On Sunday 29 Apr 2012 14:40:48 you wrote:
> The only way for Open Source to compete is to produce ONE software
> suit strong enough to challenge the dominance and powerful
> strangle-hold of the giants right across citizens, businesses, and
> governments worldwide.
I can't agree with that, because competition is needed to ensure that each
vendor tries harder to innovate. Don't forget too that we aren't really
talking about Open Source here; we are talking about Open Standards. If the
Government gets this consultation right, then there are several suites strong
enough to compete in each category; some are Open Source and some aren't. In
the Office domain, there is Open/Libre Office of course, which are strong and
getting stronger. However, IBM’s Office Suite (Lotus Symphony) is ODF
compliant and it is *not* Open Source.
What's needed is for the lock-in to stop. Once it isn't *necessary* to be MS
Office compliant to do business, then the free and cheaper packages will come
into their own. Munich managed it and saved 4 million Euros, not counting the
additional 15 million Euros that it would have taken to upgrade their old NT
based PCs to run a version of Windows that could do the modern stuff:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/29/munich_linux_savings/
> The tendency amongst Linux/Open Source developers is to compete
> against one another for top spot of the very small OS/FOS market
> instead of joining together to produce ONE suit capable of use by the
> people who are stuck with the giants because, quite simply, the giants
> are the ONLY ones producing common-use software suits capable of
> widespread use.
I think IBM might argue with that and Libre Office is getting there and it’s
free.
> As a long-time 'Windows power user' (MS Office) who is trying to break
> free and use OS or FOS products instead, I have not yet found an Open
> Source product that is good enough to use beyond a very small circle
> of Linux enthusiasts. The lack of manufacturers producing Linux
> drivers for their products is a straight indication that they do not
> see Linux/OS/FOS as a viable market either, and the ever-changing
> kaleidoscope of Linux/OS/FOS offerings isn't helping because it is not
> producing a stable product for manufacturers to focus upon.
I install various flavours of Linux on a variety of PC hardware and problems
with drivers is the rarity these days. In fact, I get extremely frustrated
trying to get Windows Apps working these days because of incompatibilities,
especially when Direct-X is involved. I know that if someone has a virus or
Windows driver problem, I can usually write off several days to re-install
everything from scratch, because the damage done is not easily fixable.
> Some body, the ideal would be Linus Torvalds himself, needs to develop
> a specification for the OS/FOS developer community to aim for as the
> greatest product for the greatest common good. Quite simply, 'equal to
> or better than MS-Office' would be a great start, and one that would
> enable greatest numbers of users to inter-act with each other right
> across the user spectrum. The government (civil servants who are
> supposed to work for and represent us!) would come under greater
> pressure to yield, and (hopefully) the giants would then wither down
> to size. I feel sure that there are growing millions would gladly pay
> a contribution toward development costs as the price for such a product.
There are already standard Linux specifications (Linux Standard Base) for
example. In any case, diversity is far better than a monoculture (smaller
attack vectors) and if the market is there the vendors will come.
In any case, most users of Open Standards are still going to use Windows; they
just won't have to stump up monopoly prices.
> Reflecting on the recent 'consultation', there is something
> intrinsically wrong about the 'our' government using our collective
> buying power to negotiate bulk-buy licences and then keeping the
> benefit just for themselves while leaving citizens citizens and
> business to pay much higher licence fees. A petition calling for the
> UK government to negotiate a bulk-buy price for the entire nation (who
> they purport to represent and who pay for the entire operation and
> their wages!) instead of negotiating just for themselves would
> indicate that they are 'our government' and really do have our best
> interest at heart.
You think that Microsoft would fall for that? An who is going to provide the
capital needed to buy the millions of licences needed, until the great British
Public stump up the costs?
> Meantime, keep a watch on farm animals for any sign of pigs preparing to
> fly.
One day...
--
Terry Coles
64 bit computing with Kubuntu Linux
--
Next meeting: Bournemouth, Tuesday 2012-05-01 20:00
Meets, Mailing list, IRC, LinkedIn, ... http://dorset.lug.org.uk/
New thread on mailing list: mailto:dorset@mailman.lug.org.uk
How to Report Bugs Effectively: http://goo.gl/4Xue
