ordinary computer user

[Eric Dunbar]

Hmm. I'm wondering if reply-to on the users list has broken again?

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:55:59 +0100, Egon Bianchet <egon.bianchet at gmail> wrote:
> Il giorno dom, 27-02-2005 alle 17:15 -0500, Eric Dunbar ha scritto:

> >Some of the points raised seem to elict some rather childish responses
> >from some of the Linux fan(atics) that spread their rather boring
> >propaganda on the (fictional) merits of Linux (let's just say that
> >I've never seen -- let alone HEARD rumours of -- a virus or spyware
> >affecting our corporate network of Win NT (with XP being rolled out
> >slowly) computers (30,000 users)... the head aches and time lost due
> >to having to recover word processor documents lost in OO.org or
> >AbiWord crashes would far outweigh _any_ dollar savings achieved by
> >avoiding licencing costs).
> 
> The point isn't about spyware or viruses, this is just a symptom of what
> happens when you let somebody else decide what you can and what you
> can't do with your computer.

I'm well aware of that, BUT, for the bulk of users it doesn't really
matter whether you have absolute control over your computer -- it's an
academic issue. I like the idea behind OSS, but, at work I really
don't want to have to deal with the instability of "productivity"
tools like OO.org or AbiWord. On my server I run OSS b/c it's free and
good. If there were a closed source, free ($$$) network server that
was easily configured I'd be running that instead. I want something
that *works* for the *right* price. Since I'm not making any money off
my server, the right price is zero. If I were running a for-profit
server, and a piece of closed software would make my life better at
the right price, the right price would be above 0.

Anyway, it is all academic. Linux has and will continue to make
inroads in servers where it is an excellent solution. Linux is still
languishing in desktop-land and we can be guaranteed that Microsoft is
not going to take Linux lieing down. I saw an interesting article
which suggested that an easy way for MS to kill (or harm) Linux would
be to release their own -- by releasing their own they'd send
developers scurrying away from Linux b/c, by developing for Linux,
they'd also be developing for MS <evil cackle>.

Eric.