since, I'm a visual person, when it comes to debugging, I'm 1000 times more productive with a dang good debugging IDE, then with anything else. Linux open source debuggers are still years behind MS, Intel, etc. in what I like and am very good at using.
As a user, and hoping to reflect most (above 95% of computer users), I don't give a crap about the freedom to fix, manipulate, or contribute to open software. My time is limited and I am not going to waste it on software that does not immediately meet my needs. If I were to tally open software applications vs. proprietary applications in meeting my needs, it would be the latter. Why? because their business depends on it. Whose neck is on the line for any of the open software? Does your food come from supporing it? No. Hence, it will never be as good at meeting my needs as proprietary software. Economics drives the business and commercial world, not free software. Ideals are nice and should be adhered to, but some issues just don't matter.
By the way, how is it that free and freedom seem to be in the same paragraphs from FSF/OSF advocates? The two are not equivalent and have little to do with each other.
Many commercial libraries also sell their code. But, I bet FSF advocates still decry it as not having freedom.
Why is free software so much better than free food? Which is really more important? This is what really confuses me about FSF/OSF advocates. I don't advocate either should always be free. The best working economic model is free enterprise; which means the exchange of goods. Communism and socialism (and all other 'isms) have proven out to not work in the long run. FSF is communism in the software industry.
Now that I've stated an extreme opinion. I actually like a lot about open software. What I don't like about it is FSF's extreme attitudes. Btw, they do not represent freedom any more than Red China does. Many knock the EULA's of commercial software; well have a look at all the licenses and restrictions from FSF/OSF. Exactly why are they any better? And so many....
For those who decry freedom in software: distribute your code without restrictions (yes, that means I may use it for commercial gain) and I'll believe in your cause. I'll even make sure proper credit is due. I do know there are some free software licenses that allow such; but, FSF doesn't even support those licenses. I think that for every commercial license being requested to be dropped, so should every FSF/OSF license be dropped. Otherwise, FSF advocates are no different than commercial advocates, just different goals.
As a user, and hoping to reflect most (above 95% of computer users), I don't give a crap about the freedom to fix, manipulate, or contribute to open software. My time is limited and I am not going to waste it on software that does not immediately meet my needs. If I were to tally open software applications vs. proprietary applications in meeting my needs, it would be the latter. Why? because their business depends on it. Whose neck is on the line for any of the open software? Does your food come from supporing it? No. Hence, it will never be as good at meeting my needs as proprietary software. Economics drives the business and commercial world, not free software. Ideals are nice and should be adhered to, but some issues just don't matter.
By the way, how is it that free and freedom seem to be in the same paragraphs from FSF/OSF advocates? The two are not equivalent and have little to do with each other.
Many commercial libraries also sell their code. But, I bet FSF advocates still decry it as not having freedom.
Why is free software so much better than free food? Which is really more important? This is what really confuses me about FSF/OSF advocates. I don't advocate either should always be free. The best working economic model is free enterprise; which means the exchange of goods. Communism and socialism (and all other 'isms) have proven out to not work in the long run. FSF is communism in the software industry.
Now that I've stated an extreme opinion. I actually like a lot about open software. What I don't like about it is FSF's extreme attitudes. Btw, they do not represent freedom any more than Red China does. Many knock the EULA's of commercial software; well have a look at all the licenses and restrictions from FSF/OSF. Exactly why are they any better? And so many....
For those who decry freedom in software: distribute your code without restrictions (yes, that means I may use it for commercial gain) and I'll believe in your cause. I'll even make sure proper credit is due. I do know there are some free software licenses that allow such; but, FSF doesn't even support those licenses. I think that for every commercial license being requested to be dropped, so should every FSF/OSF license be dropped. Otherwise, FSF advocates are no different than commercial advocates, just different goals.
Libervis:
It looks like he got a lot of people in several online discussions to point out what the free software philosophy is and why it should not be left out of any comparison. I don't think the article was written as flame-bait; it doesn't contain the necessary buzz-words for pushing buttons. It does appear to have been very effective in enlisting the audience in educating itself.
I noted one person on Slashdot had never heard of Ubuntu. He/she sure has, now. ;)
It looks like he got a lot of people in several online discussions to point out what the free software philosophy is and why it should not be left out of any comparison. I don't think the article was written as flame-bait; it doesn't contain the necessary buzz-words for pushing buttons. It does appear to have been very effective in enlisting the audience in educating itself.
I noted one person on Slashdot had never heard of Ubuntu. He/she sure has, now. ;)
Grouch, well, that is good to hear. :)
davidwt: I hope you don't mind me saying, but I think you're severely misinformed about FSF and Free Software because they are not against "commercial" nor are they against free enterprise and free market. There is nothing communist about it either. In fact, Free Software (and by that I mean software with which you have freedom to run, copy, modify and share) is what makes true free market in the software field possible. Look at what proprietary software does to the "free market"; monopolies and increasing loss of user control. And when user is not in control, then what happens to the "customer is always right" principle?
I sometimes even say that Free Software allows for capitalism in a software field the way it was truly meant to work.
I know that as soon one starts shouting words like "freedom" and talk of ideology people who mostly care about business above all else tend to cover their ears or even dismiss the talk as extremist, but what about the fact that this freedom means better business, freer market, lower entrance barrier and thus ultimately a more rapid growth of the software industry and innovation?
So yes, nothing communist (nor extremist) about it.
Thank you Daniel
davidwt: I hope you don't mind me saying, but I think you're severely misinformed about FSF and Free Software because they are not against "commercial" nor are they against free enterprise and free market. There is nothing communist about it either. In fact, Free Software (and by that I mean software with which you have freedom to run, copy, modify and share) is what makes true free market in the software field possible. Look at what proprietary software does to the "free market"; monopolies and increasing loss of user control. And when user is not in control, then what happens to the "customer is always right" principle?
I sometimes even say that Free Software allows for capitalism in a software field the way it was truly meant to work.
I know that as soon one starts shouting words like "freedom" and talk of ideology people who mostly care about business above all else tend to cover their ears or even dismiss the talk as extremist, but what about the fact that this freedom means better business, freer market, lower entrance barrier and thus ultimately a more rapid growth of the software industry and innovation?
So yes, nothing communist (nor extremist) about it.
Thank you Daniel
Libervis:
You're more generous than I am. Pardon me while I feed the troll.
davidwt:
Hmm, a lot of FUD to wade through I see. Oh well, let's get started.
> Does your food come from supporing it? No. Hence, it will never be as good at meeting my needs as proprietary software.
No proprietary software provider earns anything from supporting code they've already sold. Support is a cost, not a revenue source. Now, if you want to sign up for a $$$ 24x7 support contract, that's another matter. Those same support contracts are available for many free software programs, of course, but you want to ignore that minor detail, don't you?
> Economics drives the business and commercial world, not free software. Ideals are nice and should be adhered to, but some issues just don't matter.
"Man does not live by bread alone." Some things matter whether "the business and commericial world" thinks they do or not.
> Why is free software so much better than free food?
Food is a physical item, a given quantity of which can only be consumed by one person. Software is not. Any number of people can use a software package without denying other the use of the same package. This is either deliberate misrepresentation or willful ignorance.
> The best working economic model is free enterprise; which means the exchange of goods.
The FREE exchange of goods. I.E., at terms agreed to by both parties. If some of those parties have different priorities than you, and therefore choose differently, that's none of your concern.
> What I don't like about it is FSF's extreme attitudes.
Fine, no one said you had to. No one here is even trying to force you to use their code.
> Many knock the EULA's of commercial software; well have a look at all the licenses and restrictions from FSF/OSF.
The restrictions in the code from the FSF (i.e., GPL'ed or LGPL'ed code) are on the developer, not the user. The restrictions in most EULA's are far more restrictive, and are on both. Again, either deliberate misrepresentation or willful ignorance.
> For those who decry freedom in software: distribute your code without restrictions (yes, that means I may use it for commercial gain) and I'll believe in your cause.
I'm sure you would. Sorry, no deal. I'm not a programmer, but if I was any code I chose to write would be under the GPL. You don't like that, tough, you don't have to use what I write. I don't care if you believe in my cause or not. I do.
> I do know there are some free software licenses that allow such; but, FSF doesn't even support those licenses.
As noted before in an earlier discussion, the FSF recognizes the BSD license as being free software. They think the GPL is better, so that's what they use. You can use whatever you want.
> I think that for every commercial license being requested to be dropped, so should every FSF/OSF license be dropped.
The BSD license, which does exactly what you claim you want, is a recognized OSF license. Now, tell me again exactly what it is you want.
> Otherwise, FSF advocates are no different than commercial advocates, just different goals.
Of course they're no different except for the goals. That's like saying there was no difference between Roosevelt and Stalin except for their goals. The goals are what define a person or organization. This one definitely qualifies as a deliberate misrepresentation.
You're more generous than I am. Pardon me while I feed the troll.
davidwt:
Hmm, a lot of FUD to wade through I see. Oh well, let's get started.
> Does your food come from supporing it? No. Hence, it will never be as good at meeting my needs as proprietary software.
No proprietary software provider earns anything from supporting code they've already sold. Support is a cost, not a revenue source. Now, if you want to sign up for a $$$ 24x7 support contract, that's another matter. Those same support contracts are available for many free software programs, of course, but you want to ignore that minor detail, don't you?
> Economics drives the business and commercial world, not free software. Ideals are nice and should be adhered to, but some issues just don't matter.
"Man does not live by bread alone." Some things matter whether "the business and commericial world" thinks they do or not.
> Why is free software so much better than free food?
Food is a physical item, a given quantity of which can only be consumed by one person. Software is not. Any number of people can use a software package without denying other the use of the same package. This is either deliberate misrepresentation or willful ignorance.
> The best working economic model is free enterprise; which means the exchange of goods.
The FREE exchange of goods. I.E., at terms agreed to by both parties. If some of those parties have different priorities than you, and therefore choose differently, that's none of your concern.
> What I don't like about it is FSF's extreme attitudes.
Fine, no one said you had to. No one here is even trying to force you to use their code.
> Many knock the EULA's of commercial software; well have a look at all the licenses and restrictions from FSF/OSF.
The restrictions in the code from the FSF (i.e., GPL'ed or LGPL'ed code) are on the developer, not the user. The restrictions in most EULA's are far more restrictive, and are on both. Again, either deliberate misrepresentation or willful ignorance.
> For those who decry freedom in software: distribute your code without restrictions (yes, that means I may use it for commercial gain) and I'll believe in your cause.
I'm sure you would. Sorry, no deal. I'm not a programmer, but if I was any code I chose to write would be under the GPL. You don't like that, tough, you don't have to use what I write. I don't care if you believe in my cause or not. I do.
> I do know there are some free software licenses that allow such; but, FSF doesn't even support those licenses.
As noted before in an earlier discussion, the FSF recognizes the BSD license as being free software. They think the GPL is better, so that's what they use. You can use whatever you want.
> I think that for every commercial license being requested to be dropped, so should every FSF/OSF license be dropped.
The BSD license, which does exactly what you claim you want, is a recognized OSF license. Now, tell me again exactly what it is you want.
> Otherwise, FSF advocates are no different than commercial advocates, just different goals.
Of course they're no different except for the goals. That's like saying there was no difference between Roosevelt and Stalin except for their goals. The goals are what define a person or organization. This one definitely qualifies as a deliberate misrepresentation.
Libervis:
> but then I think we shouldn't be helping them to continue to not value their freedom by offering them ways to switch to GNU/Linux because of proprietary software ported to it.
Well, except for one minor detail, I agree with you. Hoever, it's possible that some niche software cannot be reasonably developed under a free license, and will have to be developed as proprietary software. Note that I'm not saying this is certain, merely that it's possibly the case.
> I think that the cause IS (or at least should be) our mission.
I agree, but I think the evidence is solid that most people simply don't care, and trying to convince them on that basis is useless. If that's the case, should we try to convince them using other (from their perspective, equally valid) arguments, or do we abandon them to the proprietary vendors.
If we want to convince them anyway, we'll have to overcome what they view as obstacles in their path. I think Tom was trying to list some of those obstacles. The best means of doing this is a matter for discussion. I personally perfer to use free software wherever possible, but not everyone agrees. I think I know your position on the matter. :)
> but then I think we shouldn't be helping them to continue to not value their freedom by offering them ways to switch to GNU/Linux because of proprietary software ported to it.
Well, except for one minor detail, I agree with you. Hoever, it's possible that some niche software cannot be reasonably developed under a free license, and will have to be developed as proprietary software. Note that I'm not saying this is certain, merely that it's possibly the case.
> I think that the cause IS (or at least should be) our mission.
I agree, but I think the evidence is solid that most people simply don't care, and trying to convince them on that basis is useless. If that's the case, should we try to convince them using other (from their perspective, equally valid) arguments, or do we abandon them to the proprietary vendors.
If we want to convince them anyway, we'll have to overcome what they view as obstacles in their path. I think Tom was trying to list some of those obstacles. The best means of doing this is a matter for discussion. I personally perfer to use free software wherever possible, but not everyone agrees. I think I know your position on the matter. :)
davidwt:
You sure have picked up and latched onto a lot of misconceptions!
>"Linux open source debuggers are still years behind MS, Intel, etc. in what I like and am very good at using."
Looks like the key phrase there is what follows "etc.". You want the software you're familiar with and nothing else will ever do. By your defined yardstick, there is no hope for anything, at any price, to dare challenge what you like.
For others, not so deeply in a rut:
Integrated Development Environments / RAD tools / GUI-builders on Linux: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Devtools/ides.html
Your whole 2nd paragraph is silly on the face of it. You provide no evidence of being elected to speak for "above 95% of computer users", nor do you provide any surveys or studies to indicate that group's thoughts, yet that doesn't stop you from proclaiming, as self-appointed representative of that group, "I don't give a crap about the freedom to fix, manipulate, or contribute to open software."
Apparently there are a great many people who care about that freedom. Otherwise, how is it that software that has $0 price tag is the focus of so much business news and so much discussion among individual computer users? Why is the world's biggest software company spending so much time, effort and ink in disparaging free software? (See the very recent article telling about Microsoft spending $500,000,000 on advertising to counter talk about open source). I suggest your vehement dismissal is misplaced.
>"Does your food come from supporing it? No. Hence, it will never be as good at meeting my needs as proprietary software. "
And your needs, as a self-proclaimed developer who absolutely refuses to have anything to do with free software, would those needs be to charge license fees for your proprietary software creations? What about your customers' needs? Are those to be considered if and only if they do not interfere with your desire to rent your software?
Free software is definitely a threat to such a business model. It has a tendency to commoditize most software at a price of $0, while adapting to suit the customer, not the vendor. Free software tends to evolve to meet users needs, not the "needs" of software landlords.
The business part comes from the fact that skilled developers, unlike software, are a limited resource. Once software is created, copying and distributing it is essentially a zero-cost operation. The things that are not zero-cost are determining the customer's needs, creating a solution, and maintaining that solution as conditions change.
Free software allows people to create and maintain their own solutions. It does not prevent businesses from springing up to do those things for other people who do not want to create and maintain software, or who cannot.
I'm willing to pay for a certain software solution, but I'm not willing to rent it in perpetuity, nor am I willing to purchase a closed, secretive 'black box' which may lose its magic at any moment. Developers need to grasp the GPL ahead of their customers, to be prepared as more potential customers learn how the GPL works for them.
>"Why is free software so much better than free food?"
Answers:
0. If "free" is defined according to the GNU philosophy, that is, it regards freedom instead of price, then "free food" is a nonsense phrase. If "free" is defined as a price of 0, then "free software" may be a good aspect, because it is a gift, or it may have a bad aspect, if the given software does not allow the recipient to use it in helpful ways.
1. Food, unlike non-free software, may be studied by the consumers of food to try to grow better food. Non-free software does not allow users to study it to understand how it works. Software which is non-free attempts to halt advancement as if we were back in the dark ages and knowledge is the sole province of a privileged few.
2. Copying and distributing software costs essentially $0. Growing and distributing food consumes real, non-zero cost resources.
3. Food, unlike software, is not something you reuse over and over to manipulate other things that you own. Once you eat the food, you do not eat it again, nor can anyone else. You cannot eat the free apple, then improve that apple and let your friends eat the improvements. If you use software, it does not get consumed. It is available to be used again and again unless it is deliberately designed to prevent reuse.
If I make a gift of an apple to you, I cannot control your other property with that apple. If I make a gift of non-free software to you, I may be able to use its secret operations to do harm to your computer or your data. Spyware, spamware, viruses, trojans and worms are examples of such software gifts.
If I make a gift of free software to you, you may make use of the freedom to use it and the freedom to study it to make improvements to it and then use the freedom to distribute it to share those improvements with everyone else.
>"For those who decry freedom in software: distribute your code without restrictions (yes, that means I may use it for commercial gain) and I'll believe in your cause."
You are free to use free software for commercial gain. See Red Hat, IBM, Sun, etc. What seems to be your real complaint is that GPL software does not allow you to hide it from your potential victims and remove freedoms from them that the software grants to you. You don't seem to be a very nice person, to me. I will stick to doing business with those whose business does not depend on harming me.
>"Linux open source debuggers are still years behind MS, Intel, etc. in what I like and am very good at using."
Looks like the key phrase there is what follows "etc.". You want the software you're familiar with and nothing else will ever do. By your defined yardstick, there is no hope for anything, at any price, to dare challenge what you like.
For others, not so deeply in a rut:
Integrated Development Environments / RAD tools / GUI-builders on Linux: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Devtools/ides.html
Your whole 2nd paragraph is silly on the face of it. You provide no evidence of being elected to speak for "above 95% of computer users", nor do you provide any surveys or studies to indicate that group's thoughts, yet that doesn't stop you from proclaiming, as self-appointed representative of that group, "I don't give a crap about the freedom to fix, manipulate, or contribute to open software."
Apparently there are a great many people who care about that freedom. Otherwise, how is it that software that has $0 price tag is the focus of so much business news and so much discussion among individual computer users? Why is the world's biggest software company spending so much time, effort and ink in disparaging free software? (See the very recent article telling about Microsoft spending $500,000,000 on advertising to counter talk about open source). I suggest your vehement dismissal is misplaced.
>"Does your food come from supporing it? No. Hence, it will never be as good at meeting my needs as proprietary software. "
And your needs, as a self-proclaimed developer who absolutely refuses to have anything to do with free software, would those needs be to charge license fees for your proprietary software creations? What about your customers' needs? Are those to be considered if and only if they do not interfere with your desire to rent your software?
Free software is definitely a threat to such a business model. It has a tendency to commoditize most software at a price of $0, while adapting to suit the customer, not the vendor. Free software tends to evolve to meet users needs, not the "needs" of software landlords.
The business part comes from the fact that skilled developers, unlike software, are a limited resource. Once software is created, copying and distributing it is essentially a zero-cost operation. The things that are not zero-cost are determining the customer's needs, creating a solution, and maintaining that solution as conditions change.
Free software allows people to create and maintain their own solutions. It does not prevent businesses from springing up to do those things for other people who do not want to create and maintain software, or who cannot.
I'm willing to pay for a certain software solution, but I'm not willing to rent it in perpetuity, nor am I willing to purchase a closed, secretive 'black box' which may lose its magic at any moment. Developers need to grasp the GPL ahead of their customers, to be prepared as more potential customers learn how the GPL works for them.
>"Why is free software so much better than free food?"
Answers:
0. If "free" is defined according to the GNU philosophy, that is, it regards freedom instead of price, then "free food" is a nonsense phrase. If "free" is defined as a price of 0, then "free software" may be a good aspect, because it is a gift, or it may have a bad aspect, if the given software does not allow the recipient to use it in helpful ways.
1. Food, unlike non-free software, may be studied by the consumers of food to try to grow better food. Non-free software does not allow users to study it to understand how it works. Software which is non-free attempts to halt advancement as if we were back in the dark ages and knowledge is the sole province of a privileged few.
2. Copying and distributing software costs essentially $0. Growing and distributing food consumes real, non-zero cost resources.
3. Food, unlike software, is not something you reuse over and over to manipulate other things that you own. Once you eat the food, you do not eat it again, nor can anyone else. You cannot eat the free apple, then improve that apple and let your friends eat the improvements. If you use software, it does not get consumed. It is available to be used again and again unless it is deliberately designed to prevent reuse.
If I make a gift of an apple to you, I cannot control your other property with that apple. If I make a gift of non-free software to you, I may be able to use its secret operations to do harm to your computer or your data. Spyware, spamware, viruses, trojans and worms are examples of such software gifts.
If I make a gift of free software to you, you may make use of the freedom to use it and the freedom to study it to make improvements to it and then use the freedom to distribute it to share those improvements with everyone else.
>"For those who decry freedom in software: distribute your code without restrictions (yes, that means I may use it for commercial gain) and I'll believe in your cause."
You are free to use free software for commercial gain. See Red Hat, IBM, Sun, etc. What seems to be your real complaint is that GPL software does not allow you to hide it from your potential victims and remove freedoms from them that the software grants to you. You don't seem to be a very nice person, to me. I will stick to doing business with those whose business does not depend on harming me.
jdixon:
I don't think there is an intrinsic need for a proprietary development model in any field. If there is a niche software field that is hardly going to be filled by a developers community alone due to lack of their interest, there is a possibility of recognizing the need of the users in that field as an opportunity and building a business around it to motivate and sustain the development. It can operate on a service model, but it could initially even sell copies of software to cover initial development costs. So even in these harder software fields it doesn't have to be proprietary. It can just be more commercial then usual in order to better motivate the development, but still stay Free Software (as in freedom).
Yes, we should try to argue on their own grounds. However, arguing on their own grounds doesn't necessarily have to exclude the point of software freedom. I think it is well possible to present the point of freedom on their own terms, in a way which they will hear it as something they wanted to hear, something desirable for them.
That is what I mean when I say that the point of freedom should at least be put on the "feature list". You don't necessarily need to argue ideologically. Just draw them the benefits. Eventually, you'll be able to get them to listen to the deeper arguments on part of the whole freedom philosophy.
However, if we just drop the philosophy trying to somehow argue without it included anywhere in the argument presented in any way, we are putting ourselves at risk of sacrificing too much to win them over.
What do I mean by "too much"? Well, if the cause is our mission and we sacrifice the cause to win them over, then we have essentially sacrificed the mission. What are we winning them over to then?
Indeed, the proprietary software they're missing on GNU/Linux. Should we have it ported or not? I say no, as long as it is proprietary software, for the reason I outlined above. But there are still options; either encourage development of free alternatives or convince the developer of those wanted programs to free the code.
Well, I'm glad if we understand each other. :)
Thanks Daniel
Quoting:Hoever, it's possible that some niche software cannot be reasonably developed under a free license, and will have to be developed as proprietary software. Note that I'm not saying this is certain, merely that it's possibly the case.
I don't think there is an intrinsic need for a proprietary development model in any field. If there is a niche software field that is hardly going to be filled by a developers community alone due to lack of their interest, there is a possibility of recognizing the need of the users in that field as an opportunity and building a business around it to motivate and sustain the development. It can operate on a service model, but it could initially even sell copies of software to cover initial development costs. So even in these harder software fields it doesn't have to be proprietary. It can just be more commercial then usual in order to better motivate the development, but still stay Free Software (as in freedom).
Quoting:I agree, but I think the evidence is solid that most people simply don't care, and trying to convince them on that basis is useless. If that's the case, should we try to convince them using other (from their perspective, equally valid) arguments, or do we abandon them to the proprietary vendors.
Yes, we should try to argue on their own grounds. However, arguing on their own grounds doesn't necessarily have to exclude the point of software freedom. I think it is well possible to present the point of freedom on their own terms, in a way which they will hear it as something they wanted to hear, something desirable for them.
That is what I mean when I say that the point of freedom should at least be put on the "feature list". You don't necessarily need to argue ideologically. Just draw them the benefits. Eventually, you'll be able to get them to listen to the deeper arguments on part of the whole freedom philosophy.
However, if we just drop the philosophy trying to somehow argue without it included anywhere in the argument presented in any way, we are putting ourselves at risk of sacrificing too much to win them over.
What do I mean by "too much"? Well, if the cause is our mission and we sacrifice the cause to win them over, then we have essentially sacrificed the mission. What are we winning them over to then?
Quoting:If we want to convince them anyway, we'll have to overcome what they view as obstacles in their path. I think Tom was trying to list some of those obstacles.
Indeed, the proprietary software they're missing on GNU/Linux. Should we have it ported or not? I say no, as long as it is proprietary software, for the reason I outlined above. But there are still options; either encourage development of free alternatives or convince the developer of those wanted programs to free the code.
Quoting:The best means of doing this is a matter for discussion. I personally perfer to use free software wherever possible, but not everyone agrees. I think I know your position on the matter. :)
Well, I'm glad if we understand each other. :)
Thanks Daniel
Daniel, write articles for LXer instead of putting them in the comments section. I don't think comments should run this long. You're obviously eloquent and prolific. Help Lxer become a stronger advocate. Our comments don't get picked up by the major syndicators but our articles do.
Thanks Tom.
Well, I'll keep that in mind and possibly write something hopefully good for LXer.
Well, I'll keep that in mind and possibly write something hopefully good for LXer.
> They are precluded by law [...] from seeing inside the software
Um... no. This is actually a protected right. Just because you can't read a disassembly doesn't take it away. If you want to run with the big dogs, you have to go potty in the tall grass.
If learning assembly takes too much time for you, think about what it's like for a non-developer to learn C++. That disassembly is every bit as good for you as the C++ source is to the average computer user. That's how much real people want and need the source code: even if they have it, it's worthless to them, so they don't CARE.
> Most need not give up any functions or features except...
Accountability. Any jackass can start an open source project, but it takes a certain level of professional ability to put a shrink-wrapped box on a store shelf. Once you put that box on the shelf, all kinds of federal laws suddenly apply to you, and I'm guaranteed certain rights and recourses. I like that, and I place a certain value on that.
> Free software advocates, as a whole, are rationally enthusiastic...
...about things I don't need.
I manage major software projects. I do not normally have enough time to do things as well as I would like. I do not normally have enough budget to hire all the people I need to do things "properly". So when some random guy proposes that I use software my own people can maintain and support, I tend to look at him like he's just sprouted an extra leg from his forehead.
I want someone else to be in charge of my software, because I simply don't have the time or the manpower. If it breaks, I don't want to reorganise my project priorities so we have time to fix it, I want to make a phone call and drop it in someone else's lap. I have enough problems, so anything I can make into someone else's problem is good.
And as a developer myself, I always resent being told that I have to stop working on an interesting problem to figure out why one of our TOOLS broke. Tools are boring. They should be left to the kind of people who are excited by them, like developers who work for a company where their project *is* the tool in question.
This is very much where most businesses are. Good developers are expensive. A team of competent developers might produce a $300,000 profit by building commercially exploitable projects, or they might just suck up $200,000 in overhead while they support your toolset. Personally, I'm not in a position to piss away a half million dollars annually for an ideal, and I don't know many people who are.
Um... no. This is actually a protected right. Just because you can't read a disassembly doesn't take it away. If you want to run with the big dogs, you have to go potty in the tall grass.
If learning assembly takes too much time for you, think about what it's like for a non-developer to learn C++. That disassembly is every bit as good for you as the C++ source is to the average computer user. That's how much real people want and need the source code: even if they have it, it's worthless to them, so they don't CARE.
> Most need not give up any functions or features except...
Accountability. Any jackass can start an open source project, but it takes a certain level of professional ability to put a shrink-wrapped box on a store shelf. Once you put that box on the shelf, all kinds of federal laws suddenly apply to you, and I'm guaranteed certain rights and recourses. I like that, and I place a certain value on that.
> Free software advocates, as a whole, are rationally enthusiastic...
...about things I don't need.
I manage major software projects. I do not normally have enough time to do things as well as I would like. I do not normally have enough budget to hire all the people I need to do things "properly". So when some random guy proposes that I use software my own people can maintain and support, I tend to look at him like he's just sprouted an extra leg from his forehead.
I want someone else to be in charge of my software, because I simply don't have the time or the manpower. If it breaks, I don't want to reorganise my project priorities so we have time to fix it, I want to make a phone call and drop it in someone else's lap. I have enough problems, so anything I can make into someone else's problem is good.
And as a developer myself, I always resent being told that I have to stop working on an interesting problem to figure out why one of our TOOLS broke. Tools are boring. They should be left to the kind of people who are excited by them, like developers who work for a company where their project *is* the tool in question.
This is very much where most businesses are. Good developers are expensive. A team of competent developers might produce a $300,000 profit by building commercially exploitable projects, or they might just suck up $200,000 in overhead while they support your toolset. Personally, I'm not in a position to piss away a half million dollars annually for an ideal, and I don't know many people who are.
CDarklock:
Financial figures dispute everything you ranted about.
Financial figures dispute everything you ranted about.
Cdarklock,
>> They are precluded by law [...] from seeing inside the software > >Um... no. This is actually a protected right.
A right that is protected by law, copyright and possibly patent law.
> Accountability. Any jackass can start an open source project, but it takes a certain > level of professional ability to put a shrink-wrapped box on a store shelf. Once you > put that box on the shelf, all kinds of federal laws suddenly apply to you, and I'm > guaranteed certain rights and recourses. I like that, and I place a certain value on that.
You have never actually read a EULA that is included with shrink wrapped software. Along with all of the restrictions on reverse engineering and modifying are a host of disclaimers that say essentially “we do not warrant that the program will do anything useful, and are not responsible if anything bad should happen.” Likely the only thing that you would get back is what you actually paid for the software, but no damages. This is how things are in the US. In other countries your rights may be different.
Of course, these EULA provisions have not actually been tested in a US court that I am aware of (I am not a lawyer) but attempts to make computer hardware companies and Microsoft actually honor the refund offer for an unused and unwanted pre-bundled operating system in the Windows EULA have not been successful.
> I want someone else to be in charge of my software, ... If someone else is in charge of your software, then they are in charge of your computer, not you. If they decide that you are cheating on the EULA, there is nothing to stop them from shutting your computers down until you pay up. And you have no recourse because you agreed to these “self help” conditions in the EULA by installing and using the software.
> I want to make a phone call and drop it in someone else's lap. What do yo do if, after 6 hours on hold (at least it was an 800 number), and another two days exchanging crash dumps via e-mail, you are told that “Yes, this is a bug in our product, but the product is being phased out and you have a exotic, one of a kind configuration, so we are not going to fix it.”? Sue the vendor? Rip out their products? What do you do if the vendor has gone out of business? (This was in the currently shipping OS version at the time.)
I got that reaction from a closed source PC UNIX vendor and we replaced their systems with new Windows NT boxes, replacing both the hardware and software as the old systems could not handle NT. This was an expensive upgrade. The new systems still had to be rebooted every day due to a WAN card driver issue, which was also not fixed by either software or hardware vendor and, thanks to the EULAs, there was no recourse except to not buy from these vendors in the future.
On another project, I choose to use an open source web application server. This tool was at the heart of the application that we were developing. The developer announced that he was taking the web site down for a couple of days when he moved, but that it would be up again by the end of the week. Four months later, my supervisor learned that the vendors site was still down and I got to illustrate the one of the real advantages of open source software. Since I had the complete source code, it did not matter that the vendor had vanished off of the face of the Earth. I could fix any problems and add any needed new features myself.
When using closed source, binary only software you are at the mercy of the vendor's whims. The open source tools at least give the ability to support one self if the vendor dies, graduates and has no time, or simply loses interest.
The main difference between open source and closed source software is one of rights. With open source/free software the computer user is in control while with closed source software the control lies with the software vendor.
William
>> They are precluded by law [...] from seeing inside the software > >Um... no. This is actually a protected right.
A right that is protected by law, copyright and possibly patent law.
> Accountability. Any jackass can start an open source project, but it takes a certain > level of professional ability to put a shrink-wrapped box on a store shelf. Once you > put that box on the shelf, all kinds of federal laws suddenly apply to you, and I'm > guaranteed certain rights and recourses. I like that, and I place a certain value on that.
You have never actually read a EULA that is included with shrink wrapped software. Along with all of the restrictions on reverse engineering and modifying are a host of disclaimers that say essentially “we do not warrant that the program will do anything useful, and are not responsible if anything bad should happen.” Likely the only thing that you would get back is what you actually paid for the software, but no damages. This is how things are in the US. In other countries your rights may be different.
Of course, these EULA provisions have not actually been tested in a US court that I am aware of (I am not a lawyer) but attempts to make computer hardware companies and Microsoft actually honor the refund offer for an unused and unwanted pre-bundled operating system in the Windows EULA have not been successful.
> I want someone else to be in charge of my software, ... If someone else is in charge of your software, then they are in charge of your computer, not you. If they decide that you are cheating on the EULA, there is nothing to stop them from shutting your computers down until you pay up. And you have no recourse because you agreed to these “self help” conditions in the EULA by installing and using the software.
> I want to make a phone call and drop it in someone else's lap. What do yo do if, after 6 hours on hold (at least it was an 800 number), and another two days exchanging crash dumps via e-mail, you are told that “Yes, this is a bug in our product, but the product is being phased out and you have a exotic, one of a kind configuration, so we are not going to fix it.”? Sue the vendor? Rip out their products? What do you do if the vendor has gone out of business? (This was in the currently shipping OS version at the time.)
I got that reaction from a closed source PC UNIX vendor and we replaced their systems with new Windows NT boxes, replacing both the hardware and software as the old systems could not handle NT. This was an expensive upgrade. The new systems still had to be rebooted every day due to a WAN card driver issue, which was also not fixed by either software or hardware vendor and, thanks to the EULAs, there was no recourse except to not buy from these vendors in the future.
On another project, I choose to use an open source web application server. This tool was at the heart of the application that we were developing. The developer announced that he was taking the web site down for a couple of days when he moved, but that it would be up again by the end of the week. Four months later, my supervisor learned that the vendors site was still down and I got to illustrate the one of the real advantages of open source software. Since I had the complete source code, it did not matter that the vendor had vanished off of the face of the Earth. I could fix any problems and add any needed new features myself.
When using closed source, binary only software you are at the mercy of the vendor's whims. The open source tools at least give the ability to support one self if the vendor dies, graduates and has no time, or simply loses interest.
The main difference between open source and closed source software is one of rights. With open source/free software the computer user is in control while with closed source software the control lies with the software vendor.
William
William - nice post. Actually your argument works. I would have used it as the basis of an article instead of feeding a troll.
The key difference I've found in my dabbling in ubuntu is that it seems so difficult to get the basic operation-system stuff working. Specifically connecting to the internet on a USB modem (which, let's face it, is how most home users connect) and getting access to my non-linux hard drive. I haven't yet quite given up, but I'm close to it. I suspect there's a hidden mass of people who try it for a week and then give up for ever (or at least until the "click-to-connect" icon is working in some later release).
This "where's the beef" thread explores brilliantly the issue of the linux community's tendency to be a little defensive about any feedback that comes it's way. The "why don't you ask for a refund?" response seems to come just a little too quickly on many of the forums I've visited.
Why am I putting these two [unconnected] thoughts into a single post? Because I suspect that getting USB modem connections for the masses in linux isn't a priority simply because we have linux for its own sake, because it's beautiful like Esperanto and it's free and that's great, written by and for people with easy access to university LANs and a perverse love of the command line. It could alternatively be a dangerous culture gap: USB ADSL is not widespread in the US, but it's the way most people connect from home in Europe. Either way, if we really want to promote linux as a widely-used alternative to windows, then it's time exactly for the sort of objective comparison provided by tadelste, and for the linux world to start asking for and listening to feedback from the ordinary user, who just wants stuff to work.
This "where's the beef" thread explores brilliantly the issue of the linux community's tendency to be a little defensive about any feedback that comes it's way. The "why don't you ask for a refund?" response seems to come just a little too quickly on many of the forums I've visited.
Why am I putting these two [unconnected] thoughts into a single post? Because I suspect that getting USB modem connections for the masses in linux isn't a priority simply because we have linux for its own sake, because it's beautiful like Esperanto and it's free and that's great, written by and for people with easy access to university LANs and a perverse love of the command line. It could alternatively be a dangerous culture gap: USB ADSL is not widespread in the US, but it's the way most people connect from home in Europe. Either way, if we really want to promote linux as a widely-used alternative to windows, then it's time exactly for the sort of objective comparison provided by tadelste, and for the linux world to start asking for and listening to feedback from the ordinary user, who just wants stuff to work.
(Lack of) Tax Software
2 earlier comments in the full thread.
richo, you got a link to those :)
Complicated returns in the US still require software like Turbotax which is also one of the products CPAs use. I did.
With such a massive tax code, many people will find it difficult to use the on-line capabilities.
Simple filers with just a W-2 wage form will feel pretty good about the on-line service.
The states are another isue.
With such a massive tax code, many people will find it difficult to use the on-line capabilities.
Simple filers with just a W-2 wage form will feel pretty good about the on-line service.
The states are another isue.
jimf, refer to the following websites:
http://www.irs.gov http://www.tax.state.ny.us
The form links are usually PDF "fill-in" documents. Like richo123, I also completed my taxes with these forms.
Note for New Yorkers: NY State does not want the W2 that you received from the employer. You have to complete the state's new W2 form instead (I've forgotten the exact form number). Personally, I think that completing this form was a pain in the ass, because I had to complete yet another form when in the past, I could have just stapled the W2 that my employer provided to me to the form.
Also note that the NY State PDF forms will only allow you to print. They will not allow you to save your data with the form. I don't know why. The NY forms had this limitation last year, and they have the same limitation this year, too. However, the NY State PDF forms will allow you to print to a file.
Here's another tip. If you are printing from Linux with Acrobat 7, disable the "Optimize PDF", or whatever it's called, option. When I printed with that option on, the output appeared screwed up. Make sure that after you print to a file, you verify that the resultant file is good. You can do this by simply opening the Postscript file.
The last step in my process was to convert the Postscript files to PDF with ps2pdf. By the way, if you need to change some data in the Postscript file, you can simply edit the file with your favorite editor. I had to do this once for a NY fill-in form. Of course, you have to wade through all of the Postscript code and find and change the correct fields. 8-) I suppose that you can edit the PDF, too.
http://www.irs.gov http://www.tax.state.ny.us
The form links are usually PDF "fill-in" documents. Like richo123, I also completed my taxes with these forms.
Note for New Yorkers: NY State does not want the W2 that you received from the employer. You have to complete the state's new W2 form instead (I've forgotten the exact form number). Personally, I think that completing this form was a pain in the ass, because I had to complete yet another form when in the past, I could have just stapled the W2 that my employer provided to me to the form.
Also note that the NY State PDF forms will only allow you to print. They will not allow you to save your data with the form. I don't know why. The NY forms had this limitation last year, and they have the same limitation this year, too. However, the NY State PDF forms will allow you to print to a file.
Here's another tip. If you are printing from Linux with Acrobat 7, disable the "Optimize PDF", or whatever it's called, option. When I printed with that option on, the output appeared screwed up. Make sure that after you print to a file, you verify that the resultant file is good. You can do this by simply opening the Postscript file.
The last step in my process was to convert the Postscript files to PDF with ps2pdf. By the way, if you need to change some data in the Postscript file, you can simply edit the file with your favorite editor. I had to do this once for a NY fill-in form. Of course, you have to wade through all of the Postscript code and find and change the correct fields. 8-) I suppose that you can edit the PDF, too.
bbigby- spot on in all details! NYS are retards over the W2 form. If it's good enough for the Feds why does NY have to be control freaks? And the non-saveable pdfs are stupid and don't even get me started on being an Aussie expat at DMV AAARGHHHH!!!!!!
I use the paper forms. Last software I used was Taxcut99. Blame me for your taxes being higher; the gubmint will have to mail the books and process the paper until they provide me with the means to file electronically from my chosen OS. My tax forms are not simple, but they're a lot simpler than most small businesses.
> Blame me for your taxes being higher;
I'll have to take some of the blame there too. I refuse to use electronic filing when it costs me more money to do so. I know it saves the government money, so why do they insist on my having to pay extra for it? Anyway, until electronic filing costs the same as mailing in the return, I'll stick to the paper forms.
I'll have to take some of the blame there too. I refuse to use electronic filing when it costs me more money to do so. I know it saves the government money, so why do they insist on my having to pay extra for it? Anyway, until electronic filing costs the same as mailing in the return, I'll stick to the paper forms.
Writable PDFs are good, but the reality of tax returns in the US is that either you get the hard-to-understand book, fill in hardcopy forms, hope you got it right, mail it in and get a check in a month or two -OR- you can use tax prep software, get the equivalent of an LTP's guarantee, electronic filing and get a direct-deposited refund in two weeks.
Unless your OS is supported by Intuit et al, you don't get the second option. So yeah, you can do your taxes under Linux. If you want speed and accuracy without paying an LTP/CPA, use something else.
Unless your OS is supported by Intuit et al, you don't get the second option. So yeah, you can do your taxes under Linux. If you want speed and accuracy without paying an LTP/CPA, use something else.
"Unless your OS is supported by Intuit et al, you don't get the second option. So yeah, you can do your taxes under Linux. If you want speed and accuracy without paying an LTP/CPA, use something else."
Strangely, every time I used tax prep software it resulted in more taxes unless I manually prodded the thing toward what I had on paper.
Strangely, every time I used tax prep software it resulted in more taxes unless I manually prodded the thing toward what I had on paper.
dmp- I think Tom made the key point on this. If you have a straight forward w2 style return with a few add ons like mortgage interest deductions etc the writeable pdfs are fine and the book isn't too hard to work out. If you have more complex tax affairs then what you say is true. Horses for courses.
Quoting: but the reality of tax returns in the US is that either you get the hard-to-understand book, fill in hardcopy forms, hope you got it right, mail it in and get a check in a month or two -OR- you can use tax prep software, get the equivalent of an LTP's guarantee, electronic filing and get a direct-deposited refund in two weeks.
IMO, if you need to use the tax return software, you probably should be paying the LTP/CPA fee and having them do it for you. Tax return software is only really useful for those who have a simple enough situation that they could handle it with the forms if they needed to, but don't have the time or skills to do so. These people can be served equally well by the online versions.
Open Tax Solver 3.05 is available now.
Alternatively, use a web service such as TurboTax online.
Alternatively, use a web service such as TurboTax online.
jdixon: I agree wholeheartedly. If your needs are that complex, you don't have the time or ability to do your own taxes. Hire a professional. It is not a technological issue for your average computer user. We're only talking $20-$200 for 90% of the arguable cases. If your needs are greater than that then you should already have your own CPA, in which case the argument is moot.
On a side note: I have friends at Intuit and am going to see if I can get some reliable contacts inside. They have TONS of Linux and Unix running that shop on the server side. I'm sure that with enough demand going to the right managers that they could put the resources togehter to port to *nix.
On a side note: I have friends at Intuit and am going to see if I can get some reliable contacts inside. They have TONS of Linux and Unix running that shop on the server side. I'm sure that with enough demand going to the right managers that they could put the resources togehter to port to *nix.
down under guy: If they can run it on OS X, they can ru it on Linux. Not much of a stretch is there?
No you're right there Tom. Right thread? Am I down under ;-)
Quoting:Open Tax Solver 3.05 is available now
I'd never heard of this so I checked it out. Immediately, I see two problems.
The first is ease of use. Remember that what we are talking about is bigger than tax software. It's replacement of Windows-based software. Anyone who has used TurboTax can take one look at an Open Tax Solver screenshot and know that it is going to be A LOT more difficult.
The second issue, and this is the killer, is the lack of a guarantee. As Intuit has trumpeted for years, if you use TurboTax and end up paying a penalty, Intuit pays it back with interest.
Looking at those two items, until Intuit steps up and ports TurboTax to Linux, this issue doesn't get resolved. Sure someone else could put a new product out and make it work with Linux as well as Windows and Mac but at this point, the amount of catch up required to get where Intuit has been for years makes such a project unwise.
Please don't get mad at me on this. Open Tax Solver has been around a while. But, no tax professional would ever use it. It put the data on a text file and you have to enter it into the form itself.
That's what we did in 1991.
That's what we did in 1991.
Quoting:It put the data on a text file and you have to enter it into the form itself.
?
So what is the text file for?
Try this and you should see. To the right is a print out of the tax info you need to enter onto the form.
Also, check out the site. They need some more bodies, I think.
Also, check out the site. They need some more bodies, I think.
Try this and you should see. To the right is a print out of the tax info you need to enter onto the form.
http://opentaxsolver.sourceforge.net/scrnshot.html
Also, check out the site. They need some more bodies, I think.
http://opentaxsolver.sourceforge.net/scrnshot.html
Also, check out the site. They need some more bodies, I think.
Most of the commercial packages have online variants available. TurboTax works just fine under wine.
Just fyi...
Just fyi...
Your posts?
Are you referring to your posts here?
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=122473
It seems to me that you absolutely have no experience with ANYthing other than windoze, and shouldn't be administering anything.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=122473
It seems to me that you absolutely have no experience with ANYthing other than windoze, and shouldn't be administering anything.
Are you referring to me? If so my handle on Ubuntu forums is tadelste.
OryHara, you have no idea how wrong you are.... ;-)
"you" and "your" obviously refer to Mr. Blepp with a suitcase of code in Europe.
Whose turn is it to give a clue this time?
Whose turn is it to give a clue this time?
very strange trolls lately.
No flamethrowers, they just put a pot or two on to simmer. Never really answer a question posed them, but just keep spreading the mud.
Lots of cute names though.
No flamethrowers, they just put a pot or two on to simmer. Never really answer a question posed them, but just keep spreading the mud.
Lots of cute names though.
How to get beat up on Slashdot and Digg.com
For anyone wanting to experience people slamming you and your work, write an article and submit it to both places. I didn't submit this one to Slashdot but as an active member of digg.com (member overall ranking: 105) I usually submit something.
Getting beat up could cause you considerable discomfort. If you consider your writing an extension of yourself, you could take the flames personally. The 119 nasty comments on Digg and 399 comments on Slashdot compare to approximately 3.5 million hits from those sites. If people visit and read your story that's all that matters.
I consider writing a craft like putting a motherboard in a case or installing Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Slackware, SUSE or another distribution on a PC. My concerns deal with dangling participles, accuracy of the information, sentence structure, minimal use of words, information flow, etc.
If you write, then the pieces you put together in a story should concern you. How people deal with you doesn't matter. Just remember that they are dealing with you from their symbolic world and nothing else.
As editor-in-chief, I would love to see you write for LXer and get batted around on Digg.com and Slashdot.org. You could also get hit by OSnews.com readers. Just remember that they are readers only, not God.
If you want to become a LXer author, let me know. Enjoy!
Getting beat up could cause you considerable discomfort. If you consider your writing an extension of yourself, you could take the flames personally. The 119 nasty comments on Digg and 399 comments on Slashdot compare to approximately 3.5 million hits from those sites. If people visit and read your story that's all that matters.
I consider writing a craft like putting a motherboard in a case or installing Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Slackware, SUSE or another distribution on a PC. My concerns deal with dangling participles, accuracy of the information, sentence structure, minimal use of words, information flow, etc.
If you write, then the pieces you put together in a story should concern you. How people deal with you doesn't matter. Just remember that they are dealing with you from their symbolic world and nothing else.
As editor-in-chief, I would love to see you write for LXer and get batted around on Digg.com and Slashdot.org. You could also get hit by OSnews.com readers. Just remember that they are readers only, not God.
If you want to become a LXer author, let me know. Enjoy!
Now I have to go see what they're saying about you. If you don't have horns and a tail in at least some of the comments, you weren't half trying.
[edited to add:] Congrats! You got people talking about all 3 instead of each in isolation.
As usual, there is a tremendous amount of noise on slashdot, including one post that copied and pasted the entire article. Digg has a lot of talk about drivers. I thought that old myth was dead by now. Maybe some folks will get educated by all the discussion.
I'm disappointed that nobody suggested drawing and quartering you, though.
[edited to add:] Congrats! You got people talking about all 3 instead of each in isolation.
As usual, there is a tremendous amount of noise on slashdot, including one post that copied and pasted the entire article. Digg has a lot of talk about drivers. I thought that old myth was dead by now. Maybe some folks will get educated by all the discussion.
I'm disappointed that nobody suggested drawing and quartering you, though.
Quoted: "If you write, then the pieces you put together in a story should concern you. How people deal with you doesn't matter. Just remember that they are dealing with you from their symbolic world and nothing else." - A lesson I recently learned.
It looks like you grabbed the baseball bat and gave the hornet's nest a whack, good. They needed it.
It looks like you grabbed the baseball bat and gave the hornet's nest a whack, good. They needed it.
Scott: I was really just digging for hits. I thought you knew that. That's the reason I didn't post the article there. ;-)
I am a "little" thickheaded huh?
When you put yourself in the public eye through writing, acting, performing, or whatever, you set yourself up for criticism. Even if most people like your work, someone is not going to agree with you and tell you about it. It goes with the territory. I've had to grow a thicker skin since I started writing for a number of web sites. Still, I think it is worth it if I have something to say. Keep up the good work.
slippery: From your comment I would say that you definitely understand the process. I just want to warn you that somewhere don't the line it will become similar to building boats in a bottle.
Personally
I'm surprised by the brutal honesty that leaves out the free software philosophy.
What about GnuCash???
Dear Author
You are saying Linux lacks an accounting software? Wrong! What about GnuCash? Have your tried that out yet? I'm using it and it is great!
Best Zeno
You are saying Linux lacks an accounting software? Wrong! What about GnuCash? Have your tried that out yet? I'm using it and it is great!
Best Zeno
I think he's referring to income tax software, like Turbo Tax, not personal finance software. Read The Fine Post.
Chris
Dear zrr:
GNU cash seems like a good start. I mean that. But, I want CPAs using Linux because they're people who have enormous influence on businesses, wealthy individuals, etc. They use comprehensive tax software and accounting software every day.
They need to use very sophisticated accounting software. We don't have a package like Quickbooks. We have some that have been ported to Linux but they aren't even popular on Windows.
I do appreciate you bringing up GNUCash for our readers.
Best,
Tom
GNU cash seems like a good start. I mean that. But, I want CPAs using Linux because they're people who have enormous influence on businesses, wealthy individuals, etc. They use comprehensive tax software and accounting software every day.
They need to use very sophisticated accounting software. We don't have a package like Quickbooks. We have some that have been ported to Linux but they aren't even popular on Windows.
I do appreciate you bringing up GNUCash for our readers.
Best,
Tom
Over @ http://lobby4linux.com/ Ken has a link to http://www.appgen.com/aptus/my_books_professional_linux2.htm
I've never tried it, but maybe Ken could shed some light on how it works.This is just about the last reason our company still has 2 win machines running.We need something thats not only sophisticated,but something our Accountant can understand.
If you want my opinion as a former CPA and someone familiar with AppGen. It's a robust and excellent comprehensive accounting system. At one time you could compare it to any of the major systems available.
It never gained popularity because it was sold to Computer Associates and they didn't do much with it. Now it's in a separate company and they're trying to get people to use it. Unfortunately, like Windows and Office, Intuit owns the space.
It never gained popularity because it was sold to Computer Associates and they didn't do much with it. Now it's in a separate company and they're trying to get people to use it. Unfortunately, like Windows and Office, Intuit owns the space.
> because it was sold to Computer Associates and they didn't do much with it.
One of many.
One of many.
tadelste:
Have you looked at sql-ledger? http://sql-ledger.org Any opinions about it, if you have?
I've tried that with 3 businesses so far and each found it too complex for them to use in-house, mainly because of what it would take to do the initial customization to their businesses. This is a hole in accounting services rather than software. I can handle bookkeeping, but the accountants in the area can't (or won't) deal with anything outside the proprietary software they rely on. The little 'mom and pop' shops end up with a bookkeeping system cobbled together from whatever they have handy and take the results to a CPA as needed.
Have you looked at sql-ledger? http://sql-ledger.org Any opinions about it, if you have?
I've tried that with 3 businesses so far and each found it too complex for them to use in-house, mainly because of what it would take to do the initial customization to their businesses. This is a hole in accounting services rather than software. I can handle bookkeeping, but the accountants in the area can't (or won't) deal with anything outside the proprietary software they rely on. The little 'mom and pop' shops end up with a bookkeeping system cobbled together from whatever they have handy and take the results to a CPA as needed.
It's not that way everywhere. But, it does exist.
I started with mom and pop shops, got tired of it and wrote CAS (Client Accounting System) for the TI 990 Model One. Then I could give the mom and pop shoe boxes to new graduates and let them do it.
That's pretty much the prevalent attitude in the profession today. Back when I started you either had an expensive IBM mini or nothing.
I started with mom and pop shops, got tired of it and wrote CAS (Client Accounting System) for the TI 990 Model One. Then I could give the mom and pop shoe boxes to new graduates and let them do it.
That's pretty much the prevalent attitude in the profession today. Back when I started you either had an expensive IBM mini or nothing.
I have been using tax software via online services for years now. Used to use TurboTaxOnline, but found other, cheaper...but just as reliable...alternatives. There is still a lot of FUD in the minds of users regarding online services, but I generally find them cheaper, safer and more reliable than local apps for what I need them for.
OTS accounting software does have a way to go in Linux, but generally speaking, accounting, ERP, etc., is heavily customized anyway. There are a lot of open-source platforms available for customization, albeit in varying stages of maturity. I think the real issue is that people (primarily MS people) can't get out of the mindset that something has to be purchased in a shiny box (like cereal) to solve your problem. I think we need to get busy creating a uniform installation standard so that the MS crowd could buy shiney-box apps to install on Linux. That is, if we want Total World Domination...
Thoughts?
OTS accounting software does have a way to go in Linux, but generally speaking, accounting, ERP, etc., is heavily customized anyway. There are a lot of open-source platforms available for customization, albeit in varying stages of maturity. I think the real issue is that people (primarily MS people) can't get out of the mindset that something has to be purchased in a shiny box (like cereal) to solve your problem. I think we need to get busy creating a uniform installation standard so that the MS crowd could buy shiney-box apps to install on Linux. That is, if we want Total World Domination...
Thoughts?
I have been compiling the new 1.9 series of gnucash. Very nice indeed!
TaxCut runs on Ubuntu under wine 0.9.9
I did my taxes (business and personal) earlier this month using H&R Block's 'Premium + State' running under Ubuntu 5.10 and wine 0.9.9
I e-filed Federal and State returns and received my State refund in five days and my Federal refund in 8 days.
TaxCut imported my 2004 tax year data with no problem. Doing my taxes took about 30 minutes, once I had all my information handy.
I e-filed Federal and State returns and received my State refund in five days and my Federal refund in 8 days.
TaxCut imported my 2004 tax year data with no problem. Doing my taxes took about 30 minutes, once I had all my information handy.
jwbales: that's great information. Would you like to write a short "howto" for us? With the tax deadline coming up, I'm sure our readers would like to know about it.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
I, and I'm sure others, would be interested in hearing more on this. There are a number of Linux distributions aimed at the education market (such as Edubuntu , an off-shoot of Ubuntu), and it's hard to know where to improve without a bit more information.
"Secondly, the continuous development cycle concerns companies like Adobe and Intuit whose cost could increase with every release and upgrade of Linux. Ubuntu has a six month release cycle and replaces applications and libraries continuously. This scares ISVs."
Understandable, but I think Ubuntu is trying to counter this with a long support cycle - 6.06 (aka Dapper) will have a 5 year support cycle, which to some extent mitigates this.
Thanks for a good article! Without logical and relatively unbiased comparisons like this, you never know what your flaws are or what needs improvement.