Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 16, 2003 06:27 AM
> There is an overall lack of respect for the final user in the Open Source world.
First, That statement makes no sense at the outset, because, in most cases, the Open Source developers are also users of their own software. They want the software to work right, and they want it to be easy to use.
Second, your statement doesn't match reality. For example, just look at how quickly the ease of installation has improved in distributions like Red Hat or Mandrake. Or look at all of the end-user features that have been added to Mozilla, such as pop-up blocking, and Spam filtering.
And third, we have to put your claim in perspective. If you want to see serious disrespect for customers, just look at Microsoft.
For example, Microsoft continues to leave their Internet Explorer users vulnerable to <A HREF="http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/" TITLE="pivx.com">Nineteen Unpatched IE Security Holes.</a pivx.com>
Or consider Microsoft's attitude toward their J++ users, as shown in an internal Microsoft memo, uncovered by the <A HREF="http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/051498.unfair.html" TITLE="sun.com">Sun versus Microsoft</a sun.com> Java case:
> At this point its not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps.
Somehow, I don't view defrauding one's customers as a sign of respect.
> Have you not already seen the following scenario? > Program A is an Open Source program that might be useful to you: you download it, you install it, you find out it doesn't work off the shelf...
I remember buying Windows 1.0. It was crap.
I remember buying Windows 2.0, having been convinced by Microsoft ads telling me how much it had improved. It was crap.
I remember finally using Windows 3.1, though it still wasn't as good as the Geoworks GUI that I was using two years earlier. Why didn't I continue to use Geoworks? Because Microsoft had intentionally changed DOS to sabotage Geoworks and put the company out of business. Some respect.
I remember that Microsoft also sabotaged my favorite word processor (AmiPro), our company's e-mail system (cc:Mail), and tied IE into Windows so that it would become a "jolting experience" (Microsoft's own words) for me to run Netscape.
I remember when Word 97 would not export to Word 95 format, which cost our company a great deal of money, because it forced us to upgrade everyone when we had no other reason to do so.
I remember the days before our company had given up on Microsoft's support: "Have you rebooted? Have you tried reinstalling Windows?"
I remember that IE 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 were all completely unusable. I remember that IE 4.0 would still crash Windows on a regular basis.
What was that you were saying about Open Source software that doesn't work quite right?
> I think documentation and ease of use is the only key to success.
Ah yes, documentation.
I remember trying to get my printer to work, using the Windows 3.1 User Manual. It was hopeless, because the documentation was crap -- the information was simply not there. The books at the bookstore were no better, because they contained no additional information. My friend broke down, and paid Microsoft $400 CDN to get a set of professional manuals.
Meanwhile, with Linux, there are HowTo documents that will give me step-by-step instructions on how to do almost anything.
Also, with Linux, I can find whole shelves of books, ranging from beginners level right down to the detailed technical level. There is even a book that gives me a listing and explanation of the Linux kernel source code.
So what do you have against buying a book? You still end up paying less, yet getting more, than you do with closed source software.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Nonsense -- OSS attitude beats the alternative
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 16, 2003 06:27 AMFirst, That statement makes no sense at the outset, because, in most cases, the Open Source developers are also users of their own software. They want the software to work right, and they want it to be easy to use.
Second, your statement doesn't match reality. For example, just look at how quickly the ease of installation has improved in distributions like Red Hat or Mandrake. Or look at all of the end-user features that have been added to Mozilla, such as pop-up blocking, and Spam filtering.
And third, we have to put your claim in perspective. If you want to see serious disrespect for customers, just look at Microsoft.
For example, Microsoft continues to leave their Internet Explorer users vulnerable to <A HREF="http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/" TITLE="pivx.com">Nineteen Unpatched IE Security Holes.</a pivx.com>
Or consider Microsoft's attitude toward their J++ users, as shown in an internal Microsoft memo, uncovered by the <A HREF="http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/051498.unfair.html" TITLE="sun.com">Sun versus Microsoft</a sun.com> Java case:
> At this point its not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps.
Somehow, I don't view defrauding one's customers as a sign of respect.
> Have you not already seen the following scenario?
> Program A is an Open Source program that might be useful to you: you download it, you install it, you find out it doesn't work off the shelf...
I remember buying Windows 1.0. It was crap.
I remember buying Windows 2.0, having been convinced by Microsoft ads telling me how much it had improved. It was crap.
I remember finally using Windows 3.1, though it still wasn't as good as the Geoworks GUI that I was using two years earlier. Why didn't I continue to use Geoworks? Because Microsoft had intentionally changed DOS to sabotage Geoworks and put the company out of business. Some respect.
I remember that Microsoft also sabotaged my favorite word processor (AmiPro), our company's e-mail system (cc:Mail), and tied IE into Windows so that it would become a "jolting experience" (Microsoft's own words) for me to run Netscape.
I remember when Word 97 would not export to Word 95 format, which cost our company a great deal of money, because it forced us to upgrade everyone when we had no other reason to do so.
I remember the days before our company had given up on Microsoft's support: "Have you rebooted? Have you tried reinstalling Windows?"
I remember that IE 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 were all completely unusable. I remember that IE 4.0 would still crash Windows on a regular basis.
What was that you were saying about Open Source software that doesn't work quite right?
> I think documentation and ease of use is the only key to success.
Ah yes, documentation.
I remember trying to get my printer to work, using the Windows 3.1 User Manual. It was hopeless, because the documentation was crap -- the information was simply not there. The books at the bookstore were no better, because they contained no additional information. My friend broke down, and paid Microsoft $400 CDN to get a set of professional manuals.
Meanwhile, with Linux, there are HowTo documents that will give me step-by-step instructions on how to do almost anything.
Also, with Linux, I can find whole shelves of books, ranging from beginners level right down to the detailed technical level. There is even a book that gives me a listing and explanation of the Linux kernel source code.
So what do you have against buying a book? You still end up paying less, yet getting more, than you do with closed source software.
#