Bug 0 review pls

[Scott Kitterman]

On Tuesday 03 June 2008 12:00, Mark Schouten wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 07:37 -0500, Luke wrote:
> > (I hope this works, this is my first reply in a mailing list (Gmail).
> >
> > While Linux might be picked up by new businesses, existing large
> > businesses will never migrate off MS unless we emulate (so to speak)
> > MS. This very well might be a futile effort. While I believe Linux
> > (Ubuntu especially) should continue to push into better server
> > management and technologies SIMILAR to MS, I think we should be
> > careful about focusing too much on MS-swappable technologies.
> >
> > Does that make sense? If we try to implement software in the same way
> > as MS, then we'll just be a Windows clone. We need to focus not on
> > penetrating existing large marketsby cloning Windoze, but by making
> > our product more competitive and functional (via easier administration
> > like web interface, for just one example) and by promoting the
> > benefits of open software and standards. Make MICROSOFT think "Man, we
> > need to write some linux-compatible software" like they're going to do
> > with ODF.

It's not clear to me that this will actually happen.  If it does it's because 
there are substantial markets that demand it.  MS won't support ODF because 
it's a good standard, they'll support it because they may get shut out of 
contracts if they don't.  Helping to shape policies that encourage standards 
based acquisition is a really good thing for those who can.  It's not what 
Ubuntu is or can do.  It's a different piece of the puzzle.

> I totally agree with this.
>
> You should not focus on how to copy M$. You should focus on making the
> opensource stuff work. (Start with a working calendar-solution, which
> still isn't there, afaik). Try to get Evolution below 150MB memory when
> using a calendar.. ;)
>
> People aren't tied to Outlook. They're tied to their schedule within
> Outlook, to their addressbook which is shared with others.
>
> Please do not try to copy M$, including their non-standard solutions. Go
> for the slower but safer approach..
>

But what this misses is that people aren't tied to Outlook, they are tied to 
Outlook/Exchange.  Trying to replace Outlook OR Exchange first is much easier 
than trying to convince someone to replace the whole thing in one go.  

Any transition strategy that starts out, turn off all your Exchange servers 
and your Windows desktops with Outlook and turn on new Linux servers and 
desktops is an obsolute non-starter.  In areas where Microsoft is dominant 
(and this is one) we need a co-existance/interoperability strategy to get 
started so that later we can eat their lunch.

Scott K