Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
DJA wrote:
The presumption seemed to be that Office was already in hand, as was
Windows, and that there was a desire/need to use Linux as a functional
replacement for Windows - for whatever reason.
I don't recall that presumption at all. The question was simply what
can Windows do that Linux cannot.
The implication is in this subthread:
1) Todd opined that there are few, if any, technical reasons to use
Windows vs. Linux on the desktop.
"What does Windows do that Linux doesn't?"
2) You disagreed, citing several must-have Windows application areas.
"Runs Microsoft Office. Runs WMV3 format movies. Runs tons of
games. Can purchase music from iTunes, Yahoo, and Napster."
3) Gus pointed out how that we're not necessarily tied to Windows
in order run all such Windows-native apps.
"All of which can be done with Crossover Office ($40 from the
Codeweavers folks <http://www.codeweavers.com> )."
4) You disputed that.
"Really? They support WMV3 and DRM associated with it
without Windows? That's a neat trick given that *nobody*
else can do that."
5) Gus backed up his claims with the how and the where.
"Don't know about the DRM, but you can get Linux support for
WMV3 in Xine, mplayer, WINE, and VideoLAN Client by loading
the native MS Windows DLL. Look for the "essential" DLL
package from mplayer <http://www.mplayerhq.hu> for a whole
bunch of codecs. Documentation in the apps tells how to set
up the codecs."
6) You then tried a different tack.
"So explain how [CrossOver Office] is an improvement for most people?
Most people can get an OEM version of Windows for about $40
or so if they buy a computer."
7) To which I replied.
"The presumption seemed to be that Office was already in hand,
as was Windows, and that there was a desire/need to use Linux
as a functional replacement for Windows - for whatever reason."
"As over 90% of the computing population uses Windows, that's
not an unreasonable presumption."
The presumption is based on several points.
First, if we weren't talking about people /moving/ from Windows to Linux
(or some other OS) on the desktop, why would we be doing comparisons or
debating the efficacy of running Windows-native apps on Linux?
Second, Because "over 90% of the computing population uses Windows",
it's not unreasonable to expect that anyone feeling compelled to run
Windows because of a need to run an application in your list, already
has that application - including Office.
If they already have the applications, and they would like to use Linux
on the desktop (for whatever reasons, application-related or not), then
all they need in many cases...is Linux, and a means of running their
existing (in-hand) Windows apps on Linux.
Furthermore, this presumption is particularly bad in places where it
matters most--at the high and low ends.
I think these are the exact areas where it matters the least in the
short term, and the most in the long term. You don't get a discount when
you buy a box sans Windows. But if you do, you save on upgrade costs.
At the high end, a corporation *must* be compliant or a visit from the
BSA Gestapo will be very expensive.
It's only been expensive when either the company actually had pirated
copies (i.e. bought one copy to install on a thousand boxes), or, more
commonly, rolled over for the BSA and settled.
When companies have threatened to challenge in court the BSA's bogus
"You have a legitimate CD but you don't have a license or receipt"
claim, the BSA has walked away with tail between legs. They don't really
want to test that made up law. The media is its own Right to Use license.
If I cannot dump Windows
completely, there is probably very little incentive to dump it at all
for most corporations.
Except you also seem to be arguing below that there are indeed
incentives to dumping Windows. Which is it?
Running Windows is no longer a requirement to run Office. Owning Windows
has /never/ been a requirement of owning Office.
But it's really a moot point. It's generally difficult or impossible to
get most name-brand systems /without/ Windows pre-installed. Especially
if you want the kind of volume-discounts a large corporation might seek.
It's well known that ordering a computer without Windows doesn't get you
a discount. In fact, it often gets you a surcharge. When you buy a
name-brand box, you pay for Windows, whether or not you actually get the
CD. So there is no savings in /not/ running Windows in terms of the
purchase cost of the OS.
At the low end, let's choose public schools. These folks cannot afford
even the OEM version as it would have to be upgraded repeatedly.
True enough. We all know about the recurring costs of Windows and
Microsoft apps in general in terms of forced upgrades. I agree that's
incentive enough to move away from Windows.
Most of the schools I've been to in San Diego, El Cajon and Spring Vally
are using mixes of Macs and PC's. Most of the boxes in the classroom are
Macs. The Macs came with an OS pre-installed, and so did the PC's. If
the PC's are name brands, the school had no choice whether Windows was
included or not. The price was the same. You can't buy a new car without
tires.
Consequently, they cannot have Windows in system.
But they in fact /do/ have Windows in-system. Generally, they had no
choice: buy a PC - pay for Windows. I have yet to find a school with
_no_ Windows PC's.
The middle case is the everyday home user who can and does buy a
computer from Mom & Pop Computer Shop and can save a little by not
buying Windows. Unlike the name brand stuff purchased by corporate and
government entities, there actually is a cost reduction when Windows is
not included.
This means that
schools cannot view WMV3 media content--a format which is becoming the
de facto standard.
It's already been pointed out that this is not true. Having spent a fair
amount of time in the K-12 classroom in an educational context, I have
yet to see media content as being a meaningful factor in the classroom.
(In fact, I might argue that computer use in the classroom, in general,
has yet to be proven a very effective educational tool. It is starting
to replace trips to the library, but then on-campus libraries in K-12
have always been under-utilized anyway.)
My point was in support of Todd's opinion that there are few
unsurmountable technical reasons for Windows being a required desktop
solution. I agree that the most-used Windows applications can be run on
Linux. I don't see spending $80 for something like CrossOver Office
Enterprise a disincentive to moving away from Windows - especially
versus the spending $40+<price_of_pc_hardware> solution you see as
argument against Linux+<windows_emulator_for_some_apps>.
Remember we're not talking about wholesale replacement, but more
practically a transition away from a Windows hegemony. Running some
Windows apps on Not-Windows is a good start in that direction for many.
Besides, many of the arguments against transitioning from Windows to
Linux are the same that were used against transitioning from DOS to
Windows - and even from Mainframe to PC's.
Why must everything be couched in competitive terms. Everything is
*not* like a war. And in case you don't get out to many sporting
events, there are indeed prizes given for second place. And even third
place.
Because Microsoft sees this in *very* stark competitive terms?
I see it more as a historically recent national obsession. It seems to
have started approximately at the start of the War on Drugs(tm).
The *only* victory condition is to finally move Microsoft to a position
that it is not the dominant OS. Until then, Microsoft sets the de facto
standards and can perpetuate itself.
-a
But how do you remove Microsoft from a position of dominance without
moving other options in to fill that space? I thought that's what we
were talking about!
"Linux can be used as a Windows replacement on the desktop."
"But we can't because we need some of these Windows apps."
"They'll run on Linux."
"Then we might as well use Windows."
"I thought we wanted an alternative to Windows!"
"We do."
"Linux is an alternative."
"But no one will use it because Windows is the dominant player on the
desktop."
"Then Windows must be dethroned. We'll do it with Linux."
"But we can't because we need some of these Windows apps."
.
.
.
Huh?
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
