Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3637 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] Linux Commercial Idea

> > > With all respect to your efforts. I don't like it much.
> > >
> > > It makes one think people use Linux because Microsoft is no good.
> >
> > We don't? To be honest, the only reason I use Linux is because Windows
> >isn't as stable as I'd like.
> I think that is a pretty bad reason. I mean I had Interdev crash on me
> yesterday and I lost two hours worth of code because I was so wound up in
> writing it I had forgotten to save it. I don't want to insult you but I'd
> like Linux users to be Linux users because they enjoy the freedom the GPL
> gives them instead of a feature KDE2 has.

A bad reason? So in your mind, if I pick Linux because I feel it and it's
desktop environment is technically superior to Windows, that is a bad reason?
Really, to be honest, I think choosing only because it's GPL'ed is a bad
reason. To me, it's more important that it _works_, than how it's licensed.
Once agian I quote Linus Torvalds in saying "I have nothing against closed
source, I just prefer open source." Not that Linus is some kind of "final
authority" for anything, but I like the point he makes here.

Now granted, I put a lot of weight on KDE2, but with good reason as you
will see. I am a web designer. Web designers need a good browser to work with
to do their trade. I absolutely despise Netscape/Mozilla - I'm GLAD Microsoft
killed the big old lizard. So, a year ago, where did that leave me in
Linuxland? Nowhere. Enter Konqueror, which I feel is the best browser out
there besides Internet Explorer, and I'm all set.
I also have several other KDE2 features that helped, such as a quality
e-mail client (I'm not going to use a console for my e-mail, consoles are for
typing commands!). Let's face it, bringing Linux to the desktop doesn't mean
having pretty ASCII colors on your BASH shell, but having a quality desktop
environment that makes getting work done easier. KDE2 is that desktop, IMO.

So in other words, I pick Linux because it makes getting my work done
EASIER. If I spend ten hours working in Linux to avoid a crash that would
lose two hours worth of work, I'd be silly. So, I don't use Linux because of
how it's licensed, but on the technical merits that make it superior to

> > 1.) More users = More Support. Yes, the more users, indifferent or not
> >to
> >the OSS philosophy, the more OSS support you will see. I bet if Linux
> >received a 10-15% foothold in the desktop market, companies would scamble
> >to
> >support Linux with more OSS software.
> > 2.) More users = More Software. Another good thing to come of more
> >support
> >and users is more closed source software. This is necessary. Joe Blow
> > isn't going to switch to Linux until the latest games and such are
> > available for Linux. Who cares about Joe? Bringing the Joes of the world
> > will/would bring more support, and more support equals what? MORE OSS
> > To be honest, I would be thrilled if Microsoft announced they were
> >porting
> >Office to Linux. This would be good, sure it would be open, but it at the
> >same time would be a huge winfall for the OSS community as a whole. Any
> >major
> >non-OSS developer that makes software for an OSS operating system will
> >increase support for OSS at the same time.
> I hate Napster. It's corporate power in disguise. I hope it dies so GPL
> software like Freenet can take its place. I don't get your support

That wasn't quite what I was saying... but I'll drop the Napster argument
as it was only an example of mine.

> argument. What support are people talking about on this list all the time.

In my usage of the word, I was using support in the sense of "I support
this." In other words, I meant more support as more users and developers.
More support in this sense means only good things.

1.) That brings more developers who in their spare time (or possibly work
time) will be working on open source.
2.) Brings closed source stuff we need or want such as office suites, dtp
programs, games, etc.
3.) Helps keep standards standard, rather than having companies such as
Microsoft and Apple annoyingly go around trashing standards.

> I never used any SuSE support. I use google and linuxdoc and this list. Yes

Neither have I.

> I have used SuSE employee input from this list but I didn't personally ask
> for it. I can live without copyrights. I don't know if I was some smart guy

You can live without copyrights. That's nice, since your not making any
money of off them. It isn't that simple for the author who spent years
writting a book, the band who spends the same time creating a CD, or even the
developer who doesn't have a company willing to pay him to give away his

> who came up with a great idea others could profit (non-monetary) from why
> not give this idea away for free and feel good about the fact that you

Because you need to eat? Now, let me say I'm an open source developer, and
am getting ready to launch a major open source project. HOWEVER, I still can
understand that people need to be paid, because you need money to live, in
the sense of requiring shelter, food, and transportation.

> helped people. That is what I hate about humans. They don't trust. I am
> sure some would be happy enough to reward the creator of this idea with a
> gift.

Sure, some would. But, probably not enough to live on. Think about it: I
don't know where you work, but if you spent all of your time writting
software, and then were expected to give it away, how would you make money to
live on?
I also might note you seem to be wandering into the wrong conception of
free software. Free (according to RMS) is free in the sense of free speech
not free beer (gratis).

> I also don't care if joe doe switches to Linux. Linux has had everything I

Betcha you'd care if suddenly you couldn't check your e-mail or go on the
net. Let's face it, while I like Microsoft, they seem to like to take over
standards and change them. If Linux has more support (in the number of users
sense), Microsoft will wield less power, and thus prevent them from doing

> need to use since two years. I tried converting people before and it
> doesn't work. They are usually lazy until the ideology kicks in and hate
> the console. Well if you don't like the console then why are you using a

Well, personally I have nothing against the console, but I still have an
answer for this question. Let's use the example of a car.

Let's say I walk up to you and offer you a $15,000 rusty 1970's Yugo or a
free 2001 Toyota hybred gas-electric car. Obviously the new Toyota is waaay
more complicated than the Yugo. Now, presuming you are like me you probably
don't understand a lot about how either one works, yet you will probably
choose the Toyota, even though you will never understand how to go into the
Toyota's engine and "optimize" it.
Why did you choose that multi-engine computer-based car with so much power?
Because, while you can't understand it, it is obviously better.
Linux is obviously better than Windows, and with KDE2 is nearly as easy to
use (easier in some senses) as Windows. If you never touch a console, you
will STILL benefit from Linux's power.

> multi-user network OS with such power? If you want pretty interface and no
> multiuser then go buy Mac or something.

Okay, so what you are saying is, if you like Linux with a pretty interface,
you should go buy the obviously inferrior Mac OS? This makes no sense. There
are many advantages to a Linux-based system with a pretty interface:

- Stability
- Price (gratis free)
- Redistribution Rights (free speech free)
- Easy of use
- Power
- Helpful community

Your argument makes no sense. It seems to me you are saying that you feel
that the only advantage to Linux over other systems is that it is open,
right? Well then, I might ask, if openness hasn't made Linux superior in
anyway to another system, why is open good? Infact, I believe Linux's
openness has made it better than other OSes, but I don't use something open
for the sake of openness.

> I don't know everybody sees this different. But I am happy the AOLers are
> far away from me. I am sick of people asking for Samba 2.2 packages and
> 2.4.4 kernel packages or isos. If you need it so badly compile it yourself.

Why? Personally, I love getting the latest packages rather than compiling
myself, so that I don't mess up my RPM tree.

> This is the single most point in favor of Linux, but newbies aren't using
> the resources available. They just arrive and cry "help me". They don't
> understand the sphere we are working in.

A superior operating system, that's the sphere! If you want to help people
out by insisting everyone should give out their code, why then not help these
people who want to excape the world of instability that is Windows?

> A few weeks ago I mentioned that I don't buy SuSE because I am sitting back
> letting the market play out. I said I don't agree with YaST being closed
> source. I said something like "how do I know if I buy into this product
> today that they are using the money in the right fashion and it will go to
> the projects which need to be advanced?" I also said I see too much funding
> wasted.

I agree that YaST should be open source, since SuSE seems a little
hypocritical saying talking the open source talk, but not walking the open
source walk. However, I personally feel I would be hurting myself if I chose
to use another Linux distro.
I tried RedHat, it's just not as good. Mandrake's installer is so stupid it
could even install LILO! Caldera is nice, but it doesn't have the packages,
and it's market share is shrinking (so less packages will be available in the
future), and so on and so forth.

> I am happy Eazel dies. I gloat over the fact. I am sick of wasted money.
> Freedom of development is great in Linux but it doesn't mean 50 separate
> groups have to develop 50 versions of the same thing. The 13 mill Eazel
> blew could have nicely been used to advanced projects which were already
> larger and at a stage further down the time scale.

I agree, I think Eazel should die too, but I think along the reasons that
Dennis "Dep" Powell did in .comment: Wanna invest in a bridge?
( In this article,
dep notices the absurdity of Eazel's business model.
This is where commercial software is once again necessary. Eazel proves
that point that you can't start a business with no profit model and survive.
If software companies just gave everything away, where would software come
from once they all were six feet under? I think the ideal solution is to use
closed source programs when they are better, and use open programs when they
are better (i.e. as in the case of Linux and KDE).

> So I am waiting to see if SuSE makes it and YaST wasn't a waste of money or
> if SuSE dies and YaST proves to be another failed project. I wish these

Why would YaST be a failed project? Unlike Eazel's Nautilus, YaST isn't
SuSE's goal, it's a step towards the goal of Linux made easy (and powerful).

> companies would get together and develop one or two kickass utilities which
> work cross-Linux platforms instead of going off on a branch and parting the

That would be nice, but then how would the companies make money? And if the
companies didn't make money who would pay the programmers (such as SuSE's
Keith Packard who made the neat render extension for XF86)? And if the
programmers didn't get paid and had to get a job in an IT department some
where doing some menial task, who would create the programs?

> What all this means is that if you know SuSE you don't know Linux. To be
> proficient at Linux you need to know more than one distro. On the other
> hand LSB should help conquer this and if you know the console then you
> should be all set for cross-Linux platform work.

Well, I personally disagree with this too. I had very little trouble
switching from RedHat to SuSE (relatively speaking). Now that I know more
about Linux, I can confidently say, the move would have been even easier now.

> Further below you say Linux lacks an office suite. Am I the only person who
> doesn't use office suites? I always wonder what people use them for.

Yes. ;-) What do people use them for? Well for me, I use them for:

- Writting my monthly column (and spell checking it)
- Reading documents sent to me
- Working on press releases
- Creating cards, banners, and other dtp things
- etc.

> Besides Linux is there and its got its own solutions. SGML, XML, DTD. More
> portable and it looks a lot better in ps or pdf anyhow. It's just people

Sure those exist, but show me a program that works with them that provides a
nice WYSIWYG interface and does spell checking, grammer checking, etc. Also,
show me a way to exchange a nicely formatted document made with them with a
Windows user.
Okay, I probably could use XML (or HTML for that matter) and create a
nicely formatted page, but how do I then add an image? Opps... now I have to
attach two files to my e-mail and explain to the recipient they must place
both of them in a directory for it all to work.

> are too lazy or busy to learn how it works. MS Office on Linux wouldn't
> work. Half of the people wouldn't buy it because the ideology is wrong.
> Half of the people would buy it because they are actually Windows users
> never really dedicated to the GPL. How can one expect Office to run any
> better than on native Windows? I don't see it.

It won't run better. But I ask you this, I only use Office for a small
percentage of the week. Also, if it crashes in Linux, most likely I can just
restart it rather than spending several minutes rebooting and getting all my
apps open again.

In summary, I think we have two opposite positions on both types of
software. You seem to feel that anything that isn't open is bad, but anyone
who doesn't full appreciate open software shouldn't use it. I feel that
closed software is fine, but everyone possible should be able to use Linux
and other open software.
My reasoning is simple. I appreciate openness, but I realize even those
who don't will enjoy the other benefits of a robust environment like Linux
with KDE2, et. al. I also feel that the more closed source software on Linux,
the more users and developers there will be on Linux, and thus the more open
source software there will be on Linux.


Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks
Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996
ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller
============== "Information Powered by Innovation" ==============

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups