Re: Introduction
On Wednesday 25 August 2004 10:07, Art McGee wrote:
> Please, for the love of all that is good and decent, open
> source developers and advocates need to cease and desist
> immediately with the collapsing of the open source universe
> into a single point, and recognize that the benefits of
> open source are dependent on a number of factors which are
> usually outside the perception range of those immersed in
> it (i.e., with their heads up their asses).
There are probably two categories here: people who talk Open Source
and people who walk Open Source. It seems most of your rant should
be targeted towards the former. I'm a consultant/developer and I
heavily push Open Source solutions, but I always try to give a
realistic analysis of pros and cons. And I target my pitch
appropriately for the audience.
> 1. The server is NOT the desktop. No matter how good Unix
> and Linux are on the server side that doesn't make them
> worth shit on the desktop, yet. When Linux and KDE/Gnome
> work as well or better than Mac OS X for the NON-TECHNICAL
> END-USER, then you can brag. Until then, when explaining
> open source to non-techies and especially non-profits,
> please be clear that much of the glory of open source is due
> to it's achievements on the server and not the desktop. Stop
> trying to be a Corporate Madison Avenue style shill and be
> clear about that difference. Tell people the truth and let
> them make up their own minds.
I agree that KDE and Gnome need more polish. On the other hand, for
many users, they are good enough. I've yet to find someone who has
had serious trouble using them, often even without instruction.
However, I would also disagree that OSX should be our yardstick of
quality interfaces. I find it a bit clumsy to be honest, but that's
just my personal taste.. It is very slick and polished indeed. What
is more significant, however, is that most people are more familiar
with Windows today. For them, KDE is easier to transition to than
OSX. Despite all the hype, Macs are not suitable replacements for
Windows machines in most cases. And that's not because OSX isn't
good enough or requires too much retraining. It's because the
machines are simply too expensive. Mid-range office PCs are now
about $400/ea (Athlon 2500/256Mb/60gb) for hardware. There's simply
no competition when you need to install a large number of
workstations. Mac is forever a niche market with their pricing
scheme. Therefore, to aim for the masses, we need to target Windows
interface users.
> 2. Open Source is NOT Linux. Please stop trying to force
> people to change their operating system every time and allow
> them the opportunity to experience open source solutions on
> Mac, Windows, and other platforms. The greatest damage done
> to the cause of open source is the FUD that has been spread
> by well-meaning but misguided people who have poor
> communications skills, and only know how to talk about FLOSS
> in the context of a complete operating system changeover.
> This is pathetic and it must come to an immediate stop.
A complete OS changeover opens many other options in regards to both
software choice and easier administration. There is a quite valid
cause here. And despite your own FUD to the contrary, open source
desktop environments are already suitable for many types of
deployments. Most people aren't Windows power users.
> The way that open source will win hearts and minds and achieve
> critical mass is when essential applications that are easy
> to use become ubiquitous on platforms other than Linux and
> BSD.
Open Source will achieve critical mass when developers start to take
business applications seriously, regardless of platform. The
platform will simply follow the applications. There is no need to
embrace and extend Windows or Mac specifically. Businesses choose
their platform based on the essential software they need to run.
Most essential business software is written for Windows only -- often
crappy, hack-job custom software I might add.
The second issue is MS Office. While I believe that the whole
paradigm of "word processing" and "office suite" is dying, there
needs to be a temporary solution for the transition. Open Office is
almost, but not quite there. (although, again, it is good enough for
some users) The Open Source community seriously needs to start some
kind of fundraiser to boost its development and put together a full
time team.
> 3. Free does NOT mean Free. Stop leaning on the idea of open
> source software as being low-cost or free as being it's main
> selling point. While that applies in a very surface sense, a
> lot of hard work and labor goes into the production of open
> source software and if we want to look into the future, I'm
> talking about 30+ years from now, we need to recognize that
> the sustainability of open source can't rest on some sort of
> magical and inane conceptualization of cheap pricing.
That's absolutely correct. We need more geeks with business sense and
entrepreneurial ambition. The future of Open Source is professional
projects that are commercially supported. That is the direction I am
now taking my own project.
> People need to understand what the cost of open source labor is and
> they need to appreciate that, even if they aren't paying for
> it directly in dollars. Folks who don't code need to be
> encouraged to give money or other support whenever they can,
> not because they have to, but because it's the right and
> sustainable thing to do.
Again, absolutely correct. The key is that people need to be given a
*reason* to contribute back. There are a whole lot of business
models founded on Free Software that have not yet been explored.
Additionally, we need more Open Source consultants (or consulting
groups) who can not only provide solutions but become a channel of
return contributions to major projects. As example:
Consultant to Client: "I can offer you OpenOffice, fully supported, at
$100/seat, complete with 1 year training and customization services
as needed. Compared to MS Office, that's a savings of $200 x 100
workstations. Additionally, 50% of the machines are light-use and
are candidates for Linux/BSD deployment at $50/seat, saving $100 x 50
over Windows"
Consultant to OO.org: "I need priority development support so I can
properly assist my clients. I am willing to pay you $10,000 per year
for this."
Consultant to self: "In addition to all my regular consulting and
installation fees, I just made $2,500 profit on the first client's
software acquisition and they're saving money at the same time. The
next similar-sized client will bring me $12,500 profit because I've
already paid for the OO.org priority support."
And, of course, multiply this all by the number of open source
business apps that can be reasonably offered to clients. Most of
those apps are missing today. But with enough professional
consultants like this to support them, there becomes a huge market
opportunity for such projects.
> When talking about the non-profit world in particular, we need to
> get our act together in how we communicate the concepts of FLOSS to
> those not already a part of the community.
There's a wide range, even among non-profits. Some are, in fact,
intrigued by the idea that actively supporting FOSS actually helps
other non-profits in their community with similar needs -- even if
its not a free lunch. (:
Chris
Reply to: