On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, jim t.p. ryan wrote:
> I think your question of "will Linux make it on the desktop without office" is the
>most critical. I personally think the answer is a resounding no. It's almost like
>why the Dvork (ok, I can't spell it) keyboard didn't make it over qwerty. Office is
>just too far integrated into the general office/business environment to be displaced
>anytime soon. People who use this product are, by and large, non-technical with no
>interest in learning anything new. I'm technical, and I have no interest in learning
>something new in that space. Office is what I use to do the more mundane part of my
>job, reports, presentations, spreadsheets, etc. If I'm going to learn something on
>company time, it won't be something to accomplish those tasks.
>
> Putting Office on Linux is exactly what is needed to get it on the desktop. Quicken
>too. Not to mention a decent browser.
>
> I've never really understood the free software thing anyway. Sooner or later
>somebody has to pay don't they? That was a real question, not rhetorical. I mean is
>any really big, established business going to run on free software? I don't think
>so, it's unamerican;+} Really, the mindset is "you get what you pay for", right or
>wrong, that is the culture. If it doesn't sell, mark it up and people will assume
>it's better.
>
Think free speech, not free beer. Yes, I expect in the long run they
will use free software - and pay for the support and services. Two
major reasons:
1. Competition in support. Think about it. Right now, if you buy MS
Office (or any other proprietary product), that means that:
a. you have to buy their support, regardless of the cost
b. you have to upgrade when they decide not to support the product
anymore
c. you have to upgrade when they decide to change the file formats in
a non-backward compatible format
2. Competition in products. think about c above. Each and every
document you use in MS Office format means that one more item that you
can only read properly with MS Office, which means that you have to
buy their next upgrade, which means you have to get trained on the new
upgrade, which means. . .
With free software, if you don't like Vendor A's support contract, you
go with Vendor B (or C, or D, or whoever). Since you have the source
code, if they change file formats, you can get the software modified
to read the new format, without changing the user interface. And,
since the software is available, the format is available, which means
product B can read product A's format and vice versa easily.
In terms of training, how often do you have to have upgrade training
on the latest MS products? Why are they de-certifying all the MCSE's
effective end of this year (or maybe next year, I've forgotten the
exact date)? This is a big red herring, given that MS likes to change
interfaces routinely (Windows 3.1, 95, 98, Window 2000, etc).
Sooner or later, American business will catch on that it's cheaper to
get the product & pay for the support you need. If not, well, Mexico,
France, and India (that I know of) are stepping up to the Open Source
revolution (including in the schools). You think the companies over
there won't want to compete?
> Sincerely,
> Jim Ryan
>
>
jeff
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffry Smith Technical Sales Consultant Mission Critical Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] phone:603.930.9379 fax:978.446.9470
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought for today: Once it hits the fan, the only rational choice is to sweep it up,
package it,
and sell it as fertilizer.
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
