Here's an open source challenge for you: try convincing people to use open source products WITHOUT comparing it to Windows. Judas Tapdancing Priest, the inferiority complex around open source is a profound turnoff.
itsthebrod: Watch, let's do this slowly. Classic Winamp » XMMSThe new Winamp with library and stuff » Amarok, except Amarok is better.Sorry for feeding the troll, guys.
While there is a fair bit of truth to your comment, you have to remember that the reason the software is being duplicated is to make it easier for users to switch, or to use more than one operating system. Nothing would be less useful than saving your files on one machine, then not being able to read them on another machine.Also, if you RTFA, you'll notice that there are several tasks listed as "optimal: easier or better than on Windows". That'd lead me to believe that open-source isn't just copying everything, they're improving things too.
Pixel is neither free nor open source.Pixel is a very nice alternative to Photohop, still, if you seriously ever use CS3 you would see the difference.Plus: Where's scripting support? Where are the plug-ins?And yes, the majority of people would be equally happy using any of those programs. However that's only one of the problems that's just partially solved. Not even with an open source solution.
Just because linux managed in some cases to make AT LAST user frienly installations, that's just something so common that it shouldn't be considered a superb feature in any OS nowadays.Hardware problems aside? You can't put anything aside when you are comparing the "user experience".And I suppose that those "clear places where linux is better than windows" are probably security and networking.Ok, networking, sure, but that's not something that concerns most users.Security? Oh, I know, there are no viruses and no security holes like those in windows. Right. Well, anyone not stupid enough not to click on that link or not to open the attachment, or even not to have his whole disc shared, probably has as many chances of being infected/hacked as a linux user.
Very well said, this is what I believe. I honestly think that something like Ubuntu could really get a foothold (and a real one at that) in the market if two (well, maybe three) things happen:1. WINE becomes integrated into the operating system giving native support immediately, without ever having to open a terminal window. Not all distros have to do this, just ones like Ubuntu marketed to novice Linux (or PC in general) users.2. This integrated WINE evolves to a state where it runs 99% of current-gen Windows apps with no issues (INCLUDING visual issues), and games at performance VERY close to or equal to native Windows.3. The Linux community drops it's "Windows/Windows applications are EVIL!!!!!1 Never support them! Linux should always be completely separate from WINDOZE!!!!1one" mentality, which I notice quite a bit by Linux fanboys have. I don't know how prevelant this attitude actually is in the Linux community, but if you want to push Linux as a genuine alternative to Windows, you have to realize that people want to keep their apps. A lot of people want iTunes and MSN Messenger, not XMMS and Pidgin, and they need that type of choice to switch. (NOTE: don't label me an OSS hater, I love the idea, I use Pidgin, but OSS shouldn't mean "anti-Proprietary apps".)
Just to add a bit more, while those are some pretty dumb examples of apps, if you're, say, like me, and into music production and used to Acid and Sibelius, simply "going Open Source" in those areas isn't a choice. But the general idea is the same: you have to be compatible in order to compete.
spoomeisterDec 10, 2007
Here's an open source challenge for you: try convincing people to use open source products WITHOUT comparing it to Windows. Judas Tapdancing Priest, the inferiority complex around open source is a profound turnoff.
Closed AccountDec 10, 2007
Well as a developer, you want to develop software for computers that people actually use, thus discrediting most of what you rambled off.
arjieDec 10, 2007
itsthebrod: Watch, let's do this slowly. Classic Winamp » XMMSThe new Winamp with library and stuff » Amarok, except Amarok is better.Sorry for feeding the troll, guys.
demonwaspDec 10, 2007
While there is a fair bit of truth to your comment, you have to remember that the reason the software is being duplicated is to make it easier for users to switch, or to use more than one operating system. Nothing would be less useful than saving your files on one machine, then not being able to read them on another machine.Also, if you RTFA, you'll notice that there are several tasks listed as "optimal: easier or better than on Windows". That'd lead me to believe that open-source isn't just copying everything, they're improving things too.
link5280Dec 11, 2007
Great isnt it :) I love it! When Linux does this I will switch.
geekfish88Dec 11, 2007
Pixel is neither free nor open source.Pixel is a very nice alternative to Photohop, still, if you seriously ever use CS3 you would see the difference.Plus: Where's scripting support? Where are the plug-ins?And yes, the majority of people would be equally happy using any of those programs. However that's only one of the problems that's just partially solved. Not even with an open source solution.
geekfish88Dec 11, 2007
Just because linux managed in some cases to make AT LAST user frienly installations, that's just something so common that it shouldn't be considered a superb feature in any OS nowadays.Hardware problems aside? You can't put anything aside when you are comparing the "user experience".And I suppose that those "clear places where linux is better than windows" are probably security and networking.Ok, networking, sure, but that's not something that concerns most users.Security? Oh, I know, there are no viruses and no security holes like those in windows. Right. Well, anyone not stupid enough not to click on that link or not to open the attachment, or even not to have his whole disc shared, probably has as many chances of being infected/hacked as a linux user.
djbon2112Dec 12, 2007
I use the OS to run the applications. If you ask me that means the app support (or lack thereof) is a VERY important part of the OS.
djbon2112Dec 12, 2007
Very well said, this is what I believe. I honestly think that something like Ubuntu could really get a foothold (and a real one at that) in the market if two (well, maybe three) things happen:1. WINE becomes integrated into the operating system giving native support immediately, without ever having to open a terminal window. Not all distros have to do this, just ones like Ubuntu marketed to novice Linux (or PC in general) users.2. This integrated WINE evolves to a state where it runs 99% of current-gen Windows apps with no issues (INCLUDING visual issues), and games at performance VERY close to or equal to native Windows.3. The Linux community drops it's "Windows/Windows applications are EVIL!!!!!1 Never support them! Linux should always be completely separate from WINDOZE!!!!1one" mentality, which I notice quite a bit by Linux fanboys have. I don't know how prevelant this attitude actually is in the Linux community, but if you want to push Linux as a genuine alternative to Windows, you have to realize that people want to keep their apps. A lot of people want iTunes and MSN Messenger, not XMMS and Pidgin, and they need that type of choice to switch. (NOTE: don't label me an OSS hater, I love the idea, I use Pidgin, but OSS shouldn't mean "anti-Proprietary apps".)
djbon2112Dec 12, 2007
Just to add a bit more, while those are some pretty dumb examples of apps, if you're, say, like me, and into music production and used to Acid and Sibelius, simply "going Open Source" in those areas isn't a choice. But the general idea is the same: you have to be compatible in order to compete.