Well done FSF and all that, but..
Maybe the FSF should find a better web designer.
The Free Software Foundation is mobilizing against Windows 7 with a campaign to dissuade IT decision makers from installing the operating system. The group has sent letters to 499 of the top Fortune 500 organizations, warning that a move to Windows 7 will increase their dependence on Microsoft and encouraging the use of GNU/ …
Maybe the FSF should find a better web designer.
"The group's sent letters to 499 of the top Fortune 500 organizations, warning that a move to Windows 7 will increase their dependence on Microsoft and encouraging the use of GNU/Linux on PCs instead. The missing letter recipient was Microsoft."
So, er...presumably they sent one to Red Hat too?
I've got to find out who got that letter and ask them what they're going to do about it =)
Sounds good in theory, but these guys are clueless when it come to how corporations work.
I think they actually argue a terrible point for Linux, the ability to install "thousands" of bits of different software. I'm pretty sure that the fortune 499 companies really don't want their staff downloading thousands of different programmes for their workstations, and Windows easily locks down all the computers on the network so they can't download and install stuff. It all goes to the central servers where you can update everything on the fly.
From a security standpoint, having thousands of applications means having thousands of applications that will need updating, and of course each needs to be tested to make sure it doesn't break anything.
Don't get me wrong, Linux is a fantastic bit of kit in the right hands, but the FSF looks like they shot themselves in the foot there.
I guess that the missing one is RedHat but I can't see why they needed to send a letter to IBM though.
oopsie too late I already ordered windows 7 and am running the RC now, the FSF will hunt me down!!!!!
...they would say that, wouldn't they?
I received a copy of this letter from the CTO earlier this week, under the subject "Fanbois say the darndest things" It actually made everyone's day. Its funny how these people just don't understand why companies choose the OSes that they do. I especially like their argument abput haw Microsoft phases out support for the Older Operating systems, they complain that MS has the Mainstream, extended and then self help, where most linux distros have just self help. Remind me how that is supposed to be better.
The others in my shop also love the comment that they keep using about how "the code is freely available so anyone can modify it and support it". I don't think they get the point that NO ONE CARES, none of the Operations or support people are programmers, so they don't care, and the Devs in the department work with the philosophy that "I just worked several hundred hours designing, coding and testing this application, why the hell should I just give it away?"
I know I will get flamed about posting this with several people accusing me of being in Redmond's pocket, giving sexual favors to either Mr. Ballmer or Mr. Gates , the truth being, we have large percentage of servers at work running non-Microsoft OSes (They are all a customized version of NetBSD, AIX or HP-UX)
The primary reason I avoid Linux-based OSes is the almost cult-like following. People like the FSF sound like the Mormons / Jehovah's witnesses / etc. that keep trying to get my to come over to their side (mostly by sending letters and religious books). This especially when they do things like use "windows7sins.org" calling new users "converts", comparing any large company that guards its code as "evil" whereas they call themselves "good" and if you any criticism at all about the OS / Philosophy / or their deities (The Linus, The Stallman, and the Holy Penguin), they will go blue in the face explaining why you are wrong Or how if there is a small issue with Windows (Vulnerability, doesn't support something. etc.) they will be the first ones to proclaim themselves superior, but if there is a fault with Linux itself, they claim that it is purely FUD perpetrated by Microsoft or some other company.
Makes sense, doesn't it?
Crazy (by his own admission) Operations Guy writes...
"I don't think they get the point that NO ONE CARES, none of the Operations or support people are programmers, so they don't care"
Oh yes, instead of fixing something potentially trivial, it's all about "escalating the problem" in the proprietary software world, the project manager or department head having to speak to some corporate representative to get reassurance that "a fix is on its way", and the proprietary vendor thrashing around, sending people to and fro, as often as not covering their own bottoms by claiming that something or other "is not supported".
"and the Devs in the department work with the philosophy that "I just worked several hundred hours designing, coding and testing this application, why the hell should I just give it away?""
So they have the "delicate genius" mindset about their own works, and will quite gladly turn down freely redistributed stuff presumably because it can't be any good if it isn't completely locked down behind a remote service or using a stupid "licence manager". Or perhaps they think that Free Software will corrupt their sense of morality.
The fail is all on you. At least the FSF tried to tell it like it is.
software quality varies independently of license and price.
As open-source advocacy goes, that's piss-poor.
Those who run Fortune 500 companies really don't care about 'how it works inside', any more than they care how their office lifts function. They just want to know there's someone they can call when it goes wrong who'll fix it for them. That's why they're CEOs and not lift engineers.
They don't care about lock-in and 'antifeatures', or questionable behaviour over intellectual property, because they're Big Business who do absolutely the same to their customers.
May be worth 50 cents a pop to raise some laughs, though.
They should have sent the letter to Microsoft too. Just for shiggles, you know.
Clearly, you are indeed crazy.
"The others in my shop also love the comment that they keep using about how "the code is freely available so anyone can modify it and support it". I don't think they get the point that NO ONE CARES"
This is clearly not true.
"none of the Operations or support people are programmers"
you don't have to be a programmer for open source / free software to prove directly valuable to you.
"the Devs in the department work with the philosophy that "I just worked several hundred hours designing, coding and testing this application, why the hell should I just give it away?""
"The primary reason I avoid Linux-based OSes is the almost cult-like following."
Right, because when you install the operating system, the cult-like following comes attached. Er, wait...no it doesn't. If you want to care about the cult-like following, you can, whether you run Linux or not. Ditto if you _don't_ want to care. Companies which use Linux to any significant extent are not getting their support from rabidlinuxfanbois.com, they get it from Red Hat, or Novell. (disclaimer: I work for Red Hat.)
"People like the FSF"
It's not like the FSF is particularly attached to Linux. They're still trying to write their own kernel, remember. And Linus hardly agrees with the FSF's ideological views.
Linux has a LONG way to go before it can ever "Replace [ing] all your desktop systems with GNU/Linux".
Sorry to the Linux crowd, but Windows and OSX are years ahead, especially in usability. You won't get any mass exodus from Windows/OSX until you provide a comparable platform.
The only people that I recommend Linux distros to are home desktop "enthusiasts" who want to do nothing but surf, email, run OpenOffice and GiMP. There literally is nothing else you can do with it other than specialized educational/gov stuff or web/file servers, and most corporate desktops do not fit into those categories.
And for corporate desktops OO is NOT MSO and doesn't even compare.
Linux devs needs to get their head out of the GNU and actually create some desired applications if they wish to increase their share. Sending around letters like the FSF did is just really lame.
"Investing in Microsoft's Windows 7 will only get you more stuck and more dependent on them..."
And Ubuntu for example would be different how?...
"... Linux doesn't tie you into the Microsoft treadmill because the raw code is openly available so that you or third parties can keep systems going and not rely on one company."
Yeah, and I know lots of IT people who have nothing but free time to modify/compile custom code all of the time. :-/
This is so totally stupid I just can't fathom it. "We be hackerz., so should u..."
Most corporations are not going to hire a $100k+/yr programmer on-staff. Time is money, it's way cheaper to invest in Windows than to spend days hacking linux code.
They should have sent to all 500 -- it would have just been too funny for them to suggest Microsoft not use Windows 7.
Anyway, I doubt this'll be effective, but it's good for them to do anyway. I honestly don't expect a company to switch wholesale to Linux (there's a lot of inertia, there's probably some with Win2000 desktops still...) but it really is something to look into. The usual comment is that it lacks some management tools, but the retort is that they really aren't needed -- the boxes are easier to lock down and centrally manage without extra management tools.
We'll get right on that. All we have to do is retrain all of our non-technical employees in Linux and rewrite all of our Excel macros, .NET code, and ActiveX controls to run under their (less-functional) Linux equivalents, which we'll get to in, let's see, how's half past never? Will never work for you?
Their (FSF) definition of 'free software' is completely rediculous. Basically you can change for your free software, but then the person you sell it to can then give it to as many people as they like free of charge thus neatly putting the people developing the software out of business.
Full time developers working on free software can only really secure their jobs in one of four ways:
1) Find a big sponsor that uses your product and pays for its development.
2) Rely on donations.
3) Make the software so complicated, unintuitive or poorly documented that people (or more often companies where time is money) have to pay for overpriced support and training.
4) Support your product with advertising.
Option 1 means that now one company is paying a lot more than they should for it and everyone else is getting something for nothing. Hardly fair.
Option 2 is just as unfair as option one. Also unless you're targeting a huge market you're unlikely to break even.
Option 3 seems to be a very regular occurance and I suspect this is how most make their money. It's also the thing that has put me off most of the free software I've tried to use in the past. I'd rather pay £30 for something that's been written well than spend 5 hours trying to get a buggy, user un-friendly pile of crap to do what I want.
Option 4 depends on your opinion. Personally I hate being bombarded with advertising and the prevalance of add blockers would suggest many agree with me.
No lets contrast this with the traditional approach:
Everyone that wants to use the software pays the same, or pays an amount appropriate for the features of that product they want to use.
Now that seems much more fair, and keeps lots of people employed too. Double win! Furthermore with everyone willing to pay some money you should be able to get some decent competition going too.
So the difference in pricing between Windows 7 Professional and Ultimate is $0 for an upgrade and $20 to buy new. WTF are you whining about? For 20 bucks you get bitlocker and 34 languages. Sounds like a decent feature pack.
I thought they wanted them out?
To avoid possible copyright issues I have posted a summarised version below:
"Dear Mr. CTO / CEO / CIO,
I am aware that either you or someone you trust highly has already researched current and upcoming technologies, in particular with respect to how they will potentially support and benefit your business, along with all the corresponding cost and benefit research that one would assume is part of the job for someone in your position.
I am also aware that as a Fortune 500 company you have at least a reasonable track record of making non-disastrous decisions of this nature.
However, I humbly suggest that you are incapable of doing your job, either evaluating such technologies or hiring someone to do so and so I think you really should listen to me instead, especially as my conclusions have been made with no knowledge of the internal machinations of your business and instead were made purely on the basis of 'four legs good, two legs bad'
Those of us who have been in IT longer may remember how Microsoft got to be the dominant force in corporate IT.
They were not able to convince a majority of IT that their offerings were the best - remember NT3.5? So they concentrated their efforts, not on those whose job was to implement or understand IT but on those whose entire jobs revolved around meetings, flip charts and wearing suits. Once MS had got those guys on their side the rest of us had to learn how to pick up the pieces.
Maybe things could be changed round by a similar campaign?
"The primary reason I avoid Linux-based OSes is the almost cult-like following."
That's a good approach - jaw dropping logic in fact. Wouldn't want the truth getting in the way of your prejudice...
Who cares more about averting social ills than Fortune 500 companies?
I cant find Internet Explorer, It's Sea monkey you should be using now, OK how about paint, you will be wanting gimp. Where do I find notepad, try kate or eddie or ned or emacs or vi or vim or nano or pico or gedit. No I dont gedit can I have windows back.
How on God's blue earthdoes Windows 7 make me any more "stuck" than Win XP ?
Oh and for the sake of pedantry for the 'letter from history' bit, an operating system is distinct from a kernel, so you can have multiple, different OSes on one version of a kernel. I believe that this is common in the Linux distro world.
Off to shave now.
I'm a linux user and the main reason for it was the ability to selfteach and learn intricates of a operating system, to customise and optimise and that it will run on (almost) absolutely everything.
The thing that really really winds me up about linux is the lack of focus and actual working together. The kernel for the most part seems to have gotten that (at least in my opinion) but since there is nothing beyond the agreement of ideas to bind the programmers together the wheel keeps getting reinvented again and again. Take PIM software for example. the gnome evolution backend (name escapes me) is ment to be this unification of contacts, mail, tasks etc which integrates into the desktop. Fantastic! but wait! in this release the plug-in with exchange doesn't work, lets use kde korganiser.
Hmmm it doesn't work with evolution, i cant sync with evolution from there on things fall apart you cant use that program correctly and then have to choose either one or the other and deal with the short comings, use both but have a long complex and possibly unreliable way of using pim between the two.
Akondia nearly had this problem sorted by providing a central location to link everything together. the flaw in this idea is that gnome wants to use their own backend which is there already. The developers of evolution to my knowledge have no intention of supporting this alternative backend either. So we are left with this fantastic issue of all these apps doing the same thing, none of them are quite there and none of them can talk to each other half sharp.
OSS software needs a common ground for each area and alternatives which can latch on to the one core component for those who like to be different ;)
Until we can get a solid foundation on this sort of thing, all that will happen is people will try linux on their desktop computer then when they want to actually use it for something novel or important and see it crash down they will either jump back to microsoft or apple because for all their "sins"/overprices hardware/software when push comes to shove you can depend on it to work in a pinch even with their additional maintenance costs.
Dear FSF: don't want me to upgrade to Windows 7? Fine. All you have to do is give me an OS (GNU/Linux-based or otherwise) that sucks less than Windows. Shouldn't be that hard, but so far you've failed miserably at sucking less.
The FSF routinely spout shite but this is remarkably poo even for them. Fortunately, while it might appeal to the zealots, everyone else will laugh it off.
Open source software should be used on its merits. Microsoft et al. should be punished for their anti-competitive practices but still allowed to sell their software.
"There literally is nothing else you can do with it other than specialized educational/gov stuff or web/file servers, and most corporate desktops do not fit into those categories."
Err, I beg to differ:
Suggest you do a little background research before making such unsubstantiated claims.
that their crappy website looks like it was made in FrontPage as a school child's ICT project?
And some of the points are perfectly valid but the idea of Microsoft as the all powerful evil doing monopolist is not perhaps as valid as it once was. Also, if Windows 7 shapes up to its promise, the long term cost of deployment for a lot of these organisations is going to be less than moving to Linux simply because staff are already familiar with the Microsoft way.
The biggest threat to Microsoft at this point is to its Office applications. Only power users really need a copy of office on their desktop these days and I can see some organisations moving to a mixed model where the majority of staff use cheaper (albeit quite compatible) alternatives.
"This is so totally stupid I just can't fathom it."
That applies remarkably accurately to your post.
""... Linux doesn't tie you into the Microsoft treadmill because the raw code is openly available so that you or third parties can keep systems going and not rely on one company."
Yeah, and I know lots of IT people who have nothing but free time to modify/compile custom code all of the time. :-/"
Um. Note the 'or third parties' bit. The point is that releasing software under a free license makes it much harder for the publisher to do nasty stuff like forcing vendor lock-in on you, or intentionally breaking interoperability with third party software.
It's hard to argue sanely with this point. Or are you really saying that it's just as easy to switch from Windows to Red Hat as it is to switch from Red Hat to SUSE? Or OpenBSD? _Really_? I don't think you're going to win that argument. Unless you can, you're going to have to concede the FSF's point. It's much easier for a closed-source vendor to screw you over than a free software vendor. I find it hilarious that someone above is talking about how hard it is to switch away from 'Excel macros, .NET code, and ActiveX controls' - and thinking that _contradicts_ the FSF's point...
Also, taking advantage of the freedom of code doesn't mean you have to maintain the whole thing yourself. Frequently you can fix a little problem in an app, or even just tailor it better to your use, with a single tiny change. With proprietary software, there's no way you can _make_ that change.
"No one ever gets fired for picking Microsoft"
The Fortune 500 brain trust know that, FSF and the commie software world needs to step up to be seen in that light. Sorry, its the sad sad sad sad .... truth.
I work with my coat on because I never pick MS solutions but one day I may pay for it!
Fast exit, stage left!
"The primary reason I avoid Linux-based OSes is the almost cult-like following", what and M$ doesn't also have a "cult" like following?
Come on "time for the rubber room" Crazy Operations Guy. Some of the most deluded fanbois are rabid M$ zealots, even more rabidly fanboi than mAlus-domestica fanbois and blinded to the multitude of sins of the Evil Empire(MSFT).
Most of our thin-client web front-end apps do not function beyond IE6 (I know, I know), so I can't see us upgrading from XP to Win 7 or anything else for that matter any time soon.
I work for a company with 20,000+ employees, so we're not exactly small fry.
"Option 3 seems to be a very regular occurance and I suspect this is how most make their money. It's also the thing that has put me off most of the free software I've tried to use in the past. I'd rather pay £30 for something that's been written well than spend 5 hours trying to get a buggy, user un-friendly pile of crap to do what I want"
Dead hard drive, wanted to rescue data, purchased ($30) "rescue software" after trial software showed data there. 30% success. Tried "dd copy" gui tool from FREE Puppy Linux live cd. Result? 95% recovery of data. I could give numerous other examples but this illustrates my point. Windows has millions of Freeware, Shareware, Trialware apps from thousands of sites to do what you want, but most are badly written, useless junk or security risks. For example, a BSD distro's repo's will have only have thousands of apps that work, vetted and approved by the community, but will do the tasks that 99% of users will ever need to do.
Several of you here are missing the point about Linux on the desktop. First, having thousands of apps available doesn't mean you're going to have J. Random Worker installing them on his work computer any more than having thousands of apps for Windows means they'll end up on your LAN because you can lock Linux down just as well as you can Windows. What it means is, you'll probably find that most of your software needs are filled without having to write custom apps.
Second, if you think there's lots of retraining needed for Linux, you've either never used it or you're on the left side of the bell curve. You run Linux from a GUI, just as you do Windows. You use a mouse, you use double-click to open files and right-click to reach a context menu, exactly the same way. And, up at the top of every program you find File, Edit, View and so on, just like you're used to.
My sister is a Windows refugee, now running Ubuntu. I do her tech support, and I can assure you that she needs no more help now, than before she came away from the dark side. Not only that, most of what she needs is OS independent: problems with a website, finding a "lost" file and so on. It's been months since I had to help her with anything Linux specific. On a day-to-day basis, It Just Works.
Last, and especially with the economy as bad as it is now, there's the argument that by switching to Linux instead of upgrading Windows, you're not only saving the cost of upgrading now, you're saving the cost of every, single, future upgrade of Windows, along with no longer needing to pay for (or use) anti-virus software.
Yes, I'm a Linux advocate, but I'm not a fanatic. If you like Windows, and it does what you want, the way you like it, go for it. I'll continue using Linux, TYVM, not only because it does what I want the way I like it, but because it's free. Free as in beer, and when you're as broke as I am, that's quite an important consideration.
Their website uses the <blink> tag, or at least the CSS equivalent, imploring me to "Join us at 12 noon today on the Boston Common". Sorry guys, but this is so amazingly unprofessional that I find it impossible to read your page, whatever the fsck its freetardery is about.
FSF don't get it #
>" Those who run Fortune 500 companies really don't care about 'how it works inside', any more >than they care how their office lifts function." They just want to know there's someone they can >call when it goes wrong who'll fix it for them. That's why they're CEOs and not lift engineers."
If you're lifts need to be replaced every couple of years, because the current 'version' stops working (not because the lifts are not ok anymore, but because the vendor decided to make them stop working past a certain date, then I'd bet they would be very interested in having a lift vendor that doesn't place those restrictions on lifts.
It's not a matter of 'knowing' how it works, it's about business continuity and saving money so the business can make more profit. That's usually something CEOs are interested in.
>" They don't care about lock-in and 'antifeatures', or questionable behaviour over intellectual >property, because they're Big Business who do absolutely the same to their customers."
Any company really interested in business continuity, shouldn't place all its eggs in one basket. Placing vital infrastructure in the hands of only one vendor is asking for trouble. Doing business with companies that have dubious business ethics is another thing that's not good for (regular) businesses. In this case the business with the dubious business ethics is a multi-billion dollar company.
BTW this doesn't mean that companies should completely NOT use MS, only that real competition is good for the market, which is something lacking at the moment, due to MS having a monopoly.
Oh God not that lot again. #
>" Their (FSF) definition of 'free software' is completely rediculous. Basically you can change for >your free software, but then the person you sell it to can then give it to as many people as they >like free of charge thus neatly putting the people developing the software out of business."
Yes, that is really ridiculous, just imagine Red Hat and Novell giving all their free software away for no money at all.
Please get a clue. The F in FOSS is for free as in 'freedom' (of use) not free as in gratis/no money.
>" Full time developers working on free software can only really secure their jobs in one of four >ways:"
> 1) Find a big sponsor that uses your product and pays for its development.
What? You mean a sponsor like IBM, Redhat, Novell or SUN/Oracle? Yes, must be tough for all those developers working for free (as in no money) for big fortune 500 companies.
> 2) Rely on donations.
Yes, mostly from large companies who have a stake in Open Source software. Usually they're not called 'donations', but 'wages' though.
> 3) Make the software so complicated, unintuitive or poorly documented that people (or more >often companies where time is money) have to pay for overpriced support and training.
Something that would NEVER happen with proprietary software, I am sure.
> 4) Support your product with advertising.
I think you're confusing open source software with your regular email updates on where to buy the cheapest cyalis. Don't recall ever seeing spam come from any open source project, so please don't spread bullshit.
> No lets contrast this with the traditional approach:
> Everyone that wants to use the software pays the same, or pays an amount appropriate for >the features of that product they want to use.
Unlike open source software, where you get all the features for the same price (which is usually also free (as in gratis)). Yes, paying money for software, then paying more money for extra features is so much more appealing to me. Hang on, let me whip out my creditcard...
> Now that seems much more fair, and keeps lots of people employed too. Double win! >Furthermore with everyone willing to pay some money you should be able to get some decent >competition going too.
Yes, because all those open sauce developers are not earning anything people, just as the companies employing those same developers. Buy some software save a developer. Better yet, buy your software from a convicted monopolist to get better competition.
Any more FUD you'd like to share?
This type of idiocy will only push corporations away #
> @COG +1
> Linux has a LONG way to go before it can ever "Replace [ing] all your desktop systems with >GNU/Linux".
> Sorry to the Linux crowd, but Windows and OSX are years ahead, especially in usability. You
> won't get any mass exodus from Windows/OSX until you provide a comparable platform.
You really haven't been using any linux distribution the last few years have you? Although Ubuntu linux is far from perfect, working with Ubuntu on my desktop is a relief compared with running windows XP. Things actually work all the time and I can configure my desktop the way *I* want to configure my desktop, not the way MS thinks I should have my desktop configured.
> The only people that I recommend Linux distros to are home desktop "enthusiasts" who want >to do nothing but surf, email, run OpenOffice and GiMP. There literally is nothing else you can do >with it other than specialized educational/gov stuff or web/file servers, and most corporate >desktops do not fit into those categories.
The major part of regular users fall into that category; you must be recommending Linux quite often then. Literally can't do anything else with linux? Like developing in any of the non-MS specific languages, running multiple guest OS-es in a VM, playing games, running Windows applications (like photoshop? Yes, that's literally NOTHING.
> And for corporate desktops OO is NOT MSO and doesn't even compare.
Indeed the completely predictable behaviour of text formatting in OO Writer completely blows MSO's Word endless format tweaking out of the water, as does the ability to export my documents in PDF format without having to pay extra money. As for the price, wow, zero dollars for OO compared to $$ for MSO, whose older file formats don't even open properly in newer versions. I am so with you on that, it really doesn't compare.
> Linux devs needs to get their head out of the GNU and actually create some desired >applications if they wish to increase their share. Sending around letters like the FSF did is just >really lame.
Yes, linux devs should listen to you and develop what YOU want. Not what they find useful. Sending letters around is a bit lame, yes, but nothing MS wouldn't (and didn't stoop to) and might be one of the few methods available to get someone's attention at board room level (even if it's dismissed outright). Not a lot of alternatives for that amount of money.
> "Investing in Microsoft's Windows 7 will only get you more stuck and more dependent on >them..."
> And Ubuntu for example would be different how?...
Are you dense, or just trolling. Which bit of OPEN SOURCE do you NOT understand. Software running on your RedHat desktop will run fine on your Novell OpenSuse desktop or your Gentoo desktop. Still not clear what's meant or do you need a Powerpoint presentation to explain further?
> "... Linux doesn't tie you into the Microsoft treadmill because the raw code is openly available
> so that you or third parties can keep systems going and not rely on one company."
> Yeah, and I know lots of IT people who have nothing but free time to modify/compile custom >code all of the time. :-/
Yes, because you need to modify and compile FOSS all the time before it's usable. Wish someone would package all that software together in something called a distribution.... o wait... someone's already gone out a done that. GIT.
> This is so totally stupid I just can't fathom it. "We be hackerz., so should u..."
This is so totally stupid and I actually can fathom it. "We be morons and spreaders of FUD, join us and be a mindless FUD regurgitating GIT like us".
> Most corporations are not going to hire a $100k+/yr programmer on-staff. Time is money,
> it's way cheaper to invest in Windows than to spend days hacking linux code.
Depending on which type of $, but in US$, average wage for programmers is around 80k (just in case, that's 80,000 (US)dollars). And as a user of FOSS, a company doesn't have to hire programmers, they just need to purchase a support contract from a vendor who supports FOSS, like say, RedHat, IBM, Novell or SUN. Just like... proprietary software, only without the forced upgrade every couple of years.
You make such eloquent and educated statements that am just completely blown away by your intellect. Kudos to you Steve, next time please don't try to feel too bad if you didn't get a letter and the other 499 other CEOs did, it's nothing personal.
So I assume the FSF will be running a similar campaign urging us all not to get tied in to that nasty proprietary OS Snow Leopard? An OS that is clearly a much bigger sinner than Windows as it also ties you in to proprietary hardware (unless you are REALLY adventurous).
Come on guys, quick! You've got about 16 hours before launch! Get those letters out!
They should be putting pressure on hardware manufacturers to produce Linux drivers alongside the MS drivers for all their offerings, and on application writers to produce Linux versions of their software. Only then would many companies seriously consider a switch, because there are something that it's not easy to do on Linux because of the lack of good software. Great strides are being made in producing alternatives, but in some areas there's still a way to go.
OMFG that windows7sins website is so bad! Looks like it was put together by a 9 year old using Powerpoint.
Oh wait, they wouldn't be using Powerpoint I guess - make that Open Office Impress or whatever the hell it's called... Don't think they've Impressed many people though, judging by the comments.
If I was the CIO of a Fortune 500 company I'd just be sooooo grateful to the FSF for yet another bit of spam or junk mail telling me how everything I've done so far is wrong and should be thrown away in favour of using Product X instead.
And if I even bothered to read as far as the link to the website, and clicked on the link, it takes me to the most unprofessional looking website I've seen in a long time.
I particularly like the way that the image at the very bottom of the page is cut off at the right-hand-side in IE7. Way to go guys - you're pitching to show how much better your product is than the opposition, so you assume your target market is currently using the opposition's product - but you don't test that your pitch even WORKS on that opposition product.
And yes I have pre-ordered Windows 7, and no that crock of amateurish drivel has not made me regret my decision one iota.
Well said! The Linux guys truly don't get it. They just have no understanding of how the corporate IT machine works. The letter is proof of that. In my former company, Linux was a term used when hobbies were talked about. Some people do take it seriously and some inroads have been made. But the truth is, Linux simply isn't a fit with the corporations. It's not taken seriously and it never will be until and unless it can be moved out of the "hobby" room.
I love it, who wouldn't? But I don't write it anymore.
The website looks like a school project, in fact an ICT project would probably be better.
& Windows 7 is shite
...oh look I'm using free software on Windows (Audacity, NetXMS, Paint.net to name a couple).
tadaaaa... everyone wins. Now lets all have a big hug...
Now lets look at some of the problems with *nix.
Agent install for NETXMS (excluding config for both options)
2. Unpack the archive:
$ tar zxvf netxms-VERSION.tar.gz
3. Change directory to netxms-version and run configure script:
$ cd netxms-VERSION
$ sh ./configure --with-agent
Important configure arguments:
• --prefix=DIRECTORY: installation prefix, all files go to a specified directory;
• --with-agent: build monitoring agent.
To learn more about possible configure parameters, run it with --help option.
4. Run make:
5. Stop NetXMS agent.
6. Run make install:
$ make install
7. Start NetXMS agent.
Double click Exe. Next,Next, Next. Finish
You wrote: "Windows easily locks down all the computers on the network so they can't download and install stuff"
Bullshit - and what's more, you probably know it already. It's 3rd party add-ons that do that for you. How many MS-based networks don't have Novell or something installed..?
You wrote: "Most corporations are not going to hire a $100k+/yr programmer on-staff. Time is money, it's way cheaper to invest in Windows than to spend days hacking linux code."
Why would they need to change the code? (And if they did, wouldn't they have a similar problem with Windows but not have the code to change....???) Your "logic" escapes me.
"Yeah, and I know lots of IT people who have nothing but free time to modify/compile custom code all of the time. :-/"
You missed the point completely. You don't need to modify the code yourself to install an operating system (same way you don't need to modify the Winblows code). Someone else has doubtless encountered the same problem and already fixed it...
The FSF are unable to compete in the market place - a market place driven by economic forces - so they are contacting the worlds biggest companies - who themselves drive economic forces - to tell them to not to play ball with another of the worlds biggest companies, that have 90% market share in thier market?
I'm sure they'll be all ears ;)
Microsoft have done what all big corporates do - leverage the market.
What the FSF need to do is make *better* products, not cry foul because they can't compete.