Linked by Howard Fosdick on Mon 13th Dec 2010 23:11 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless It's hard to predict the future because we humans prefer to think in terms of familiar paradigms. Even the most brilliant of our species are subject to this flaw. Now, Microsoft faces its turn. The owner of the operating system that likely runs your personal computer, the company that achieved monopoly with Windows and ducked the Department of Justice's scythe to keep it, faces a midlife crisis as the world goes gaga over portable consumer devices. This is the story of what's happening to Microsoft in the handheld operating system markets -- and how it parallels the earlier, similar journeys of IBM Corporation and Digital Equipment Corporation. Can Microsoft achieve dominance on mobile devices?
Order by: Score:
The issue is Foothold.
by oiaohm on Mon 13th Dec 2010 23:32 UTC
oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

Biggest problem Linux has had is lack of strong foothold in the market end users have seen.

The current move on mobile started with Linux shock progress on netbooks. MS was able to slow this down by basically giving XP away for nothing. But it was already too late.

A few will say Linux Desktop is not ready that is why. True it still as not as ready as it should be. It takes time and resources tool up for particular market segments. That Linux had not been spending.

Current day Linux work is way more focused on the times to make a desktop work. Mostly in the process of being ready for mobile phones.

Basically Linux is appearing that it will get a strong foothold in mobile devices equal or stronger than MS foothold in desktop. A foothold it can use to slowly chip away at the desktop.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The issue is Foothold.
by lemur2 on Tue 14th Dec 2010 01:41 UTC in reply to "The issue is Foothold."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Basically Linux is appearing that it will get a strong foothold in mobile devices equal or stronger than MS foothold in desktop. A foothold it can use to slowly chip away at the desktop.


This kind-of assumes that the whole objective of every player should be to dominate the desktop.

Look at it perhaps another way:

Linux dominates in embedded devices, internet infrastructure and supercomputers, it has a significant slice (maybe even the main player) in servers, and it has a decent share in mobiles, handhelds and netbooks.

OSX has a modest share in desktops, no presence to speak of in servers, embedded devices or supercomputers, and the lions share in mobiles, handhelds and tablets.

Windows dominates the desktop, has a decent share of servers (maybe even the main player), and is not significant anywhere else.

Edited 2010-12-14 01:45 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: The issue is Foothold.
by shotsman on Tue 14th Dec 2010 08:05 UTC in reply to "RE: The issue is Foothold."
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

I agreed with most of what you said but to say that Microsift/Windows is the main player in the server market is just plain silly.

Edited 2010-12-14 08:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: The issue is Foothold.
by REM2000 on Tue 14th Dec 2010 09:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The issue is Foothold."
REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

I think i would have to agree with the sentiment of Microsoft being the main player in the Server market, i think the number of organisations without a windows server in their organisation somewhere is pretty slim. With many org's using Windows Server as their primary server OS.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: The issue is Foothold.
by lemur2 on Tue 14th Dec 2010 09:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The issue is Foothold."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I think i would have to agree with the sentiment of Microsoft being the main player in the Server market, i think the number of organisations without a windows server in their organisation somewhere is pretty slim. With many org's using Windows Server as their primary server OS.


At one point there were a lot of "dormant domains" that Microsoft negotiated as being counted in statistics as served by Windows servers on the Internet. Suddenly Windows statistics approached those of Apache ... but it was all really smoke and mirrors.

As for actual local LAN servers, there are a lot of "Windows shops" who are sold on running Windows exclusively, even though it means having to pay rent (via CALs). Incredible, but true.

The exact share of Windows servers is debatable, but even if there are really slightly more Linux servers one cannot lightly dismiss the numbers of Windows servers.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: The issue is Foothold.
by moondevil on Tue 14th Dec 2010 11:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The issue is Foothold."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

In Portugal is quite common that many small business run entirely with Microsoft software.

Actually for many development shops the annual licenses for MSDN are not that much expensive and you get full access to the complete Microsoft software, hence many small shops go 100% Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: The issue is Foothold. MSDN
by jabbotts on Tue 14th Dec 2010 15:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The issue is Foothold."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I thought the MSDN bundled licenses where intended for lab or otherwise 10 or less installs. I'm not sure that I'd want an auditor knocking on my door before verifying if my use of MSDN for production systems was within the license.

Reply Score: 3

kaffeenhed Member since:
2010-04-29

I thought the MSDN bundled licenses where intended for lab or otherwise 10 or less installs. I'm not sure that I'd want an auditor knocking on my door before verifying if my use of MSDN for production systems was within the license.


That's MSDN. If you're a Microsoft Registered Partner, you can purchase the Microsoft Action Pack and get internal use licenses for a lot of their software (including 10 or so Windows 7 licenses, SBS, Office, and other stuff you might typically need to run a small business). They've actually now broken the product into two different MAPS packages: one for IT shops, and one for developers (that pack includes licenses for some of their development tools). It's a decent deal for a small IT services company to set up and run on.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: The issue is Foothold.
by _txf_ on Tue 14th Dec 2010 15:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The issue is Foothold."
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Yea,

I have been able to convince people at my company to supplement windows workstations with linux, but for infrastructure things (not just linux any OSS software) I cannot get anyone to budge (even if I did all the work and the total cost would be reduced). They would rather spend money than spend time even factoring the monetary worth of that time.

Edited 2010-12-14 15:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: The issue is Foothold.
by SteveB on Tue 14th Dec 2010 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The issue is Foothold."
SteveB Member since:
2005-07-10

In Portugal is quite common that many small business run entirely with Microsoft software.
This is not happening only in Portugal. Other countries have the same "effect".

Actually for many development shops the annual licenses for MSDN are not that much expensive and you get full access to the complete Microsoft software, hence many small shops go 100% Microsoft.
This is not true. You don't get access to the COMPLETE Microsoft software (do you get games with the MSDN?).

Might I ask you what you mean with "...hence many small shops go 100% Microsoft"? Are you writing about development shops (companies producing software that is targeting Microsoft OS)? Or are you writing about SME?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: The issue is Foothold.
by moondevil on Tue 14th Dec 2010 18:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: The issue is Foothold."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Software development shops.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: The issue is Foothold.
by aesiamun on Tue 14th Dec 2010 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The issue is Foothold."
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

With the Microsoft Action pack, you can run a small business on Microsoft products for less than $300 a year.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: The issue is Foothold.
by jmtx86 on Tue 14th Dec 2010 15:31 UTC in reply to "RE: The issue is Foothold."
jmtx86 Member since:
2008-02-08

You don't know the server market. Your information is false. Microsoft is the dominate Server operating system. Linux dominates web services and that is even being threaten by MS.

Apple does have a server presence; though its niche. Walk into any media production datacenter and you will find a good portion of Mac OSX servers. To be fair you will find a good portion of Linux used for Rendering farms.

I agree that Linux strengths is the micro OS market; PLC controllers, setup, and any ROM based computer. Believe it or not WinCE also has a good strength in this market as well.

Regarding the stats Android is "linux", so this should be mention when doing a honest statistic. Linux is becoming the dominate mobile platform for smart phones.

Reply Score: 0

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Did the Linux kernel developers allow Google's customizations into the kernel tree again? Last I heard they'd rejected Google's changes resulting in Google maintaining it's own fork of Linux (the kernel) though they do use much of the GNU userland wrapped around it.

Reply Score: 2

SteveB Member since:
2005-07-10

Did the Linux kernel developers allow Google's customizations into the kernel tree again?
This has nothing to do with allowing or not allowing. If Google follows the style, quality, etc that is imposed by the Linux kernel developers then their code will get into the kernel (if it is useful for others).

Last I heard they'd rejected Google's changes resulting in Google maintaining it's own fork of Linux (the kernel) though they do use much of the GNU userland wrapped around it.
You mix two things. GNU userland != kernel

Anyway... Google is trying to get their code into the Linux kernel ( http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/dibona-google-will-hire-two-a... ).

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I mentioned Linux and userland separately as I'd read the first comment to suggest that "Android" was Linux in the general sense not Android = Linux the kernel.

Basically; though Linux based distributions and Android use some common userland components, the differences in kernel and project management call it's classification as a Linux based distro into question.

This is what causes me questions though:

Android is licensed under MIT (or BSD) which does not include the "pass it forward" requirement of GPL and Linux licensed with it.

It is developed behind closed doors with source only becoming available after each major version release; not collaboratively developed in the open.

It is corrupted and locked down by hardware vendors in product development in most cases. Gaining root access is a circus act of hoops depending on the vendor/hardware/obsversion not simply, say.. logging in as Root or, as Maemo does, providing a single "opt-in" package that enables root on any Maemo/hardware combination.

Lesser related to the OS itself but still related to hardware manufacturers and Google's management of the OS distribution; why can't I simply take Google's core distribution and drop it on any "Android" branded hardware? Give me a mini-bundle of device drivers from the vendor and let me flash both firmware images to the device.

Don't get me wrong here. My grief is over what Android promised to be and still has the potential to become. it'll probably be the first OS added to my N900 for dualboot (3rd being Meego for a look). Based on it's one-off fork of the Linux source and Google's management of it and hardware vendor's outright user hostile delivery of it.. I don't think it holds up in spirit if not also failing technical definitions.

Edited 2010-12-14 18:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I actually follow these discussions, Google in the past made a fork of Linux and didn't do anything with Linus' tree for a long time, other then porting this back to their own tree. They would do an upgrade every a year or so. I think it was even more, but it was to much work to maintain a seperate fork.

The difference between the version Google makes for their own use and Linus' version is getting smaller and smaller. They have a plan to setup some test servers at Google to follow mainline and do automated regression testing for Google's own workloads.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: The issue is Foothold.
by Lennie on Tue 14th Dec 2010 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The issue is Foothold."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Microsoft is loosing market share in the webserver business:

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/category/web-server-survey/

They tricked a few parked-domain sites to switch in the past (with a financial incentive) but they are loosing share.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: The issue is Foothold.
by shmerl on Tue 14th Dec 2010 16:07 UTC in reply to "RE: The issue is Foothold."
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Windows is far behind from being a main player in servers. I doubt it it would ever catch up on Unix/Linux in this regard.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The issue is Foothold.
by tyrione on Tue 14th Dec 2010 21:15 UTC in reply to "RE: The issue is Foothold."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

"Basically Linux is appearing that it will get a strong foothold in mobile devices equal or stronger than MS foothold in desktop. A foothold it can use to slowly chip away at the desktop.


This kind-of assumes that the whole objective of every player should be to dominate the desktop.

Look at it perhaps another way:

Linux dominates in embedded devices, internet infrastructure and supercomputers, it has a significant slice (maybe even the main player) in servers, and it has a decent share in mobiles, handhelds and netbooks.

OSX has a modest share in desktops, no presence to speak of in servers, embedded devices or supercomputers, and the lions share in mobiles, handhelds and tablets.

Windows dominates the desktop, has a decent share of servers (maybe even the main player), and is not significant anywhere else.
"

What do you think mobiles, handhelds and tablets are? Embedded devices.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: The issue is Foothold.
by lemur2 on Tue 14th Dec 2010 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The issue is Foothold."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What do you think mobiles, handhelds and tablets are? Embedded devices.


What I meant to indicate when I said "embedded devices" is products like digital TVs, PVRs, GPS devices and things like digital photo frames. Typically, anything with a screen and a menu that is not a computer.

Meego in particular is targetted at this type of product:
http://meego.com/devices

Reply Score: 2

RE: The issue is Foothold.
by arpan on Tue 14th Dec 2010 05:01 UTC in reply to "The issue is Foothold."
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Mobile devises are a very large and very diverse market. No one player will be able to dominate in the same way that Windows dominated the Desktop world.

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

I greatly appreciate the level of detail and number of sources that you provided in the article. Its a welcome change of the usual procedure. However, some stats are better than others. I largely agree with the conclusions, but some of the arguments leading up to them are a bit off.

One example: Citing the many predictions that feature phones will be killed off as a possible sign that smart phones will also affect laptop sales. If you give a feature phone and a smart phone to an average joe,and ask them which is which, You might only get the right answer 60% of the time. Try that with laptop and a smart phone and I bet that figure would clime to close to 90%. There is a real, obvious difference between them that points towards a difference in use cases.

But if you were to survey actual users to determine their computing use cases, you might learn that the majority of users who's use cases were being met with a laptop could be better met with a smart phone. I said might, because I haven't done the research and don't know of any reliable source that has. But, that would build a more convincing argument for the conclusion. As it is, I even find it a better argument than the very substantial and reputable statistic of feature phone replacement.

There are a bunch of similar spots of logic in there, don't have time to list em all. But good job none the less, you've obviously put some serious thought and research into this and I think the conclusions are very valid: Microsoft missed the mobile boat.

Reply Score: 2

FreeGamer Member since:
2007-04-13

You know the saying, "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Reply Score: 1

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

While I mostly agree with the article, I was missing just one important graph:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-ww-quarterly-200904-20...

Reply Score: 2

I think the biggest problem with Microsoft
by reduz on Tue 14th Dec 2010 00:22 UTC
reduz
Member since:
2006-02-25

Is that people overall don't have much of an appreciation for it as a brand. Google and Apple are both loved by many many followers and have earned the respect of the public by creating excellent products.

Microsoft managed, with a lot of effort, to produce Windows 7, which isn't really "loved" but mainly seen in a positive light after compared to Vista.
I mean, people does not use Windows / Office because they love them, but because it's compatible with what everyone else uses, so it's not a surprise if other Microsoft branded products don't feel "attractive"... after all one does not associate them with "cool", even if there is nothing wrong with them..

Edited 2010-12-14 00:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Publicly traded corps put shareholders ahead of even the most devoted fans.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Is that people overall don't have much of an appreciation for it as a brand. Google and Apple are both loved by many many followers and have earned the respect of the public by creating excellent products. Microsoft managed, with a lot of effort, to produce Windows 7, which isn't really "loved" but mainly seen in a positive light after compared to Vista. I mean, people does not use Windows / Office because they love them, but because it's compatible with what everyone else uses, so it's not a surprise if other Microsoft branded products don't feel "attractive"... after all one does not associate them with "cool", even if there is nothing wrong with them..


I think there is another issue entirely which has very little to do with the concept of "brand".

This issue is perhaps best explained by Peruvian Congressman's Dr Edgar David Villanueva Núñez rebuttal to Microsoft FUD in 2002.
http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/reponseperou/villanueva_to_ms.htm...
To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indispensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.

To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.

To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties.


My bold.

The "battle" in mobiles at the moment is perhaps best framed as the battle between the closed iPhone/AppStore ecosystem versus the more open Android ecosystem. Which of these will win?

Certainly, in therms of the points raised by Dr Edgar David Villanueva Núñez, Android is preferable over the iPhone OS.

If Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 offers only another "iPhone OS" style closed ecosystem, it doesn't really bring anything new to the table, does it?

Regardless of branding differences.

Edited 2010-12-14 02:24 UTC

Reply Score: 5

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Microsoft managed, with a lot of effort, to produce Windows 7, which isn't really "loved" but mainly seen in a positive light after compared to Vista.


lol, that kinda sounds that being shot in the kneecap seems awfully pleasant after possibility of being shot in the head

Reply Score: 2

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Google earned respect for trying "not being evil". Apple and MS didn't even try... So no respect in this regards.

Reply Score: 1

Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

Thats because microsoft is not a new company.

Everyone loves to see the new guy come along a make good. Its the american dream especially for the younger gerneration.

Reply Score: 2

Ummmmm....
by tomcat on Tue 14th Dec 2010 00:37 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

I think it's a bit premature to count any of the big players out of "the next big thing." The interesting dynamic in the mobile market is that there really is no single player with overwhelming market share -- in the same way that Microsoft has dominated personal computers. The market is very healthy in terms of competition and innovation, and it's still growing year-over-year; so, even if Microsoft only grows its market share to, say, 10 or 15% of the overall mobile market in the next few years, that's still a very significant chunk of business. Furthermore, building a platform is the hardest part. Now that Microsoft has a pretty functional mobile OS in Windows Phone 7, evolutionary changes which make it more competitive become a lot easier to accomplish. The more players there are in the mobile market, the better off consumers will be.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Ummmmm....
by oiaohm on Tue 14th Dec 2010 01:21 UTC in reply to "Ummmmm...."
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

even if Microsoft only grows its market share to, say, 10 or 15% of the overall mobile market in the next few years


10 or 15 percent would almost be MS record high numbers in Mobile phone market. Also when you look at makers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mobile_os.png MS is in a true head to head duke out for production with Android at moment.

For a possible achievable number if MS does pull out something good. Would be about 5 percent market share.

Meego has a better chance of getting the 10 to 15 percent. Reason it has hardware makers not in android production.

Next disadvantage for MS is that Linux and Apple does not split phone development and netbook/desktop development into completely independent OS's like MS does. So cost of development is lower on the Apple and Linux side. Even RIM is using QNX OS as the base of there devices these days that they sell on for other users.

Symbian is going to cease to exist. So MS is the only one left truly making a OS targeted at the small devices with user interface alone.

Remember meego will not make it better for MS. It will become a 3 way duke out for the production. Sorry to say when it comes to production you don't want to come third. OS 1 and 2 will make its way into devices number 3 will normally be left rot.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ummmmm....
by nt_jerkface on Tue 14th Dec 2010 02:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Ummmmm...."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Meego has a better chance of getting the 10 to 15 percent. Reason it has hardware makers not in android production.


Nah I disagree, WP7 will have enterprise appeal which will make it more likely to get to 15%.

Meego is technically interesting but too late. Why should anyone buy a Meego phone over Android? By the time Meego comes out Android will be on version 3.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Ummmmm....
by lemur2 on Tue 14th Dec 2010 02:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ummmmm...."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

WP7 will have enterprise appeal


Un-supported assertion. There is no established lock-in to Windows Phone 7. Windows Phone 7 is not Windows 7. It isn't the case that you can run Office 2010, Photoshop and Autocad on Windows Phone 7.

Blackberry, Symbian and iPhone OS have the lion's share of enterprise appeal right now.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Ummmmm....
by oiaohm on Tue 14th Dec 2010 02:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ummmmm...."
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"WP7 will have enterprise appeal


Un-supported assertion. There is no established lock-in to Windows Phone 7. Windows Phone 7 is not Windows 7. It isn't the case that you can run Office 2010, Photoshop and Autocad on Windows Phone 7.

Blackberry, Symbian and iPhone OS have the lion's share of enterprise appeal right now.
"

Android is currently higher than iphone or blackberry in enterprise. Symbian is the old timer that is kinda entrenched.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Ummmmm....
by nt_jerkface on Tue 14th Dec 2010 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ummmmm...."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

It isn't the case that you can run Office 2010, Photoshop and Autocad on Windows Phone 7.


Has nothing to do with running Win32 programs. The enterprise appeal comes in the Office/Exchange support.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Ummmmm....
by lemur2 on Tue 14th Dec 2010 09:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ummmmm...."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"It isn't the case that you can run Office 2010, Photoshop and Autocad on Windows Phone 7.


Has nothing to do with running Win32 programs. The enterprise appeal comes in the Office/Exchange support.
"

There are any number of alternatives to Windows Phone 7 that offer Office/Exchange support.

http://www.openchange.org/

http://www.nitrodesk.com/default.aspx

http://www.apple.com/iphone/business/#easy

In fact there are a number of good alternatives these days to Office/Exchange.

http://www.sogo.nu/english.html
http://www.documentfoundation.org/download/
http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-GB/thunderbird/

It isn't the case at all that one MUST run Windows Phone 7 even if one's "enterprise" does happen to run Office/Exchange.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Ummmmm....
by lucas_maximus on Tue 14th Dec 2010 11:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ummmmm...."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

But Microsoft will offer a support contract which will be the important thing.

Doesn't matter if some software can do it, there must be someone to go to for support, otherwise it is a no go.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Ummmmm....
by unoengborg on Tue 14th Dec 2010 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ummmmm...."
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

More and more organizations at least here in Sweden, are switching from MS-Exchange to Google Apps due to the lower cost of maintainance. This makes good Google integration just as important as being able to talk to Exchange

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Ummmmm....
by nt_jerkface on Thu 16th Dec 2010 03:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ummmmm...."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

ZzzZzzzzZZZ

CTO: We need a phone with good MS software compatibility.

Where do you think they will go?

Everyone here knows about MS Office alternatives. Everyone. You can spam a billion links but it won't change the fact that MS Office has embedded itself within enterprise world. Your open source advocacy here is a wasted endeavorer. These forums aren't frequented by enough people for it to matter and the people that do frequent them by nature explore software alternatives of all types.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Ummmmm....
by oiaohm on Thu 16th Dec 2010 05:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ummmmm...."
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

ZzzZzzzzZZZ

CTO: We need a phone with good MS software compatibility.

Where do you think they will go?

Everyone here knows about MS Office alternatives. Everyone. You can spam a billion links but it won't change the fact that MS Office has embedded itself within enterprise world. Your open source advocacy here is a wasted endeavorer. These forums aren't frequented by enough people for it to matter and the people that do frequent them by nature explore software alternatives of all types.


Iphone, Android or Blackbery is where CTO go. Because they look cool. I do setup for CTO stuff. Last thing they bother about is if it integrates into the network. Instead they land it on IT Officers lap and says make it work don't care how.

Simple fact here. nt_jerkface you don't have arguments that hold water. MS Office is becoming less embeded all the time. Most of the issue way MS Office remains embeded is legacy and those legacy parts have a habit of breaking every time MS Office gets upgraded in a business. Reason why lot of businesses stayed on Office 2003 and did not go up to Office 2007 now being forced to go upto 2010 breakages are back. So TCO of MS Office is high. Bites every time you change version.

I don't work in 1 to 2 year time frames with lots of businesses. I have 5 to 10 year plans.

Lot of cases removing the legacy MS Office dependent parts improves stability of business operations so TCO lower.

"wasted endeavorer" I think not. I am point my customers here to show that even people like you cannot put up any logic against open source that holds water. So the people I need to see this will.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Ummmmm....
by JAlexoid on Tue 14th Dec 2010 13:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ummmmm...."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Has nothing to do with running Win32 programs. The enterprise appeal comes in the Office/Exchange support.


Well... WP7's support for Office/Exchange is as good, or as bad(depending on your perspective), as iPhone or Android.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Ummmmm....
by oiaohm on Tue 14th Dec 2010 02:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ummmmm...."
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"Meego has a better chance of getting the 10 to 15 percent. Reason it has hardware makers not in android production.


Nah I disagree, WP7 will have enterprise appeal which will make it more likely to get to 15%.

Meego is technically interesting but too late. Why should anyone buy a Meego phone over Android? By the time Meego comes out Android will be on version 3.
"

Thing is Meego has the possibility of running some Windows applications as well as a large section of already pre existing QT based applications. Even that android will be version 3 by then it still will not have the application support Meego will have. Of course with the current path Meego is on there is nothing stopping it running android applications inside it as well.

Android has just as much enterprise integration as WP7 including remote clearing of devices for secuirty reasons. And does not have the WP7 pitfalls like stuffing up removable media.

15% is higher than where Windows Mobile has been in over 5 years. Even claiming 10 percent you have not seen that in over 3 years. Windows Mobile at current numbers is drifting in the direction of 3 percent market share. I see nothing particularly special or different to the past version. And yes the current Windows Mobile usage include enterprise appeal factor behind it.

No reason you are giving is big enough to explain why WP7 will make it to 15%. 5 % is being kind even with the enterprise support behind it.

Biggest trick Meego has behind it is Nokia that already has more than 15 percent market share. So yes it has a foothold in the market to leap it to 15 percent market share without having todo much.

Meego can basically gain market share fast because it has the hardware maker to do it.

Also big bad thing here. Meego and Android are not 100 percent independent OS's. Meego and Android share most of the same drivers and will support most of the same hardware. In fact Meego does not require any special buttons on anything else on the device compared to android.

Basically Meego wants a device configured the same as android in most cases. Only possible issue can be display driver. So keeping production costs down to a min with Meego and android devices. Even the possibility of duel boot android/meego devices or have user decide at purchase what OS they want. Reduced shipping costs.

Meego yes is late to market also the other thing one of the Meego side projects is to produce a generic Linux kernel/image for arm based devices. This is something that has never happened before on phones. 1 image many devices. Its bring something new and unique so it has a chance of large market share.

WP7 requires a custom device with custom buttons so if maker gets stuck with a model that don't sell they are stuck with it. Ie batching Meego is less risk than WP7 so more makers will try Meego since if it fails they just flash them and send them out the other door as android. Nice bit flashing changing OS does not require device returned to factory. So there should be no reason for meego default installed devices to remain on shelves not being sold due to the OS suxing compared to android.

Yes android and Meego is not either or for people producing devices. That fact alone gives Meego far better chance of getting market share.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Ummmmm....
by nt_jerkface on Tue 14th Dec 2010 08:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ummmmm...."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

No reason you are giving is big enough to explain why WP7 will make it to 15%. 5 % is being kind even with the enterprise support behind it.


I said more likely to get to 15%.

This is why:
WP7 handsets will sync with Exchange Server 2007, Exchange Server 2010 and the current version of Exchange Online; later, syncing with Exchange Online 2010 and SharePoint Online 2010 will be added.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/08/microsoft_wp7/

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Ummmmm....
by oiaohm on Tue 14th Dec 2010 08:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ummmmm...."
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"No reason you are giving is big enough to explain why WP7 will make it to 15%. 5 % is being kind even with the enterprise support behind it.


I said more likely to get to 15%.

This is why:
WP7 handsets will sync with Exchange Server 2007, Exchange Server 2010 and the current version of Exchange Online; later, syncing with Exchange Online 2010 and SharePoint Online 2010 will be added.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/08/microsoft_wp7/
"

Worthless statement all that is a zero advantage. Android due to MS deal with google has that complete list as well. That is nothing more than keeping up with competition. In fact android has Sharepoint 2010 syncing many ways already. http://www.sharepointreviews.com/component/jreviews/tag/workswith/A...

My 5 percent statement still stands as best possible outcome. There is no special feature advantage to give WP7 even that. Your 15 percent idea has nothing behind it and its basically dreaming in the current highly competitive market.

Try again. When you can come up with a feature that android cannot offer now that WP7 has or will have maybe 10 percent stands a chance.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Ummmmm....
by vivainio on Tue 14th Dec 2010 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ummmmm...."
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

By the time Meego comes out Android will be on version 3.


If the first version of MeeGo is better than Android v3, why not? Version number does not mean Android will be a better platform - operating systems are not "accumulated", they are iterated.

(So far, I don't consider app market of Android to be too strong an asset, as most of it is low quality stuff).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Ummmmm....
by elsewhere on Thu 16th Dec 2010 06:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ummmmm...."
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Nah I disagree, WP7 will have enterprise appeal which will make it more likely to get to 15%.


You're joking, right? RIM ate Microsoft's lunch there a long time ago, and MS was never able to catch up through 6.5 versions of WinMobile. Why will WP7 be different, particularly since MS has made it clear that consumers are the immediate focus for WP7?

Enterprise appeal comes from security and manageability. Pretty much every smartphone on the market has Exchange compatibility and MSO file capability. It's going to take more than that alone.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ummmmm.... - Meego
by jabbotts on Tue 14th Dec 2010 16:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Ummmmm...."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Glad Maemo/Meego got mentioned; all the "open" promised by Android without all the "closed" it's delivered with.

Reply Score: 2

People get a new phone every 2 years
by nt_jerkface on Tue 14th Dec 2010 01:38 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

so it shouldn't be a surprise that smartphones are outselling laptops.

MS was late to smartphones but they still make plenty selling Office and Windows. If you really want to hurt MS then you need to go after one of their moo cows. They don't even care about making money from WP7. What they don't like is how Apple has drawn in consumers to the Mac with their idevices. MS would be much happier if Android dominated instead of the iphone.

Reply Score: 4

bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

MS would be much happier if Android dominated instead of the iphone.

So that customers could be drawn into Google Apps and possibly Chrome OS?

You may be right, but don't forget that Google and Microsoft are likely to have an upcoming war in the cloud.

Reply Score: 2

coreyography Member since:
2009-03-06

Don't even care" is a bit strong. Sure, they wouldn't mind driving some Win7/Office collateral sales from their mobile offerings, but I think they are in the mobile space to compete, and make some money, at least in their own minds.

Most corporate types I've seen use Blackberries (the company I work for does), primarily I think because they can be locked down by the IT department. (I don't care for them as smartphones; I'll take my Incredible any day.) I think MS is going to have to go some to significantly displace Blackberry in this space, because of inertia if nothing else.

On the consumer side, since MS is trying to be an Apple without the hardware manufacturing headaches, I think they will end up limiting themselves. Consumers are either going to like WP7 phones, or not. Customers switching to another manufacturer to get a different look and feel, or different hardware specs, while still buying a copy of WP7, is not an option. Apple gets away with that primarily because they were first to market, and secondarily due to generally good design (a few issues notwithstanding). Android offered an alternative (many alternatives, actually), so they are doing alright. I don't think Microsoft, as a me-too, one-trick pony, will find the market so lucrative.

Reply Score: 1

More articles like this please
by DOSguy on Tue 14th Dec 2010 01:40 UTC
DOSguy
Member since:
2009-07-27

Bravo! Can we have more of these well-written and extensive articles on OSNews please?

Reply Score: 7

Comment by Neolander
by Neolander on Tue 14th Dec 2010 06:54 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

So smartphones should be replacing notebooks and desktops on a large scale, eh ?

And what will be people working or playing complex games with ? Are you telling me that big spreadsheet users will be happy with an iPhone's or iPad's screen ? Or that heavy FPS/RTS players will be happy with an iPhone port ?

Smartphones probably will outsell laptops, but not by replacing them. They will just be the new way phones, DAPs, and portable consoles will work, a new incarnation of the light entertainment market. Putting the sales of smartphones and computers for work and heavy games in the same basket is just like comparing app... Hum... Pears and oranges. If you want to include smartphones in such a comparison, you must add the sales of feature phones, DAPs, and portable consoles before even remotely having a point ;)

Edited 2010-12-14 07:00 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Neolander
by nt_jerkface on Tue 14th Dec 2010 08:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by Neolander"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Sales of shorts have increased, are pants makers totally fucked? More news at 11.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Neolander
by Neolander on Tue 14th Dec 2010 08:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Neolander"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Well, apparently it's not obvious to everyone, looking at the number of people who seem to think that the rise of smartphones and tablets, along with that of better web technologies like HTML5, is marking the end of Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop/laptop market.

It'll take a bit more than that, I think. Currently, Microsoft is crushed in an area where they never became dominant in the first place, the entertainment market. But I don't think that things like Office or Windows are threatened yet.

Edited 2010-12-14 08:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Neolander
by lemur2 on Tue 14th Dec 2010 09:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Neolander"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

But I don't think that things like Office or Windows are threatened yet.


It will take some time before people generally come to realise that they don't need to run Office or Windows these days in order to be perfectly compatible with those who do.

At the moment, some government contracts are still being let which stipulate that Microsoft software must be offered as the solution. In most cases, this is actually against the governments own rules, and this practice is being challenged now. As soon as freedom software is allowed to compete for contracts on a level playing field, which is most likely to begin with government departments, it should start displacing Office and Windows in large deployments.

This is already policy in some countries.
http://www.opensource.org/node/551
http://www.opensource.org/node/528
http://www.computerworlduk.com/in-depth/open-source/1676/open-sourc...

OpenOffice installed base is currently between 10% and 20% depending on geographic location.

Edited 2010-12-14 09:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Neolander
by Neolander on Tue 14th Dec 2010 09:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Neolander"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

OpenOffice has the best compatibility with Office which the open-source world has to offer, but it's not perfect. Complex documents may or may not work. For a home user or a student like me it's okay, but on a larger scale it's really not okay.

Apart from that, there's also a problem of intrinsic software qualities. Oo's UI is obscure in places, they cloned office 2000 and it was not the best UI microsoft has ever done to say the least. Impress is okay for light use, but Writer makes some simple things very complicated (ex : OO formulas vs MathType, paragraph numbering...), and let's not even talk about Calc vs Excel.

Finally, there's plug-in compatibility. Office has some very interesting add-ons like XLSTAT, which are obviously not compatible with OpenOffice.

Windows is yet another issue. There are two problems here : hardware and software.

Since there are no standard interfaces to hardware anymore, modern hardware requires drivers. Drivers are made by the manufacturer and OS-specific, which means that Linux is often doomed to using either crappy proprietary drivers (as they don't matter in terms of market share, the HW manufacturer does not pay attention to what it codes) or second-class community drivers made from reverse engineering, which are often coming late at the party, unstable, or poor in some areas (3D acceleration, power management).

And then, there's software. Where are AutoCAD, Photoshop, After Effect for Linux ? There are sometimes (not always) equivalents, but they don't have the same UI, and often do not offer exactly the same functionality - which results in a productivity loss.

Edited 2010-12-14 09:58 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Neolander
by oiaohm on Tue 14th Dec 2010 10:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Neolander"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

OpenOffice has the best compatibility with Office which the open-source world has to offer, but it's not perfect. Complex documents may or may not work. For a home user or a student like me it's okay, but on a larger scale it's really not okay.

Always been wrong Go-oo fork off openoffice has always been higher in compatibility. These days libreoffice has taken over that location. This is basically someone trolling because they don't really know what is out there.

Apart from that, there's also a problem of intrinsic software qualities. Oo's UI is obscure in places, they cloned office 2000 and it was not the best UI microsoft has ever done to say the least. Impress is okay for light use, but Writer makes some simple things very complicated (ex : OO formulas vs MathType, paragraph numbering...), and let's not even talk about Calc vs Excel.[\q]

Again wrong. OpenOffice UI design predated MS Office. Even predates Windows 3.11 goes back before MS even made there first Office or Works programs. If anyone cloned anyone it was the other way over. Big problem is it should have been revamped in a lot of places in the year 2000 when it was released open source.

Paragraph numbering is more stable in OpenOffice than MS Office. Once set right it stays right.

Major performance issues have been repaired in Calc with libreoffice as well as Excel formula importing. Again this is a legacy code issue. Internal of Calc being single threaded in many places causing major bottle necks.

[q] Finally, there's plug-in compatibility. Office has some very interesting add-ons like XLSTAT, which are obviously not compatible with OpenOffice.


Again it comes down to what you are doing with XLSTAT. There are a lot of cases same result as XLSTAT can be got with alfresco extensions and other solutions. Most of the extensions for Excel are not unique there are other ways of getting the same result.

Windows is yet another issue. There are two problems here : hardware and software.

Since there are no standard interfaces to hardware anymore, modern hardware requires drivers. Drivers are made by the manufacturer and OS-specific, which means that Linux is often doomed to using either crappy proprietary drivers (as they don't matter in terms of market share, the HW manufacturer does not pay attention to what it codes) or second-class community drivers made from reverse engineering, which are often coming late at the party, unstable, or poor in some areas (3D acceleration, power management).


Play the hardware card. Funny Linux has drivers for ATI cards that are not even released yet. No way those drivers could have come from reversing.

This is not uncommon these days. To see specs being released to Linux first. Some of the arm hardware out there only has Linux drivers that is the end of it. Hardware card only applies if you are playing x86 and even then it reducing.

And then, there's software. Where are AutoCAD, Photoshop, After Effect for Linux ? There are sometimes (not always) equivalents, but they don't have the same UI, and often do not offer exactly the same functionality - which results in a productivity loss.

Reverse is also true. Linux has access to some software that is either not provide for windows or fails to run at speed under windows.

This is nothing more than a OS change issue. This is basically a nil issue. After Effects is really not the best tool out there.

Best tool in After Effects class out there is called Lightworks. That is currently being ported to Linux as well as becoming open source. Sorry Lightworks out features After Effects in everyway.

Autocad also has its equal and better replacements for Linux. Photoshop is really the only tricky one you listed without a replacement that can kick it but in every way. Big thing here is how many of your desktop users really would need Photoshop,

Basically get your information upto date before keeping on talking.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Comment by Neolander
by Neolander on Tue 14th Dec 2010 20:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Neolander"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Always been wrong Go-oo fork off openoffice has always been higher in compatibility. These days libreoffice has taken over that location. This is basically someone trolling because they don't really know what is out there.

I consider that go-oo and libreoffice are nothing more than a bunch of patch to OO at the moment and thus that these three products do not deserve to be considered as separate entities. When I say open office, it includes OO, go-oo, libreoffice, staroffice, and whatever else uses nearly the same codebase, as opposed to completely separate software like koffice or abiword. Sorry for the annoyance.

Again wrong. OpenOffice UI design predated MS Office. Even predates Windows 3.11 goes back before MS even made there first Office or Works programs. If anyone cloned anyone it was the other way over. Big problem is it should have been revamped in a lot of places in the year 2000 when it was released open source.

Okay, we agree there.

Paragraph numbering is more stable in OpenOffice than MS Office. Once set right it stays right.

And on OpenOffice, it's something whose English name I don't know which keeps screwing up.

Called in French "renvoi", the feature works this way : somewhere in your document, there is a list indexed by numbers. Somewhere else in your document, you want to refer to an item in that list. So you do insert->"renvoi", and then you can invoke the number associated to that item. If you modify the list later, the number is modified accordingly.

Believe it or not, saving the document, closing OO, and re-opening it is sometimes sufficient to mess this up.

(Not being a heavy Calc user myself, I cut the part about it. I know that Excel users find it frustrating, but not precisely why. Myself, I find both insufficient for my use cases)

Play the hardware card. Funny Linux has drivers for ATI cards that are not even released yet. No way those drivers could have come from reversing.

Yeah, and as far as I know they provide 2D acceleration only when they do work... Also, how are the drivers for actually released products for AMD going ?

This is not uncommon these days. To see specs being released to Linux first.

Of course. No need for a spec on windows, the drivers provided by the manufacturer of the hardware and the operating system generally do work. Nowadays, releasing specs mostly occur when a manufacturer realizes how crappy his linux drivers are and asks the community to do better if it can.

Some of the arm hardware out there only has Linux drivers that is the end of it. Hardware card only applies if you are playing x86 and even then it reducing.

No question, I'm talking about the desktop here. I know that Linux is much, much more powerful on anything embedded, but my original point was that Windows, the desktop/laptop OS, was here to stay for some time.

Reverse is also true. Linux has access to some software that is either not provide for windows or fails to run at speed under windows.

Indeed, but for desktop use, the best of linux software tends to have okay to good windows ports. On the other hand, it's generally not true the other way.

This is nothing more than a OS change issue. This is basically a nil issue. After Effects is really not the best tool out there.

Do you really think it's that simple ? I'm a heavy GIMP user, and the Photoshop interface horrifies me so much that I wouldn't touch it with a 10-feet pole. It works just as well the other way. But both software essentially do the same thing.

Switching to new software which you're not used to is really hard, and the harder it was to get used to your current software the harder it will be to switch to another one. This is a real problem, not something you can easily flag as a nil issue and just put under the carpet. Having to use other software makes the barrier to entry of alternative OSs a lot higher than if every software was cross-platform.

Best tool in After Effects class out there is called Lightworks. That is currently being ported to Linux as well as becoming open source. Sorry Lightworks out features After Effects in everyway.

Some say that photoshop beats gimp in every way. Yet anytime I use the path tool in photoshop it makes me want to run away screaming and anytime I use photoshop on a low-powered computer I have the feeling that said computer going to die when I just stroke a line with a 200px brush. I'm sure that a heavy AE user could explain how After Effect is better than Lightworks, based on his own experience of the softs...

Autocad also has its equal and better replacements for Linux. Photoshop is really the only tricky one you listed without a replacement that can kick it but in every way. Big thing here is how many of your desktop users really would need Photoshop,

In the future, desktop computers will become tools for work and heavy gaming, imo. Only professional software users and hardcore gamers would then remain heavy PC users.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Neolander
by oiaohm on Tue 14th Dec 2010 21:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Neolander"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"Always been wrong Go-oo fork off openoffice has always been higher in compatibility. These days libreoffice has taken over that location. This is basically someone trolling because they don't really know what is out there.

I consider that go-oo and libreoffice are nothing more than a bunch of patch to OO at the moment and thus that these three products do not deserve to be considered as separate entities. When I say open office, it includes OO, go-oo, libreoffice, staroffice, and whatever else uses nearly the same codebase, as opposed to completely separate software like koffice or abiword. Sorry for the annoyance.

libreoffice is a diverging code base. Lot of patches currently going into libreoffice cannot be upstreamed into OpenOffice. Thinking almost the complete core of Calc is complete different code in libreoffice because under inspecting it was completely shot.

As libreoffice process keeps on going more and more they will be split codebases.


Paragraph numbering is more stable in OpenOffice than MS Office. Once set right it stays right.

And on OpenOffice, it's something whose English name I don't know which keeps screwing up.

Called in French "renvoi", the feature works this way : somewhere in your document, there is a list indexed by numbers. Somewhere else in your document, you want to refer to an item in that list. So you do insert->"renvoi", and then you can invoke the number associated to that item. If you modify the list later, the number is modified accordingly.

Believe it or not, saving the document, closing OO, and re-opening it is sometimes sufficient to mess this up.
"
100 percent believe you. That would be OO from over 1 year ago. If its the particular bug I am thinking of that started in OO 3.0. Could be avoided by manually refreshing list before saving by stupidly doing a print view. Bug that I was glad to see the back off. No where near as bad as others MS Office has had. Ie insert too many pictures word locks up.

"(Not being a heavy Calc user myself, I cut the part about it. I know that Excel users find it frustrating, but not precisely why. Myself, I find both insufficient for my use cases)

Play the hardware card. Funny Linux has drivers for ATI cards that are not even released yet. No way those drivers could have come from reversing.

Yeah, and as far as I know they provide 2D acceleration only when they do work... Also, how are the drivers for actually released products for AMD going ?

2d works for all cards. 3d supported but not optimized for all cards including the ones not released www.phoronix.com starting work on optimization framework. Opengl stack still needs improvement to support more upto date versions of opengl. But everthing is progressing at quite a decent rate thinking how large the job is to produce video card drivers from nothing. Most video cards are just revisons on the older cards for that reason.

Yes video card drivers are almost all or nothing. Ie either you support all the cards that have existed or you have nothing.

This is not uncommon these days. To see specs being released to Linux first.

Of course. No need for a spec on windows, the drivers provided by the manufacturer of the hardware and the operating system generally do work. Nowadays, releasing specs mostly occur when a manufacturer realizes how crappy his linux drivers are and asks the community to do better if it can.
"
If fact what you just said is myth in most cases outside x86. Even intel processor are developed for Linux first since they are designed on Linux.

The good chip design software does not run on windows for most devices. For testing and compare that software basically requires the drivers first written for Linux to reduce on number of terminals the hardware developers need. Once the device works then it goes to general driver production is becoming more and more the pattern. So yes the hardware makers are providing more and more of the drivers directly. This also explains where about 60 percent of the 80 percent full time coders on Linux come from. Hardware developing companies.

"Some of the arm hardware out there only has Linux drivers that is the end of it. Hardware card only applies if you are playing x86 and even then it reducing.

No question, I'm talking about the desktop here. I know that Linux is much, much more powerful on anything embedded, but my original point was that Windows, the desktop/laptop OS, was here to stay for some time.
"
And the starting topic is about mobile phones. But arm wants desktop/laptop market share. We are going to see arm in desktop and laptop form factors. Force against the desktop/laptop form factor will keep on increasing.

"Reverse is also true. Linux has access to some software that is either not provide for windows or fails to run at speed under windows.

Indeed, but for desktop use, the best of linux software tends to have okay to good windows ports. On the other hand, it's generally not true the other way.

This is nothing more than a OS change issue. This is basically a nil issue. After Effects is really not the best tool out there.

Do you really think it's that simple ? I'm a heavy GIMP user, and the Photoshop interface horrifies me so much that I wouldn't touch it with a 10-feet pole. It works just as well the other way. But both software essentially do the same thing.
"
I am sorry to say at this stage photoshop has particular features gimp lacks. My replacement for AfterEffects has all its features plus more.


In the future, desktop computers will become tools for work and heavy gaming, imo. Only professional software users and hardcore gamers would then remain heavy PC users.

Sorry to say professional Software there is a lot that does not run on Windows. Photoshop is a small subset of professional users. And the software to complete with it is coming up.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Neolander
by lemur2 on Tue 14th Dec 2010 11:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Neolander"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

OpenOffice has the best compatibility with Office which the open-source world has to offer, but it's not perfect. Complex documents may or may not work. For a home user or a student like me it's okay, but on a larger scale it's really not okay.


MS Office has very poor compatibility with other Office suites. In that aspect it is way worse than OpenOffice in every way.

Where two parties are interchanging documents and they use different Office suites, in general it will be the party which uses Microsoft Office which has the most problem. Using Microsoft Office is even a problem with your own organisation's older archived documents.

The need to exchange exceedingly complex MS Office documents (that may not work) is very small. Even when the other party has a different version of Office, such an exchange may not work. Choose any format OTHER THAN MS Office formats in order to have a more successful document interchange.

Apart from that, there's also a problem of intrinsic software qualities. Oo's UI is obscure in places, they cloned office 2000 and it was not the best UI microsoft has ever done to say the least. Impress is okay for light use, but Writer makes some simple things very complicated (ex : OO formulas vs MathType, paragraph numbering...), and let's not even talk about Calc vs Excel.


Yet OpenOffice still has 10% to 20% installed base, and growing. It is by far and away the best solution for document interchange and archival purposes. It amply meets the needs of well over 90% of uses cases for an Office suite ... perhaps more.

Finally, there's plug-in compatibility. Office has some very interesting add-ons like XLSTAT, which are obviously not compatible with OpenOffice.


Then XLSTAT is clearly not a technology that one should be using for information interchange or archival. This remark probably applies even better to MS Office itself.

Windows is yet another issue. There are two problems here : hardware and software.

Since there are no standard interfaces to hardware anymore, modern hardware requires drivers. Drivers are made by the manufacturer and OS-specific, which means that Linux is often doomed to using either crappy proprietary drivers (as they don't matter in terms of market share, the HW manufacturer does not pay attention to what it codes) or second-class community drivers made from reverse engineering, which are often coming late at the party, unstable, or poor in some areas (3D acceleration, power management).


There are alternative sources of open source drivers which you ignore.

The first source is where open source developers are given the programming specifications, from which they can write a good open source driver without reverse engineering.

http://www.x.org/docs/AMD/

Another source is when the OEM targets Linux first and Windows is a latecomer afterthought:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODc5Mw
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/node/4641
http://meego.com/developers/hardware-enabling-process

The mobile and handheld space is, after all, more about ARM than it is about x86.

And then, there's software. Where are AutoCAD, Photoshop, After Effect for Linux ? There are sometimes (not always) equivalents, but they don't have the same UI, and often do not offer exactly the same functionality - which results in a productivity loss.


http://www.bricsys.com/en_INTL/bricscad/index.jsp

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/reviews/2010/02/hands-on-new-sin...
http://darktable.sourceforge.net/features.shtml

After Effect: well, not every use case is covered by Linux. Where is a decent-performing Blender for Windows?

Why would you assume that the productivity had to be higher on a Windows desktop? There are a number of features of a Linux desktop, such as clipboard history and virtual desktops, that could well mean better productivity.

Edited 2010-12-14 12:11 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Neolander
by lucas_maximus on Tue 14th Dec 2010 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Neolander"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Why would you assume that the productivity had to be higher on a Windows desktop? There are a number of features of a Linux desktop, such as clipboard history and virtual desktops, that could well mean better productivity.


http://piestar.net/2010/06/29/the-argument-against-multiple-desktop...

I absolutely hate Virtual Desktops, I find I spend more time trying to organise it into Virtual Desktops than actually being organised. I turn them off when I am XFCE on my OpenBSD machine.

Clipboard History is also overrated ... I basically use just "recut" the bit I need rather than searching through the history. It is quicker IMO.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by Neolander
by lucas_maximus on Tue 14th Dec 2010 17:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Neolander"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

MS Office has very poor compatibility with other Office suites. In that aspect it is way worse than OpenOffice in every way.

Where two parties are interchanging documents and they use different Office suites, in general it will be the party which uses Microsoft Office which has the most problem. Using Microsoft Office is even a problem with your own organisation's older archived documents.


What you is arguing is the "defacto" vs "dejure" standards.

Microsoft Office is the defacto standard so it doesn't matter whether it has poor compatibility with other office suites, because those are usually in the minority.

Until there is an dejure i.e. enforced standard, everything must be compatible with Microsoft Office.

Edited 2010-12-14 17:23 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by Neolander
by lemur2 on Tue 14th Dec 2010 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Neolander"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"MS Office has very poor compatibility with other Office suites. In that aspect it is way worse than OpenOffice in every way. Where two parties are interchanging documents and they use different Office suites, in general it will be the party which uses Microsoft Office which has the most problem. Using Microsoft Office is even a problem with your own organisation's older archived documents.
What you is arguing is the "defacto" vs "dejure" standards. Microsoft Office is the defacto standard so it doesn't matter whether it has poor compatibility with other office suites, because those are usually in the minority. Until there is an dejure i.e. enforced standard, everything must be compatible with Microsoft Office. "

The point you miss is this ... OpenOffice and derivatives do have excellent compatibility with Microsoft Office. Microsoft Office has very poor compatibility with OpenOffice and derivatives.

OK, so you have one office suite which has very good compatibility with office file formats across the board, and another office suite which utterly chokes over the file format of an office suite with 10% to 20% installed base.

If you are going to be doing document interchange (such as might a government), which Office Suite do you use? The only sane answer is to use the office suite with the good, broad compatibility. That is NOT Microsoft Office.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Neolander
by Neolander on Tue 14th Dec 2010 21:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Neolander"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

MS Office has very poor compatibility with other Office suites. In that aspect it is way worse than OpenOffice in every way.

Where two parties are interchanging documents and they use different Office suites, in general it will be the party which uses Microsoft Office which has the most problem. Using Microsoft Office is even a problem with your own organisation's older archived documents.

The need to exchange exceedingly complex MS Office documents (that may not work) is very small. Even when the other party has a different version of Office, such an exchange may not work. Choose any format OTHER THAN MS Office formats in order to have a more successful document interchange.

As someone else said, it does not matter. MS Office is currently the de facto standard, therefore everyone uses doc/docx for exchanging re-writable documents. It's a sad fact of life, and open-source office suites just have to cope with it. If people were reasonable, everybody would be using PDF anyway.

Yet OpenOffice still has 10% to 20% installed base, and growing.

Because it's free and because most office suites users are casual users which would already be satisfied with abiword anyway.

It is by far and away the best solution for document interchange and archival purposes.

No, no, and no ! If you want a document which looks exactly the same way on all computers and printers you can think of, PDF is simply the only way to go. A missing font is generally all it takes for ODT/DOC documents to get their formatting completely messed up (when it's not worse).

Moreover, on the average guy's computer, you're much more likely to find a decent PDF reader than the exact same version of the office suite you're using. The core PDF standard is much more stable, and readers are more mature.

It amply meets the needs of well over 90% of uses cases for an Office suite ... perhaps more.

That's the reason why office might fall someday... But looking at the arguments a friend gave me when he told me that he was going to buy Word instead of using OpenOffice, I somehow doubt it.

Then XLSTAT is clearly not a technology that one should be using for information interchange or archival. This remark probably applies even better to MS Office itself.

Again, this also applies to nearly anything but PDFs, 7-bit ASCII text files, PCM, and similarly primitive formats. The problem is, when you want something a bit more powerful, you have to look somewhere else. Ardour, Audacity, and Cubase don't use standard file formats either, that doesn't make them less interesting as long as everyone in your team is using them.

There are alternative sources of open source drivers which you ignore.

The first source is where open source developers are given the programming specifications, from which they can write a good open source driver without reverse engineering.

http://www.x.org/docs/AMD/

Wake me up when it actually starts to give more interesting results than 2D acceleration and GPU fans blowing hot air at full speed.

Another source is when the OEM targets Linux first and Windows is a latecomer afterthought:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODc5Mw
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/node/4641
http://meego.com/developers/hardware-enabling-process

The mobile and handheld space is, after all, more about ARM than it is about x86.

Again, I don't deny that, but I'm talking about the desktop here, which is exclusively x86 since Apple realized that PowerPC was a dead end on this category of computers.


If you put an AutoCAD user in front of it, will he master it in 10 minutes ?


Photoshop users have their gripes with GIMP, and single window mode is only one of them.

They will tell you about the extensive use of contextual menus in photoshop for faster use when you're experienced (at the cost of much harder learning), non-destructive editing features, CMYK (though I heard that GEGL was going to bring that someday), GPU acceleration (ditto)...


Interesting... Though I don't use it, I suppose that this is something like Adobe Lightroom. Didn't know that the open source world went this far.

Since you seem to have some deep knowledge of open-source software, may I ask you if you know about a good data plotting and analysis software (something in the spirit of Origin or IGOR Pro) which runs on both Windows and Linux ? I'm on Windows since I moved to a laptop, as the power management of current desktop Linux distros made me want to smash my head on my desk, but I consider getting back in the open-source OS world once that is fixed, so I would like to keep using software which works everywhere.

After Effect: well, not every use case is covered by Linux. Where is a decent-performing Blender for Windows?

Well, the current betas didn't shocked me by their awful performance, although they have their quirks in other domains (dammit, where is my multicut gone ?).

I can also argue that Windows has a number of professional 3D apps of the level of Blender : 3DS Max, Lightwave...

Why would you assume that the productivity had to be higher on a Windows desktop?

I don't assume that. I assume that people always perform better with the tools they're used to. Switching to something else means a decrease in productivity during the time they get to learn their new tools.

So Linux and open source tools don't only have to be as good as the Windows ones before people decide that the aforementioned loss is worth making the switch : they also have to get much better in some way.

There are a number of features of a Linux desktop, such as clipboard history and virtual desktops, that could well mean better productivity.

Arguable. I spent more than 5 years solely running Linux, and I never managed to find an everyday use to virtual desktop. When I have so much applications running that the taskbar gets filled up, I always find some mess which I don't use anymore and should close. The fact that my computer only had 512 MB of RAM until recently may have helped this.

Same for clipboard history : never got to really use it. The sole interest of Klipper, in my opinion, was that it addressed the broken way copy and paste works on some linux desktops :
-Copy something
-Close the app
-Paste... Paste... Crap, the copied content was not actually copied, it's gone with the app !

Edited 2010-12-14 22:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Neolander
by lemur2 on Tue 14th Dec 2010 22:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Neolander"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"MS Office has very poor compatibility with other Office suites. In that aspect it is way worse than OpenOffice in every way. Where two parties are interchanging documents and they use different Office suites, in general it will be the party which uses Microsoft Office which has the most problem. Using Microsoft Office is even a problem with your own organisation's older archived documents. The need to exchange exceedingly complex MS Office documents (that may not work) is very small. Even when the other party has a different version of Office, such an exchange may not work. Choose any format OTHER THAN MS Office formats in order to have a more successful document interchange.


As someone else said, it does not matter. MS Office is currently the de facto standard, therefore everyone uses doc/docx for exchanging re-writable documents. It's a sad fact of life, and open-source office suites just have to cope with it. If people were reasonable, everybody would be using PDF anyway.
"

When poeple are reasonable, PDF is not a problem at all on a Linux desktop. My desktop uses Okular as the PDF viewer, and LibrOffice can write PDF files from any application, as can Calligra Office, and there is a "print to PDF" utility installed by default so that applications which do not support PDF output directly can support it indirectly.

"Yet OpenOffice still has 10% to 20% installed base, and growing.
Because it's free and because most office suites users are casual users which would already be satisfied with abiword anyway. "

Whatever the reason, OpenOffice and derivatives still have 10% to 20% of installed base, and growing. This was the level of installed base at which Firefox began to cause problems for "IE only" websites, BTW, and users began to demand support for Firefox in significant enough numbers.

"It is by far and away the best solution for document interchange and archival purposes.
No, no, and no ! If you want a document which looks exactly the same way on all computers and printers you can think of, PDF is simply the only way to go. A missing font is generally all it takes for ODT/DOC documents to get their formatting completely messed up (when it's not worse). Moreover, on the average guy's computer, you're much more likely to find a decent PDF reader than the exact same version of the office suite you're using. The core PDF standard is much more stable, and readers are more mature. "

ODT meets all of the requirements for document interchange and archival that PDF does, with the advantage that the file is still editable if need be, so that it also meets requirements for archival.

"It amply meets the needs of well over 90% of uses cases for an Office suite ... perhaps more.
That's the reason why office might fall someday... But looking at the arguments a friend gave me when he told me that he was going to buy Word instead of using OpenOffice, I somehow doubt it.
Then XLSTAT is clearly not a technology that one should be using for information interchange or archival. This remark probably applies even better to MS Office itself.
Again, this also applies to nearly anything but PDFs, 7-bit ASCII text files, PCM, and similarly primitive formats. The problem is, when you want something a bit more powerful, you have to look somewhere else. Ardour, Audacity, and Cubase don't use standard file formats either, that doesn't make them less interesting as long as everyone in your team is using them.
"

But, like MS Office, Ardour, Audacity, and Cubase are no good for document interchange and archival purposes. OpenOffice is.

Wake me up when it actually starts to give more interesting results than 2D acceleration and GPU fans blowing hot air at full speed.


Wakey wakey.

"The mobile and handheld space is, after all, more about ARM than it is about x86.
Again, I don't deny that, but I'm talking about the desktop here, which is exclusively x86 "

So you are talking off topic then?

http://www.bricsys.com/en_INTL/bricscad/index.jsp
If you put an AutoCAD user in front of it, will it master it in 10 minutes ?


That is the idea, yes. AutoCAD is a complex application, and to use it properly requires significant training. Once a computer user has mastered AutoCAD, they are pretty much able to master all kinds of UIs.

However, your original question ... "where is AutoCAD for Linux" is answered, and your question is out of date.

Photoshop users have their gripes with GIMP, and single window mode is only one of them. They will tell you about the extensive use of contextual menus in photoshop for faster use when you're experienced (at the cost of much harder learning), non-destructive editing features, CMYK (though I heard that GEGL was going to bring that someday), GPU acceleration (ditto)...


GEGL is supposed to address all of the claimed deficiencies of inner workings of GIMP just as single--window-UI-mode address in the UI. GIMP is powerful but slow to improve. Krita is catching it up. Whatever, there is no need to run Photoshop these days, especially when you consider the price. OMG!

may I ask you if you know about a good data plotting and analysis software (something in the spirit of Origin or IGOR Pro) which runs on both Windows and Linux ? I'm on Windows since I moved to a laptop, as the power management of current desktop Linux distros made me want to smash my head on my desk, but I consider getting back in the open-source OS world once that is fixed, so I would like to keep using software which works everywhere.


Not my field, but here are some things to check out:
http://elettrolinux.com/Analyze-Visualize/qtiplot-a-data-analysis-a...
http://soft.proindependent.com/qtiplot.html

http://www.gle-graphics.org/

http://labplot.sourceforge.net/
(the KDE4 version is still only at alpha 2 stage)

This one isn't ready yet, but I believe they are working to get it integrated with GNU Octave, which would give it more grunt.
http://edu.kde.org/cantor/

"After Effect: well, not every use case is covered by Linux. Where is a decent-performing Blender for Windows?
Well, the current betas didn't shocked me by their awful performance, although they have their quirks in other domains (dammit, where is my multicut gone ?). I can also argue that Windows has a number of professional 3D apps of the level of Blender : 3DS Max, Lightwave... "

Agreed. The question however is not "does Windows have applications" but rather "does Linux also". The answer to the latter question, for by far the majority of users and use cases, is emphatically "yes it does".

" Why would you assume that the productivity had to be higher on a Windows desktop?
I don't assume that. Same for clipboard history : never got to really use it. The sole interest of Klipper, in my opinion, was that it addressed the broken way copy and paste works on some linux desktops : -Copy something -Close the app -Paste... Paste... Crap, the copied content was not actually copied, it's gone with the app ! "

Amazing. You go out of your way to try to claim that there are no aplications for Linux desktop in some areas, when in fact there are, and then when areas of the Linux desktop that are not implemented in Windows are pointed out, you simply dismiss them.

Biased much?

Edited 2010-12-14 23:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Neolander
by lemur2 on Wed 15th Dec 2010 02:28 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Neolander"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If you put an AutoCAD user in front of it, will he master it in 10 minutes ? "

Although this is strictly a desktop question, and it is therefore getting a little off topic, nevertheless I had a look into this question:

http://www.bricsys.com/en_INTL/bricscad/documentation.jsp
The latest (free) e-book from upFront.eZine Publishing is the 144-page Bricscad for AutoCAD Users ebook. It describes the similarities and differences between the two CAD programs, and would be of interest to CAD users interested in transitioning to Bricscad. The ebook is available in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format, and covers these topics:

Advantages to Bricscad
What's missing from Bricscad
Comparison of user interfaces
Detailed comparison of drawing file compatibility
Customizing and programming Bricscad
AutoCAD-Bricscad dictionary
Four appendices of reference material


So, most decidedly, your question has been addressed, in detail.

So, is it difficult to make a transition?

http://www.bricsys.com/en_INTL/bricscad/top10.jsp
Most users are transitioning from AutoCAD to Bricscad in one week or less.
Bricscad has over 100,000 users around the world and earned a 98% satisfaction rating.
Users and administrators in organizations with both Bricscad and AutoCAD prefer Bricscad.
Bricscad offers an AutoCAD-compatible programming platform that supports existing applications.
Increasingly, top developers are offering their existing AutoCAD applications and add-ons on Bricscad


Apparently not.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Neolander
by lemur2 on Wed 15th Dec 2010 03:04 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Neolander"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

may I ask you if you know about a good data plotting and analysis software (something in the spirit of Origin or IGOR Pro) which runs on both Windows and Linux ?


Not knowing exactly what you wanted here, I went to a good resource for scientific computing:
http://elettrolinux.com/
and I found therein some other alternatives that might fill your need:
http://elettrolinux.com/Scientific-computation/octave.html
http://qtoctave.wordpress.com/what-is-qtoctave/
http://elettrolinux.com/Analyze-Visualize/scidavis-a-scientific-dat...
http://elettrolinux.com/Analyze-Visualize/paraview-scientific-visua...
http://elettrolinux.com/Analyze-Visualize/mayavi-the-3d-data-visual...
http://elettrolinux.com/Analyze-Visualize/opendx-visualization-data...
http://elettrolinux.com/Analyze-Visualize/kst-display-scientific-da...
http://elettrolinux.com/Authoring/veusz-a-scientific-plotting-packa...

I hope this helps.

Edited 2010-12-15 03:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Pelly
Member since:
2005-07-07

The reason I say this is that nearly the exact thing was predicted regarding Microsoft and the Internet around 1994-1995.

This prompted the famous, 1995, "Internet Tidal Wave Memorandum," from Bill Gates to MS Executives. He outlined (basically) that MS had totally missed the boat when it came to the importance of the Internet and its bearing on the future of Microsoft itself.

Here's a link to a photocopy of the memo:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/881657/The-Internet-Tidal-Wave

Gates directed a massive shift of resources in order to play catch-up. And I believe they caught up quite quickly.

As memory serves, much of the same was being stated regarding the Internet as is being currently said regarding MS and mobile devices.

I wouldn't be shocked at all to learn the Microsoft is quickly [and quietly] attempting to reestablish itself as a future dominant player.

While many, including myself, loathe and question their ethics & practices, Microsoft is an incredibly successful corporation and has the assets and money to pull itself out of any slump or missed opportunity.

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

...nearly the exact thing was predicted regarding Microsoft and the Internet around 1994-1995.

This prompted the famous, 1995, "Internet Tidal Wave Memorandum," from Bill Gates to MS Executives. He outlined (basically) that MS had totally missed the boat when it came to the importance of the Internet and its bearing on the future of Microsoft itself.

Gates directed a massive shift of resources in order to play catch-up. And I believe they caught up quite quickly.


The difference there is that:
1. most people still didn't have internet access, where as most people now do have mobile phones

2. even though MS were lagging behind re the internet, people still bought into their core businesses (ie Windows and Office). If people buy Android or iOS handsets, MS lose business.

3. and because those people were already tied into Windows, it was relatively easy to switch them to MS's own web-products. Where as if people are using iPhones or Android, it's harder to convince them to switch to a new and unfamiliar platform.

4. and finally, I'd argue that MS haven't really caught up in regards to the internet:
4a. ok, they did gain a monopoly with IE, but that's gone again now.
4b. They've had numerous failed search engines and only now gaining any kind of presence there with Bing (and that's largely due to their deal with Yahoo),
4c. Google (et al) have eaten away their cloud-email market share,
4d. MS still don't have much of anything in the social networking.
4e. And even sharepoint seems to be struggling in the private sector - though governments have adopted it. Though I will concede that this is based purely on the jobs I've applied for in the last year so my anecdotal evidence might be misleading.


In short - I can see the logic in your comparison, but I don't really think it's a fair one.

Reply Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

even sharepoint seems to be struggling in the private sector


At the entry level, sharepoint is free, but it doesn't take long before it attracts rent (via CALs).

There are a number of very decent alternatives that do not attract rent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfresco_%28software%29

One can save a fortune by not using sharepoint (even if one does use Windows).

Edited 2010-12-14 09:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The problem is finding support contracts for Alfresco.

We looked at using Alfresco and/or Umbraco and we couldn't find many companies to provide support. When asked about bug fixes, they said they would have to wait for upstream ... which obviously wasn't acceptable. Also Umbraco (especially) has very little functionality without any 3rd party components. The problem is that we won't be able to support for these 3rd party components.

Also there is the problem with licenses. A lot of components had licenses which aren't acceptable for our business. GPL is not an acceptable license for our business.

However there were plenty of companies which supported sharepoint, and there was more functionality out of the box.

Edited 2010-12-14 11:42 UTC

Reply Score: 1

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

The problem is finding support contracts for Alfresco.

We looked at using Alfresco and/or Umbraco and we couldn't find many companies to provide support. When asked about bug fixes, they said they would have to wait for upstream ... which obviously wasn't acceptable. Also Umbraco (especially) has very little functionality without any 3rd party components. The problem is that we won't be able to support for these 3rd party components.

Also there is the problem with licenses. A lot of components had licenses which aren't acceptable for our business. GPL is not an acceptable license for our business.

However there were plenty of companies which supported sharepoint, and there was more functionality out of the box.

There is a difference here in the way the two worlds operation. Yes I can understand why its hard to get at first when you don't compare fairly.

http://www.alfresco.com/services/subscription/ Alfresco sells support directly with even requirements for rapid responce..

Now can you buy support for Microsoft Sharepoint from Microsoft answer no you cannot. So you must use third parties.

RedHat also provides global support contracts that cover Alfresco. Both Redhat and Alfresco will do patches on Alfresco without waiting for upstream merging if it will address client issues.

Redhat is a support specialist also the Redhat path integrates in JBoss as well http://www.jboss.org/.

umbraco support is basically nothing so I can understand you not touching that.

Now please be truthful. Who is going to be able to fix up Sharepoint bugs for you and not have to wait for upstream to fix. Answer no one.

So please explain why this is a problem.
When asked about bug fixes, they said they would have to wait for upstream ... which obviously wasn't
Since this is exactly what you have to put up with using sharepoint. So comparing equally Sharepoint is not suitable for your business either.

List of what Sharepoint lacks compare to Alfresco.
1)There is no direct support contract option. So requiring rapid response to software issues. Yes you can pay Alfresco for 24 hour support and bug fixes ASP.
2)There is no option to higher your own coders if a problem is 100 percent critical to be fix ASP.
3)There is no options to use specialists like Redhat to provide 24 hour coder assistance.

So what is your problem.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

There is a difference here in the way the two worlds operation. Yes I can understand why its hard to get at first when you don't compare fairly.

http://www.alfresco.com/services/subscription/ Alfresco sells support directly with even requirements for rapid responce..

Now can you buy support for Microsoft Sharepoint from Microsoft answer no you cannot. So you must use third parties.


There are plenty of Microsoft Gold Partners in the uk, for Alfresco there is only alfresco. Lets face it Microsoft are not going anywhere tomorrow. Who knows about Alfresco.

RedHat also provides global support contracts that cover Alfresco. Both Redhat and Alfresco will do patches on Alfresco without waiting for upstream merging if it will address client issues.

Redhat is a support specialist also the Redhat path integrates in JBoss as well http://www.jboss.org/.

umbraco support is basically nothing so I can understand you not touching that.[q]

We don't have any in house experience with Redhat Linux, JBOSS, Apache, Apache Tomcat, MySQL or Postgres.

We however have extensive in house experience with Windows Server 2003, SQL Server 2005/8 and IIS. Also we need these solutions to work with Microsoft Active Directory.

[q]Now please be truthful. Who is going to be able to fix up Sharepoint bugs for you and not have to wait for upstream to fix. Answer no one.

When asked about bug fixes, they said they would have to wait for upstream ... which obviously wasn't
Since this is exactly what you have to put up with using sharepoint. So comparing equally Sharepoint is not suitable for your business either.

List of what Sharepoint lacks compare to Alfresco.
1)There is no direct support contract option. So requiring rapid response to software issues. Yes you can pay Alfresco for 24 hour support and bug fixes ASP.
2)There is no option to higher your own coders if a problem is 100 percent critical to be fix ASP.
3)There is no options to use specialists like Redhat to provide 24 hour coder assistance.

So what is your problem.


Any software defects that are that critical to Sharepoint or ASP.NET will be so big that pretty much every customer will be affected, not just us. So a patch will be out pretty quick.

Also any problem that big should/would be caught before deploy, because we would have to extensively test Sharepoint before initial deploy and before any upgrades are made.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Also there is the problem with licenses. A lot of components had licenses which aren't acceptable for our business. GPL is not an acceptable license for our business.


This is an interesting claim. What aspect of the GPL could possibly be bad for your business in any way, compared to what proprietary rentware such as Sharepoint is guaranteed to cost you?

If you are not a software company yourself ... then your company's use of any GPL software is completely free and unencumbered. Run it as much as you want for as many users on as many machines as you like. Fill your boots.

If your company does write and distribute software as its core business ... then simply write your own software. Don't ship GPL code to your customers. Once again your company's use of any GPL software is completely free and unencumbered. Fill your boots.

You are going to have to explain what on earth you think it is about the GPL that could possibly be bad for your company. Without such an explanation, your claim makes absolutely no sense at all.

Edited 2010-12-14 12:20 UTC

Reply Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

This is an interesting claim. What aspect of the GPL could possibly be bad for your business in any way, compared to what proprietary rentware such as Sharepoint is guaranteed to cost you?


Sharepoint we can get support for, we cannot get adequate support for OpenSource alternatives.

There are plenty of Microsoft Certified Partners which we can find support contracts with ... so we have plenty of choice.

Also because we are a charity, Microsoft and Google give us a significant discount (90%+) on their software (and in google's case Hardware).

If you are not a software company yourself ... then your company's use of any GPL software is completely free and unencumbered. Run it as much as you want for as many users on as many machines as you like. Fill your boots.


Again, we must have a support contract. We cannot find anyone to support us.

We do not have the resources in house to support it.

For example we use Oracle, SQL Server 2005/2008, Windows Server 2003 R2 and IIS, our current Admins do not have any know say PostgresSQL (MySQL does not have any GIS capabilities), Apache and Linux.

Using LAPP stack will be most likely be more costly since we have to migrate our current software and skillset over. This cost is minute compared to the licensing costs from Microsoft.

If your company does write and distribute software as its core business ... then simply write your own software. Don't ship GPL code to your customers.


[sarcasm]Yes we can just write our own, because writing software is so simple.[/sarcasm]

You are going to have to explain what on earth you think it is about the GPL that could possibly be bad for your company. Without such an explanation, your claim makes absolutely no sense at all.


When I did work for a software house, MIT/BSD licenses were acceptable and any license where we didn't have to "give the code back".

This is because if we did make any modifications e.g. bug fixes, and deployed to a live site we are required by the GPL to give the code back. This is of course simply unacceptable, to our management thus no GPL software.

GPL isn't a one size fits all solution. I wish you would stop pretending it is.

Reply Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

This is because if we did make any modifications e.g. bug fixes, and deployed to a live site we are required by the GPL to give the code back. This is of course simply unacceptable, to our management thus no GPL software.


You should hire a lawyer, or at least ask the lawyer that explained how Microsoft's licensing works, to explain what GPL requires of you.
Because you seem to think that GPL requires giving back. Because it does not require anything like it. GPL does require you provide the source code with the compiled code to the person/company you distribute it to under GPL. And under GPL(v1, v2 and v3) you providing services based on the modified code is not classified as distribution of object code.

I see the likes of Sleepycat and MySQL marketing department had a lot of success in making people believe that GPL is "da evil, virral and horrible" license.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Because it does not require anything like it. GPL does require you provide the source code with the compiled code to the person/company you distribute it to under GPL.


How is that massively different? GPL code effectively owns itself so what is stopping them from releasing it once they have it. The code can end up legally in the public domain.

Edited 2010-12-14 14:30 UTC

Reply Score: 1

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"This is an interesting claim. What aspect of the GPL could possibly be bad for your business in any way, compared to what proprietary rentware such as Sharepoint is guaranteed to cost you?


Sharepoint we can get support for, we cannot get adequate support for OpenSource alternatives.

There are plenty of Microsoft Certified Partners which we can find support contracts with ... so we have plenty of choice.

Also because we are a charity, Microsoft and Google give us a significant discount (90%+) on their software (and in google's case Hardware).

If you are not a software company yourself ... then your company's use of any GPL software is completely free and unencumbered. Run it as much as you want for as many users on as many machines as you like. Fill your boots.


Again, we must have a support contract. We cannot find anyone to support us.

We do not have the resources in house to support it.

For example we use Oracle, SQL Server 2005/2008, Windows Server 2003 R2 and IIS, our current Admins do not have any know say PostgresSQL (MySQL does not have any GIS capabilities), Apache and Linux.

Using LAPP stack will be most likely be more costly since we have to migrate our current software and skillset over. This cost is minute compared to the licensing costs from Microsoft.
"
Nice how you talk like it is a all or nothing. All or nothing is how you hurt yourself and have it way more costly so you can return to window crying that hurt.

"Apache tomcat" Postgresql and Alfresco can all be run on your getting old 2003 server. Note "apache tomcat" is not the httpd apache. Its the java engine apache that Alfresco requires. So yes its possible to run Alfresco inside IIS.

Oracle is also another one that provides patches to programs like Alfresco on customer demand.

I have never asked google if they provide support contracts on third party software like Alfresco and pre dropped and configured hardware with it. Really should check.

So you could simply apply a policy restricting use of closed source solutions in time your own Internal IT staff will get to know the new system. Costs are quite min this way.

Support contract exist for open source mostly from large companies who operate global. Might be a bit hard to find a backyarder. Yes support contracts where they will fly in staff to where ever if required.


" If your company does write and distribute software as its core business ... then simply write your own software. Don't ship GPL code to your customers.


[sarcasm]Yes we can just write our own, because writing software is so simple.[/sarcasm]

You are going to have to explain what on earth you think it is about the GPL that could possibly be bad for your company. Without such an explanation, your claim makes absolutely no sense at all.


When I did work for a software house, MIT/BSD licenses were acceptable and any license where we didn't have to "give the code back".

This is because if we did make any modifications e.g. bug fixes, and deployed to a live site we are required by the GPL to give the code back. This is of course simply unacceptable, to our management thus no GPL software.

GPL isn't a one size fits all solution. I wish you would stop pretending it is.
"
By someone needs a licensing course. GPLv2 does not have the requirement you are talking about.

Live website provide by GPLv2 code no requirement to give out source code even with something like alfresco. Now if alfresco was AGPL that would be a different matter. GPLv2 only kicks in when the program has a whole is shipped. Ie like setting up a server you are going to sell off.

Google did this for years with there own custom versions of the Linux kernel and other parts they use to run the google search engine and other business 100 percent legally.

Why did google stop doing this. Not sending patches up stream end up costing them more and more until it was no longer tolerable to there bottom line ie they could not afford to maintain there own patch sets any more. I don't think your company would have the resources of google and you are talking about not sending fixes up stream. Basically are you nuts? or have you failed study what the costs would be.

Yes MIT and BSD not giving back is setting yourself up for a future problem. And yes houses using MIT and BSD internally did develop secuirty flaws and the like from it.

Most people who so called make a case against open source software deployments simply don't know what they are talking about. You have been no different. A stack of claims that are invalid.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

My misunderstanding of the GPL fair enough.

However just gloss over the points about we have no internal experience with any of the tech and we are given a lot of the software (including sharepoint) at a significant discount).

Edited 2010-12-14 17:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Also there is the problem with licenses. A lot of components had licenses which aren't acceptable for our business. GPL is not an acceptable license for our business.

Who cares what redistribution license is used for internal stuff like this? Since you never redistribute the code to anyone the GPL is simply irrelevant.

Edited 2010-12-14 13:31 UTC

Reply Score: 4

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Also there is the problem with licenses. A lot of components had licenses which aren't acceptable for our business. GPL is not an acceptable license for our business.


If you are a user of the product, you have nothing to worry about when dealing with GPL. Even if you might want to sell the whole product to someone else.

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

This is an honest question; why was GPL not acceptable for your business? What industry are you in and what restrictions or management issues arose around GPL? Was it only GPL or all FOSS licenses (I could see GPL being an issue where MIT or BSD was not).

Reply Score: 3

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Only the insane use Sharepoint voluntarily. It is pure poison.

Edited 2010-12-14 13:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Tue 14th Dec 2010 09:07 UTC
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

Can Microsoft achieve dominance on mobile devices?

I fscking hope not.

I love the choice that consumers have at the moment and I love the fact that consumers can make this choice without still havign to pay a "Mircosoft tax".

Reply Score: 3

Forget market share think profit share
by Tony Swash on Tue 14th Dec 2010 11:14 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

What's important is to ditch the previous paradigm's way of analysing the success or failure of any technology strategy or product. Even if Microsoft were to take, for example, half the mobile phone market the emergence of the mobile computing market will still be a disaster for them as a company. Why?

During the epoch of Microsoft's desktop monopoly the company could (and for the time being continues to) make very high profits on its core software products such as Windows and Office. These products could be sold with a high mark up because precisely because of Microsoft's monopoly, there were no effective competitors, and the revenue and profits from just these core desktop software monopolies still remain the overwhelming pillars of Microsoft's business.

In the new mobile markets the business model is entirely different. For a start it is highly unlikely that any one company's software will become a monopoly standard for the mobile world so the mark up on software (which is after all Microsoft's core business) will remain far below the rates historically enjoyed by Microsoft in the desktop segment. In fact the situation is worse for Microsoft in the world of mobile software and OS's because it's key competitor (i.e. the other major player with a major offering for OEMs) is offering its products for free.

Secondly it appears that in the new world of mobile devices that the makers of hardware (actually integrated hardware and software i.e. Apple) are the ones making almost all the profits. And Microsoft has no history at all of making even remotely substantial profits from hardware.

So as the technological and economic weight of the desktop fades so will the margins for Microsoft's core business and at the same time even if Microsoft were to achieve substantial market share in mobile OSs and software it will not generate the profits to replace those lost in the desktop market.

Reply Score: 3

I know this is hard Tide has turned.
by oiaohm on Tue 14th Dec 2010 12:54 UTC
oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

There is not any market were MS is not under pressure by someone. This pressure is going to keep on increasing from now on.

There will be no more simple ride. EU basically forbids lot of MS hidden protocol stunts. Stating the old status quo will more often than not make a fool out of you. Please do as a favor before commenting be upto date.

Reply Score: 1

The future as I see it.
by sorpigal on Tue 14th Dec 2010 13:26 UTC
sorpigal
Member since:
2005-11-02

In the future everyone will carry a smart phone around with them. When they approach a computer terminal, which will be a stationary mouse, keyboard and monitor, the phone will sync using high bandwidth low-distance wireless protocols. While at the terminal you simply set your phone on the desk/table, or even leave it in your pocket; you might plug it in to the power jack and possibly into an ethernet jack for faster net access (these might be one cable). All of your computing always takes place on your own device, possibly farming out intensive computation to external servers via partially-web/cloud/net-based apps. Storage is local to your phone with a sync service which mirrors to redundant, encrypted storage on a remote service provider silently and in the background, or on demand. Some files may not really existing locally but will be transferred on-demand if they are not in the local disk cache.

Thus, wherever you go you have your own computer and your own data, all of which is secure. None of this requires any technology that isn't present now.

Reply Score: 4

RE: The future as I see it.
by bnolsen on Tue 14th Dec 2010 14:24 UTC in reply to "The future as I see it."
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

This paradigm may work to replace a home PC but likely won't work for public terminals (disease and security...atms aren't even that secure).

Edited 2010-12-14 14:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: The future as I see it.
by sorpigal on Wed 15th Dec 2010 18:34 UTC in reply to "RE: The future as I see it."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

What "Public terminals"? These don't exist now and won't exist in the future. The glorified kiosk systems you see here and there are not real computers, even if they happen to be implemented as real computers today, and will be something else in the future.

Where this will happen is home and some school and work environments.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 14th Dec 2010 16:11 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

We are still to see, if a real Linux would get a boost on mobile market. With the release of Meego handsets and Nokia's resources behind it it very well might happen.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by shmerl - a second hopeful
by jabbotts on Tue 14th Dec 2010 16:52 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I'm a second hopeful for Meego. Having used Maemo through N800 to N900, the only WTF I've run into with Maemo5 was the lack of Samba client which existed in maemo4 if not Maemo3. (Booo.. why does my N900 file manager not just simply list my open shares at home like my N810 does)

(Ruby should also be fixed or updated to match other systems. There's no excuse why Metasploit and other Ruby apps should fail with an error against Ruby just because it's on Maemo.)

Of the mobile platforms out there though, Maemo/Meego is actually "open" not just marketed as such.

Reply Score: 2

PhilCassacoff
Member since:
2010-12-07

It is actually shocking to me to read some of these comments. If I took Open Office to *any* of our clients and said, "Hey it's free," and suggested a migration, we'd probably be fired. Is MSOffice perfect - heck no. Does it beat the pants off of open source competitors - by far. People miss the point that just b/c it's expensive, a LOT of people will gladly pay for it because it works so well. It's hard to explain that to people who brag about how many movies they've downloaded or how the day their favorite artist releases a new cd, they download it for free..without even thinking there's anything wrong with it. This is not directed at anyone in particular, just the /. mindset permeating to a much nicer and friendlier forum.

We don't have a single client, in 8 states, that could work without Win/Office. Yes, they can use Google Apps for email. What I find interesting is when people say it's lower maintenance - it's NOT. People's Internet Connections go out all the time; certainly much more often than their well managed Exchange Server. Again we see the paradigm of if the broadband is out, our clients can still use Sharepoint, Exchange/etc and all of it.

Linux is a blast to mess around with. Open Office and all variants will let you produce a somewhat decent document. They all suck in comparison to MSFT's product lines and they're going to for a long time. Why? The same reason artists are giving up on producing products; no one wants to pay for anything anymore.

Reply Score: 1

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

In what sense MS Office is better than OpenOffice? I find it neither more convenient, nor more functional for me. Most users utilize a common subset of functions of the office suite, and they are pretty the same between these two. If something, I found that OpenOffice has much better support for multilingual fonts rendering, and more options for language support in general.

Edited 2010-12-14 16:59 UTC

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

My Excel just crashed out again taking down my IE with it..

ok.. I'm back.. what where you saying?

Reply Score: 2

SteveB Member since:
2005-07-10

It is actually shocking to me to read some of these comments. If I took Open Office to *any* of our clients and said, "Hey it's free," and suggested a migration, we'd probably be fired.

Me too and still I have migrated some SMEs from pure Microsoft OS + MS Office to Linux. Why? Well... the customer demanded it. Look. Just because something is free it does not mean that it is wise to MIGRATE to it. It always has to make sense. If the cost to migrate from MS Office to an open source office suite is high and it does not justify to migrate and it does absolutely make no business sense to migrate, then why migrate?

Is MSOffice perfect - heck no. Does it beat the pants off of open source competitors - by far. People miss the point that just b/c it's expensive, a LOT of people will gladly pay for it because it works so well.
If it works well for you AND you make your money with using MS Office then stay. Don't migrate. b/c Openoffice.org is not expensive does not mean you have to move to it. Most of my customers don't make their money by using any office suite. Usually they make their money with other things and they have specialized applications for that. Using an office suite is just something they use for writing an letter or making a quick spreadsheet. So using MS Office, OpenOffice.org, Libre Office, Google Docs, whatever.... all of them are good enough for them. Or to say it the other way around: None of them will gain or loose an business by using MS Office or Openoffice.org. What office suite they use is absolutely secondary.

It's hard to explain that to people who brag about how many movies they've downloaded or how the day their favorite artist releases a new cd, they download it for free..without even thinking there's anything wrong with it. This is not directed at anyone in particular, just the /. mindset permeating to a much nicer and friendlier forum.
/. mindset is not something you typically find in the business world.

We don't have a single client, in 8 states, that could work without Win/Office.
I don't doubt that statement, but let me ask you something: What would happen if (for what ever reason) Win/Office would be prohibited worldwide? Would your clients all go into bankruptcy? Maybe. If you ask me then I would guess that some of them will indeed and that a bigger part will adapt and find alternatives. The business world is not so stiffy as you tend to describe it.

Yes, they can use Google Apps for email. What I find interesting is when people say it's lower maintenance - it's NOT. People's Internet Connections go out all the time; certainly much more often than their well managed Exchange Server.
Really? In an business environment? Maybe the states are differed then Switzerland (where I am from), but here I have yet to see one of my customers having significant internet connection issues.

Again we see the paradigm of if the broadband is out, our clients can still use Sharepoint, Exchange/etc and all of it.


Linux is a blast to mess around with. Open Office and all variants will let you produce a somewhat decent document. They all suck in comparison to MSFT's product lines and they're going to for a long time. Why?
What kind of business is so ultra giga dependent on how decent the document looks? I am not going to change my bank or my insurance if they are sending me a document that does not look so ultra super duper decent. At the end the decentness of the document is not important to me and to most business customers. Or are you one of the customers that will choose some crappy transportation company (as an example) just because their billing documents look decent? No way!

The same reason artists are giving up on producing products; no one wants to pay for anything anymore.

Reply Score: 2

PhilCassacoff Member since:
2010-12-07

Steve,

Some good insights. As you can see, I'm very new here, so I haven't figured out the code to list individual quotes.

You make good points, although here in the US, Ohio specifically, it's not uncommon for our clients to have Internet Issues 2 times a month or so.

I am yet to be asked about Linux by a single client. Furthermore, I've brought it up to a couple for simple F&P or what have you, and most of them said something along the lines of "We're a professional organization, we use professional software." I am paraphrasing for a couple clients, however I'm sure you get the gist.

Actually the majority of our clientele is *very* regimented and specific about their documents, especially those which are sent to their clients. Might be a locale thing as you noted, but where we work and consult, those Word templates are as important as the text they contain. Your comments suggest a mindset that differs from not only how we practice business, but how our clients do so. We primarily work in the financial services vertical and executives in that arena WILL drop a vendor/etc based on aesthetics. Perhaps someone more retail based might not. I also can confirm that we have won contracts/agreements based solely on our presentation materials "Looking the best." If you have 4 excellent consultant firms in the room, who all sold the same products at the same price, however only ones word doc looks "Right" on your computer, who's going to get the bid?

And lastly, your point about the /. mindset was spot on; thank God.

Reply Score: 1

SteveB Member since:
2005-07-10

Steve,

Some good insights. As you can see, I'm very new here, so I haven't figured out the code to list individual quotes.


You make good points, although here in the US, Ohio specifically, it's not uncommon for our clients to have Internet Issues 2 times a month or so.
Well... 2 times a month is a lot and it is as well nothing. It all depends what those issues are and how long they are. Here in Switzerland you usually don't have issues. Even private users with ADSL or with cable don't have issues. Off course I can not speak for the whole market in Switzerland but I would say that having issues with your high-speed internet connection is considered as something uncommon.

I am yet to be asked about Linux by a single client. Furthermore, I've brought it up to a couple for simple F&P
I don't know what F&P is or for what it stands. Can you tell me what this acronym is standing for?

or what have you, and most of them said something along the lines of "We're a professional organization, we use professional software." I am paraphrasing for a couple clients, however I'm sure you get the gist.
This is a funny statement. What do they consider as "professional"? I don't want to attack you or your client but there is no universal "professional" in that regard. One might find something LaTeX/TeX for writing documents. Someone other might tell you that only the big commercial DTP software is professional for writing anything. And yet other will tell you that Microsoft Office is professional because MS is a commercial company and their product must be therefore professional because so many people us the software. And yet some one else will tell you that only Adobe InDesign is the best tool for writing documents. And the same kind of arguments can be made for spreadsheet and any other product. My end point is that there is no one universal valid "professional" in relation to using professional tools.

Oh... and something other: In German we have an expression saying that ... "good/professional tools don't make automatically an sculptor".

Actually the majority of our clientele is *very* regimented and specific about their documents, especially those which are sent to their clients. Might be a locale thing as you noted, but where we work and consult, those Word templates are as important as the text they contain. Your comments suggest a mindset that differs from not only how we practice business, but how our clients do so. We primarily work in the financial services
Our primary sector is financial services too. But in that sector NONE of them uses Linux. Okay, okay... some of them have plans to go with Linux in the future but Linux will be only used on thin clients and then the end user works on Citrix or with Windows Terminal Services. So IMHO that Linux there does not count as an Linux desktop.

vertical and executives in that arena WILL drop a vendor/etc based on aesthetics. Perhaps someone more retail based might not. I also can confirm that we have won contracts/agreements based solely on our presentation materials "Looking the best." If you have 4 excellent consultant firms in the room, who all sold the same products at the same price, however only ones word doc looks "Right" on your computer, who's going to get the bid?
Word doc? You hand Word documents? We do consulting too and all our bid documents and stuff that we have give are PDFs. Word documents (actually other formats too) have the tendency to look different from computer to computer (depending on the used printer) and if you use professional fonts (not that stuff included in Windows) then you are pretty much lost when exchanging Word documents. PDFs are way better for that. And on top of that if we really want to impress the customer then we use (professional) layout software to make a super duper sexy document and then we export that to PDF.

btw: I personally would be surprised if you would be capable to distinguish what software was used to create a specific document by only looking at the document (either printed or in something like PDF). You will be amazed what is all possible with the various office tools. Regardless which suite you use. Off course if you are an long time MS Office user and switch to an other suite you will struggle and find that other suite to be unusable. But trust me. Everything is usable.

And lastly, your point about the /. mindset was spot on; thank God.

Reply Score: 1

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30


"Actually the majority of our clientele is *very* regimented and specific about their documents, especially those which are sent to their clients. Might be a locale thing as you noted, but where we work and consult, those Word templates are as important as the text they contain. Your comments suggest a mindset that differs from not only how we practice business, but how our clients do so. We primarily work in the financial services
Our primary sector is financial services too. But in that sector NONE of them uses Linux. Okay, okay... some of them have plans to go with Linux in the future but Linux will be only used on thin clients and then the end user works on Citrix or with Windows Terminal Services. So IMHO that Linux there does not count as an Linux desktop.
"
A few of mine are looking at Chrome OS style for the thinclients. Ie Chrome OS altered not to tell Google anything but all the other secuirty of Chrome OS used to prevent tampering. So the machines are not complete paper weights if server dies and that they cannot afford to have a virus from webbrower infecting data store.

It comes down to the define of what is a Desktop machine. Some people would say Chrome OS is some people would say is not. I am on the side that Chrome OS is a advanced thin client.

Financial services it depends on the country. The country tax department normally dominates the OS used here. Currently here you cannot submit to the tax office without windows or OS X. Yes I deal with Financial Services companies as well.

But other members of the group I am with work in other countries where you can submit to there tax departments from Linux and they do have Linux desktops in the Financial Services they support. Horrid form of desktop in my eyes Ubuntu. But each there own.

Reply Score: 1

SteveB Member since:
2005-07-10

Financial services it depends on the country. The country tax department normally dominates the OS used here. Currently here you cannot submit to the tax office without windows or OS X. Yes I deal with Financial Services companies as well.
Here in Switzerland you can pretty much use Windows, Mac or Linux if you want to fill in your tax in a digital format. Take for example the Canton Zurich: http://www.steueramt.zh.ch/html/steuererklaerung/software.htm

But other members of the group I am with work in other countries where you can submit to there tax departments from Linux and they do have Linux desktops in the Financial Services they support. Horrid form of desktop in my eyes Ubuntu. But each there own.
Data is data. If the format is uniform then the system producing that data is not important. Or are you telling me that your tax office has a different data structure depending what OS is used? Really? Why?

Reply Score: 1

axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

From the OSNews article:


The tablet is a radically different approach to understanding how people use and interact with computers


Let's not exaggerate here. The tablet is not a radically different approach. The only thing that changes is the interaction device, i.e. instead of a mouse we use our fingers. Other than that, it's still about icons and clicks.

Reply Score: 3

bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

True, but by Apple's definition, the tablet is a scaled up smartphone, not a scaled down laptop. This could change very repidly, but currently the iPad pretty much defines the tablet market.

Reply Score: 2

Interesting...
by benali72 on Tue 14th Dec 2010 19:38 UTC
benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

Impressive article. I like the way it snatches overall trends out of the confusion of statistics out there. I agree with its conclusions overall, but not with all its specifics. For example I question the absolute projection of sales trends when we know how quickly a technological curve ball can change everything. I also think market comparisons between the different device types it mentions are VERY difficult to make with any authority. Nonetheless I appreciate the article and would like to read more like this.

Reply Score: 1

Microsoft missed the boat...
by TemporalBeing on Tue 14th Dec 2010 21:56 UTC
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

...and will sink with the island.

Microsoft isn't really capable of doing a good phone or supporting the kind of devices that the market is moving to. Sales of WinPhone7 are dismal despite $500 million in marketing - so not even those susceptible to marketing are buying it. And this is already Microsoft's third or fourth attempt to gain in the mobile market over the last decade - a market that is very quickly leaving them behind.

Now, I've got a Google Nexus One (which you can actually still buy as a development phone as a registered Android Developer - $25 charge for registration). The only reason it has not fully replaced my laptop (running Gentoo Linux nonetheless) is because I can't hook a larger monitor and keyboard to it and the disk space (512 MB flash) is abysmal. Now they fixed the disk space issue with the Nexus S (16 GB flash); but there's still no way to add a monitor/keyboard.

Yes - having a little mobile phone that I could drop in a small dock and add a monitor and keyboard would be perfect - or even be able to set it down on a surface and roll out a keyboard while it displays the screen in the air - something bigger that is easier to use for document editing and coding.

Yes, we're almost there - the technology has been around for a while (re: heliodisplay and various forms of holographics) but it still has a while to mature to the point where it can be packed into something that small.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Microsoft missed the boat...
by sorpigal on Wed 15th Dec 2010 18:41 UTC in reply to "Microsoft missed the boat..."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Why can't you add a monitor and keyboard? My n900 supports external USB devices and bluetooth devices, so there's keyboard and mouse, plus it does video out and will connect with an LCD.

Reply Score: 2

TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Why can't you add a monitor and keyboard? My n900 supports external USB devices and bluetooth devices, so there's keyboard and mouse, plus it does video out and will connect with an LCD.


Yes, I could connect a Bluetooth keyboard; possibly a USB keyboard/mouse too - but no, there's no connection for a monitor. Might have to jail break it for some of those devices - haven't quite tried - but there's nothing available to connect it to a monitor with. If there was - I'd be picking up the keyboard/mouse without question. Perhaps an Android Tablet will do the job though...

Reply Score: 2

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

I'd say it would depend on the handset. Android must certainly support video out in general, but not for every model.

Reply Score: 2

oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

Lets simply except the fact. At this point of history. Linux is in most ready state it ever been to take the desktop market.

A few have claimed Linux desktop is dead but they have not started looking at the applications Linux now has. Results is not something dead. But something so insanely alive its not funny.

This prep work is not reducing. So the current state of readiness is only the tip of a very large and growing iceberg in MS path.

OpenOffice and libreoffice are not only used as Office Suite but as conversion engines and document production engines. When was the last time you saw a Desktop running AIX? Yes there is a actively maintained port of libreoffice and openoffice to AIX for server usage.

I hear windows people say MS windows gets the cream. Sorry I still have many KDE applications like basket that have not managed to be ported in a practical usable way to windows. 400+ meg install is on windows is kinda insane for what basket is.

Lot of the road blocks people try to raise now are Historic truths and are completely untrue now.

Lightworks is a case path changing in a big way. A Linux hardware builder aquired Lightworks out right because they wanted a good video editor for there Linux Product line. Google did the same thing with Webm. Just like MS has sucked up other companies to get features the Linux hardware makers and supporting companies are now getting rich enough start doing the same thing. Tide is now changing direction. Question is how fast can the tide move in Linux direction. This does effect if MS will remain alive.

Wifi card support for Linux is currently at almost 100 percent and will be at 100 percent support before the end of next year. This is better than Windows 7 in fact some early versions of Wifi cards have not had there drivers updated for Windows 7. This is also happening in more classes of hardware where Linux has current and old all working perfectly.

ARM requirement for Unique per device kernel is being worked on being solved. This will make Linux able to operate like Windows does kinda on White box hardware with arm devices. Note kinda bundled with all drivers required no driver installing required.

These things are not dreams. Arm x86 hybred laptops can be bought today.

The changes going on in the Linux world are having direct effects on the market.

Question how much would it cost to buy adobe out right? Since they appear to have so many key products it worth while considering.

Reply Score: 1

morglum666 Member since:
2005-07-06

Your optimism while wildly unfounded, is appreciated.

Merry christmas, linux!

Morglum

Reply Score: 2