Software vendors urge limits on open source

The Initiative for Software Choice, which counts Microsoft, Cisco Systems and Intel among its backers, said in comments filed Tuesday that the department should "avoid crafting needless and potentially detrimental IT policy to promote the use" of open-source software. "Open source" means every software developer can view the source code for software, modify it, and use it for free.

The initiative, which launched in May and is chaired by a group called CompTIA, an organization that has close ties to Microsoft, is worried about a recent report that concluded the Defense Department relies on open-source software and recommended its further adoption.

There's simply no way and no reason that Dell, Gateway, IBM, and others are going to start putting Linux on all of their desktop computers.

Well, the biggest retailrer, Wallmart, is already doing it and selling them for $200. This will spread eventually to others and will show that Linux is viable and create more demand. With more demand will come the solution to some problems such as hardware vendors not writing drivers for Linux.

Also the adoption of Linux on servers will put pressure to put entire businesses on it. No reason to have two sets of technicians, the problems of mixed systems when most employees do not use even 10% of the capabilities of their systems. Plus if all are on the same system there is no problem of file sharing.

And let's not even talk about security...

I use both Windows and Linux. I love the idea of open source and believe it is here to stay. Unix type OS's dominate the server market because it does it's job very, very well.

Unfortunately, Linux still has a very long ways to go before it cuts very deeply into the desktop market. People can't load windows, much less download and install Linux. Heck, many PC users don't even know what "downloading" means. If things aren't already pre-loaded, many are lost. Even more savy friends and relatives of these type users only know the basics, and can only load apps using windows install programs.

However, I will say that Linux has improved greatly with the latest major distributions. If this continues, perhaps more PC vendors will package Linux versions. It really boils down to that, since 3rd party app vendors need to see a better Linux user-base before spending $$ to develop Linux versions of their popular applications.

Another factor...the granny window user types have money and don't care about spending the bucks for windows.

It will be fun to watch the OS wars over the next couple of years...perhaps Linux WILL make major strides in the desktop market. This will not make me unhappy at all....

Well, the biggest retailrer, Wallmart, is already doing it and selling them for $200.

Uh, Yeaaaaaaaaahhhh. Rrrrrrrrrrrright. I have news for you: Just because a store sells lots of fishing tackle and big jars of mayonnaise and beanie babies and camping equipment doesn't exactly make them the vendor of choice for computers. LMFAO!

This will spread eventually to others...

Don't hold your breath. You're in for a long wait.

However, I will say that Linux has improved greatly with the latest major distributions. If this continues, perhaps more PC vendors will package Linux versions. It really boils down to that, since 3rd party app vendors need to see a better Linux user-base before spending $$ to develop Linux versions of their popular applications.

I agree with your comments for the most part; however, one of the reasons that few 3rd party app vendors are producing commercial products for Linux is the nature of the Linux community, itself. By and large, Linux users abhor commercial, closed-source products -- and they're proud of the fact that they don't pay for software. That isn't exactly the kind of environment that I'd try to sell into. Many have tried, nearly all have failed.

People can't load windows, much less download and install Linux.

You do not need to do that. You can just buy a distribution. They are easy to install nowadays and you do not have to get rid of Windows, you can have both on one computer. So trying it is real easy.

If this continues, perhaps more PC vendors will package Linux versions. It really boils down to that, since 3rd party app vendors need to see a better Linux user-base before spending $$ to develop Linux versions of their popular applications.

You really do not need third party apps very much with Linux (other than games). The average user has almost all he needs available once he installs it.

Another factor...the granny window user types have money and don't care about spending the bucks for windows.

Nonsense, everyone likes a bargain. Price does matter to a lot of people.

I have news for you: Just because a store sells lots of fishing tackle and big jars of mayonnaise and beanie babies and camping equipment doesn't exactly make them the vendor of choice for computers. LMFAO!

Betting against Wallmart is not very smart. It seems everything they go into comes up roses. However, the monopoly of PC makers on which you count on to keep the MS monopoly going is very brittle. There are numerous local shops which build to order, and also sell barebones systems, even CompUSA is doing that now. So people do not have to buy a computer with Windows in it anymore. There are choices and choice is what destroys monopolies (monopoly pricing helps too!).

Betting against Wallmart is not very smart.

No, betting against Dell, IBM, and Gateway isn't very smart.

However, the monopoly of PC makers on which you count on to keep the MS monopoly going is very brittle.

You'd better tell Dell, Gateway, and IBM, then. Those multi-billion dollar sales of theirs must be imaginary. LOL!

There are numerous local shops which build to order, and also sell barebones systems, even CompUSA is doing that now.

Consumers don't want barebones systems. They want a packaged appliance that they can install their favorite applications and games on. That you think otherwise is reflective of how out of touch you are with the consumer marketplace.

So people do not have to buy a computer with Windows in it anymore. There are choices and choice is what destroys monopolies (monopoly pricing helps too!).

You've always had the choice to install Linux or buy a Mac. That hasn't changed. Neither has peoples' unabated and overwhelming choice of Windows.

You do not need to do that. You can just buy a distribution. They are easy to install nowadays and you do not have to get rid of Windows, you can have both on one computer. So trying it is real easy.

I agree it is easy to install...for you and me that is. However, for Granny and my wife...it would not be easy at all. My on-line bridge partner is a 75 year old user who would not bother...she purchased a PC with Windows preloaded. I try to explain to her how to set up an email client instead of using Yahoo web mail. She thinks I am speeking Greek. Many home users are in her category.

Nonsense, everyone likes a bargain. Price does matter to a lot of people.

No doubt about that...but the other half of the market wouldn't bother...they just pay the couple of hundred extra for Windows preloaded.

You really do not need third party apps very much with Linux (other than games). The average user has almost all he needs available once he installs it.

Well, that may be true...guess Linux vendors and users have to convince everyone that there is an equivalent to Microsoft office, Quicken, etc. Hopefully Wine and other emulators will do the trick.

You've always had the choice to install Linux or buy a Mac. That hasn't changed. Neither has peoples' unabated and overwhelming choice of Windows.

As others have pointed out, Microsoft is in danger of losing a large share of their current market if they continue to come accross as squeezing the consumers last dollar. If that continues, Linux will probably get a better foothold in the corporate and desktop user market.

The public does have a greed threshold that Microsoft would be wise not to cross.

"No doubt about that...but the other half of the market wouldn't bother...they just pay the couple of hundred extra for Windows preloaded."

Or are you retracting them now?

"No doubt about that...but the other half of the market wouldn't bother...they just pay the couple of hundred extra for Windows preloaded."

Or are you retracting them now?

Nope...not going to retract them at all. The point I was trying to make is this: Microsoft should realize that competition is out there waiting for Microsoft to make a mistake. IF Linux gains enough momentum because of Microsoft getting a little greedy, that momentum might be enough to get more PC vendors to package an easy to use Linux with their hardware. If that happens enough, then the person who normally wouldn't mind paying a couple of extra $$ now, will also be willing to save those bucks if Linux ease of use gains ground on the pre-loaded PC market. IMHO, Microsoft is walking a fine line with unreasonable marketing policies.

Guess we will see....

IF Linux gains enough momentum because of Microsoft getting a little greedy...

Bah. You've bought into the misperception being sown by ABM troops. Quite frankly, I trust MS more to know its own market than a bunch of malcontents who don't want anyone to use MS products in the first place.

I was speaking out of firsthand knowledge of implementing NMCI.

However , you can see this article which has even higher figures than those I quoted.

And this page for an overview of the program.

Quite frankly, I trust MS more to know its own market than a bunch of malcontents who don't want anyone to use MS products in the first place.

PC vendors looking to cash in on free OS does not equal to malcontents.

Overconfidence sometimes is not a good thing, as the good folks at WordPerfect found out many years ago.

If the federal govt simply shifted to .rtf and .pdf formats exclusively for text documents, that'd be enough to level the proverbial playing field.

Yes, the Feds could simply switch to an open source vanilla word processor and spreadsheet and save on all the spent money on lawyers to battle MicroSoft. I think an Executive Order would be all that it would take. Productivity would improve to boot because of all the useless and nonsensical features such as "autoformat" which burden Word.

I was thinking at a simpler level.

If the largest single document generator in the nation switches to formats that could be read by *any* text editor, including but not limited to MSFT's, then that many fewer people would be compelled to use a particular proprietary program.

Of course, MSFT's products would still be able to read/write the material, so there's no "anti"-MSFT element to this.

This is such a blindingly obvious notion, I can't fathom why it hasn't been done.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.