<div class="gmail_quote">On 7 December 2010 11:50, gazz <<a href="mailto:pmgazz@gmx.co.uk" target="_blank">pmgazz@gmx.co.uk</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> <div> On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 21:48 +0000, Joe Metcalfe wrote: <blockquote type="CITE"> <pre>The main difficulties I have had in reading MS files on Linux is with MS Publisher (though I don't have Publisher in my Windows copy of MS Office either!) and with macros in PowerPoint (dynamic content in 3rd part educational files). Joe </pre> </blockquote> MS Publisher files can be sort of converted if you can spare half an hour of fiddling around per file and the result isn't marvellous; macros in any part of the MS Office suite don't open properly in OOo. MS Access is relied upon by much of the UK voluntary sector and it doesn't migrate. PaintShop files are a pain too and most Windows users have various proprietary Windows platform apps which don't migrate formats at all and don't run properly on WINE. However, I agree with the general point that most Windows users face bigger limitations on what proprietary formats they can open without buying every proprietary app on the planet (given that Linux at least favours open standards). It's probably about 80% perception but there's still maybe 20% real migration issues to be dealt with. Windows users are strenuously trained to think of their OS as 'standard' and anything else as weird and troublesome (although one might easily see this as an actual inversion of reality). However, whilst many proprietary Windows formats do open without any issues on many Linux distros, users will still run into migration problems with mainstream formats which either don't convert at all or which require significantly technically-savvy intervention to migrate to Linux. Even setting up WINE is pushing it for the average mainstream Windows user - although it's like rolling off a log for experienced Ubuntu users. Most orgs are also going to end up with a peripheral or two that's a brick on Ubuntu. I've been doing hands-on FOSS advocacy in the voluntary sector for the best part of a decade and experience teaches me that it's a mistake to gloss over the real issues in migrating from any Windows OS to any Linux distro. What's important is to get across the concept of open standards and to help the user understand that it isn't Linux' 'weirdness' causing the issues but use of closed standards in proprietary software and to explain that once they have made a successful migration to Ubuntu, they will experience *fewer* issues with cross-compatibility in the future. For a proportion of Windows users, though, the barriers will honestly still be too high for their resources - at least for the time being. Especially users who rely on being able to open and edit proprietary apps send by Windows users. Although times change and organisations who once couldn't see their way to migrating are looking at it again in the current climate. When I'm advocating Ubuntu with voluntary orgs, I don't really refer to technical issues beyond giving them (what I consider to be) a sensible overview of real and imaginary migration issues - I focus, instead, on simplicity, resistance to slow-down and choking due to malware, community ownership (which really appeals), keeping the economy local, longevity of hardware, ease of installing peripherals, standardisation of software used for photos, scanning etc etc, ease of maintaining a properly-installed system for non-techies. And it's *pretty*! If you gloss over migration issues, you will forfeit trust when users do experience problems. I prefer to support people migrating with their eyes open and wait for the more nervous Windows users to go through the emotional and practical issues involved for them and their organisation in their own time. We'll be here when they're ready <img src="" alt=":)" align="middle" border="0"> Paula </div> -- <a href="mailto:ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com" target="_blank">ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com</a> <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk</a> <a href="https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/" target="_blank">https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/</a> </blockquote></div> I agree entirely; despite the tremendous amount of work in Linux; there are still many common problems with it: .pub files are very annoying, with the only real F/OSS program that even attempts to do a similar set of tasks not having an importer for such files. It does not help, either, that OpenOffice has had so much trouble lately, either; first the slow death of Sun Microsystems (which slowed development to a crawl, and increased the problems between the community and the 'offical' engineers); the takeover of Sun by Oracle (more or less stopping development whilst the project migrated) and Oracle's current tactics which led to the now very quickly developed (but only just about to show itself) LibreOffice. Microsoft Office's new XML files are causing a great deal of difficulty, on terms of engineering as well. Then we have other issues; a very common complaint for me when I migrate someone are the troubles with flash and DVD's and .mp3's. It is a serious problem that in order to install such functionality, one must install the ubuntu-restricted-extras package and run the libdvdcss installation script. This problem is made less by activating the small amount of codecs that Canocial have licensed upon installation, but it still does not instill functions for closed formats; I beleive Ubuntu is mostly successful over other distros because of it's pragmatism for such matters. Having a box to tick is much more preferable then having a script to run, even if this is a legal gray area. When I started using Ubuntu, I spent weeks trying to find out how to get Flash, DVD's and other such rubbish to run, because whilst F/OSS extremists/purists hate to admit it, we are still, sadly, reliant on such technology. This problem won't go away, we are now looking at people wanting to play their bluray disks in Linux, and the choices are either: 1. Install functions which are akin to breaking encryption or 2. Use DRM. or 3. Lose users. We have other issues as well: our work is based around advertising Ubuntu to the public. Many will look into it, and many will take it up; many will go and ask their tech friends about it. Because of our work, we will see an increase in Linux haters, we will also see an increase in Ubuntu haters (IE: in the Linux community, but not too fond of our beloved distro). If we are successful, then Ubuntu's competitors will feel threatened. We could be looking at a bigger advertising campaign targeted against us, direct mention of Linux, increased under-the-table lawsuit activity: for many such closed-source vendors; keeping their customers locked in is their only guaranteed revenue stream. If significantly pushed, these vendors will clam shut; send out lawsuits attempting to reverse-engineer their work in F/OSS; complete/partial compatibility with other programs may break off. But don't be disheartened; for the thousands of vendors that do so, thousands more will open themselves up to Linux, and they will prosper and demand for Linux services, both in a personal and professional sense, will increase. -- -Danté Ashton Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici Sent from Ubuntu