on 18/7/02 14:50, Michael J Flaherty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_2023000/2023127.stm> > > If Peru & Mexico follow through with *mandating* the exclusive use of Open > Source Software and France and Germany (soon to be followed by other European > nations, I suspect) continue inking these major Linux deals with IBM, Suse > and Mandrake, then the future is bleak for the likes of Apple and MS. > > The sheer size of the installed base will ensure the development of desktop > applications now lacking in Linux (multimedia and desktop publishing most > prominantly, DTP being an area where OS X remains largely useless also, no > Quark yet). People can say what they want about InDesign, but if you, like > my wife, are still getting lots of half done Quark documents from others who > often made them on peecee's running Quark, then you're not switching, either > to OS X or InDesign.
Even if some gov'ts go OSS (open source software) that still doesn't get the actual OS up to snuff. Available software is a minor problem -- there are lots of packages that mostly do what people need, with a modicum of stability for Linux & the major software manufacturers will write for Linux if there's a market, BUT, BUT, BUT, without a solid desktop OS under the hood, OSS OSes won't take off on the desktop of everyday users. Gov'ts are very centralised organisations, often with centralised deployments of software -- for them, installing a supporting Linux will be relatively minor task (probably less so than deploying Winblows XP & Office XP with all their "anti-piracy" <ahem, anti-privacy> 'features'). "Hey! You, civil servant. Yeah, you! You're only supposed to run word processors, accounting programs, FTP, e-mail and web browsers. Got it? No, you want to install games too? Well tough luck because that's all you're allowed to and *can* do -- now go away and do your job." (no offence meant towards civil servants, *most* of whom I hold in high regard (even most politicians)) Restrictions like that will and can keep Linux running quite smoothly on a users desktop (not to mention that they'll create oodles of jobs for underemployed programmers/IT staff). For the desktop user Linux will remain a tough OS to keep running without support. Major shifts in thinking within the OSS programming community will be needed (to focus on ease of use and idiotproofing), OR with a big player like Apple entering the market & making an easy to use, idiot proof OS -- who would stand to gain from investing that many resources in such a project. Apple needed a new OS and probably spent a few $100 million developing OS X, but most charities don't have that kind of dough to throw at something that can be freely COPIED, redistributed and incorporated into other software. Compared to the cost of a computer (still) and 3rd party software like PhotoShop (which won't be replaced anytime soon), the OS is a minor expense. Until computers become commodity items � la radios or TVs, OSS OSes will not displace proprietary ones (a royalty free OS is a significant cost savings on a $300 box vs. a $1000 box). There still is a compelling argument for running Winblows XP Home & Pro or Mac OS X in that they are moderately to highly idiot proof. Linux is a far cry from idiot proof, and there is little incentive for the current "manufacturers" of all the flavours to make an idiot proof version of Linux -- you make it idiot-proof you'll loose a significant chunk of your revenue from support contracts, *and*, there's nothing preventing another company from nabbing your work and improving on it, & then running your business into the ground by undercutting you. I see a *slim* chance that the entry of gov'ts into the realm of OSS will make strides towards an idiot proof desktop, but I think the real impetus will have to come from programmers who are volunteering their time themselves. Some of them will have the ego, or will feel altruistic enough to endeavour to make Linux accessible to all. On the YDL list there are enough "defenders of the faith" who assert that Linux *is* a desktop OS (to a limited extent I agree), but they also admit that it is not for everyone (their words), or (in my words) for most people. It requires a lot of learning to be able to support yourself, and I'd say that the payoffs would not be worth it for 90+% of the computer users out there (the majority of whom couldn't reinstall their OS if they had to). In the short term, OSS will not be a very good solution -- it doesn't fit into the capitalist, intellectual property model very well and people don't know what to do with it. In the long term (decades), OSS will definitely play a significant part in our computing lives. However, consider that the first OSS licences & apps have been around for two decades and they have yet to make a huge dent in the computing world (with the exception of the web). It takes time for a good code base to build up, and it takes even longer for the bugs to get worked out. With OS X and Windows XP Pro we're getting spoiled with highly stable OSes on the desktop -- we will start demanding the same from our applications, and that's where the commercial model (currently) still has an edge over OSS. Commercial developers can throw cash at fixing inefficiencies and ensuring stuff is stable -- that's their life blood. For OSS there may be a lot of peer review, but there is not the same requirement for stability or refinement. If the app works for the programmers she has little incentive to spend more time on a project from which she won't really benefit too much more. (although, there are also programmers who will spend the time). In the long run, the code base for such things as word processors, spread sheets, etc. will be full enough with features, that most work can focus on rooting out the bugs. Common applications like word processors, spread sheets, paint and draw applications, web browsers, e-mail apps, and OS kernels will all become to a greater or lesser extent OSS (I think licences more restrictive than the GNU one will be favoured though). Specialised things such as the GUI (e.g. Mac OS), PhotoShop's high-end stuff, Quark, Norton, etc. will all exist in their own proprietary niche. Perhaps what might make for an idiot proof OSS implementation would be for a company to develop a GUI to sit on top of Linux & provide a much more robust layer than GNOME or KDE do. So, the short of my argument is that OSS will, in time, become useful to the majority of users, but as it stands, it still has a ways to go (I figure M$ Word has maybe another 5 years before OSS word processors will give it a run for its money in terms of stability & useful features). Anyway, time to go take measurements. L8r, Eric. -- G-List is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | -- We have Apple Refurbished Monitors in stock! | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> G-List list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml> Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/g-list%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Macintosh? Get free email and more at Applelinks! <http://www.applelinks.com>
