[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   on is at least 18 months out of date.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 <---