On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 13:52 -0600, Rod Engelsman wrote: > Ian Lynch wrote: > > > Its the people that use Windows and who are used to Outlook that are > > making all the fuss. Most Linux users don't seem to have the problem. > > Well... with all due respect and not to put too fine a point on it, most > Linux users are accustomed to apps that are "good enough".
Many Linux users such as me use Windows too. I find no functional advantage to me in using Outlook compared to using Evolution. > They're used > to peripherals that don't work as well or at all. My peripherals are working fine, thank you very much ;-) > I mean it took me a > good couple of weeks to get wireless networking working on two computers > under Linux here. The same thing that takes maybe 10 minutes under Windows. Oh and I spent months trying to get E-mail back from a corrupted Exchange server a while back. If only the E-mails had been straight forward text files... > And, in particular, the open-source credo seems to be toward single-use > apps that do one thing well, but only one thing. What matters is whether your system as a whole does what you want. When I get a Mandriva distro, I get all the apps I need, I'm not bothered whether that are in one monolithic program or several that sit side by side. The fact is I get them all in one install which is far simpler than having to install lots of different things, not to mention a lot less expensive. > > I can get calendaring through web calendar and have it accessiblt > > anywhere. Its not really anything to do with E-mail anyway. > > Ah... but that's where you're wrong. If you have the KDE apps installed > I invite you to open up Kontact. This is very similar to Outlook... at > least it's headed in that direction. I know about Kontact, I just choose not to use it because our company uses web calendar. Its accessible anywhere in the world on any machine with a browser. Calendars are not anything to do with E-mail, they are calendars just as WPs are WPs and spreadsheets are spreadsheets. > It functions as sort of a unifying framework for the individual > functions of mail, address book, calendar, to-do list, journal, So, for > instance, you can create a new event in the calendar that is a meeting, > and there's a tab for "Attendees". You can then choose the attendees > from your address book. I guess this then puts an invite or something on > their calendars. Most if not all that functionality is avaiable with web calendar, certianly all the thngs we need for the company. That is the whole point. Just because its possible to do something does not mean its mandatory to work in that way. Web calendar also provides web based flexibility that neither Outlook nor Kontact provide ie I can use it on any computer with a web browser from anywhere in the world. > > Whatever is > > done, some people will not be satisfied unless the development exactly > > mirror what they are used to on Windows and Outlook. That is why its a > > platform issue. That's why I said for some Windowsphiles, unless the > > environment is an exact clone of what they are used to they won't be > > satisfied. > > > > You're being too pessimistic. I'm not a pessimist by nature but I know what things are and are not going to happen within existing resource levels and I like to work the way I like to work, not the way someone else tells me is good for me. > It doesn't have to *look* the same; it > just needs to be able to do the same things without taking twice as long > or being more complicated. > The purpose of computers is, after all, to > mechanize intellectual labor. The more of that they can do, the better > they fulfill their function. There is a law of diminishing returns. You end up putting a lot into something that provides very little additional benefit or reinvents the wheel in order to do something marginal. The argument is not about whether it would be nice to have every utopian technological dream come true, more what is the best use of existing resources? > > But the point about disruptive technologies is whether it does what is > > needed well enough at least initialy for a sizeable minority. > > Then I would appreciate it if folks would stop harping on how great > Linux is and how much Windows sucks. Windows does suck for some things. Viruses and cost to the user are two. Windows does have the advantage of running more applications than Linux, I haven't heard anyone dispute that. It is hardly surprising in an open source group that there is a political bias towards Linux, an Open Source OS and antipathy towards a closed source OS, Windows. Why does that surprise you? > You can't have it both ways. It > can't simultaneously be "superior" and "good enough". It can. It can be good enough in many aspects and fundamentally superior in others, I mentioned a couple earlier. Its good enough for many people in terms of the applications it will run and fundamentally better in that it is free and has no virus problem. If running Outlook is not a priority to you why worry about it? > At least not > overall or on the same characteristics, although each platform can and > does have it's strengths and weaknesses. I tire of the cognitive dissonance. Doesn't seem a problem to me, it seems more like common sense. > Clearly it > > does. I'm a member of the sizeable minority, you probably aren't. As the > > new technology improves it becomes "good enough" for more people. That > > does seem to be what is happening now. It does not have to be better, it > > has to tend towards becoming as good as in key areas at lower cost. In > > fact its a bit more complex because Linux and OOo are better than > > Windows and MSO in some respects. There are also probably no massive new > > aspects of functionality that the majority of people need to enable MSO > > to stop people adopting OOo. > > It's not the majority that's important. The masses don't affect societal > change, the leaders and key players do. Quite so but all the more reason to influence the leaders. > And the leaders and key players > are the folks that need and use and expect the higher functionality. That's the flaw in your logic. The real influencers hardly use computers themselves. They are politicians and CEOs of multinational companies that have PAs and IT departments to do their IT for them. Once they get confident and realise they can save money, they are not going to bother about whether the calendar is part of the same application as the E-mail client. That confidence won't come to all at the same time, and so back to the principles of disruptive technologies. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMS Ltd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
