My .02c worth...
> >Maybe, maybe not. > >But apparently everybody is ignoring some other arguments which I personally >find compelling: > >1. The strategic and economic game: > >Practically all of the IT technology is controlled by US, >hardware and software. You name it, is US: IBM, Microsoft, HP, Sun, etc. >(manufacturing doesn't count, printers are the only exception but there is >only Japan) > >As the IT penetrates the "second" and even "third" world countries >I find very hard to believe that these countries will want to relinquish >their IT infrastructure control (government and military above all) over >to US. > >Can you imagine China, Russia and the Arab world basing their strategy >on US controlled IT technology ? I can't. > Here I must disagree. Look at China. MS rules the desktop there. Note I didn't say they buy MS software, they simply pirate it. So the cost stumbling block is of no concern. One can easily download any piece of MS software for free. I'm not saying it's legal, but it's a fact. Fire up any p2p file sharing app and check it out if you don't believe me. And it's not just China, it happens globally, so the price issue is only of concern to those ethical enought to pay the MS tax. As far as relinqueshing control, look around you, even in the countries you list, MS is everywhere. Far from OSS being the cancer MS espouses, I'd say Windows is a far more malignant cance than OSS could ever be. > > >Can you imagine India and Latin America being able to pay the US prices >for IT technology ? I can't. (yes, prices are country based but still >too high). > See above argument. Plus, governments usually use specially designed apps that are not necessarily platform specific. In fact it is usually hardware specific and military hardware in particular is already a specialised game. > > >2. The user game: > >The argument here is that users will not want that or they want something >which is not available under Linux. > >First AFAIK in the average enterprise it is _not_ the user who decide >but the _employer_ trough various authorities: CIO, etc. (Universities >may be notable exceptions at least in some areas). > >Second, again AFAIK, most users interact with just one or two apps. >An complex office suite is required only for the front office and few >others like that. You don't need it for a POS or many other places. > >And finally if a user would use Linux at work for 8 hours why would >he/she want to use anything else at home ? > >3. The "Linux is not ready for the desktop" game: > >I've seen many articles with this subject over the last 3-6 months. > >This is a very interesting development not for what they say >(that's obvious) but most importantly for what they don't say but imply. > >You would not have seen such articles in the past, it was damn obvious >to anybody that Linux was not ready for Joe Average. > >But now you see them, a dime a dozed ;-) > >Which it turn means that is no longer obvious. One now have to do some >serious study and write an article to argue the points! > >It means in fact that Linux is, if not ready, at least very close! > >Which in turn means in fact that Linux is _already_ good for the desktop >for at least some situations! > >The development is interesting from another point of view as well: >it follows very closely (so far) the same path as the "Linux is not ready >as server" argument. > >For those who have followed the arguments 3-4 years ago the similarities >are striking: after ~1 year of argumentation suddenly it ceased and Linux >_was_ good as server. Nowadays very few deny this. > >It would be certainly interesting to follow this development. > >Cheers, > Here we agree 100%. I am amazed at the new software available daily under Linux. Or software which has been around for years but I didn't know of it. The difference is there is not one single portal for Linux software , it's all over the show and sometimes takes a little digging to discover. Here's the rub, most people are too lazy to dig, end of story. They want a cohesive OS with all their percieved necessary "goodies" and tools built in. Most users don't know what an OS is, little lone the fact that apps. do not constitute the OS itself. I had to, just the other day, explain to a MS user how data should not be exclusive to any OS, but that the software available to run under that OS has to be able to interpret that data to use it. There is a LOT of education that has to be done...that much is certain. >
