[KLUG Advocacy] Reactions to the Reuters article and related folly.
Robert G. Brown
advocacy@kalamazoolinux.org
Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:09:56 -0500
>>1. I thought the Reuters article was a rework of a lot of old cliches and
>> platitudes about Linux, mixed in with some newish quotes, many of which
>But a nice assembly of them.
IMO they were never very nice, seperately or in agregate. We are better off
without them.
>> were pretty weak IMO. It tends to reinforce my general view that a lot
>> of the media doesn't "get it", and their understanding of what is going
>> on is at least 18 months out of date. If someone wants to quibble about
>> that number, I don't have a hard time upping it to 24 or 36 in this case.
>I agree the number is about 18 months.
Generally, yes.
>However, it is hard to imagine that anyone tuned into the IT rags to any
>degree could miss that there are several offerings of Linux
>pre-installed. There's even been court cases about Lindows.
In this case, longer. This writers head is merely buried a bit deeper in the
sand, hence longer lag times apply.
>> 2. This thread belongs here, although I certainly understand Bryans point
>> about this being a technical thread. I simply don't agree. Now, if you
>> want to split the thread into technical and marketing/political/advocacy
>> subthreads, that's ok, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Both
>> elements are vey much worth exploring.
>I agree, I think it is actually a more political subject (the desktop)
>than a technical one. People, including me, need something that works.
>Linux does, at least for what I do. If it didn't I'd probably go out
>and buy a Mac. For people who NEED to trade innumerable documents with
>the ragged mass Linux (more specifically the applications) could be a
>real frustration.
Actually, I hve not found it so. I have writen lots of proposals and other
stuff in SO/OO since 1999, and have pretty much found only the problems I've
reported in this thread. For me, and probably for most people, this is a
winning tradeoff.
>> 6. My own experience is that about 99.2% of the documents go into Star/Open
>> Office just fine from Office 97, and that I can generally ask people to
>> send me stuff in some older format from the others (like Office 97 or
>> rtf, or even Word 6.0, I think). I have only encounter two problems on
>> occasion...
>> a) Word .docs with lots of text boxes in them do not render or hold
>> together well in SO/OO. The results vary from the amusing to the
>> irrecoverably messy.
>Agree. Word documents are not uncommonly troublesome. I have had
>excellent results in importing Excel documents, including very large and
>complex ones.
Most documents aren't highly complex, and can be produced with a tiny fraction
of the features and functionality provided by any WP/DTP package.
>> b) There are sometimes interesting (from amusing to tedious, but not
>> ever irrecoverable) problems with fonts in some spreadseets.
>I've seen this as well. Unfortunately the solution is usually to
>install the M$ core fonts, which simple can't be included in a
>distribution.
That's fine, and mendable. Perhaps there's a way to provide good substitues so
that Joe sixpack can have them installed. It can't be more complex than
installing AIM or ICQ.
>> 7. Use of Windows desktops in the non-Unix workstation market is pegged at
>> about 87-88%. This is a farily recent Gartner Group report. They report
>That seems more in line with other numbers I've seen.
Yes. When I see numbers that are higher than this, I apply the 18-month lag
rule, or get the acrid smell of the FUDbeest about.
>> heavy bias towards the Macs in graphic arts departments (duh!) and rate
>No really?!
Honest Injun! :)
>> I would expect that no one will be shy about commenting on my impressions,
>> opinions, or other comments.
>Of course not.
Events have borne this out...
Regards,
---> RGB <---