Well, yes and no.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dumper4311 May 09, 2008 1:30 PM EDT |
This article is a good general overview of using linux in the real world, but there's a couple areas I think the author's missed the severity of the problem. Business applications are one - the dentist he mentions is a good example. My dentist uses a custom "for dentists" application to track and set appointments, schedule reminders, record and invoice work performed, etc. There may be a replacement in the F/OSS world, but I'm not aware of it. This isn't actually the biggest problem, regardless of the business. Conversion to any such new application requires the ability to seamlessly import and export existing data, or it will be quickly labeled as not worth the hassle. Financial applications are another - quickbooks being the first example on my list. While there certainly are more than adequate replacements for quickbooks in the F/OSS world, they're not able to seamlessly import and export financial data. This becomes a big hurdle if your small business tries to hire an accountant, and you share your data with said accountant as a set of quickbooks files. True, you could try to get your accountant to switch to an open alternative (good luck), but you'll likely hit the same snag a was listed for the business specific apps - not worth the hassle. Taxes are another similar matter, if you try to file your taxes on your PC. Which brings us to the quick and easy answer, quoted from the article: > "You can use Wine to run legacy Windows applications within Linux. It supports 10,000 applications. A few Windows programs won't run on Wine or just take too much time or expertise to set up properly. " Lets clear this up first off - WINE doesn't support any application, period. It has the potential to run (with varying degrees of success and usefulness) several thousand programs, but the project itself can't be expected to provide support for any of the above. Further, there are no application producers (that I know of) who will provide tech support for your Windows app running on Linux under WINE. A few Windows programs won't run? That's incredibly optimistic, and a bit unrealistic, particularly if you're betting your financial future on such capability. We all know that F/OSS is great for your average home or enterprise user, but it can still present problems that make it too painful for many users to switch, regardless of the validity of their reasons. The SOHO environment magnifies those problems several fold in some cases. I'd really like to see some suggestions from you guys on ways to easily and effectively overcome such problems, as I know there's more out there than I've seen personally. Please keep in mind most users don't want to learn the "tips and tricks" to massage these problems away, they simply want their tools to work. Without the hands-on experience of a F/OSS "enthusiast", I worry that conditions like these may be too much for the average user to overcome. So there's the real question: How does the average user overcome the significant hurdles (real or perceived) to F/OSS adoption? Further, how to we help propagate the desired results? I think HeliOS Solutions, and Komputers4Kids are good examples. Other thoughts? Anyone? |
| Scott_Ruecker May 09, 2008 2:55 PM EDT |
I have to agree completely when it comes to Wine. The only programs I have ever gotten to install and work successfully are the half dozen games I installed using Cedega, and I paid for that, I figure that's why it worked too. I have gotten Wine to install a couple of programs but never run them, an audio program for a audio recorder I use for interviews, silverlight, mosiac and a few others. Until I can get support for using Windows programs under Linux can a business really be expected to completely switch over to all FOSS. |
| herzeleid May 09, 2008 3:04 PM EDT |
> Until I can get support for using Windows programs under Linux can a business really be expected to completely switch over to all FOSS. Nice try - but this applies only if the business currently depends on those ms apps... If the business is not married to microsoft, then there is no problem. For instance, my consulting operation, and affiliated businesses are all proudly microsoft free. "Wait!" you shriek - what about the commercial applications, for which there is not a linux version? I'm glad you asked - for those apps, we use macs! In no case do we need a microsoft operating system, ever. |
| vainrveenr May 09, 2008 4:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:> Until I can get support for using Windows programs under Linux can a business really be expected to completely switch over to all FOSS.Right on! Even better are some of the "Wait! you shriek"-type comments and the responses to these within Caitlyn Martin's O'Reilly.net blog 'Is Linux Really Outgrowing Its Stereotypes? Does It Matter?' found at http://www.oreillynet.com/linux/blog/2008/04/is_linux_really... On a specific note here related to Fosdick's 9 "What We Want" points are Martin's and tuxchick's responses to comments eerily similar to the above Quoting:How does the average user overcome the significant hurdles (real or perceived) to F/OSS adoption?Martin and tuxchick address such questions head on, even for those who suspiciously attack Linux with little direct experience of it and with just a little too much vehemence against F/OSS. |
| dumper4311 May 09, 2008 4:23 PM EDT |
@Herzeleid:
>"but this applies only if the business currently depends on those ms apps" Well, yes. That was kind of the point, being as such apps comprise 90+% of the market. >"for those apps, we use macs!" Ok, but you've simply sidestepped the problem, kind of missed the point, and added another supporting point. 1) The problem of how do we move (painlessly) average users from an MS controlled world to a more F/OSS friendly world? 2) Using a Mac is a great way around the problem if your primary motivation is a hatred of MS, and moving away from the "great satan" of the software world is your goal. My goal is much more practical - I want control over my data. That's the whole issue - who owns your data? I don't even have a problem with proprietary software. Quite the contrary - it is frequently well suited to it's tasks, and easy to use. I just want to be able to use my data regardless of the platform or program I choose to do so with. From this perspective, open standards are at least (if not more) important than open source. 3) Using a Mac still doesn't benefit the F/OSS communities all that much. Variety is a good thing, and competition breeds improvement, but I'm more interested in promoting open standards, and open code. |
| dumper4311 May 09, 2008 4:44 PM EDT |
@Scott_R:
A recent Phoronix article (I found on this site) mentioned Valve's source engine being ported to Linux, and theorized about a possible connection to the UT3 delay on our favorite platform. While this is specifically entertainment related, I like to think such a fundamental shift could lead to more corporate attention, and validation of Linux as a SOHO and home user desktop platform. I like to tell myself that the Linux software landscape will look dramatically different a year from now. Of course, that's what I tell myself every year. :) And that still doesn't solve the problem of open standards, and transparent access to ones data. So interoperability with closed standards is still a painful reality for most of the market, and one we can't ignore if we want to really make a dent in said market. |
| herzeleid May 09, 2008 6:21 PM EDT |
@dumper4311 - > Well, yes. That was kind of the point, being as such apps comprise 90+% of the market. That's odd. perhaps they comprise 90% of your market. They are less than 10% of mine. > Ok, but you've simply sidestepped the problem, kind of missed the point, and added another supporting point. I guess that depends on what you mean by "the problem" - for us, using OSX is no problem. Sure, It'd be great if all the apps we need were available for linux, but they're not - and OSX is a great solution for us. So how exactly did I "miss the point" and what's your proposed solution? And BTW what's wrong with sidestepping the problem? Do you prefer a head-on collision? > Using a Mac still doesn't benefit the F/OSS communities all that much. Perhaps I'm not understanding the problem in the same way that you were. I heard the immediate problem statement as "how can we run these needed proprietary apps without ms windows", not "how do we help the F/OSS communities". I'm afraid there's no magic bullet. Until there are alternatives for F/OSS, I much prefer using OSX, as it's much more compatible with linux, we can ssh/rsync and use other unix protocols between all our boxes, and virus/worm/spyware are all non-issues. |
| GDStewart May 09, 2008 6:41 PM EDT |
>Well, yes. That was kind of the point, being as such apps comprise 90+% of the market. I'm not sure thats true for small businesses and the self-employed. That is who the article was clearly aimed at. All the apps mentioned in the article were standard office type applications. >If your primary motivation is hatred of Microsoft. Gee you've morphed into Dino. Maybe some people just do not like the way they do business. In fact a lot of people just don't like they way the do business. This is, with zero exceptions, not the same as hate. >I want control over my data. That's the whole issue - who owns your data? If you're worried about who owns your data then I don't see how Microsoft ever fits into your plans. Microsoft owns everything (/sarcasm). Maybe they've changed ? Do you wnat to bet your business on this (see MSOOXML, Exchange, Excell, Word (pre-MSOOXML)) ? P.S. I don't hate Microsoft. I just don't like the way they do business. I don't like them owning my data either. |
| Scott_Ruecker May 09, 2008 7:08 PM EDT |
We are talking about the average business owner, correct? Unless they are willing to be hand fed FOSS solutions, either because makes too much financial sense not too, or because they truly believe in it, all the while actively letting go of all their pre-existing notions of what free software is, what it represents and what it can do? It's going to be a hard sell, it is getting a lot easier by the minute, but it is still hard when the juggernaut of Microsoft and all other pre-existing proprietary software companies are still in the room and who now will sweeten the pot whenever they hear of a FOSS solution being considered. That may not apply to single proprietors or limited-partnerships but to a corporation? Now I believe that once someone, anyone, including a business owner, sees what Open Source Software can do for them, the money it can save them, the truly better solutions it can provide, and the good PR it represents in being able to "give back" to the community, in whatever form that takes. It's going to be tough for a while, that's all I'm saying. |
| GDStewart May 09, 2008 9:15 PM EDT |
>We are talking about the average business owner, correct? That really depends on your definition of "average business owner". I believe the article was aimed at very, very small (single employee) to small businesses where spending several hundred to several thousand dollars (BSA ! BSA !) for basic business software may be a make/break expense. This may be the average business. I don't think it is anymore, but I really don't know. |
| dinotrac May 10, 2008 5:58 AM EDT |
>Nice try - but this applies only if the business currently depends on those ms apps... If the >business is not married to microsoft, then there is no problem. A complete misunderstanding of the problem. The problem in most cases is not Microsoft apps, but the skadillions of special-purpose applications that run on Microsoft Windows and nothing else. The garage management software my brother-in-law uses is a Windows-only app. It is not, however, a Microsoft app. When my wife was still doing mortgages, her primary tool was a Windows-only app. It is not, however, a Microsoft app. Funny thing about business owners: They want to get business done. Many of them will willingly try new approaches and the path less travelled -- so long as it doesn't interfere with getting business done. Get in the way of earning a buck, however, and you've got a problem. |
| herzeleid May 10, 2008 10:08 AM EDT |
> A complete misunderstanding of the problem. On your part? > The problem in most cases is not Microsoft apps, but the skadillions of special-purpose applications that run on Microsoft Windows and nothing else. You call them "the skadillions of special-purpose applications that run on Microsoft Windows and nothing else." I call them "microsoft apps" for brevity - an app that is written for, and requires, ms windows. same difference, As I mentioned, all of the apps my business needs are available on either linux or mac. There is no commercial app I've ever needed that runs on ms windows and nothing else. But you're talking about the little VB app that joe's cousin's friend whipped up. and my original point stands. If you're not married to these windows apps, it's not a show stopper. If you think the point of the article was to upgrade 100% of the small businesses from windows to linux right now, you've completely missed the point. It's easy and sensible to just go for the low hanging fruit, and start saving money. We simply don't have any need to worry about the guy with all the weird little special purpose VB apps right now. He'll eventually need to upgrade, and that's the time for him to look at the options. |
| jdixon May 10, 2008 11:50 AM EDT |
> We simply don't have any need to worry about the guy with all the weird little special purpose VB apps right now. Actually, I agree. But the key phrase is "right now". There's too much work too do simply spreading Linux use among those who can already use it to worry to much about specialized applications. But, it will be a problem, and in the not too distant future. What we should be doing now is planning ways to deal with it. Possibly more companies like Codeweavers, aimed at even more specialized apps? |
| dinotrac May 10, 2008 1:43 PM EDT |
>But you're talking about the little VB app that joe's cousin's friend whipped up. and my original point stands. If you're not married to these windows apps, it's not a show stopper.
Gosh. You know even less than I realized, and I wasn't assuming very much. However, I'll give you this: you're right about the apps. Here's the problem -- lots of people are married to those windows apps. You don't switch without having something to switch to. If you'd like, I can break that down into smaller words. |
| herzeleid May 10, 2008 4:45 PM EDT |
> Gosh. You know even less than I realized, and I wasn't assuming very much. LOL, yep - that's me... sorry to disappoint you boss. > Here's the problem -- lots of people are married to those windows apps. You don't switch without having something to switch to. OK - that's fine, but I never addressed the question of those who are married to those apps, except to say, let's not worry about them just yet. > If you'd like, I can break that down into smaller words. I'm easy, whatever you want to do is fine. If doing that would help deal with your crankiness, I'm all for it! |
| helios May 10, 2008 5:30 PM EDT |
They possibly wouldn't be "married" to these apps if they knew they had a choice. How many small town people marry someone from their high school without stepping ten feet outside their residing counties? I come from an environment that not only fostered that type of sociology, it encouraged it. The girl next door isn't usually the best match, it's the only thing the suitor knows. As long as we sit content with the fact that "we" have our needs met and are not working for a greater dissemination of our "product", then the "wife" pool is going to remain a gathering of Ms. MS's. There are simply too many factions and agenda's within our number to make it even slightly possible for us to market Linux or FOSS itself. That's sad because with the numbers we have, the chances that the talent and financing are at hand is obvious. Not to worry though...it is going to happen. As soon as the Corporate end of our "community" perceives the desktop at critical mass, they will give us more friggin' marketing than we could ever imagine. It will be a blitz of "Linux" this and "Linux" that, on and in every media vehicle imaginable. This commercial entity will be credited with the "discovery" of the Linux Desktop and those of you who made it your life to build and spread our system will be forgotten like some aging stage-hand who's "break" never came. That's coming sooner than many of us know. In a way, I get a morbid satisfaction from it. Those who wail and lament the loudest will be the ones that opposed Linux doing any meaningful marketing in the first place. All we can do is keep plugging along with what we are doing and hope for the day we get to rub helios' nose in this posting. That's one admonishment I would truly enjoy h. |
| dumper4311 May 10, 2008 6:07 PM EDT |
@helios: I think you're right, many would move if they knew they had a choice. On the other hand, many don't have a choice yet. This sea of small special purpose apps Dino and I have mentioned are being used by a large percentage of SOHO users. It's the height of hubris to argue "let's worry about them later." That same sentiment keeps people locked into much more widespread apps like Quickbooks and the various Adobe products. Until we (or the corporate end) overcome that - technically and ideologically - we're swimming upstream. Ultimately, you're also right about the Corporate end - I think they'll come around sooner or later, as I mentioned in my reply to Scott_R, and when they do, I think it'll happen in a big way. Further, when it does, a lot of these smaller special purpose apps will find a new home. Suddenly, it'll be profitable to develop such programs for users of the rapidly growing Linux user base. But Dinos right, business owners want to get business done. This speaks to a larger fact - software is a tool, intended to serve it's users. When there is choice, people will find the easiest and cheapest way to get things done. When such choice is subverted to serve greed (or ideology for that matter), people will find a better option - if one exists. Again, it's irrational to ignore the specific needs of any mainstream group of users. |
| herzeleid May 10, 2008 7:02 PM EDT |
@ dumper4311 > It's the height of hubris to argue "let's worry about them later." Gee, hubris is the last thing I would have ever thought to associate with the plain old practical sort of "let's get the low hanging fruit first" sentiment I expressed. So, again I ask, as I'm quite eager to hear your solution: What would you have us do? What is your solution? Let's hear it, inquiring minds want to know! |
| dumper4311 May 10, 2008 10:10 PM EDT |
@herzeleid: Man, that was a long way around for you to finally join the discussion. That was the question I asked in the first place. Your initial response was effectively "just ignore the problem, since it's not a problem for me, it isn't a valid problem for anyone else." There's nothing practical about ignoring and smugly dismissing the needs of potential users - again, the height of hubris. My point was that while it's not much of an issue for you (which I think is a good thing by the way, congratulations), your "low hanging fruit" concept has already been accomplished - we've won that battle, F/OSS is a valid option, are you unable to see past that fact? Any significant movement into the wider PC market will require satisfying the needs of this class of users you're so quick to dismiss, for any reason. I've already listed my thoughts on the issue, refer to my response to helios' comments above. Also examine helios' actions - "keep plugging along with what we are doing" is good counsel, although I'd clarify that a bit. What HE is doing is worthwhile, and the only kind of advocacy that is worth anything. Beyond that, we work for corporate involvement, conversion of big must-have (perceptually anyway) apps, [EDIT: or preferably, fully functional interoperability with these "must-have apps" data files in an open solution] and the eventual arrival of users and the special purpose apps dismissed by you and ignored by the author of the original article. Once again, those are my thoughts. Sadly, one of the side-effects of hubris is frequently the inability to understand differing points of view. If the above was still unclear, I'll ask Dino to help me use smaller words and work on my bad mood. :) If you're really interested in being practical, I'd recommend a more objective view of the needs of other software users, from the position they find themselves in. That's the perspective we need to help them move forward from, and there again was the intended focus of the discussion. |
| dinotrac May 11, 2008 12:41 AM EDT |
dumper -- OK. In a mood to be nice now. A modified ignoring the problem makes sense. More accurately, being aware of our limitations and doing what we can makes sense. The truth is, we can't make a bazillion apps appear overnight. Oh, technically, it could happens. Zillions of developers and all that. But...our blessing is our curse. Most of those zillions are scratching an itch, and only a portion are motivated by profit or pay. So...How many ace developers have an itch to do a nice little garage app that includes shop manuals for just about every car there is -- an app that needs more than development because it also requires licensing the aforementioned shop manuals for inclusion? Of -- a mortgage preparation program that can interact with the automated underwriting programs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? We have to be aware that full FOSS solutions work for a niche market and grow the niche. That's not so bad -- the niche is big enough to notice right now. Nothing wrong with saying: 1. Let me see if we can help you 2. It turns out that we don't have a good replacement for your xyzpogbutton replicator applicaton right now, and it's not available for Linux yet. That approach builds trust. Some portion of those people, at some point, will decide that they no longer need xyzpogbutton replicator or a Linux version of it will become available. It's different from ignoring the population because it engages the world and builds relationships in a positive way. |
| helios May 11, 2008 6:29 AM EDT |
Here is a prime example of what is being discussed... I wouldn't exactly refer to the Real Estate market as "niche", yet a fairly astounding thing has happened within the needs of their software realm. "MLS" is the subscription service realtors use to list, display and show their homes. MLS stands for Multi Listing Service I believe although I might have that wrong. MLS is written to accept only Internet Exploder and that alone has caused howls of outrage...howls that have largely been ignored. You come to your own contusions as to why that is. There is, gestating within the Development community an "Open Source MLS". Of course, the resistance to this is great but I truly believe that it will go forward once most realtors get tired of hearing the complaints. It's not just realtors, it's owners, buyers and shoppers that are complaining. The spread of Firefox and the increased use of Linux and Mac have brought this inequity into focus and it's only a matter of time before there is a shift in the attitude of FOSS in this niche. Now, let's discuss one other thing. IE4Linux works well in place of a native application of IE. In a migration effort I am working on now, it has worked extremely well. Tell me something. Why would the people who develop and maintain the MLS database work to insure that only native Windows systems can run on MLS and not emulated or virtual instances of IE? I have it on fairly reliable authority that they are doing just that as we speak. Now why would this be important to them? The question is largely rhetorical but I want to know your thoughts on this. h |
| gus3 May 11, 2008 7:50 AM EDT |
@helios: The generous answer is that someone on the development end (probably a management type with no real software development experience) has fallen for the Redmond propaganda, and decided to go with a 100% Microsoft solution. The not-so-generous answer involves guys in dark suits and sunglasses, who "took care" of the MLS just before being dispatched to "rescue" the mSOOXml vote. Neither case would surprise me. |
| dinotrac May 11, 2008 8:12 AM EDT |
helios -- Don't know. MLS (Multiple Listing Service) is something of a monopolist in its own right, although competition does exist. In our area, for example, there is something called MAPS. Knowing how some of the folks in this industry operate, they have probably figured out that it will cost them more money to be compatible, and/or, their "security" protocols -- MLS listings are not intended for direct use by the general public -- rely on some Redmondy thing. To these people, software development is a cost, not asset acquisition. We are not talking about a group of computer scientists -- we are talking about an organization that sprung from real estate salespeople, folks who are used to maximizing their personal commissions. In the end, they will make the changes because they will have no choice -- at least in areas with competition. Realtors pay a fee to use their service and, if customers (ie -- the source of all those commissions) complain, so will the realtors. |
| hkwint May 12, 2008 4:38 AM EDT |
I've caught up with the thread and I like to try to summarize what's important in my opinion:Quoting:So there's the real question: How does the average user overcome the significant hurdles (real or perceived) to F/OSS adoption? First, we'll have to find out what the hurdles are. As dumper postulated: Quoting:This becomes a big hurdle if your small business tries to hire an accountant, and you share your data with said accountant as a set of quickbooks files. So, the most important hurdle are closed formats. Often it is said there is no good 'finance alternative for Linux', but looking at WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_accounting_softwa... I doubt it. This means, before anything else, SOHO's should migrate their data to open standards. But they just want to do business, then why this hassle? As Dino said: Quoting:Get in the way of earning a buck, however, and you've got a problem. And as everybody can understand, closed formats may get in the way of earning a buck. But SOHO's don't understand this, so they don't care. Then what's the most important hurdle? A lack of information on the SOHO's part. Someone should explain closed formats may get in their way of earning a buck. An attempt: A carpenter or mechanic in a garage wouldn't like to sign a contract he only may access his tools if some company X agrees he does so, and he may lose that right if company X desires so. Someone granting a mortgage wouldn't like her clients to be on a secret list she may only access if company X grants her the right to. Maybe not the best explanations, but it's a start. Now, let's say both OpenOffice and MS Office use ODF natively and MS Office would natively save in ODF (that's hypothetically of course). Then why would someone pay multiple hundreds of dollars for MS Office? OK, a few tiny reasons, but not very much. So if paid proprietary software uses the same open standards as some free software tool which is gratis also, chances are high the SOHO's are going to use more open source technology or even free software. Now, why don't these software apps support open standards? Because most of the software-market is supply-driven. Some cousin makes a VB-app for the garage because that's what he can supply. Some accountant makes quickbooks files because that's what he can supply. Would the demands be for cross-platform apps for the garage or open formats for the accountant files, than the cousin and the accountant that only knows quickbook couldn't supply. Then there might be a problem on the supply side, because there are not many cousins who can program cross platform, and not many accountants who can do their accounting in a free format. Normally, without free-market disturbing network effects as found in the software industry, a high demand and small supply of those services would lead to those few suppliers becoming rich and more supply would be created. However, since there's no demand _at all_, nothing changes. And there is no demand because those SOHO-people don't know closed formats are a risk for their bucks. So nothing changes. This supports my view that information is the biggest hurdle to FOSS-adaption. In my country, there's a interest group for the SMB's; called MKB-NetherLands. That's probably the place to tell that SMB's should _demand_ open formats when it comes to software, because closed formats may come in their way of earning a buck. One example I encountered myself (I work for a company which in fact is a 'group' of SMB's): I needed some technical drawings of certain parts, but the drawings were made in the US while I was in NL. They had to e-mail them. However, it seems something went wrong with the conversion to an open format on their side: Some of the IGES/STEP-files had tiny 'holes' and discontinuities in the model. Therefore, I couldn't use them and had to redraw the whole models. I processed the ones who were valid in less than an hour, but I've been working on the ones with the invalid models for about three days per part. Some of the parts were not sent to me in an open format, so they opted to scan the real paper-drawings and send them as a PDF, which meant even more work making the model. A very clear example how (actually working) open standards (STEP is rather good) can save days of work, and how closed formats can get in the way of earning a buck. That's what somebody has to convince the SMB's of; and that's the biggest hurdle. |
| jdixon May 12, 2008 6:47 AM EDT |
> It's the height of hubris to argue "let's worry about them later." Well that's not exactly what I was arguing. As others have pointed out, we have limited resources. I'm simply suggesting that it's better to work spreading Linux in those places for which it's ready than concentrating on those places for which it's not.. Which does not mean we should ignore the problem, merely that this is a time for planning moreso than a time for doing. I also think a summary and writeup of the ideas on this thread by someone more proficient than myself would make a great LXer specific article. Any volunteers? |
| dumper4311 May 12, 2008 9:14 AM EDT |
@hkwint: Some good points, and I agree, kind of. :) The only problems I see are that you're making some assumptions that may or may not work out practically. For example: >"And as everybody can understand, closed formats may get in the way of earning a buck. But SOHO's don't understand this, so they don't care. Then what's the most important hurdle? A lack of information on the SOHO's part." Yes and no. If a closed format works, then it's always a better option for those working to make a buck than an open format that mostly works, or an open format that's not supported by those they do business with. So it's not just a lack of information (although that's certainly a contributing factor), it's also a matter of time and energy required to make a functional shift. Additionally, it's very much about the people these SOHO's work with being willing to make the same shift. >"However, since there's no demand _at all_, nothing changes. And there is no demand because those SOHO-people don't know closed formats are a risk for their bucks. So nothing changes. This supports my view that information is the biggest hurdle to FOSS-adaption." Again, yes and no. I agree completely about the "no demand at all" part. The simple fact is that the quickbooks format works. Just as AutoCAD, Visio, and a dozen other big proprietary formats just work. So there is no demand, because these people just bite the bullet, pay the fee, ignore the "Who owns your data?" question, and get the work done. This is were we may start to diverge a bit on what needs to happen next. I believe it's not as much about education - as you'd have to "educate" (ie - change the actual behavior of all these SOHO's and all the businesses they interact with at the same time) for them to still be able to work together. This simply can't happen, as it would interfere with the ability to run the business, and thus generate profit (which is again, the point of being in business). Note that the trouble you sited with the technical drawings would have been alleviated if everyone had been using the same (or at least completely compatible) tools to do the work. This is an unpleasant but persistent fact, and in my opinion, it remains the single biggest hurdle to drawing such users over to better solutions. So what can we do? 1) Work on hi-fidelity file format compatibility with these market dominating closed apps. I know this is far from ideal, but you've got to give these people a way to move without requiring the rest of their working world to do the same at the same time. Without this capability, nobody will bother to move, because there's no demand - as you pointed out. Note that in the case of quickbooks (for example) we have great F/OSS options, but users can't move their data back and forth as they need to for interoperability with the rest of the world (their accountants, for example). The low hanging fruit idea has already been served, we must move beyond this to attract any kind of market share. With this kind of capability in place, then you're absolutely right - it becomes an education issue, because moving won't damage their ability to interact with others who are less well educated. 2) WINE is an option, but not nearly as good an option - it still does the work, but skips the necessary format interoperability to move people from proprietary to F/OSS solutions. Then education doesn't help us at all, because there's still nothing interoperable to move to. I'd say it's a chicken or the egg problem, but only superficially. Without such interoperability nobody is going to move, because doing so would cost time, cause problems, and thus cost money. I don't think education about a better way enters into the picture until we can move without the hassles you mention in the technical drawing example. |
| tracyanne May 12, 2008 1:55 PM EDT |
Rich bastards like Mark Shuttleworth could have spent their money better buying into those key companies and forcing them to support Linux, instead he creates his own toy. |
| dumper4311 May 12, 2008 2:43 PM EDT |
Sadly, most proprietary companies have no motivation to provide such interoperability. Lock in works well for their bottom line, with a minimal investment of resources. But really, we don't need them to change. The strength of open source/standards is the ability to work around and through the limitations of proprietary technology and screwed licensing. I don't have any problem at all with Shuttleworth or any other -aire. Quite the contrary, I hope to be financially well endowed myself someday soon. I just wish someone (like Shuttleworth) who professes an interest in open source and standards, would grow a clue and fund some of the coding that could quickly provide us with the the format interoperability we need to painlessly move these users over to a more open platform. Then it really would be a simple (heh) matter of education and advocacy. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!