[KLUG Members] Re: Calling all Linux novices: -- grant, en-masse ignorant statement

[Bryan J. Smith]

Quoting John Bridleman <john@bridleman.org>:
> Either your ignorant or your not. By calling me *MEGA-IGNORANT* your
> making it personal. Don't.

I meant it is on a "mega" or "grand" scale.  It sickens me that even Linux users
subscribe to this hogwash.

I'm not saying you are ignorant, but the statement is a "grand, en-masse
ignorant statement."

> Good. Let's keep it technical - not personal.

> All that is fine to say but the problem comes in when my boss wants to
> open a spreadsheet that he gets from AmeriTrade and the macro's won't
> work. It's much easier to sell him on the upgrade to MSOffice than it is
> to try to get him to look at something that may be technically better,
> but won't get the job done. 

Gartner:  "Enterprises must be vigilant to avoid vendor lock-in as a vendor will
never offer a way out."

The problem is that people want Linux, and technically-focused platform, to
solve politically created techical problems purposely introduced by Microsoft. 
This will _never_ happen!

CASE-IN-POINT:
"Linux will _never_ be a better Windows than Windows."

The solution is not to use proprietary software in the first place, especially
when the vendor's sole purpose is to force you to upgrade each and ever version.
 Not out of any "innovation" or "new features," but pure, unadulterated file
compatibility.

> Besides, what's Microsoft's incentive to be compatible with more than
> the last version?

Not last version, but 2 versions back.  They want you to upgrade _ever_ version.
 Same deal with Autodesk, and a few, select other companies.  They are 100%
profit-focused, 0% consumer-focused -- using technical incompatibility to
squeeze out as many dollars out of their large customer base.  It's really sad.

But even then, that logic _failed_ for Microsoft!  Resulting in Enterprise
Licensing 6.0 -- forced upgrading for added costs, even over the old method of
upgrading every version.  Now you don't have a choice.  So it will result in
future Microsoft products be more compatible with old versions?

But that is not so either.  Because then competitors have more time to reverse
engineer the formats.  Which is why Microsoft had to move to its Licensing 6.0,
and kept extending the deadline.  Because far too many uses were saying, "no"
and Microsoft saw many competitors offering better Office 97 (v8) compatibility
(which was still 60% of the installed MS Office base as of 2002), than its own
Office XP (v10/2002).

[ Most specifically Corel's WordPerfect Office 2002 (v11) reads MS Office 97
documents _better_ than MS Office XP.  Ziff-Davis (among others) have confirmed
this. ]

Another _technial_ note:  _All_ Microsoft application source code is byte
endian/offset _ignorant_.  This is why MS Word docs can be sent to Mac, but
often have trouble coming back to Windows.  This was stated by a former
Microsoft developer about 18 months ago.

> I think we have to produce products that do at least as good a job as MS
> to get users with any amount of MS created data to switch.

And we do that as best as we can, as technical as we can.  Reverse engineering
is a slow, painful process and, becomse a "moving target."  And _unlike_ Samba,
we don't have a network interface to sniff, so it's 5x slower.

And once we hit the Mac platform, then Microsoft is toast.  Why oh why would a
Mac user choose MS Office for Mac when StarOffice for Mac reads and interchanges
documents better with MS Office for Windows users?

I understand your viewpoints, but understand mine as well.  Don't choose the
"simple" explaination, understand the _truth_ of the matter.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. (BSECE)       Contact Info:  http://thebs.org
[ http://thebs.org/files/resume/BryanJonSmith_certifications.pdf ]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft states Linux's GPL is "viral" so I guess all the authors
in the US who require you to pay royalties to print their books
must be the digital "black plague."  Copyright is copyright and
the GPL prevents commercial use without a license from the holder.