On Friday 24 September 2004 10:31, Lanman wrote: > To clarify this, I meant that consumers will expect Linux (read > as Linux and Open-Source software) to be installable and usable without > the type of problems that I've encountered with OGO. While they may > experience no difficulty in getting Linux installed and running, they > will not be very happy about switching to Linux if other applications > are as difficult to set up as OGO has shown me to be. They certainly > won't spend 4 days on it. Most IT's and sysadmins won't be allowed that > much time to get it working.
Well, let's just get down to the bottom line here, rather than continuing what appears to be a pointless debate. If Mandrake wants to sell a product to consumers that is marketed along the lines of it being a drop-in replacement for Windows/commercial software, then they will certainly need to work on making their distribution match up well with what is currently offered in Windows/commercial software. I don't personally think that is what they are trying to do. I think that if they do go down that path, they will get trounced badly by MS because it already has the comparitive advantage there. The only way that I can see to make a non-MS OS living is to pick a new business model (the commodity OS with custom services) and compete there. I expect that a lot of Linux companies are looking to put out a product that is relatively easy to get to work and depend on pre-installations on machines for those that don't want to learn anything, and sell services on the side to the others. I think that in order to duplicate Windows, you will need to duplicate everything about their business model. In other words, if you want seamless, ease of use, out of the box, then all the developers concerned will have to be controlled so that they deliver the same thing. Much like a franchise restaurant. You don't go to McDonalds to get new, inventive cooking. You go because you know exactly what you will get, regardless of which restaurant you go to. I, personally, don't want to trade one slave master in the form of Microsoft for another. So, I prefer for Gnu/Linux to be enough of a commodity system that if I decide I don't like the direction of one distribution, I can switch over to another. My preference. Perhaps you don't share it. > Many people and/or companies making the switch have been used to > installing and configuring Microsoft-based software and applications. In > most cases, that software is not difficult to configure and on those > occasions when it is, the documentation is clear enough to walk them > through the complicated parts and to get them up and running. OGO > doesn't even come close. Again, I will reiterate here, Lanman, OGO is an Enterprise level Groupware product. How many consumers do you think are in the market to install an enterprise level groupware product in their home? Is it just me, or are your expectations for this particular type of product a little high? Peoplesoft is not an easy product to install. SAP is not an easy product to install. Lotus Notes is not an easy product to install. All of these things share a couple of things in common. First, they are enterprise level and thus very complex. Second, they usually aren't picked up out of Best Buy, by Joe Sixpack for him to install and use at his house. > In many of these instances, they have switched to Linux because they've > been told of the virtues of Linux, only to be disappointed with > something that has proven to be too difficult to install or to get > running. In some cases it was due to a management decision, and as > we've seen on this list lately due to people getting fed-up with the > problems they've faced with Windows. > > Does it make any sense for them to swap one set of problems for another? To gain freedom, yes. To switch from one being locked into one vendor to another one, no. > If my interpretation of your above statement is correct, your POV of > enterprises could use a bit of an update. Enterprises spend as much time > as possible evaluating new solutions, and when a Linux-based application > is considered, they either do their own in-house evaluations or hire a > company or consultant such as myself (et al) to provide that information > or service. Yes, my point was that they hire someone else. Most do not have the expertise in-house and at any rate, they want someone else to assume the risk for getting problems worked out, right? So they hire a consultant and don't even look at the package itself, they just have a list of features that they want and vendors/contractors et al agree to meet that list. > The point here is that any company or community organization building > Open-Source solutions has the ability to make their products easier to > install and configure. In doing so, they also have the ability to define > the requirements of their software. That type of definition could solve > much of the problems which seem to plague the installation of OGO. Look, debating this is pointless. Yes, they could make a completely automated install that detects every possible circumstance on your machine including a variety of databases, etc., detect the Apache type, blah, blah blah. OGO did not do that or they haven't done it yet. Fine, I feel your pain. If you don't like it or it isn't ready for you, then move on to something else. You whined, I basically said stop whining, you took offense, I don't care because I still feel like you basically whined and impugned and entire suite of software based on one particular project not working for you the way you would like. Perhaps I am totally wrong here. So be it, it wouldn't be the first time. But so far, not one thing you have said convinces me that you weren't just whining about Open source in general based on your experience with one software package. > Here we are back at the same point. Most consumers will want to see and > try a product before buying it. While there are ways to try Windows (et > al) before buying, none of them have anything to do with acquiring a > download copy of the OS or software to try out, before buying - at least > not legally. Most have to do with trying the OS and software on someone > else's computer, in a store or on a friend's or co-worker's computer. Really. So, most consumers will want to try out an enterprise installation of Lotus Notes before buying it and they will be able to do that how, exactly? > Pre-loading is an option, as is having a technician install it, but the > reality is that many will need to re-install at some point, so a > practical solution would be to make it easy to install and set up. I > don't see this to be an issue of any sort. Your statement above about > consumers wanting quicker/easier borders on the arrogant, Bryan. No, it does not. Look, if I am a developer doing stuff in my spare time for the thrill of it, I may want to make things easier to use in some ways but not want to waste time on diminishing returns on small things. Such, as trying to pre-configure a computer to accept a package by building a database, or setting up Apache permissions, etc. If I am a commercial company selling consulting services, then, I hate to break this to you, it would appear to be in my financial interest to focus on features that benefit my customers rather than an installation routine that is mostly of benefit to people who aren't paying me because they have an installation routine. I have had experience with installation and configuration of multiple enterprise level packages and none of them, to the last one, was a totally seamless install accomplished simply by running a script. Each one, to the last, required a large about of configuration by hand. That is simply not unusual for enterprise level packages. > There is no reason at all that Linux and Open-Source software needs to > be complex in installation or configuration. Someone just needs to make > the effort. I see this as a possible feature of Linux not a drawback. > Keeping Linux difficult to install or configure solely as a choice > intended to keep others away from Linux and O-S software is an elitist > attitude. I find it hard to believe that Linus or Richard might have > called and asked for your opinion on this matter before implementing or > spreading their concepts. Why would you bother to spend all that time building up a strawman, just to knock it down? I didn't suggest that anyone should intentionally keep Linux difficult. I did suggest that if you had to pick one thing to focus on, to the exclusion of other things, that simplicity of installation, might NOT be the highest item on the list. But you know, I don't need to defend my own ideas about the focus of Linux, I am quite happy with it in its current form and direction. > That attitude may be fine for you and possibly some others, but it's > just arrogant and irresponsible. I'm sorry but that's the truth. No, it is your opinion. If you want to build your own distribution and market it based on ease of installation, then you might be able to make that statement. As it is, you are grouping a huge variety of flavors and distributions into a single entity and trying to dictate focus and direction of all of it. Who is being arrogant here? Gnu/Linux is and always has been about choice, not about beating MS. Now, perhaps Linspire is about beating MS. Perhaps Novell is about beating MS. But not Linux. > Linux > in general wasn't built for Bryan Phinney. Nor you. And last time I looked, the success of Linux is not dependent upon weaning the masses off of MS. >Mandrake-Linux includes all sorts of things specifically built > to make things easier. Perhaps you're using the wrong distro then? IIRC, you were the one who rolled in whining about how Linux wasn't going to get anywhere unless it started shaping up. So, it would appear that Linux is much more built for me than it appears to be built for you. > The beauty of Linux and the concepts behind Open-Source and the GPL > means that Bryan can build his own distro which can be designed from > scratch to be as difficult and complicated to install, configure and use > as Bryan sees fit to make it. You might also want to consider going back > to punch cards. That should keep things interesting for a while. Let us put this into perspective. I am not the one here trying to say that unless things are done the way I claim they should be done, Linux will not succeed. I am saying that I like the direction and focus of Linux and am happy with the product. You have all of these complaints and ideas about how things need to be improved or else Linux won't win. And, you are suggesting that I build MY own distribution? > > We are already seeing the commercialization of Linux, Sun has announced > > plans to compete against Linux and MS is in the process of redefining > > Linux from a free/better software method, design architecture to just > > another software company (IBM) so they have a target to go to battle > > with. I don't necessarily agree that that is the right path to go down. > > Obviously, there is room for disagreement about that as you seem to be > > sitting on the other side. > > Bite your tongue! Grin! For shame Bryan! Tsk! Tsk! I don't agree either, > in any way shape or form. But instead, I believe that we should learn > from Microsoft's mistakes, as well as the short list of benefits they've > provided, and use those as partial guidelines when making a superior set > of Operating Systems and applications or software. Just because they did > it first, doesn't mean they did it well. They didn't create quality > products, they just marketed inferior products very well. They leveraged > their ever-increasing dominance and monpolistic control to do it, rather > than relying on quality products and great support. They had their shot > at it, and blew it. No, I see this happening in the very things that you are asking for. In order to build a flawlessly easy system, you have to have control. You have to control variance. There are two ways that I know of to do this. You can create totally open standards for installations, configuration, etc. which will commoditize software to the point that it is totally open and no one has an advantage. Or, you can control variance within a distribution by maintaining almost proprietary standards. I personally see Red Hat, Novell, Sun walking down the latter path. They will take an open product and keep the source available but they will structure it in such a way that they can claim the same type of control that MS has now. For the record, I am not one of the people who would claim such an activity as being evil. I understand it. Takes a while for businesses to come to terms with the creative destruction of an entire business model. Doesn't mean I want to be part of it. > Violently? Hmm. Now who's being a Zealot? Linux is not about crushing > Microsoft, agreed. However, no matter what part of the IT/IS world you > work in, we are asked to solve the problems that plague a Microsoft > world. Many of those problems can already be solved by means of Linux > and the O-S softtware that's currently available. But, not your particular problem with ogo, though. > We don't need to beat Microsoft, we just need to level the playing > field, and then let the merits of our O/S and O-S solutions do the rest. > In an idealistic world, co-existance would be the preferred choice. But, > of course, that's not the world we live in, by any means. If that were > true, all politicians would be honest as would lawyers, and I'm sure the > list could be endless. I simply don't agree. IBM has stepped up to the bat to defend Linux and a lot of people were concerned that they were going to make a power grab and try to take control of Linux and use it as a weapon against MS. I am not worried about that because I think that IBM is smarter than that. IBM went up against MS once already with OS wars and lost badly. Why would they want to refight that same battle again? No, I think that IBM has ceded the ability to control the desktop/enterprise server OS as a monopoly. And in doing so, it has said, "If we can't control it ourselves, then no one will." Linux and their support of Linux is all about making the OS a commodity like electrical power. You don't really care where the power comes from as long as it runs your equipment. Well, ultimately, we shouldn't care which vendor our OS comes from as long as it does the job we want it to do. And if one stops being what you want, you find a new one. That is what I think Gnu/Linux is all about. Not defeating MS necessarily, but simply making them one face in a crowd. There is no reason why MS can't produce its own Linux distribution. Eventually, they might, but by then they will have ceased being a software company and will instead be simply a desktop/enterprise OS company. > Sorry to disappoint you Bryan, but I'm not simply stating my opinions, > but those of experts and consultants who have been on Television, Radio > and Newspapers. They all say the same thing, whereas you are relying on > your own unsupported opinion. Ah, well, if that is where you are getting your opinions, then I shall rest the quiet sleep of the unworried tonight. I have seldom seen a group of people that could get things more wrong than TV, Radio, newspapers and "experts." Point of fact, if they were right 5 years ago, then Linux is a hobby OS for geeks that will never make any headway with real businesses, right? > Tell that to Novell, Apple, RedHat, Mandrake and any of the other > commercial offerings. I'm sure they'll chuckle at your idealism for a > minute or two. These companies are in for the fight of their corporate > lives and they know it. That may very well be. However, perhaps the reason for that is that they are still trying to follow your own advice and compete with MS openly, on the same battleground of choice where MS already has an insurmountable advantage. The companies that survive will be those that realize that you can't refight battles that MS has already won. You need to find a new battleground of your own choosing and remove their advantage. -- Bryan Phinney
____________________________________________________ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com ____________________________________________________
