Why post stories like this?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| phsolide Jul 27, 2010 5:26 PM EDT |
This story is just the same old "But I NEEEEeeeeeed Windows to do my job!", lock-in apologetics we've heard and tried to refute for years and years and years. In fact, just about every "11 is Louder" "pro-linux" article is the same darning-with-faint-praise, standard apologetics for Microsoft products. Let me summarize "I like Linux as much or more than the next guy, but I made a bad choice, despite clear warning signs, and now I'm locked in. Don't bother to tell me how to get out of my situation, just validate my earlier wrong choices." |
| Steven_Rosenber Jul 27, 2010 8:28 PM EDT |
I wouldn't want LXer to only publish "positive" articles about FOSS. I want the good, bad and ugly. |
| olefowdie Jul 27, 2010 8:54 PM EDT |
@phsolide, Did you read the article? It mentions OSX and Windows, and focuses on moving from either OSX to Linux or Windows to Linux. It talks about the fact that compatibilities between applications are not as good as expected, and how this is not the fault of Linux. It mentions that if one were starting on Linux, then Linux is perfect, but migrations can be more expensive than simply sticking with what is already working. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jul 27, 2010 8:58 PM EDT |
I would say that LXer being a news organization that focuses on GNU/Linux news has proven by its very nature to be a proponent of FOSS. But to only publish articles that are 'positive' would do a disservice to our readers and fail in our primary function of informing them. For me, to not allow dissenting opinions to be heard is the opposite of being informed. Trust me, I reject many articles that are disparaging to Linux and/or FOSS, mostly due to issues with authorship and their overall quality. But the same can be said for some of the pro FOSS articles I reject too. |
| kenholmz Jul 27, 2010 9:53 PM EDT |
One of the hardest things I sometimes manage to do is to read or listen to something or someone I have inherent disagreements with (and I can only imagine how I might handle the role of editor). I neither read nor comprehend quickly so I am limited in ways I'd rather not be. Still, there are times when I am grateful I was able to push on through. I wax and wane in the endeavor. Sometimes I even read through all of the posted responses and responses to responses, ad infinitum. That is usually more difficult than making it through the original article. As I alluded to recently, and all of you know, there is more at play than technical merit. It is fairly easy to ridicule a position other than the one I take at the moment, easy but not rational. I learned more about my irrational ideas reading all of those postings. So many personal attacks with little objective information or questions, one way or the other. Sometimes even a rabid anti-Linux, anti-FOSS writer pens something that might be worth considering. I am unlikely to change my personal preferences but I may understand something or someone differently or even better. There is one person who took a boatload for some of the things he wrote regarding Linux and FOSS. And yes, he wrote some things that seemed to me to be out in far left field. For a time he and I corresponded via email. None of this changed what I thought about some of what he had written, but I developed a different view of the man. We were able to entertain other points of view, and to see some things in new frames. Still, when he wrote something and admitted to having been wrong he was met with the same mindless personal attacks by a number of responders. |
| kenholmz Jul 27, 2010 11:19 PM EDT |
Okay, I have read the article (yes, it's true, I actually connect to Lxer to read the postings). Sadly, the two posters (so far) responded with the oft repeated glib and simplistic answers. The issues Ford wrote in the original post seem mostly relevant. Relevant at least in the sense that there are persons out there who hold to those beliefs and act on them. I can find no reason to believe the posters have ever tackled the kind of migration mentioned and their responses a unlikely to be seen as helpful. When Ken Stark wrote of a migration it was like reading an action packed thriller about a special forces action and I had no difficulty believing Ken was THERE!(a slight exaggeration,perhaps, ever so slight). A number of the usual suspect here have spent time in the trenches and can address the issues with experience behind their words. The fact remains that, even where migration to Linux might be less difficult, the decision makers haven't been able to see it in many, many cases. As you know, there are some serious migrations being worked on in various parts of the world. Their success or failure will likely be noted by many as time passes. But I speak here of businesses other entities that have been entrenched with there OS(es) and application for years. I think they will be hard sells I expect there are many individuals and perhaps SMB's (those not so entrenched and those newly forming) that can go with Linux far more easily. But...how to reach them? Where I live, the local libraries have computers patrons can log into for a while each day; they have classrooms where free classes are provided regularly. The local community college has satellite sites at offer classes to the 55+ group for $10.00/year. And all of these units are running Windows and MS Office. If I could just get them to Wabi Ubuntu 10.4 onto these units and offer classes I would be ecstatic. And of course, when any of these "students" goes to Walmart or Best Buy or Target or wherever to buy a computer, no matter how good the price is that day, they will likely walk out with Windows. All of this must appear as true as a flat earth and geocentric universe appeared to some. |
| azerthoth Jul 28, 2010 1:06 AM EDT |
ken, paragraph breaks, please. Those are hard reads. |
| tracyanne Jul 28, 2010 2:03 AM EDT |
My eyes are still spinning. |
| r_a_trip Jul 28, 2010 4:29 AM EDT |
The article isn't far off from the truth. These are exactly the thoughts of people who approach the brink of switching. It is hard to admit that a choice you made in infrastructure is now severely affecting you in a negative way. So we have all these nice short term rationalisations, like the money and time spent on the system. The niceties you lose when you drop platform A for platform B. Long term these rationalisations don't hold up to scrutiny. Once you are rationalising your decision for a platform, you are already questioning your choice. It is the proces where you slowly start looking at your current choice as a money sink instead of a sound investment. It is also the time where you start seeing the lock in problems. Document formats, phone syncing, drivers. Why do these things artificially tether me to platform X? I went through all of it many years ago. Windows back then was still notoriously unstable and I spent more time reinstalling Windows than actually being productive. what I also noted was that every single drop of functionality had to be purchased and installed seperately. Want to burn CD's? Shell out cash. Want to draw a bit more than possible with Paint? Shell out cash. Want to write something with lay-out and fonts? Shell out cash. Combine that with WinTel's plans for World Domination at the time (Paladium, Trusted Computing, Processor Serial Number), and my choice for Windows became less and less attractive. Eventually I came to the conclusion that I needed to cut my losses. Whatever I had spent on Windows was simply money gone. Playing around with Linux during that time convinced me that, for me, it was the only viable platform forward. I bought books to read up on Linux. I didn't balk at spending some cash to make my machine Linux compatible. I stopped looking at Windows software. Whatever was out there for Windows didn't matter to me, it wouldn't run on my platform of choice anyways. Ten years later, I still don't regret leaving Windows behind. |
| bigg Jul 28, 2010 6:55 AM EDT |
There's no point sticking our heads in the sand. Migration costs exist. Linux is not perfect, and is not always the right solution. I use only Linux for my work and on my home computers. That doesn't mean everyone else should. |
| kenholmz Jul 28, 2010 11:28 AM EDT |
Apologies to all; I got carried away. |
| gus3 Jul 28, 2010 11:32 AM EDT |
I may not know what someone else should use, but I know what they shouldn't use. And they know it, too, for the same reasons. Yet they are the ones sticking their heads in the sand, hoping against hope that it'll hold together for just one more day, one more minute. No sympathy from this direction. |
| phsolide Jul 28, 2010 11:59 AM EDT |
I wouldn't mind an article recounting an actual migration. I wouldn't mind an article that counted dollar-cost for an actual migration. I wouldn't mind an article that actually made good points. I agree with kenholmz in that I find it difficult to read/sit through an article that takes a position contrary to mine. I like Scott's position about posting pro- and anti-FOSS articles. Until you sharpen your arguments against worthy opponents, you have no idea how good the arguments are, and what holes exist in them. What I object to in this particular case is the faint-praise-apologetics. The article we're discussing here (yes, I read it before posting) just makes the we're-locked-in-and-we're-too-meek-and-mild-to-change-things-so-validate-us wishy-washy apology for staying with Windows. If Windows fits your needs, fine. Be prepared to say that, and to answer honest criticisms (this is a blog article after all). But also be prepared to change, as Windows is NOT YOURS. Microsoft can and does changes things out from under people, for no reason that suits the people. Implicitly asking people to validate your choice of shoveling water with a fork just seems sub-optimal. |
| azerthoth Jul 28, 2010 12:09 PM EDT |
Shoveling water with a fork, I like that image. It goes a long way in defending OpenOffice against Office. No they are not 100% compatible, however you run less of a chance of not being able to access your documents because MS decided to drop a format. Then there is the simple fact, detailed over the years by Andy Updegrove, how, while yes there are standards, even for MS formats, that even MS wont follow. OpenOffice being rather more standards compliant of the two. /soapbox http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/ |
| tuxchick Jul 28, 2010 1:54 PM EDT |
az nailed it-- you have to take the long-term view. Microsoft and other proprietary vendors are all about lockin and fake obsolescence. They think they own everything you buy from them, and they think they own your data. There is no accountability or transparency. Of course migration has a short-term cost. Duh. Smart people plan for the long-term, and that includes using FOSS, supporting FOSS, and supporting open standards and protocols. The MS and Apple apologists paint this rosy picture of MS and Apple as the Benevolent Big Daddies, and their customers as little baby birds who must be fed and tended, and never bothered with having to make their own decisions. FOSS assumes we are grownups. |
| olefowdie Jul 28, 2010 4:34 PM EDT |
I think people are ignoring the fact that a company may use software that simply has no equivalent on another platform, or software that may have an equivalent but is not compatible in any way with products on another platform. |
| tuxchick Jul 28, 2010 5:06 PM EDT |
olefowdie, part of long-range planning is planning an escape from that scenario. "using FOSS, supporting FOSS, and supporting open standards and protocols." It's just software, not rare magic unicorns. |
| jezuch Jul 29, 2010 2:23 AM EDT |
Quoting:or software that may have an equivalent but is not compatible in any way with products on another platform Welcome to lock-in! Guess you didn't see that one coming! You're ours now, bwahahaha! [+1 for poor panning if you find yourself in that scenario. Unfortunately the typical strategy seems to be no planning at all - "Just buy Windows and don't bother me anymore".] |
| hkwint Jul 29, 2010 9:32 PM EDT |
Exit costs are never considered as costs pertaining to a certain platform, it seems. I'm planning writing an article about it, with nice pica's and far fetched metaphors. However, given my planning is rather poor... |
| Scott_Ruecker Jul 30, 2010 1:08 AM EDT |
Quoting:I like Scott's position about posting pro- and anti-FOSS articles. Until you sharpen your arguments against worthy opponents, you have no idea how good the arguments are, and what holes exist in them. Its like you read my mind..which makes me feel sorry for you. jk ;-) A good debate makes both parties look more closely at their stances. LXer is 'pro' FOSS and I feel no need to defend that statement but to not post articles like this calls into question my Journalistic Fortitude..nope, not on my watch. Scott |
| gus3 Jul 30, 2010 1:22 AM EDT |
Quoting:Its like you read my mind..which makes me feel sorry for you.Well, it is the next logical step after Dr. Seuss. *rimshot* |
| tmx Jul 30, 2010 1:35 AM EDT |
I guess there are articles posted in the past about specific scenarios that linux help business and specific ways it was achieved, that would be more persuasive. I still don't think its very easy decision. The migration was not particularly easy for me I admit. I dabbled with some linux distro for 2+ years before really starting to use it seriously. Even in the beginning I was having trouble believing in the performance improvement and benefits of linux over Windows. Unfortunately, I didn't have any specific reason that made me switch. So without a real reason, there was no incentives. It might partly having to do with being tired of the expensive software costs and hardware upgrades. You can't tell the users that, they have to experience the dilemma for themselves to get them motivated to look for solution. (I know if you apply this to real world issues, I think its why the world is crappy because few are motivated for changes despite all knowing its crappy.) But as far as computer goes, I learned that forcing people is really a bad idea and creates negative feedback. Even something as simple as installing a software to your friend computer when they didn't ask you to. Computer software is really individualism. You have to wait patiently for their whole Windows computer to crash, then if they asks, 'then' you can offer the alternative. And if the users never sees the light, so be it I guess. The individuals require their own curiosity to really initiate the change. If you are applying this to server level for a company, tough luck I guess. I pissed off more than one family members in the past trying to get them to change and I learned my lesson. I lowered my expectation now. If I can just get people to use open source apps in their proprietary system, then I'm happy enough and has been quite successful in this endeavor. I think small steps are important in the grand scheme of migrating, it started with open source apps and formats/standards. Let the users make the final decision. There is one exception to this, when you are teaching computer to someone who never used computer before. This is how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb... I meant... the gnu/linux? |
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!