[TriLUG] Fwd: Sign this Petition - Explain why taxpayers pay out billions to Microsoft and get nothing in return, while Linux is free!

[William Sutton]

I tend to agree with Brandon on the practical application of technology 
for a specific role (based on what meets the pragmatic functional 
requirements) rather than an ideology-driven technology agenda.

For example, while Ubuntu is trying to become the generally accepted 
end-user Linux, I know non-technical people who bought a Dell Ubuntu 
laptop, tried it, and sent it back for the Windows version, because they 
were comfortable with Windows and (to them) the frustration factor wasn't 
worth it.  Yes, perhaps to some techies, this is the equivalent of using a 
box-end wrench where a ratchet would be a more powerful tool, but 
sometimes even the box-end wrench has its place.

Moreover (going back to the Ubuntu example), most people understand when 
their Microsoft system gets patched, reboots, and keeps on going. 
Sometimes there are odd issues, but generally it keeps going.  Not 
necessarily so for Linux.  I've heard horror stories from people who tried 
to do what was an allegedly transparent upgrade from one version of Ubuntu 
to another and had very serious version incompatibilities that were either 
sorted out by long tedious troubleshooting (which the average Windows user 
can't, doesn't want to, and shouldn't have to do) or by a fresh OS intall, 
reconfiguration, and data restoration (also things the average OS user 
doesn't want to mess with).  I've personally run into those sorts of 
breakage on Debian, Gentoo, and older versions of Red Hat.

Next, much custom business software is Windows-only.  Quicken.  AutoCad. 
Various other office appointment and client management systems (like those 
you see at your dentist/doctor/Line-X shop).  Some of these are used by 
government *contractors*.  Sure, a lot of things can be done in Wine, but 
it's one more layer of complexity for a lot of folks who don't have the 
spare time or brain cells to devote to being computer experts, when they 
have their primary task at hand (whatever it may be).

On the government contracting front, bear in mind that many "government" 
systems are actually developed, hosted, and (at least in terms of 
underlying infrastructure and personell) owned by contractors.  The 
"government" (which one?  US Federal?  local state?  county?  city?  The 
Republocracy of Podunk?) has differing regulations on what can (or not) be 
used and (often) the cost pricing for the product to be purchased.  You 
can't push "the government" to do anything in particular, because there is 
no such monolithic entity.  Now if you want to lobby your Federal 
Government state representative to require that all Federal agencies and 
departments migrate to Linux for desktops, that's another thing.

Next, the Federal government has standards for what can, or cannot, be 
used, and in what situations.  In some instances, those are security 
standards, based on what can (or cannot) be evaluated.  For all of 
Microsoft's security problems, they at least have a closed development 
product and an identifiable set of programmers, so they can certify their 
software to be free of any rogue logic with a certain degree of 
confidence.  Moreover, as a single organization, they can take ownership 
of their products.  Open Source in general, and Linux in specific, don't 
have those abilities, due to the by-definition ability of almost anyone to 
add some code somewhere which isn't sufficiently well vetted.

I'm not a Microsoft fan.  I'm not even (necessarily) a proprietary tools 
fan.  I'm a fan of technological pragmatism:  use what works for you, 
because it works for you, or because it complies with your client's 
requirements.  If you know someone who is interested in changing, by all 
means show theme.  But don't alienate half the world with an arm-twisting 
introduction.

William Sutton

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013, Brandon Van Every wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Jeremy Davis
> <jeremydavis at jeremydavis.biz>wrote:
>
>> Or is it more of a complicated "it depends" kind of thing.
>>
>
> "It depends."  You shouldn't prefer a carte blanche open source
> contractor's bill a priori, or make policies that encourage that kind of
> waste.  There are people who see open source as ideological movement.  I am
> mostly not one of them.  There are people who evaluate which business
> solution is more likely to reach a goal.  I'm mostly one of those.  I do,
> however, think the ethics and non-monetary goals of a business activity
> should be considered, which is somewhat against the ways our laws are
> currently structured.
>
> http://www.benefitcorp.net/for-attorneys/legal-faqs
>
>
>>
>> For example, lets say instead of using M$ desktop, the government
>> decides to use a Linux desktop environment such as Mint, with Libre
>> Office, Firefox or Chrome browser, GIMP, Thunderbird, and whatever
>> else for the purpose of doing basic clerical administrative work. How
>> much more could it possibly cost?
>
>
> For the generic office stuff, probably not much.  In fact, I'd say my
> current Lubuntu desktop is a lot closer to what desktops classically have
> been, than this monstrosity M$ is trying to foist on everybody with Windows
> 8 in the name of consumerizing everyone.  I had no idea it was as bad as it
> is, until the box I configured for my Mom showed up and I set about
> migrating her old stuff to it.  What a disaster.
>
> The main thing that would worry me is hardware support.  For instance, I've
> had tweaky weird power management issues on my old Dell Inspiron 1760
> laptop, which are kernel related and resulted in my system being unbootable
> for awhile.  I got past it, and eventually figured out that I should never
> never ever hibernate my machine, but that kind of showstopper glitch is not
> acceptable in a business setting.  Hardware support is an area where one
> would have to negotiate hazards, and this could matter a great deal if
> trying to apply Linux to previously installed base.
>
>
>> How long before most of the bugs are worked out.
>
>
> Bugs don't get worked out unless you're paying contractors $100/hr.  New
> bugs are created because a lot of the open source world doesn't believe in
> stability or end user experience.  They believe in combined community
> effort towards "the latest greatest."  Ubuntu is more cautious than most
> distros and that's part of why I'm using it.  Fedora would be totally
> inappropriate for most businesses, as they have a policy of pursuing the
> bleeding edge.  I have no experience with Red Hat Enterprise stuff, someone
> else can comment.  Too boring for this indie game developer.  But long term
> stability is important for a lot of businesses and not something one can
> take for granted.  My impression is that the M$ world has taken backwards
> compatibility a lot more seriously than the Linux world, especially in the
> ABI dept.
>
>
>> The best benefit of all may be better support for
>> development of standards. Instead of using Sharepoint, I think Drupal,
>> Wordpress, wikis and mailing lists would get the job done better right
>> off the shelf.
>>
>
> De facto standards rule industry.  Sometimes a standards body works out
> something good and usable in the real world.  Sometimes that happens after
> enough years have passed.  In the here and now, proprietary development
> often leaves the plodding committee oriented stuff in the dust.  That's why
> I'm not thrilled about pushing open source "on principle."  I'm interested
> in pushing open source when the business case for its equality or
> superiority is actually there.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Brandon
> -- 
> This message was sent to: William <william at trilug.org>
> To unsubscribe, send a blank message to trilug-leave at trilug.org from that address.
> TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> Unsubscribe or edit options on the web	: http://www.trilug.org/mailman/options/trilug/william%40trilug.org
> TriLUG FAQ          : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>