Free Windows or Open Source UN*X? -- Risk Mitigation, notRevolutary Migration

["Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@ieee.org>]

I'm going to top-post here.

First off, I'll state the obvious:
   People run apps, not OSes.

That means "Windows" is _not_ the issue.
Applications _are_ the issue.

Secondly, a problem is that people think there are only 2 types of
applications:  Open Source and Proprietary.
They associate Open Source with Linux, and Proprietary with Windows.

Now as Robert pointed out, there _are_ Open Source applications for
Windows.  Not only do most people not consider that, they don't even
consider the fact that their _are_other_ applciations for Windows
besides just those from Microsoft.

Heck, there's not one month that goes by where there is a review that
says, "yes, application X is innovative and more featured, but it
does not solve the problem with Microsoft file format compatibility."

The problem with Microsoft file format compatibility is that people
keep upgrading.  When people don't, Microsoft changes its licenses
so they will.  You see, Microsoft has found that most consumers
people want "free" not "freedom" -- although it's more because
they do not understand what "freedom" is, let alone know about it.

Another problem is that "freedom" is what Stallman likes to talk about. 
Worse yet, he calls it "Free Software" and talks about "not Free
Software."  I don't like to confuse people, especially business people.

Put it into terms _they_ can understand:  "Risk" and "Risk Mitigation"

That's why I wrote my article:  
"Risk Mitigation, Not Revolutionary Migration"  
http://www.smithdot.net/display.php?category=freedom&article=hostageware.txt

There is nothing wrong with running Open Source, Standardware or even
Commerceware on Windows.  Hostageware is to be avoided, for a company's
own sake.

Running such on Windows means they (i.e. their DATA) will be far more
ready to move off of Windows if and when they do so.  It also means they
can learn these new applications on a familiar platform, without having
to deal with the other aspects of moving off of Windows (new desktop,
hardware incompatibilities, new security concepts, etc...).

Just my $0.02 ...

-- Bryan


From: Robert Citek [mailto:rwcitek@alum.calberkeley.org]
> That is, people need to:
>  - Hear about it
>  - Acquire it
>  - Install it
>  - Run it.
> The more simple HAIR is, the more likely people will be running your 
> software.  The more difficult, the less likely.  Take MS Windows as an 
> example.  

From: "Drews, Jonathan*" <DrewsJ@cder.fda.gov>
> I have to ask the question: Do these people want a Free version of Microsft
> Windows or do they want an Open Source UNIX? It's really important to
> prequalify those who want to switch to *NIX. The hard part is not getting it
> or even installing it. The hard part is understanding the administration
> tasks and how to use UN*X effectively. Let me give an example. 
>  Here at work we usually do things the Microsft way. Which means:
> 1) Type in or manipulate data in one computer.
> 2) Print the modified data out.
> 3) Retype all that stuff back into another computer. 
> 4) Spend hours doing this repetitive mistake laden work :-/.
> My labor saving solution to this is:
> 1) Boot FreeSBIE/Knoppix and mount the windows drive.
> 2) Execute a shell script that descends into the appropriate directories and
> concatenates the data in one file.
> 3) Use awk and sed to format the data and insert tabs in that concatenated
> file, so that Excel will import it.
> This UN*X way of handling the data is: A) accomplished in about 15 minutes
> instead of 4 hours and B) has no typos. The point is windows is a poor
> desktop distro because it requires you to do lot's of repetitive and boring
> stuff, again and again, and again...
> The point is not that people get a new operating system on which they can
> perpetuate the old paradigms they learned in Windows. They get a new
> operating system *and* acquire new skills  to exploit the advantages offered
> by their new Linux/*BSD OS.
> Finally, I get no joy from the fact that other people make the same choice
> in Computer software as I do. If huge portions of the world want to run
> windows then that is regretable but it's OK with me. What I don't want is
> for OpenSource UN*X to be morphed into Windows because of some need to win a
> popularity contest.

From: Robert Citek <rwcitek@alum.calberkeley.org>
> There are more than two choices.  Personally, my interest is in 
> OpenSource.  Linux just happens to be one portion.  BSD is another.  
> OpenOffice and Mozilla are yet another.
> Would I want a Free Version of Windows?  Free as in "beer" - no.  Free 
> as in "freedom" - yes.  Would I use it?  Probably, yes (I already use 
> FreeDOS, an OpenSource implementation of DOS.)  Is MS Windows every 
> going to be Free as in "freedom", as in free to copy, as in free to 
> modify, and as in free to distribute?  Probably, not.  Will there ever 
> be an OpenSource implementation of Windows?  Probably, not.  Will there 
> be OpenSource that runs under Windows?  Absolutely.  Will I encourage 
> people to use it?  Absolutely.  Right now that includes Mozilla, 
> OpenOffice, MySQL, Cygwin, among many others.



-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. -- Engineer, Technologist, School Teacher
b.j.smith@ieee.org



-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.