I think you're wrong on all counts. LINUX today is in fact being accepted
in the workplace as a reasonable replacement for WINDOWS, and with VISTA and
its poor performance, LINUX continues to grow. Several studies has shown
that the cost of ownership of LINUX is considerably less than WINDOWS, and
this includes the training costs. Don't want to get into a LINUX/WINDOWS
flame throwing contests, but LINUX acceptance continues to grow, and
Microsoft is worried!
Dave K4WNV
----- Original Message -----
From: <wo8l@aol.com>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Technical Correspondence
>
> Hi,
>
>
> Who in the world buys a consumer good, takes it apart and modifies or
> fixes it?? What?? Maybe .0001 per cent of the buyers worldwide?? If the
> thing breaks, you throw it away or give it to a charity.? Electronic
> consumer goods are too complex and too expensive?to fix for the huge
> majority of people.
>
>
>
> Naturally, the consumer depends under closed source for all repairs and
> enhancements from the manufacturer because consumers don't have the
> capability of understanding the device, let alone repair it.? Sometimes
> they can't even figure out how to use the darned things.
>
> LINUX is a good example of open software.? And here's the problem with
> LINUX.
>
> You hire a new employee or a temp.? There is no commonality to the PCs,
> the mainframes, the networks, the interfaces from company to company or
> within the same organization.? The new employee/temp has no idea how to
> accomplish tasks.?
>
> Technologically speaking, do I drive on the right side of the road or the
> left?? When I move from program to program, why is there no consistency??
> How the heck does this work?? And what company has the time and money to
> pay people to learn something totally foreign or developers to establish
> that commonality?
>
> Fortunately or unfortunately, when you sit down at a closed software
> Microsoft product, you can hire a zillion people who know how to use it.?
> No assembly required.
>
> I live in a pretty hip techology area, North Carolina.? We base a lot of
> our economy on technology.? LINUX is not very attractive to companies
> here.
>
> Only people who really know what they're doing use LINUX.
>
> Which brings me back to my major point.? Open software is O.K. for those
> who know or think they know what they're doing.? Those who think they know
> what they're doing far outnumber those who actually do know what they're
> doing.? I see it day in and day out.
>
> For most of us, including myself working in the technology field, the
> negatives of open software are incredible.? I just want people to
> accomplish the tasks they're hired to do.? And closed technology is the
> most direct path to making that happen.
>
> As a boss of mine once said, "be creative on your own time.? The Chinese
> are killing us just sticking to the task."
>
> 73s,
>
> Rick
> WO8L
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clark Savage Turner <csturner@kcbx.net>
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 2:51 pm
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Technical Correspondence
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2007, at 6:01 AM, wo8l@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> The idea of opening up software to any and all comers is a little
>> scary.?
>
> Sure, it may scare some people, it involves the writer/owner allowing
> the customer/user to have some control in the features, understanding
> and repair of the software (rather like most all other consumer goods
> we buy, we can look at them, dissassemble them if we like, fix them?)
> Closed source, however, involves full control retained by the
> writers/manufacturers. As a user, you depend fully on them for all
> features, fixes and updates. Not always a bad thing, not always a good
> thing.
>
> Note that (at least a few years back) - surveys indicated that business
> network downtime insurance was LESS when a company used Linux (open
> source!) and cost more when using Microsoft servers and software.
> Linux, open source, provided the more reliable solution! Microsoft
> has been working hard to catch up to that sort of reliability A very
> interesting situation.
>
>> First, in today's digital communications world, if?a company doesn't
>> own and control the software, then what do you own?? A box with a
>> bunch of electronic parts in it, I'd say.
>
> This, actually, has nothing to do with closed source by itself. You
> can certainly open the source and keep copyright and patent rights
> intact. In fact, patents are open source by law! You HAVE TO publish
> your innovation in order to receive a patent. Of course, copyright is
> easily circumvented by other writers if the source is out there, but
> many of us respect the rights of others, we just want to know how to
> understand it or fix it if the writers are too busy or too lazy to fix
> it! (OR if they want to make me buy a whole new piece of software to
> "fix" the bugs left in the last version!)
>>
>> Second, if you have open software, warranty and repair issues get very
>> sticky.? You'd almost need a policy that when somebody modifies the
>> software on their own, the warranty is void.? In terms of out of
>> warranty
>
> "Almost" need this? All warranties I've ever seen include this. It is
> completely standard and is fair, of course. Why would it be otherwise?
>
>> repairs, there would be cases when it would be too much trouble to
>> return the product to optimum condition.
>>
>> Third, and most important, people overestimate their knowledge and
>> ability with software and that leads to trouble very quickly.? I work
>> as a contractor in computer type jobs.? The world is full of people
>> who think they know what they're doing when they really don't,
>> including me.? I commonly ask the question "why in the world did you
>> do THAT?"
>
> Well, that certainly is a good point. You point to the main feature of
> closed source - the user is NOT responsible and has NO control or power
> when the software is broken or a feature does not work, the owner of
> the software is the only one who can touch it (or refuse to touch it).
> That's OK for those who want things that way, but for those who like to
> be responsible and learn about things, fix things, look at how they
> work (like most hams I know???), open source makes a lot more sense.
>>
>> Open software is nice in theory but it can lead to real problems.
>
> Oh, heck, its nice in reality for much longer than most closed source
> companies have existed. It leads to different benefits and risks than
> closed source, but it focuses on the user's interest in the software
> rather than the writer's control of the software. That is a different
> set of problems :-)
>
> Clark
> WA3JPG
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
> from AOL at AOL.com.
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|