Michel Posted May 22, 2003 Report Share Posted May 22, 2003 http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3618 I can agree with him on the fact that there is openource software that's not completely ok ( in the beginning). But what can be the reasons for this? To my opinion mostley because their are beta-verions,.....and everyone can test them..it maybe looks if they are finished. Closed source software only becomes available when it is finished( except for teh bugs,.....). Ofcourse some software is better thanothers, but that is a matter of opinion. People who like real basic stuff, don't want a gui for example.... User-friendliness can improve on the distro's(those who are developped (also) for user-driendliness anyway), but the only thing I really, miss in Mandrake, is the fact that u have to watch with hardware is suported, but even this is becoming a small(er) problem to my opinion. Windozs could learn something from Mandrake's graphical install. Maybe the servers aren't so easy to install, but I think then...are the defaults in M$-servers safe. Maybe it's a good thing you check everything before you set a server up, although it's probaably a lot of work. ok, I'll stop here.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMage Posted May 22, 2003 Report Share Posted May 22, 2003 It's a pretty good article, but there are a few things that I can nitpick in it. 1. He may be able to configure win2k3 to do file/web service within an hour or so, but does he actually put them to WORK as a server? He forgot there are very few apps that works in win2k3, including SQL server. So for a suposedly multihundred dollar worth of package, its worth actually less than a 60 dollar (or free) linux package. In this aspect, I have a feeling of an ironic truth in MS new commercial, "Do more with less" because microsoft actually gives you less so it forces you to do more, more searching, more configuring, etc. 2. His thinking that linux users don't like to pay for software. Well, the truth is that they do. The enthusiasts/hobbyists may not want to pay, but the general users and the corporate users (which we are trying to convert right now) actually want to pay, in fact, they hate the word free. I think most of the revenues from the companies he mentioned (macromedia, adobe, etc, etc) comes from corporate / educational section, not from general users. I have a difficulty believing a 40 year old man spending 300 dollars for a photoshop package just to edit some pictures unless it is required for his job. The thing is, if those companies never actually made an effort of creating stuff to sell, they cannot blame the linux users for their lack of sales in linux area. I actually think that if they make a lighter version of their products for reasonable price, people will buy them. 3. The features that he thinks many desktop people want such as blank password, and click and run. I'm sorry, but security is an issue. I have to tell the so called "regular home users" that many times after their computers got hacked so easily, prompting them to call me and lead me to 5 hours reinstalling everything from scratch. After that, I tightened their security in their computers and tell them not to install programs they don't trust. Yeah, they want thing to be convenient to themselves.. but the best analogy I give them to computer security is like doors and windows in their house. If you always open your windows and doors to your house, don't blame the criminals to come into your house and steal or vandalize your home. For me to come into their house and fix their problems that can be prevented so easily is not only an inconvenience for me, but also for them, too. (Now if they pay me to do that then it's not an inconvenience, but I do them for free since they are my friends). 4. This is the biggie.. he still asume that the free part in FSF is free as in free beer, not free speech. The FSF and GPL concerns more about the distribution of code, not whether people pay for it or not. As the article goes on, and reading the comments, he seems to mix this two concepts up. Well.. it's understandable really since I used to mix them up too. Anyway, it's a pretty good article overall, but flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JaseP Posted May 24, 2003 Report Share Posted May 24, 2003 I personally do not know what he is talking about with Linux and sluggishness. I have never experienced this kind of sluggishness in Linux. If OSNews wasn't owned by TuCows, I'd think the article was M$ FUD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.