[KLUG Advocacy] No OS immune to DOS attacks... :-) Not even ALL POWERFUL SUPER LINUX!

[Robert G. Brown]

On 14 Sep 2003 21:21:07 -0400, magoo <mag00@voyager.net> wrote:

>> Maybe, but I'm not falling for your argument. 
>> Let's just say that I don't agree with your premise.
>The major small business and medium size business money is being 
>spent on Microsoft OS's and Office applications.  
Which is like saying that Ronald Reagan was a great President 
because everyone voted for him. Bass-ackwards argument. Reagan
was (or was not) a great President for what he did -- and maybe
for what he cost the American body politic. That lots of people 
voted for him is interesting, but speaks more about other factors
than his alleged greatness (or alleged lack of greatness).

Similarly, the argument that software is good because it has a
lot of market-share is equally specious. As Yogi Berra might say,
it has a lot of market-share because lots of people are buying it.
Whether or not it is the right choice, or represents better value
has to be determined on its own merits (or lack).

>Linux HAD to find a path of compatibility to gain ANY market.
The compatibility was already there, in RFC's and ISO standards. All
they had to to was comply and interoperability came along free. This
and the value proposition Linux embodies is why it has been such a
success in the server market.

>There is a weak argument the OO can do what business needs.  Like 
>the IBM Linux strategist just said... it is NOT good enough.  I was 
>pissed at first but then realized she was right.  OO sucks as the bridge
>away from unstable and insecure Windows.  Wish it wasn't.
Um, this seems like an argument against OO, not Linux. OO runs on 4
platforms, AFAIK. While you might not like it, it's not a statement
against the OS'es themselves.

>Let me know (and the whole world) when you (and that mouse in your
>pocket) find the "something else" you are looking for.  If you knew
>what you were looking for it wouldn't be research, eh?  Fine... 
I don't do that kind of "research", I use an office package because
it gives me and my clients the kinds of results (documents, applications,
number-crunching, presentation, etc.) with good responsiveness and value. 
I sometimes use MS Office, but very often I use OO because I find it useful 
for the same tasks. Sometimes I don't have a choice, and have to use one
or the other for some reason.

>Until then and in the present it is true that M$ has moved the world
>light years ahead!  Relatively stupid (DUMB) people can use the M$
>desktop, file manager, Word, Excel, Power Point, and Access.  Outlook
>Express and MSIE seem to be the most used applications in the network
>world...
The same kinds of people have been migrated to OO, often without much
trouble. That it has not happened in the multiple tens of millions doesn't
make it any less suitable for the tasks at hand.

Also, Outlook Express might be widespread, but it is a very insecure 
software component that is being phased out by Microsoft itself, primarily
because they think it's too messy and expensive to fix it. Let's not make
the mistake of confusing pervasive use with either merit or popularity.

We installed Star Office at Boogies, and it ran there for many months. When
I asked users if they liked that stuff  more or less than Windows, they 
looked at me in a way that indicated the nuttiness of the original question.
"This IS Windows!!" they would exclaim to me.

Let's hear it for "dumb" (I think uninformed) users.

How many other Office package have been looked at, and how many run
on Linux? I don't see the point of making the success of an OS hinge on
one set of applications, especially when there's choice.

>Look at the totally revenue in 2003 projected from M$ Office!  It hasn't
>really changed since M$ Office97 code arrived to crush WordPerfect.
So? This is a problem? I'm not even sure this is relevant, and it may
even be bad news for Microsoft...

>Linux is great for many things,  I am all goose bumpy about that...
>but Linus claims his target is (and always has been) the productivity
>desktop software for business.  They did it all backward then...
>focusing on that silly Linux kernel instead of a GUI office suite
>application.
Well, if you build a stable kernel and good essential libraries, ANYTHING
(web servers, desktops, firewalls) has a firm and reliable base. Build the
applications first, at the expense of the kernel-level stuff, and no matter
how good you do, you are building on sand. This is bad engineering, in soft-
ware OR in construction.

>OH YEAH!  Pinocchio... I AM a little boy already! 
:) If you say so! :)
Pointy nose and all?

OK, I'm starting to derive Ralph's point of view here... maybe this is 
wrong, but if so I hope he will correct me....He didn't want to express
it, so I'll attempt to do it for him... silence on his part will of course
imply acceptance of this definition:

1. In my opinion, Linux is not ready to compete against Microsoft for
   effective use of the desktop.

2. I base this opinion on reading some articles, and on the experience
   I've had with the single Linux system I have been using recently, at
   home.

3. I feel that Windows products have set the standard of comparison for
   desktop systems in the industry, and market driven attempts to change
   that are not as important as jumping over the bar set in Redmond.

4. My Windows system works a lot better for me, and is more comfortable 
   to use than my Linux system.

As for the so-called "urban legend" and "hype" surrounding Linux, my 
reaction to a lot of this is "so what?". There's hype around a lot of
stuff these days, and I don't have the time to listen to very much of 
it. I work with all these tools, and I let them convince me of their 
value. If someone says Linux is "Ready for the Desktop", bully for them,
and if someone else says "Linux is not ready for the desktop", that's OK
with me, too. I frankly don't know what the devil these guys are talking
about, because (except for some extreme cases, where a GUI is clearly
NOT ready) this is really very subjective stuff, and I find that almost
EVERYONE is talking in rather personalized code words. When someone is
ready to actually TELL me what they mean by these rather glib claims, I'm
eager to listen, as I have on a number of occasions.

							Regards,
							---> RGB <---