This is part of an article from Computerworld talking about Open Source. A
few Linux die-hards think that OpenSource is the answer to everything and to
ditch Microsoft. Considering most of the business world uses Microsoft
products and only a few use Open Source, this might be a window as to why
Open Source hasn't caught on that well.

I am so tired of seeing a few touting the benefits of Ubuntu and Linux over
Windows. Windows has it's place for most and Linux has it's place for
others, but to suggest that one ditch Vista or XP in favor of Linux/Ubuntu,
they are short sighted.

If you want to use Linux/Ubuntu, go ahead, but don't cram it down out
throats each and every day.

---------------------------------
ComputerWorld - Snippit.


One of the reasons why free and open-source software development has been
successful over disparate locations is that the work has been done by the
users, and these developer-users determine the functionality, Herbsleb said.

"Because work is done by the users, they're more likely to get the
functionality right, so a major class of errors is eliminated," he noted,
adding that developers of commercial software are rarely users of the
software, and the functionality is determined by project managers.

"Project managers tend to understand purchasing designs -- why companies buy
software -- so they'll build a project that plays into those hands,"
Herbsleb explained. This means that commercial software can be created
without fully meeting user requirements. Because free and open-source
software developers are its users, they create the functions they
specifically need.

But one of the drawbacks to the open-source software development model is
that mainstream users often get left behind because the really technical
people create the software design functionality for themselves, not for the
average user. The geek creed -- "If you can't install it, you don't deserve
to use it" -- is still alive in many open-source projects, said Nancy
Frishberg who works on user-centered software design in the software
division at Sun Microsystems Inc.

As a result, "it is sometimes said [that lack of] usability is the Achilles'
heel of open source," said Steve Easterbrook, associate professor in the
department of computer science and associate director of the Knowledge and
Media Institute at the University of Toronto.
Sun's Frishberg added that the open-source mantra that "everyone can
contribute" is actually misleading because adding to an open-source project
is basically limited to code, bugs and patches.

Jed Clampett wrote:[color=blue]
> This is part of an article from Computerworld talking about Open Source. A
> few Linux die-hards think that OpenSource is the answer to everything and to
> ditch Microsoft. Considering most of the business world uses Microsoft
> products and only a few use Open Source, this might be a window as to why
> Open Source hasn't caught on that well.
>
> I am so tired of seeing a few touting the benefits of Ubuntu and Linux over
> Windows. Windows has it's place for most and Linux has it's place for
> others, but to suggest that one ditch Vista or XP in favor of Linux/Ubuntu,
> they are short sighted.
>
> If you want to use Linux/Ubuntu, go ahead, but don't cram it down out
> throats each and every day.
>
> ---------------------------------
> ComputerWorld - Snippit.
>
>
> One of the reasons why free and open-source software development has been
> successful over disparate locations is that the work has been done by the
> users, and these developer-users determine the functionality, Herbsleb said.
>
> "Because work is done by the users, they're more likely to get the
> functionality right, so a major class of errors is eliminated," he noted,
> adding that developers of commercial software are rarely users of the
> software, and the functionality is determined by project managers.
>
> "Project managers tend to understand purchasing designs -- why companies buy
> software -- so they'll build a project that plays into those hands,"
> Herbsleb explained. This means that commercial software can be created
> without fully meeting user requirements. Because free and open-source
> software developers are its users, they create the functions they
> specifically need.
>
> But one of the drawbacks to the open-source software development model is
> that mainstream users often get left behind because the really technical
> people create the software design functionality for themselves, not for the
> average user. The geek creed -- "If you can't install it, you don't deserve
> to use it" -- is still alive in many open-source projects, said Nancy
> Frishberg who works on user-centered software design in the software
> division at Sun Microsystems Inc.
>
> As a result, "it is sometimes said [that lack of] usability is the Achilles'
> heel of open source," said Steve Easterbrook, associate professor in the
> department of computer science and associate director of the Knowledge and
> Media Institute at the University of Toronto.
> Sun's Frishberg added that the open-source mantra that "everyone can
> contribute" is actually misleading because adding to an open-source project
> is basically limited to code, bugs and patches.
>
>[/color]

Is there a desktop Linux revolution?

[url]http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=92&tag=nl.e103[/url]

"DesktopLinux.com’s admittedly non-scientific recent poll indicates that
the number of desktop Linux users has more than doubled since last year.
Unsurprisingly, Ubuntu is the favorite distribution. In his discussion
of the results, Steven Vaughan-Nichols points out that whatever one may
think of the poll’s accuracy, Dell and Lenovo probably aren’t preloading
Linux just for kicks..."

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
[url]http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html[/url]

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

windows is great.. but vista should not be called windows.
It should be called a disaster


"Jed Clampett" <jed@beverly.com> wrote in message
news:OIwckl06HHA.4436@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> This is part of an article from Computerworld talking about Open Source.
> A few Linux die-hards think that OpenSource is the answer to everything
> and to ditch Microsoft. Considering most of the business world uses
> Microsoft products and only a few use Open Source, this might be a window
> as to why Open Source hasn't caught on that well.
>
> I am so tired of seeing a few touting the benefits of Ubuntu and Linux
> over Windows. Windows has it's place for most and Linux has it's place
> for others, but to suggest that one ditch Vista or XP in favor of
> Linux/Ubuntu, they are short sighted.
>
> If you want to use Linux/Ubuntu, go ahead, but don't cram it down out
> throats each and every day.
>
> ---------------------------------
> ComputerWorld - Snippit.
>
>
> One of the reasons why free and open-source software development has been
> successful over disparate locations is that the work has been done by the
> users, and these developer-users determine the functionality, Herbsleb
> said.
>
> "Because work is done by the users, they're more likely to get the
> functionality right, so a major class of errors is eliminated," he noted,
> adding that developers of commercial software are rarely users of the
> software, and the functionality is determined by project managers.
>
> "Project managers tend to understand purchasing designs -- why companies
> buy software -- so they'll build a project that plays into those hands,"
> Herbsleb explained. This means that commercial software can be created
> without fully meeting user requirements. Because free and open-source
> software developers are its users, they create the functions they
> specifically need.
>
> But one of the drawbacks to the open-source software development model is
> that mainstream users often get left behind because the really technical
> people create the software design functionality for themselves, not for
> the average user. The geek creed -- "If you can't install it, you don't
> deserve to use it" -- is still alive in many open-source projects, said
> Nancy Frishberg who works on user-centered software design in the software
> division at Sun Microsystems Inc.
>
> As a result, "it is sometimes said [that lack of] usability is the
> Achilles' heel of open source," said Steve Easterbrook, associate
> professor in the department of computer science and associate director of
> the Knowledge and Media Institute at the University of Toronto.
> Sun's Frishberg added that the open-source mantra that "everyone can
> contribute" is actually misleading because adding to an open-source
> project is basically limited to code, bugs and patches.
>[/color]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:04:43 -0700, Jed Clampett wrote:
[color=blue]
> This is part of an article from Computerworld talking about Open Source. A
> few Linux die-hards think that OpenSource is the answer to everything and to
> ditch Microsoft. Considering most of the business world uses Microsoft
> products and only a few use Open Source, this might be a window as to why
> Open Source hasn't caught on that well.
>
> I am so tired of seeing a few touting the benefits of Ubuntu and Linux over
> Windows. Windows has it's place for most and Linux has it's place for
> others, but to suggest that one ditch Vista or XP in favor of Linux/Ubuntu,
> they are short sighted.
>
> If you want to use Linux/Ubuntu, go ahead, but don't cram it down out
> throats each and every day.
>
> ---------------------------------
> ComputerWorld - Snippit.
>
>
> One of the reasons why free and open-source software development has been
> successful over disparate locations is that the work has been done by the
> users, and these developer-users determine the functionality, Herbsleb said.
>
> "Because work is done by the users, they're more likely to get the
> functionality right, so a major class of errors is eliminated," he noted,
> adding that developers of commercial software are rarely users of the
> software, and the functionality is determined by project managers.
>
> "Project managers tend to understand purchasing designs -- why companies buy
> software -- so they'll build a project that plays into those hands,"
> Herbsleb explained. This means that commercial software can be created
> without fully meeting user requirements. Because free and open-source
> software developers are its users, they create the functions they
> specifically need.
>
> But one of the drawbacks to the open-source software development model is
> that mainstream users often get left behind because the really technical
> people create the software design functionality for themselves, not for the
> average user. The geek creed -- "If you can't install it, you don't deserve
> to use it" -- is still alive in many open-source projects, said Nancy
> Frishberg who works on user-centered software design in the software
> division at Sun Microsystems Inc.
>
> As a result, "it is sometimes said [that lack of] usability is the Achilles'
> heel of open source," said Steve Easterbrook, associate professor in the
> department of computer science and associate director of the Knowledge and
> Media Institute at the University of Toronto.
> Sun's Frishberg added that the open-source mantra that "everyone can
> contribute" is actually misleading because adding to an open-source project
> is basically limited to code, bugs and patches.[/color]

Well I must have one of the most computer illiterate (rest assured that I
am not exaggerating, this guy could crash notepad by looking at
it) co-workers at my work and he uses Ubuntu and assorted Open Source
software at home on his laptop all day long without even the slightest
hint of a problem.

While yes, I have seen Open Source projects that were horrible to use, I
have also seen commercial projects that are horrible to use. I've also
seen absolutely great Open Source projects that are easy to use as well as
commercial projects that are a pleasure to use.

So a blanket statement that says "Commercial Good", "Open Source Bad" is
incorrect either way. Both have their places, both have their pros and
cons, both have their good and bad projects/software/solutions.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

"Jed Clampett" <jed@beverly.com> wrote in
news:OIwckl06HHA.4436@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
[color=blue]
> This is part of an article from Computerworld talking about Open
> Source. A few Linux die-hards think that OpenSource is the answer to
> everything and to ditch Microsoft. Considering most of the business[/color]

<SNIP>

One point I have to mention....

When Open Source S/W is mentioned, it is automatically assumed that
whatever the s/w is, it's for Linux.

That is not the case. There is a LOT of open source s/w for Windows as
well.

Titles like Firefox, Thunderbird, and FileZilla have all gained wide
acceptance among Windows users. Hell, even Frank uses Thunderbird.

Open Source != Linux s/w. It MAY be for Linux, or it MAY be for Windows.

Also, freeware.....for Windows...for Linux.....not necessarily open-
source, but free, from individual's and companies as well. Same story as
open-source, some good, some bad, some useless.