On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 11:07, District Webmaster wrote: > So I've been thinking about something lately, and I'd like to hear > the list's thoughts on the matter. Bear with me before you get your > flame throwers out . . . >
Interesting thoughts. Now that I'm done eating, I have energy to respond. > I've been wondering how much the average end user really from Open > Source software -- does the fact that a package is OS make a significant > difference to a person who is not a programmer? Sure -- they could > pay a programmer to do some work for them, but in my experience, > it takes a fairly in-depth understanding of how a package works > before you even know if it _can_ (or ought to) be modified the way > you'd like. And then the cost of paying a programmer to add your > modifications may be prohibitive. For the most part, from the end user's perspective, most don't think about open source at all. They do consider price, however. And many are supsicious of anything that is "free." Apple Macintosh users provide an interesting view of this open source thing. A few years ago no Mac user knew or cared about this open source thing. Now that OS X is out, it ships with many OSS components that make a mac user's life so much better. Samba, CUPS, Gimp-print to name a few. And these users now are very much aware of what OSS has brought them and really talk up OSS. Part of the reason for this is that Apple is really promoting OSS, at least as a marketing tool. So yes, users are more and more aware it it, buzzword-wise. > > Programmers, on the other hand, should generally have very positive > experiences in their role as OSS end users. They have the knowledge, > means, talent, background, moxie or whatever to modify source code > in meaningful ways. All true. > > Now _Open Standards_ on the other hand, seem to be very beneficial to > the average end user. When the end user utilizes file formats, network > protocols, etc. that are based on open standards, they avoid vendor > lock-in. This means the consumer dictates to the vendor what level of > service is required. If the vendor fails to respond satisfactorily, > the consumer can choose another vendor. > I agree. In the final analysis, Open Standards are most important. Open Source implentations of standards are almost as important. That way there's less room to lock down those formerly open standards. > Take, for example, Adobe's pdf file format. The software Adobe makes > and sells is proprietary. The pdf format is essentially an open > one because Adobe voluntarily publishes very detailed information > about the format in a timely manner. The result is that a great many > software packages can create pdf files -- and there are also multiple > readers. The fact that none of us has access to Adobe Acrobat's > source code hasn't been a detriment to us -- but the fact that the > pdf standard is (essentially) open, has been a benefit to all of us. The question is, did Adobe intend for this format to be open to all, or was it because someone reverse-engineered it? > > I'm not trying to suggest that open source software isn't important, > or good, or any of that. I'm just wondering if the greater impact > comes from open standards. True, but without OSS, open standards are weakened. Michael > > Of course, I may be way off track. Please enlighten me. > > Dave > > ____________________ > BYU Unix Users Group > http://uug.byu.edu/ > ___________________________________________________________________ > List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list -- Michael L Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
