OSNews

Well, I could answer that one, but that would bring out the trolls

You do realize that BSD does not grant you the Four Freedoms?

I agree with you that the article was somewhat confusing - it didn't have much meat.

That was just my little outburst of support for BSD. I guess it wasn't really connected to the rest of my comments.

All three of the BSDs or do you have one you like more? FreeBSD is the one most people are talking about and OpenBSD too, due to security. Seems to me that people tend to forget NetBSD is around too.

EDITED: TYPO

Edited 2005-12-11 21:24

"All three of the BSDs"

There is more then 20 BSD directly related projects :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bsd#BSD_descendants

There is 5 ( "certified as " )BSD license ( the first and second one are not in use anymore )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bsd_license

all BSD are NOT Free Software.

I meant the BSD license that goes with it. I ran DragonFly for a little while. I just downloaded PC-BSD and am thinking of dual booting with BeOS because I need tunneling capability and I am not confident that I will be able to get OpenVPN running on BeOS. Someone wrote a tuntap driver and patches for OpenVPN but... well, we'll see.

Aahh... okay

Have you checked if there are any Haiku-OS drivers you can use?

Yeah. I eBayed an IBM NetVista X41 which is mostly compatible with a couple of BeBits/Haiku drivers. I would have to run Bone for OpenVPN tho'... the other option might be to get a router that is capable of initiating a VPN connection and using it as a go-between.

You ought to send a post to the openbeos mailing list, or post a message in the Haiku-OS forum.

I'm sure we can all help you out somehow

"You do realize that BSD does not grant you the Four Freedoms? "

I should have known that someone would try to start something.

"Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
"

Exactly. I believe FreeBSD provides more freedom, and is much simpler than "F/OSS".

Compare the size, scope and restrictions on the BSD license verses that of the GPL:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

The BSD license provides more freedom, not less.

The only thing you can't do with BSD code is call it your own and copyright it.

To (hopefully) prevent another "GPL is less/more free than the BSD licence" flamewar (been there, done it, got the T-shirt already) :

Both, BSD and GPL are Free software licenses.
(if you don't believe it, look over at fsf.org

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicen...
(search for modified BSD license)

The BSD license is a permissive non-copyleft license.
If you don't aim at copyleft principles for your project or a piece of software you're working on, then the BSD licnese is a good choice for you. If copyleft is a major concern of you, then the BSD's are not suitable from the beginning, and you won't convince programmers and project members of the later category, that the BSD license is more free, because it misses a crucial feature for them

(BTW, I actually prefer copyleft licenses like the GPL over the BSD license. However, there is imnsho no reason to go over this debate every time someone mentions either of the two licenses, with virtually no result coming from that.)

"Lies need to be opposed."

Well you're no Picard, so "make it so" will forever escape you.

Its an idea who's time as come ...

Please every one, do not argue back at Moulinneuf.
It is compeletely useless, as proven by any number of "diskussions" on many different forums. He will use any remote excuse to spout his vitriol about licences and factual arguments he will meet with nothing but mere repetition of the vitriol and namecalling. Please spare yourself and this forum the effort of wading through yet another such thread/war.

For verification. Try to google: Moulinneuf license
http://www.google.com/search?num=20&complete=1&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c...
1,230 hits! Now that's some crusade. Don't expect this particular fanatic to actually listen to arguments.

Relax dude. Relax. Don't get religious over this.

You're right, but don't get religious

I am calm , my religion , whas never once mentionned in my comment , stop insulting me and who I am.

Well, relax then. You are so aggressive.

Nobody mentioned your religion, however it as mentioned that you are being "religious" in regard to the BSD/GPL-issue.

Relax. It's just licenses. No need to be aggressive.

Be civil and stop calling people "liars" and "traitors".

BSD provides less scope, as was implied in my first post. Second it provides more freedom to whomever accepts the code and uses it, why shouldn't people be able to do whatever they want with the code? That's what free software (NOT "Free Software") is to me.

Size is meaningless

No it's not. It's loads simpler and easier to understand than the GPL is.

Restriction ? BSD can be closed to all others. Saying you may not close the code wich whas given to you or change the license to something wich able to close it is not restriction , its a protection against thief , traitor and Monopoly.

That's exactly my point. The code is completely free to be anything the next author wants it to be. It can go anywhere and be anything, the GPL restricts it from being this. It may be able to maintain it's freedom but that's still a restriction.

I know your wrong , you dont know the meaning of the word "liberty" and "Freedom" at all and mix the two.

Who are you to be the final say on any English words? You're posts are full of grammatical and spelling inaccuracies.

Lie , Example : Apple.

The BSD provide no true real freedom at all. Thats why Microsoft , Apple and all others use it and close it.

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything to me, or anyone else. Back it up with facts or don't debate with it.

You , do not know the subject or the meaning of the thing you discuss at all.

Thanks for judging my intellect. Grow up, it's just a software license.

Edited 2005-12-11 23:13

No it's not. It's loads simpler and easier to understand than the GPL is.

True, but this has nothing to do with how free it is or isn't. But it sure is simpler, as I wrote in another post.

That's exactly my point. The code is completely free to be anything the next author wants it to be. It can go anywhere and be anything, the GPL restricts it from being this. It may be able to maintain it's freedom but that's still a restriction.

Yes, and if you close the source I no longer have access to it, therefore I have no freedom then. This is why I compare BSD to Anarchy (not that I consider Anarchy bad. I sure as h*ll don't.

To put it another way: If you close the source the next author does not have any freedom left.

It does however not protect the freedom for everyone but only for the strongest. It's more free for the powerful and less free for the weak.

GPL is about giving something in return, and as a Dane this seems really fair. I like the principle of GPL, but the principle of BSD is much simpler to understand. But it's not freedom as such.

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything to me, or anyone else. Back it up with facts or don't debate with it.

It's an evidence none the less, and I wouldn't call Mac OS X for anecdotal. That would be insulting in the eyes of Mac OS X users, I think.

However. BSD can provide freedom but it doesn't guarantee it at all. It may or may not provide freedom. Depends on how the former author used the license.

But you do know, you don't have to use GPL for your own work, right?
It's your own choice whether or not to use it, so the question is:

Do you want other people to have the right to modify it and secure it stays that way? Or do you not care about it?

If you don't care use BSD. If you do care, use GPL. I care.

"Yes, and if you close the source I no longer have access to it, therefore I have no freedom then."

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/mirrors-f...

Have fun!

"Yes, and if you close the source I no longer have access to it, therefore I have no freedom then. This is why I compare BSD to Anarchy (not that I consider Anarchy bad. I sure as h*ll don't.

To put it another way: If you close the source the next author does not have any freedom left.

It does however not protect the freedom for everyone but only for the strongest. It's more free for the powerful and less free for the weak.

GPL is about giving something in return, and as a Dane this seems really fair. I like the principle of GPL, but the principle of BSD is much simpler to understand. But it's not freedom as such."

That's not exactly correct. Nobody can "close the code" under a BSD license. They can only close *their added modifications* to BSD code under a proprietary license. The BSD code itself is never closed.

That being said, however, I also prefer the GPL, and for the same reasons. It's a progressive license, where the BSD license is essentially static.

"Size is meaningless.Scope , almost nothing is covered by the BSD license why do you think people where suing them all the time and still do today over it. "

Geeee, are you saying the SCO lawsuit was about the BSD license and not the GPL? Because that's the only OSS license lawsuit in recent memory.

"Restriction ? BSD can be closed to all others."
Wow, again with this bullshit.
BSD licensed code cant be closed, derivative code can be closed. The original code will always remain open.

"You , do not know the subject or the meaning of the thing you discuss at all."
Hey, he's just like you then.

"are you saying the SCO lawsuit was about the BSD license and not the GPL? Because that's the only OSS license lawsuit in recent memory. "

Must have missed the one since it dont exist , SCO ( formely Caldera ) is suing IBM its not about the GPL either.

"Wow, again with this bullshit."

If its bulshit for you , why discuss it ? Because you still believe your right when you still arent.

"BSD licensed code cant be closed"

Yes its is its done evryday "the derivative" are beeing closed the BSD too.

"derivative code can be closed."

Not with Free Software the Traitor BSD license allow it , thats why its not Free Software , there is no derivative with Free Software.

"The original code will always remain open."

No even that code is close with BSD , which show you dont know what your talking about at all.

"Hey, he's just like you then."

Nope , I have nothing in commons with you and your friends.

"Must have missed the one since it dont exist , SCO ( formely Caldera ) is suing IBM its not about the GPL either."
You fail to give any examples of lawsuits against the BSD/MIT license.

"No even that code is close with BSD , which show you dont know what your talking about at all."

No, it cant. I cant really explain your failure to understand this since it's quite easy to comprehend.
The original code cant be closed. Code released to the public under the BSD license cant be retrofitted with another licence at a later time. The copies that have already been released will always remain open.

The BSD-license gives you more freedom, but it doesn't give me any guaranteed freedom

As another poster has showed the BSD license doesn't grant any of the Four Freedoms as such. It might do so, but it depends on how the license is used.

GPL is more free in the meaning freedom RIGHTS for everybody.

BSD is more free in the meaning no rights to anyone, perhaps with the exception of the strongest one.

GPL is basically based on the same principle as democracy is: You can do anything you want, as long as you don't prevent anybody else from doing what they want.

You can take a piece of BSD-licensed code and turn it into a proprietary piece of code, and then you have prevented me from using the Four Freedoms. Therefore BSD isn't free in reality, as in freedom for everyone (which is the only true freedom).

However, BSD is much simpler, and if you want to get rid of legal mumbojumbo, it can be a good way out of the legal "hell"

In few words:

BSD == anarchy (might be free (but no guarantee), but only if you're strong enough)

GPL == democracty (the principle, not the way democracy is often implemented) - meaning: We can all do what we want, with one limitation: We cannot prevent other persons from doing what they want to do.

I prefer GPL, but BSD is okay, as long as it's not used to take the freedom away from other people.

You can take a piece of BSD-licensed code and turn it into a proprietary piece of code, and then you have prevented me from using the Four Freedoms.

No you can't. You can use/alter BSD code in your own project, but the original code is _STILL_ available. This argument gets brought up every time this BSD vs GPL crap starts and it's total rubbish.

Four Freedoms...

Make up your own definition of freedom.
Make up your own license to fit with that definition of freedom.

Pronounce yourself the sole arbiter of what is and is not free.

Shout repeatedly until people forget that it isn't so.

Nobody says I can get the altered code (therefore not granting the Four Freedoms), nor is there any guarantee that I can get the original code any more.

There is only one true definition of freedom. It's not freedom, if the freedom is not for everybody.

There is however differences in regard to how to protect the rights, and granting the rights.

Haiku-OS is using the MIT license as the primary license, since the idea is to give it away to everybody and let them do with it as they please, incl. closing the source.

This works well in regard to Haiku-OS since the original code will be around, and since some parts of the system is GPL'ed (and therefore must be replaced for the system to be proprietary).

But it doesn't work well, if the original source is no longer possible to get, and it doesn't give access to the modified sources (which is one of the Four Freedoms).

But the BSD-license isn't bad, it just doesn't grant any rights as such. It just doesn't try to prevent anyone from anything, including distributing it under a closed license.

"but BSD is okay, as long as it's not used to take the freedom away from other people"

BSD is not okay or the same , its specificaly used to take away freedom away from other People , Microsoft and Apple are built on BSD and its lackings.

That's not true!

There is a lot of BSD-licensed software where you can get the sourcecode.

What Microsoft does with it is none of your concern if you can get the source code from the original place. That way you can also be sure it wasn't ruined by Microsoft

Not all are using the BSD-license to turn the software into a proprietary solution.

GPL is more free in the meaning freedom RIGHTS for everybody.

BSD is more free in the meaning no rights to anyone, perhaps with the exception of the strongest one.

Wrong. GPL is about other persons telling ME what's right and wrong. Like religious fanatic who asks censorship on what *I*'m going to watch and not having the freedom to use it the way I want.

BSD *is* about freedom, not GPL. And relying on that "Four Freedom" (which remind me of the *12 Steps* from those other religious fanatics) is just plain gimmick, not logic.

Wrong. GPL is about other persons telling ME what's right and wrong. Like religious fanatic who asks censorship on what *I*'m going to watch and not having the freedom to use it the way I want.

So is democracy. It's wrong to steal from other people, wrong to kill people (in certain countries selfdefence is legal, incl. killing in selfdefence) - In Denmark it's even wrong not to pay a license if you own a TV-set or a radio (even a clock-radio or a cellphone with FM-receiver) and so on.

What you want is the "freedom" that comes with anarchy and that is perfectly okay for me. You just have to remember it doesn't grant anybody else any freedom, unless they are strong enough to take that freedom they want. I prefer the freedom that everybody gets, but that's what I prefer.

Quote: "You can take a piece of BSD-licensed code and turn it into a proprietary piece of code, and then you have prevented me from using the Four Freedoms. Therefore BSD isn't free in reality, as in freedom for everyone (which is the only true freedom)."

This is absolutely true. It's a pity none of the BSD fans will admit this. They harp on about true freedom meaning you can anything you want, even take something that's open, change it, close it, and then not reintroduce changes to the public, or back to the original hackers. That's not true freedom. True freedom of the code results in it ALWAYS remaining open, even on derivatives. BSD fails here badly.

As to Anonymous (IP: 24.19.173.---), obviously the BSD fans are out in force, since you somehow got modded up to +2 without any real warrant imho...the GPL is about making SURE that the code ALWAYS stays open. That those who take, give back. To quote the old Three Musketeers saying "one for all, and all for one". The GPL embodies a REAL sense of community, which is sadly lacking in every other license. You don't build a community based on money, well, at least not very well. Real love of a project will always result in a much stronger community.

Dave

Cool down, cool down

I know the article was pretty boring and disappointing, and having the good ol' battle between BSD-license and GPL-license.

I agree with you in regard to the Four Freedoms, but I wouldn't call the BSD-license a traitor license.

Which license you should use depends on what you want to accomplish.

I personally prefer GPL, but BSD/MIT is also okay, as long as you don't stop shipping the source

Your keeping throwing around nasty words like, "traitor." I'm not entirely sure why. You just keep hurling useless "evidence," and saying "BSD fail," without giving any logical reason why.

People are misunderstanding what the point of the BSD license is. It's not supposed to be "Free Software." It's supposed to be gratis code and gratis binary. It's not designed to stay open and free like GPL (which makes GPL incompatible with almost any other software license, it's either Free or it's not, people whine about this too, but why? That's the point of the license, if you don't like it, use another license!).

I really don't know why people are so upset over this. It's just a software license. People aren't getting killed by it, there isn't war going on over it and the icecaps aren't melting because of it.

If I wrote a piece of software, I'll use the license I want. If I modify a piece of software that's open source, then I'll abide by the license it's under.

Someone stated their opinion on it, why are you so upset?

You secretly are a BSD zealot trying to get people to hate the GPL by trolling in favor of it. You managed to misquote and misread or take completely out of context everything I said in my post that you replied to.

It's the only way I can explain to myself your horrific behavior.

Learn some manners, maybe some English and certainly some netiquette. If I were you I'd shy away from posting for a while. Your signal to noise ratio is pretty low, 101 voted down, 18 voted up. I don't mind your opinion(s), it's the way you state them that matters. You'll be banned soon anyway based on that score and most of your comments.

Respect other's opinions and chances are people will respect your opinion in turn. Berate them, act like a general a** or be very rude because of what they say (no matter how inaccurate you may believe they are) and your opinions matter less than dirt to most people, whether they simply read what you had to say or argued with you. Act like a jerk and people will treat you like one.

Edit: Grammar.

Edited 2005-12-12 06:29

"You secretly are a BSD zealot"

No , but I dont hate BSD Code ;-) , a strong BSD make for s trong GNU/Linux a very strong BSD make for a very strong GNU/Linux. The traitor effect we can use just as much as Windows and Apple does.

"trying to ... replied to. "

Now your fabulating and having wishfulll thinking.

"It's the only way I can explain to myself your horrific behavior. "

I know , but thats because you dont know me or the subject beeing discussed.

You clearly dont know manners. you clearly dont know your place , you clearly dont know netiquette.

""Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose. "
BSD Fail"

Explain why and how.

""Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. "
BSD Fail"

Explain why and how.

""Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor."
BSD fail"

Explain why and how.

""Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
"
BSD fail"

Explain why and how.

Its self explanatory , why because then it means its not Free Software , how : take any BSD derivative follow what the company developping it do with it. That why there is so few Open derivative of BSD compared to GNU/Linux with 20 year advance on everything else.

Derivative are BSD software , closing there code make them non Open Source , not allowing anyone the freedom allowed to you from the original make it Non Free Software.

I know you dont understand , that you dont get it and that you have an excuse for it , it just happen that its wrong morally , thechnically and for evolution.

The reason why there are so few derivatives based on BSD in comparison to Linux is of technical reasons. BSDs are FULL systems, Linux is just a kernel. Using Linux without some userland tools is useless...

Therefor Linux are in NEED of distros, while in the case of BSD, they have to radically change approach in order for the need to flavourify it. Eg. DragonFlyBSD which deccided to stick with the 4.x design instead of moving on with FreeBSDs design. Neither is wrong, but just radically different.

PCBSD did the same, they wanted userfriendlyness and decided to make their own flavour while using FreeBSD as the foundation....

Get the picture now?

While at it, can you please mention a BSD developed software where the original source code which was BSD licensed was not available after some company closed THEIR COPY of the sourcecode? Then tell me how that piece of source is not free? Oh, RMS never commented on this? Geee, maybe because that would falsify his entire rhetorics?

"The reason why there are so few derivatives based on BSD in comparison to Linux is of technical reasons."

No the two main reason are : License and Apple. After that its interest , funding and elitism.

"BSDs are FULL systems"

No , buts thats a myth I aint the least bit interested in discussing. BSD is just as modular if not more as GNU/Linux is.

"Linux is just a kernel."

Ok , but most people refer to GNU/Linux by saying Linux. There is also the Distributions.

"Using Linux without some userland tools is useless... "

Same for BSD's.

"Therefor Linux are in NEED of distros"

Linux ( Linus ) created the distro not the other way around.

"while in the case of BSD, they have to radically change approach in order for the need to flavourify it. "

Elistism I spoke earlier ... BSD if you dont know your history whas there before everything else 20 years before everything else , only recently as there been new projects.

"DragonFlyBSD which ... different. "

BSD problem's as never been its software code.

"PCBSD did the ... as the foundation.... "

Its still BSD , its a fork , variant or whatever you whant to call it.

"Get the picture now?"

I dont need you to tell me what BSD is and how it work.

"can you ... THEIR COPY of the sourcecode?"

Yes I could , no I whont. Take one of your favorite BSD company who closed , there is a couple example of what I mean in every one of them.

"Then tell me how that piece of source is not free?"

No one else can get a copy as it whas not freely distributed.

"Oh, RMS never commented on this?"

Seen RMS pushing/talk BSD's ?

"Geee, maybe because that would falsify his entire rhetorics?"

After 21 years Is theory/pracctice still holds , its not rhetorics either. the problem I have is its incomplete.

Because BSD *sometime* ( in some case ) meets the freedom requirements , its forgiven for the usual derivatives and often original beeing closed or "unavailaible".

Isn't the following true?

Freedom 3 == Freedom 1 + Freedom 2

Edited 2005-12-12 03:39

> You do realize that BSD does not grant you the Four
> Freedoms?

Interesting... Which of them isn't granted for BSD and why? Or are you referring to certain non-free parts only?

- Morin

It's explained in another post in this thread

THE ORIGINAL SOFTWARE RELEASED UNDER A BSD LICENSE
is completely compliant with ALL 4 freedoms.


Improvements or deriviative work based ontop of the BSD code IS NOT GUARANTEED NOR IS IT REQUIRED to comply with any of the 4 freedoms.

GPL licensed code FORCES the Improvements or derivative work to comply with all 4 of the freedoms listed.


In that sense, TO THE DEVELOPER OF IMPROVED OR DERIVATIVE SOFTWARE, the GPL is less free, since the developer can't do what he pleases and must release the source code to his improvements, devaluing his work, unless its a business that is sustainable under support contracts. Open source business models are difficult to start up for SOME markets (like games.) You could create an open source game engine, but copyright all of the game content, thus protecting the bulk of your work, but competition could be stiff since all someone has to do is hire a few artists / level designers to compete with you.

TO THE END USER, the GPL is the best license, since it grants him total freedom to all of the improvements and he can compile any source code released, for free.

This is the difference.


It's the freedom of improvements / derivative works, stupid!

"You do realize that BSD does not grant you the Four Freedoms? "

You are wrong. It does.

No it doesn't.

It has already been proved several times in this thread.

It does NOT provide the Four Freedoms.

For an instance: I don't have access to the sourcecode of the the modified TCP/IP stack in Win9X despite the fact that the code is based on BSD-licensed code.

Woooops.. that's one freedom down.

As I have showed in other posts, the BSD license might give you some freedom, and perhaps it might not. Depends on how the person in the line before you has decided to use the license.

Or at least come with some kind evidence.

"You are wrong. It does." sends very little information.

"For an instance: I don't have access to the sourcecode of the the modified TCP/IP stack in Win9X despite the fact that the code is based on BSD-licensed code. "

You have access to the original code. Sorry to dissapoint you but the "Four Freedoms" doesnt say anything about derivatives.

Yes they do.

I don't want to keep repeating myself, so I can say this much. You didn't read the page at FSF with the four freedoms.

They very clearly states access to YOUR code as a freedom. Including derivatives of your code.

No matter how long ago you aquired the source from somewhere else.

The fact MS can ship BSD software without source proves my point that BSD is not protective and therefore does not guarantee any provision of the four freedoms.

Freedom #3 (the 4th freedom): Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

There is no source access to the BSD stack in Win9X, despite the fact that MS follows the BSD-license. Therefore the BSD license does not provide Freedom #3.

Accept it. BSD does not protect anything which is why it's not a guaranteed free license.

I can ship as BSD without ever showing the source, if that's what I want, effectively reducing the freedom for my users.

That's fair enough, but don't make it look like it's more free than GPL when it's the other way around.

1) Everyone agree that microsoft campaign is a scam that dont compare everything or even similar things.

No, everyone doesn't agree with your statement. Windows Server TCO is actually quite good now, particularly the small business edition. There are numerous independent TCO studies which actually find that Linux TCO is worse. But talking about these things in the abstract -- and without regard to specific scenarios -- is kind of ridiculous. Is Linux TCO going to be lower for people who don't pay for software? Of course it is. Windows isn't even an option for them.

2) Microsoft are convicted criminals.

Wrong. Antitrust law imposes civil penalties, not criminal.

3) Microsoft is never objective in its marketing campaign.

Show me any marketing campaign that's objective. And that includes marketing from GPL/GNU/OSS-pushing thugs.

If people did not care about Free Software it would not exist today , If people did not pay to support it it would not exist today , if it where more costly then Windows or Apple , poor people would not use it.

Poor people can't afford to pay for commercial software licenses. But that doesn't mean it's free in any sense: They still pay with the investment of their own time and effort.

I like Fukov better. He is such an optimistic wimp (or is it whimp?)

But the chicks are nice too

However, I think Info was wrong about ending in the Ice Age 11000 years ago.

The debris from the space station indicates they ended in the future

Yeah, I've been to the forums and read all the theories. I think that for an "amateur" low-budget job, it was a very enjoyable and funny flick. I thought that the girl-assistant-captain (other universe) was pretty hot, too. ;-)

Aahhhh... Ivanovitsa... Uhhmmm <3 - and the Helmswoman, and must not forget Hayday.

I consider SW:itp as closely related to Monty Pythons movies, especialle "The Quest of the Holy Grail".

A parody has to be low-budget or at least look low budget in order to work properly. And it's pretty funny too. But perhaps it's just my warped sense of humor


BTW: The names in the movie, especially for the flaghip CPP Kickstart and the Amigo Class Destroyers could sounds Amiga inspired, in my ears. Not impossible considering the Commodore 64'ers (or Vic-20'es?) at the nuclear plant

That made absolutely no sense, and I have no idea who you're talking about.

1) I know of no independent TCO studies showing any such thing.

Come with links. So far all studies showing higher TCO cost for linux-based systems have been based on a specific GNU/Linux-distribution or have been funded by Microsoft.

Microsofts Get The "Facts" campain has been proven as FUD several times.

I challenge you to bring evidence for independent studies. Not just claiming them as independent but actualle evidence for them being independent.

2) Microsoft is convicted for criminal behaviour in the sense that Microsoft actually broke the law. Whether the punishment is economical or prison doesn't matter. It's still a criminal action.

3) Links to FLOSS non-company marketing campains which aren't objective? True, Redhat is not objective in their campain for RHEL. But linux users generally are objective (at least those I know of or have met - fanboys however must be expected to be pretty blind - unfortunately).

4) Free Software IS free. It gives me the Four Freedoms. Proprietary software does not grant me such rights. And DO NOT EVER AGAIN confuse commercial with proprietary. Free Software is NOT about the Price but about the Freedom. GPL can be every bit as commercial as proprietary software can be, and proprietary software can be _gratis_ as GPL'ed software also can be.

No matter whether you use proprietary software or any other kind of software you will always have to pay for the investment of your own time and effort.

However, with most binary based linux distributions, you have to invest less time and less money than with Windows (unless you are a Windows Power User and messes with things you don't understand anyway because you're not used to source code access or CLI).

"No, everyone doesn't agree with your statement."

http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/06/23/2027229&from=rss

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/04/06/HNantilinuxfacts_1.html

"Windows Server TCO is actually quite good now"

Get the facts is not just for or about server TCO.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=microsoft+get+the+facts&bt...

http://search.microsoft.com/search/results.aspx?st=b&na=88&View=en-...

"There are numerous independent TCO studies which actually find that Linux TCO is worse. "

Who's ?

"Wrong. Antitrust law imposes civil penalties, not criminal. "

Google : Microsoft Court ( there are repeating offenders , do your own research 8000 character aint enough to list there actions ).

"Show me any marketing campaign that's objective. And that includes marketing from GPL/GNU/OSS-pushing thugs. "

Off course you have no example to offer at all as usual , its supposed to be information , I dont get my info about a certain car from the marketing department of the dealership who sell me the car.

"Poor people can't afford to pay for commercial software licenses."

It come with most of the name brand computer as default ...

"But that doesn't mean it's free in any sense:"

At no cost and free as in Free software too , according only to you it would mean its not free , your wrong btw ...

"They still pay with the investment of their own time and effort."

Thats if your absolutely wrong as usual and that you have no service support of any form included.

Let me state it clearly :

Dell computer Workstation ( the same model for Windows ( 2000$ ) and GNU/Linux ( 1300$ ) , the software that come with and that have to be included for windows is going to be around 1000$ ( Windows MCE + Office XP + Anti-virus + Bundle ), 300$ for a full GNU/Linux dsitribution ( that include cluster and server solutions professionnal firwall. )

On the second machine Dell can lower the cost of the software by using the same license as the first one , with Microsoft offer you have to add another 1000$.

On the third Machine Its the same , by then 3500$ ( 1100/per machine as you dont need to repay license all the time ) for GNU/Linux and 6000$ for Windows.

For 6000$ you can have 5 machine vs 3 for Windows.

software cost that cost less for everyone dont suddenly change , exept in Microsoft TCO , they add service around or compare mainframe to Intel Server.

"a workstation has no use for Windows MCE"

Which show right there that you dont know what MCE is. Its the most advanced feature wise XP currently on the market ( actually go read what it can do and what is offered with it ), the most secure and the most up to date. Just for the networking feature its worth it , presentation is nice too , but then again I am showing why I win windows contract from others like you.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/mediacenter/evaluation/features....

"Linux will have at best Openoffice, Koffice, etc."

Wich are good options. But You also forget thats not all that GNU/Linux distribution come with ...

http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html

Always amazed that people think GNU/Linux is inferior on cost for software.

"So, if one were to choose windows, they also could use OOo."

In theory yes , remove 150$

"antivirus that's decent can cost a bit."

Just antivirus ? ...

"But a workstation ... stupid. "

Software cost , you have a problem sticking with what can be compared and is the actual subject.

"initial price has almost nothing to do"

No , its already lost for windows there , but hey its TCO the T means total , but not for you guys apparently.

Service , Support , training , on Site service are cheaper with GNU/Linux and less frequent. Thats why GNU/Linux insurrance are cheaper.

Feel better ? your tantrum and personnal insult are over or you feel to get ride your chest of more personnal attacks ?

Why dont you thank your own stars I aint anywhere near what you call me. You trueley dont know what a deranged fanatical zealot is.

You seem more and more deranged...


MCE may be the most featurefull on the market, but those are features that will never be used. That means WASTED MONEY.

It's not the most up to date in any way that matters - what a troll! You truly believe any business/corporate environment would prefer MCE (MEdia Center Edition) to XP Corporate?!

You have NO idea what you're talking about!

And I never said GNU/Linux was inferior when it comes to cost - I happen to agree that it can be cheaper. You can't even recognize when someone agrees with you?!
What my comment was about was the fact that you blatantly blow everything out of proportion. Adding MCE only adds cost for no good reason. The same goes for antivirus and Office XP - if someone deems OOo good enough, then there's money saved. Antivirus shouldn't be too great an issue, each workstation should be protected as it is.

Is it just that you know nothing about Windows?

No! It's that you don't CARE about the truth. You want everyone to use GPL software. Period. You don't care how you try to convince people.

"already lost for windows here"
How? You have no evidence for ANY claims! Your link to MCE reveals NOTHING. Yeah, windows may cost more at the start - but what of support, training, etc.?

You can't prove that it's easier for every single environment is better suited to Linux. Just as MS can't prove no environments are suited to Linux. Period.

You are the definition of troll.


"Why dont you thank your own stars I aint anywhere near what you call me. You trueley dont know what a deranged fanatical zealot is."

Is that a threat? What would a fanatical zealot do, hunt me down? Jeeze. Now I know you should be banned.

I am deranged by ? You ? RFLOL.

MCE is better for a worksation then Windows XP corporate. No its not wasted money , its the same price for me to instal XP Home , XP Pro or XP corporate or XP MCE. Windows price for workstation is actually the cheapest of the software cost that come for a windows software TCO. When I do a worksation for a client I suggest the best for the client , what can I say , some people actually invest money in researching what Windows versions can do and does. Oh yes , Period. I could explain it to you , but 500 page of details why , would be a waste of time on someone like you.

Now according to you I am a fanatical FOSS zealot who is lying to push the GPL at all cost. seem to me I would be a big failure if I sell windows workstations , if one is logical. I am also trying to convince you , according to what you wrote , Nothing is further from the truth.

GNU/Linux is easier and cost less for every single environment. Period. If you try and say otherwise offer something *real* to back up your claim. No windows dont usualy come with OO.o or an antivirus or is secure. You would know that if you worked with it.

"Is that a threat?"

Yes , BOOOOOUHHHH , I cats a jihad on you and all your family and the childrens of the children of your childrens.

"What would a fanatical zealot do"

Look it up in a dictionnary. you obvioulsy dont know the words you use and what your talking about at all.

"hunt me down?"

No , you really are truelly ignorant.

"Jeeze. Now I know you should be banned."

Yes , thats your aim , and thats all you know.

>> If people did not care about Free Software it would not
>> exist today , If people did not pay to support it it
>> would not exist today , if it where more costly then
>> Windows or Apple , poor people would not use it.

> Poor people can't afford to pay for commercial software
> licenses. But that doesn't mean it's free in any sense:
> They still pay with the investment of their own time and
> effort.

Which could also read: poor people aren't really poor, they're just robbed of their right to participate!

Learn to read, dude. The part about Microsoft in quotations was meant as sarcasm.

Its an informative book written entirely as sarcasm ...

Sorry but I already see the headline usin that book quoted to justify "get the facts" as accurate.

What about the cost of commercial software, for students, or startup businesses?
Those multibillion dollar corps you keep advocating can afford to pay a few dollars to support their infrastructure, methinks.

Indeed !

Not only that, but education authorities around the world should dump Microsoft products in favour of F/OSS.

Almost every school/college/university in the western world are making the students learn computing by using Microsoft Office.......

Excuse Me ? "Learn Computing"

No, they are training monkeys.

Learning where buttons are on a word processor, how to total columns on a spreadsheet and how to throw together a presentation, (which looks the same as a million others), is not "LEARNING COMPUTING".

Microsoft can offer massive discounts to educational authorities to make sure its product gets exposure, this wil guarantee Microsoft has customers in the future, because that is the package they "know".

Everyone needs to put pressure on the decision makers in all schools, to make sure their children get the best solution.

I would want my children to actually learn about computing instead of getting trained to be an office lackey.

"Since you can, at any time, close your programs new features and stop releasing your new code under your BSD license."

As the legal copyright holder you can do the same if your program is GPL'd. Does this mean you have "closed" the original code? No. What you cant change, be it BSD or GPL, is the license of *already* released code. The already released code will always be under whatever license it was released, be it BSD or GPL.

ROFLMAO. The second part of "Freedom 3" is not a freedom, it's an artificial compulsion created by the license verbiage. The freedom to not release my changes is a real freedom; the GPL simply makes sure that I have no choice (if I am actually distributing it in some way).

Please don't insult people's intelligence by implying that this is a "freedom". It's very unbecoming.

You didn't read it, did you?

RMS has misinterpreted the word free and is building the GPL hype on this.

Yes, there is only one true meaning of FREE

Fact is only public domain is free as far as I'm concerned.

Making it public domain is indeed the one true way software can be free.

However, if I was to release software as public domain, nothing would stop you/Joe Bloggs/Bill Gates or anyone else, taking y "free" software, repackaging it, rebranding it, making it closed source and selling it.

The GPL is put together to stop this..

Hmmm...well except for step four, it sounds like the plan advocated by RMS.

I'm fully suporting BSD and GPL community but must say that RMS blew it up by his vague definitions. If he's trying to be a communist why doesn't he speak as one. It's thousands of years back when people spoke in parables.

And then there are this spoiled children who think they can loot everything with a red star imprinted. I have no words for them, but I sure know where they got the idea...

"And then there are this spoiled children who think they can loot everything with a red star imprinted."

McCarthy, all is forgiven. Save us from the red menace!

This can be done with a GPL app too.
If *you* are the copyright holder *you* can always change the license to something else. This scenario has NOTHING to do with the license (GPL, BSD or otherwise) and everything to do with copyright law.

Microsoft (kerberos)
Sun (OO, Java, SunOS)
IBM (apache I think?)
RedHat (lil bit of everything)

Those are just companies that ship shrinkwrap software. What about companies who use software internally?

And for that handful of tech-centric companies that you named, there are countless auto parts stores, plumbing supply houses, karate studios, ice skating rinks, pet food stores, auto dealers, real estate agents, and restaurants that just use software (accounting, inventory, database, etc.) with no thought of ever modifying it.

I bet companies like Cargill (world food supplier) modify bits of code for different things when they need to...

And I bet that they don't.

If companies liked to tinker with source code all of the time, then OSS would command the lion's share of the market. How many companies use Firefox? How many have modified the source code? In fact, how many have even obtained the source code?

Consultants are geeks. Convincing them brings you millions of small to medium customers.
So yes, convincing the "non-business types" is important. Because a small number of those are the most important people in the field to convince.

Then why aren't all businesses already using Linux? The geek consultants are already sold on Linux and the businesses they cater to, by and large, won't consider switching to Linux.

"And I bet that they don't. "

I'll bet my money on that they do. Actually I already have, I'm one of those consultants mentioned and doing quite well.

"Then why aren't all businesses already using Linux? The geek consultants are already sold on Linux and the businesses they cater to, by and large, won't consider switching to Linux."

Trying to keep the answer as simple as the question:
1. ROI takes a while.
2. Nanagement is afraid that they will take the blame should they go a somewhat unusual route and anything goes wrong.
3. Plain old inertia.
4. The FUD machine.

All of the above, with the possible exception of 4, are temporary problems. Growth of linux is quite healthy and accelerating. Just watch and see. All the signs are there if you look.

Whoops, bit of a freudian slip there I think. Should be Management of course.

I'll bet my money on that they do. Actually I already have, I'm one of those consultants mentioned and doing quite well.

Statistics wasn't a major of yours, was it? A sample of one is not statistically significant.

Trying to keep the answer as simple as the question:
1. ROI takes a while.

Businesses invest in many technologies that don't pay off in the short-term. They want a competitive advantage and if they can realize one with lower TCO software, then they will.

2. Nanagement is afraid that they will take the blame should they go a somewhat unusual route and anything goes wrong.

Then that argues in favor of focusing on TCO and providing that comfort factor to support such a switch, doesn't it?

3. Plain old inertia.

I don't buy that. With Microsoft continually looking for ways to make businesses pay to upgrade applications, operating systems, servers, etc., I can't believe that inertia is preventing companies from switching.

4. The FUD machine.

Again, that can be countered by independent TCO studies by unbiased, respected sources. Microsoft gets it: Provide management with TCO studies that tell them that MS OSs and software have the lowest TCO. Until the F/OSS community starts doing that, management will be convinced that switching to Linux/*BSD/OpenOffice/etc. will be a nightmarish, expensive proposition.

And I'm not sure that it won't be. There's a huge pool of labor, from clerical workers to accountants to corporate attorneys who have MS software expertise. They're familiar with packages from Photoshop to Microsoft Word. Put a skilled graphic artist on The GIMP after he's spent his whole career on Photoshop and he'll cuss you out before finding a new job. Sure, for you and I, MS Office, AbiWord, and OpenOffice.org Writer might all be the same, but to a secretary who really knows all of the ins and outs of Word, switching to the others is about as pleasant as typing in mittens.

And, of course, there are many business-critical vertical market apps which simply don't exist on Linux. What happens if a business unit needs to use STK (Satellite ToolKit)? It's simply not available for Linux and there's no equivalent F/OSS product. So now the company has to hire IT staff to support both Linux and Windows. What happens when the company collaborates with a business partner who has standardized on MS Office and they find formatting problems every time that they move a presentation or document for publication between the two firms? The list of potential problems goes on and on, and I think that's why companies would rather spend the bucks on Microsoft rather than take the word of a consultant who can't point to any reputable TCO studies supporting a business moving to Linux.

If you want to talk about a retail business that simply needs custom point of sale (POS) apps, inventory control, and basic accounting functionality, Linux might be a great choice. But for most companies, it's not ready for prime time.

"I'll bet my money on that they do. Actually I already have, I'm one of those consultants mentioned and doing quite well.

Statistics wasn't a major of yours, was it? A sample of one is not statistically significant. "

Did I say it was? Am I allowed to provide one line of introduction about myself without you constructing a strawman out of it for you to attack and ridicule?


"3. Plain old inertia.

I don't buy that. With Microsoft continually looking for ways to make businesses pay to upgrade applications, operating systems, servers, etc., I can't believe that inertia is preventing companies from switching. "

I've participated in a number of discussions about choice of technology with the management of various companies. Judging by my experience "plain old inertia" coupled with fear of the unknown is by far the biggest roadblock for _any_ change in the average company. Yes, yes. I know. Anecdotal evidence. Please don't jump all over me about statistics.


"4. The FUD machine.

Again, that can be countered by independent TCO studies by unbiased, respected sources."

Fact: You cannot have an independent, unbiased stydy that's sponsored by the party being studied.



"What happens when the company collaborates with a business partner who has standardized on MS Office and they find formatting problems every time that they move a presentation or document for publication between the two firms?"

Now really. Think for a moment here. How many percent of the people using word and powerpoint actually need absolutely identical to original layout on a document they get from someone else?
As for the rest of your post and the above exceptions. Strawmen all. Who in their right mind would recommend moving users whose main tool has no satisfactory Linux equivalent to Linux? Not someone who wants to keep their professional reputation, that's for sure.


Strawmen aside: For a large portion, possibly a majority, of the office workers out there Linux + KDE/Gnome + Evolution + OpenOffice will provide everything they need. Training will cost, but certainly no more than a single Office upgrade.

Did I say it was? Am I allowed to provide one line of introduction about myself without you constructing a strawman out of it for you to attack and ridicule?

You implied that your personal experience would lead you to bet that Cargill modifies open source software. But I'd rather not get into a pissing contest about that, so let's chalk it up to my misunderstanding your point there.

Fact: You cannot have an independent, unbiased stydy that's sponsored by the party being studied.

Actually, you can. The sponsoring party can do so anonymously. The persons doing the study would not know whether their client, "The Smith Group," was a front organization for Microsoft, RedHat, or was really an independent company.

Now really.

Yes, really. I worked for a major defense contractor who partnered with other huge corporations, doing presentations and bids for massive contracts.

Think for a moment here. How many percent of the people using word and powerpoint actually need absolutely identical to original layout on a document they get from someone else?

It's not the percentage. It's the importance. It's knowing that the document that you gave to your valued customer, vendor, or business partner looks professional and not like the misformatted resume that they got from a Linux guy working in his basement. It's knowing that the contract that you sent as a Word document through e-mail will open, display, and print properly for the recipient.

Who in their right mind would recommend moving users whose main tool has no satisfactory Linux equivalent to Linux? Not someone who wants to keep their professional reputation, that's for sure.

So, in many offices, you would end up with a mish-mash of Linux and Windows PCs. They would need staff capable of supporting both. And it's everything -- word processors, spreadsheets, anti-virus, etc. A Windows user might use VBS scripting in a spreadsheet and the Linux users wouldn't be able to use it. The accounting staff might create an expense report form in Word and the Linux users wouldn't be able to fill it out. The list of problems goes on and on.

For a large portion, possibly a majority, of the office workers out there Linux + KDE/Gnome + Evolution + OpenOffice will provide everything they need. Training will cost, but certainly no more than a single Office upgrade.

I wouldn't be so sure. People who aren't tech-savvy often take amazingly long to learn new operating systems and packages. Some never become proficient. Never underestimate the cost of personnel time; not at the training, not when trying to figure out how to do something with unfamiliar software.

<snip>

"Fact: You cannot have an independent, unbiased stydy that's sponsored by the party being studied.

Actually, you can. The sponsoring party can do so anonymously. The persons doing the study would not know whether their client, "The Smith Group," was a front organization for Microsoft, RedHat, or was really an independent company."

That's an interesting idea. Seems hard to implement to me though. How would you go about suppplying instructions for the study without introducing bias? After all, several of the MS FUD studies present their findings more or less honestly. It's the basic precepts of system management and development that is subtly(to the uninitialized) but fundamentally twisted, in order to make the conclusion inevitable and false. Basically a kangaroo vs Cheetah race requring the participants to run upright. Supplying instructions for the party that would perform a study that would allow them to complete a meaningful study without introducing bias would be phenomenally hard to do in my opinion. Bias is inevitably introduced just by the choice of a specific subject for study.


"Now really.

Yes, really. I worked for a major defense contractor who partnered with other huge corporations, doing presentations and bids for massive contracts."

Ok, would you consider this a common scenario?
How many percent of the employees where involved in these activities?

"Think for a moment here. How many percent of the people using word and powerpoint actually need absolutely identical to original layout on a document they get from someone else?

It's not the percentage. It's the importance. It's knowing that the document that you gave to your valued customer, vendor, or business partner looks professional and not like the misformatted resume that they got from a Linux guy working in his basement."
Oh, the Linux guy in his basement. You know I actually took you seriously until I read this. Silly me.

"It's knowing that the contract that you sent as a Word document through e-mail will open, display, and print properly for the recipient."
Once again. Percentages! How many employees send contracts in word format? 0.1%?

I disagree. It is _all_ about the percentages. Most economics is. You need to consider at least:
How many in this company really require Windows?
How many people do this company employ that need computers at work?
What would windows licenses, Office licenses and licenses for all the other less common applications cost for all these users?
How would upgrade costs stack up over the years?
How difficult would it be for these users to switch to a free alternative?
How would a switch affect their short term efficiency?
How would a switch affect their long term efficiency?
How long before short term becomes long term?
How would stability and workstation uptime be affected.
How would support costs be affected in the short term?
How would support costs be affected the long term?
How long before short term becomes long term?
How large is the risk of a virus infection serious enough to impact the companies operation.
How much would such an infection cost in lost revenue, work hours, and effort to clean the corporate net?
How would that risk be affected by a switch?

And that's just an off the top of my head list. It's not a good idea to simplify the above to what seems to me to be your basic argument:
"If anyone in the company needs windows the company should standardize on Windows because you may have interoperability problems otherwise."




"Who in their right mind would recommend moving users whose main tool has no satisfactory Linux equivalent to Linux? Not someone who wants to keep their professional reputation, that's for sure.

"So, in many offices, you would end up with a mish-mash of Linux and Windows PCs."

Assuming incompetent administrators yes. But why would you assume incompetence?
Assuming incompetence means a mess with nothing but windows boxes too.
Mixed environmant does not equal mish-mash.

"They would need staff capable of supporting both."
Yes. See above. No, this does not necessarily to mean a bigger support staff.

"And it's everything -- word processors, spreadsheets, anti-virus, etc. A Windows user might use VBS scripting in a spreadsheet and the Linux users wouldn't be able to use it. The accounting staff might create an expense report form in Word and the Linux users wouldn't be able to fill it out. The list of problems goes on and on."

Again you must assume incompetence for that to hold. In a company with a clue the few users with a windows box would be well aware that the rest of the company does not use Windows. And once again you manage to make minor snags sound like a major disaster. You're talking about something that would be fixed by the creator opening the document in OpenOffice on his/her windows computer, fixing any inconsistencies and resending the document. It's a snag caused by incompetence remedied at the firs occurance. This is not a major problem that should dictate IT policy.



"For a large portion, possibly a majority, of the office workers out there Linux + KDE/Gnome + Evolution + OpenOffice will provide everything they need. Training will cost, but certainly no more than a single Office upgrade.

I wouldn't be so sure. People who aren't tech-savvy often take amazingly long to learn new operating systems and packages."

This would be: "How would a switch affect their short term efficiency?" above. Not to be ignored, but only one among many concerns to weigh in.



"Some never become proficient."

And these users are proficient with theur windows software? Did they suffer some sort of brain damage disabling further learning but retaining old?



In closing. You keep bringing up horror scenarios about exceptional cases. In fact it's your whole argument. And good golly, they're not even horror stories, just presented as horror stories. Let me return the favor with a few quite real IT horror stories out of my recent experience:

An exploit is published that uses a vulnerability in internet explorer known about and ignored by Microsoft for many months. The exploit means that a company wide disabling of active scripting in is required to retain reasonable security. Support is swamped with questions as the company, that uses mostly web based applications, grinds to an almost complete halt for the first few hours. One sysadmin spends a large portion of the coming week adding sites to the trusted sites list so that employees can get their work done. (patch finally delivered by MS this week)

A simple windows monthly patch applied by the unsuspecting server admin that for ineffable reasons resets the asp.net system acounts password and brings down portions of a heavily used mission critical web application. It's almost a full day until the bizarre reason is found and corrected.(two months ago or so)

Having a company wide almost universal computer worm infection that must be eradicated costing untold millions in lost work time as users are told to turn off their computers to stop them from speading the worm further across the internet(last year).

Having the latest MS service pack followed by a driver update wreck a large number of workstations requiring a reinstall of witdows to fix.(SP4 bug some time ago IIRC)

Ok, would you consider this a common scenario?

No single vertical market is a common scenario, however, there are many vertical markets.

How many percent of the employees where involved in these activities?

Dozens of employees per proposal. Most of the employees drifted on and off of such proposals based on business opportunities.

Oh, the Linux guy in his basement. You know I actually took you seriously until I read this. Silly me.

How dare I cast aspersions like that? Well, maybe it's because I've been on the receiving end of supposedly Word-compatible resumes submitted by Linux zealots. I opened one up and found 1 full page, a single line, another full page, and another single line. Halfway through, the font switched.

Once again. Percentages! How many employees send contracts in word format? 0.1%?

Who cares? That was just one good example out of countless situations where it's important to have a document look the same at both ends of a wire. If you can't think of others, you must have damned little real-world business experience.

And that's just an off the top of my head list. It's not a good idea to simplify the above to what seems to me to be your basic argument:
"If anyone in the company needs windows the company should standardize on Windows because you may have interoperability problems otherwise."

Talk about strawman arguments! My argument, all along, has been that TCO is important and it is something that needs to be embraced by the Linux community.

You, on the other hand, seem insistant that Linux is the answer for the majority of businesses in existence. But I have yet to see significant management studies that show that businesses that switch to Linux gain a competitive advantage. If a business could realize big savings by going to Linux, then why aren't we seeing stories in Business Week about companies burying their competitors by switching to Linux?

Did they suffer some sort of brain damage disabling further learning but retaining old?

Yes. It's called aging. Older workers take far longer to learn new applications than younger ones (on average).

"For a large portion, possibly a majority, of the office workers out there Linux + KDE/Gnome + Evolution + OpenOffice will provide everything they need. Training will cost, but certainly no more than a single Office upgrade.

Now that's funny! I can get an Office upgrade for maybe $300. It can be installed by IT in about 15 minutes, so that's another $50. How much training do you think gets done for $350? That won't even cover the cost of transportation and time to get the employee to a training class. Even if the class was held in-house, I'm looking at hundreds of dollars per employee for the fee plus the cost for the employee time, benefits, and lost work (if I'm paying Jim to take a class, then I have to pay Bob to do Jim's work). No, I'm not going to have some IT guy with no teaching credentials play teacher on my dime -- he's got other work to do anyway.

In closing. You keep bringing up horror scenarios about exceptional cases. In fact it's your whole argument.

Needing to use a vertical market Windows-only app is a horror story and an exceptional case? Collaborating with another company is a horror story and an exceptional case? It's a horror to you because you have only one tool in your toolbox: Linux You've decided that you're going to be the Johnny Appleseed of Linux consultants, going from business to business extolling the virtues of Linux and F/OSS.

I, on the other hand, am a realist with over 20 years of professional experience in the computer industry. I have installed systems running Linux, QNX, Windows, Netware, Solaris, and other operating systems. I know the strengths and weaknesses of them and know which to consider in different circumstances.

I also know that I can hire a secretary tomorrow who is a wiz with MS Office and that I'll be hard-pressed to find one who's ever even used OpenOffice.org.

I know that workers want experience that increases their worth in the marketplace and that using a substandard F/OSS app like "The GIMP" is unlikely to improve their resume. That means that I have a smaller pool of potential applicants and that I have to pay more to attract and retain employees.

You want to convince me that a company's cash registers should run Linux, that's fine. You want to tell an auto parts chain that Linux is the way to go for their database? You may be right. You want to say that the company's FTP server and web server should be on OpenBSD, I might agree.

But for the majority of businesses, Linux is a non-starter on the desktop. The lower acquisition cost for F/OSS is more than outweighed by the training costs, support costs, and dearth of vertical market applications. And most businesses require vertical market apps. The accounting department needs them. The engineering department needs them. The graphic arts department needs them. The sales department needs them. For example, with Windows, there is a wealth of contact management applications that a sales department could use. On Linux, the choices are very limited. The graphic artists will want Photoshop. The GIMP is not going to cut it. The sales team will want PowerPoint and access to all of the add-ins available for it. OpenOffice.org Impress is not going to satisfy them.

If you want to consult with three-man offices and put them on Linux, that's your call. But your limited understanding about the needs of larger businesses is apparent.