There are few topics more heated than the discussion surrounding open source vs Microsoft. This discussion typically focuses on the differences between Linux and Windows as an operating system. This is, however, only one dimension of the problem. You have to consider both the operating system and the office software that most users use. You must add to that everything else you have to support that isn't included in the basic office applications.
Comparable and compatible
One of the arguments towards placing open source software on the desktop is that it's "comparable and compatible". Comparable means it's largely similar; it performs the same functions. Compatible is saying simply that it works with the recognised leader in the area (Microsoft). For instance, Linux is comparable to Windows in that it's an operating system. It's compatible because it can read and write files to a Windows-based server (through Samba and some configuration.) Similarly, OpenOffice is comparable to Microsoft Office in that it offers the same basic functions. It's compatible in that it can read and write Microsoft Office files.
The rub comes in when you evaluate how comparable and compatible the solution is. From a comparable standpoint, does the solution offer the same user experience in terms of ease-of-use? How much will change from what's already familiar? How about help? Despite the challenges with the help in commercial systems, it's substantially better than the help files that exist for open source software.
So how compatible is compatible? OpenOffice warns you the first time you start OpenOffice Write the ability to write Microsoft Word format is not guaranteed. It does, in fact, warn you that you may lose some of your formatting. How many documents need to be reformatted to pay for a licence of Microsoft Office? How much embarrassment will it cause to have your documents arrive at a customer in a poorly formatted state?
In the end, you have to ask hard questions about how comparable it is — and how much the differences are worth. You'll have to ask how much time you're willing to give up when compatibility requires extra steps or when it isn't compatible.
Talkback
Elas, the support for Microsoft products isn't ideal either. Sure, there are plenty of takers of your money but results vary and there are more wannabee experts out there then people that actually know what they are doing, keep within budget and deliver on time. Let alone repeat the same tricks the year after.
Compatibility? Try mixing and matching some of Microsoft's (or even third-party) older product versions with newer ones and vice versa. Hmmm, not quite what the doctor ordered. So it seems that in order to stay "compatible" you'll have to upgrade, upgrade, pay, pay. And expect the same from everyone you communicate with. Hello, here's our juicy contract we would like you to sign. Please spend a few hundred to read it as we intented it to be read.
Ofcourse people nowedays can be overwhelmed by new user interfaces, buttons and what not. All the more reason to keep pumping money into upgrades, upgrades, pay, pay. Never mind that at home people remember the 7 finger combination of a possible 11002 combinations to do exactly what they want to do in the latest game they purchased. Or how about that new DVD recorder? Or PDA? Some nifty USB device thingy that came with crappy software then? Not to mention the new enterprise application getting deployed at work. Or the new desktop environment IT Staff is pushing out. The second one this year.
Yes, preperation is key. IT Staff needs to be trained well in time. Support needs to be ready. Business processes need to be continued. Etc, etc.
In short, if you really know what you're doing and what's really important and what not in the short and long run then you can start making the right choices for your business. In all other cases you first have a thing or two to learn.
This has not been our experience at all. We love open-source products, because they're cheap, they work, and they do everything we need.
We don't want the frustration of dealing with Microsoft Technical Support [sic], talking to some monkey who has no clue what source code is, and probably hasn't been within 1,000 miles of the developers of the product he supposedly supports.
We greatly prefer dashing off an e-mail to the author of the software, usually getting back suggestions or even a patch within a few hours.
Support and quality is the main reason NOT to use Microsoft software.
I totally agree with this article, when it comes to corporate users. The author didn't specify that this was his intended audience, but from the language of its content, I would say it is. On an "end user" basis, this article carries very little weight. End users very rarely go to training classes for computer use, so the training aspect is moot. End users formatting is minimal at best, so the few times the formating does differ, it won't matter.
There are a few things that the author leaves out of his article, even in regards to corporate users.
1) OpenOffice.org's built-in "Export to PDF" feature. Whether it is a presentation, a spreadsheet, or a 500 page document, if the receiptent of the file doesn't need to alter the file - PDF is better than Word or Excel anyway. And exporting a document to PDF ensures formating continuality. Presentations can even be exported to Flash.
2) Paid support is available. While OpenOffice.org itself does not offer paid support, there are a number of groups and individuals who do offer such support, and those are listed on the OpenOffice.org website. Also, Sun Microsystems, the host of the OOo codebase, offers StarOffice, which is OOo plus some added filters and templates. Sun offers corporate-level support for StarOffice, which is available on WIndows as well as Linux and Solaris.
3) It is all about choice. OpenOffice.org (and it's Star of a bigger brother) is not the only office suite available for Linux. KOffice, AbiWord, Scribus, and others are out there. With CrossOver Office, you can even use Microsoft's office suite on Linux.
I hope this helps clarifies things.
-Chad Smith
OpenOffice.org user, on Linux, WIndows, and Mac (NeoOffice/J on Mac)
I just installed Kubuntu recently, my first Linux experience, after moaning and bitching about Win stability for years.
A month later and I am using it as a dual boot with my Win machine. Apart from a few proprietary software that I need, I noticed that our house's use could all be taken care off with the software included for the usual browser, mp3, dvd, email, chatting, digital pictures and letter writing.
And now my father is using it as well as 3 of his friends nearing 80, all people with 5 years or less of computer use. One of the machines is a P2-350 and another is a P3-800.
All can now do what they could on their old machine except I dont have to worry about their virus and spyware problems. While I know that there is some training needed for software changes, the majority of programs all resemble each other. If youve used IE, Firefox is the same. Word or OO? Cmon, once we lept passed the Wordpad in Windows, all differences were minute.
After having to prove their software innocence after being accused of piracy, this community organization on our street will be switching to Linux, when they realized that they DIDNT have to pay licenses or upgrade to keep up with the upgrades, and their experiences show that many social services organizations are doing the same.
While I dont doubt that there are some valid drawbacks mainly in the support area, the proof is in the pudding. Put both FOSS with equivalent proprietary versions to the test and people (who have no bias) wont care. Heck, they have to relearn an OS every 3-4 years anyways
Lyle Howard Seave
Some questions :
- How many million dollards are lost by companies resulting from the time spent to reboot Windows or MSOffice ?
- How many million dollards are lost by companies resulting of security holes or bugs in Windows or MSOffice?
- How many times Openoffice did rescue MSOffice documents that were corrupted and MSOffice couldn't even open them?
- How many times did the author call Microsoft Help-Desk ?
- Is there someone so stupid that it cannot see that Opensource is the future of Desktop softwares?
- How much money did the author get from Microsoft ?
Give me a break. Microsoft isn't even "compatible" with its' own. More than once I've told a client that different verisons of Office will cause corruption. Once you know the truth about Office you begin to wonder about all the documents you have to send between clients' offices and you realize the ramifications of the problem.
As far as training goes, I have spent time training user for both Linux and Windows (yes, there are people that have never used Windows). I can say with certainty that a locked-down Linux install is much easier to train users on because they only have the functions they need. Windows can be locked down, but it requires far more work. Either interface is sufficent.
On administration, hire those that know what they are to work on. don't hire a MCSE to run a Unix box and vice-versa. Duh!
Lastly, since you're telling me about my job, I'll tell you about yours. Maybe you should work in the industry your smacking before you write about it. Your "little knowledge" is obviously dangerous.
RTF is the "compatible" text format ... it writes and reads the same in almost all the word processors I have used, including "low-end" ones like MS's WordPad (the exception being MS's txt-limited NotePad). When somebody grouses to me about text/formatting incompatibilities, I ask them if they are using RTF. If not, the discussion is over.
If there's one thing I'm sick of hearing it's that programs for windows have better support than Linux. I just bought Norton Ghost for my Windows machine. On the box it says:
Online support forums - free
Tech support - fee per call
and this program cost me $70!
Let's look at Windows XP, a $200 OS
online support forums - free
tech support - free per call/chat
Let's look at the free Linux OS -
online support forums - free
So you see, if you want free tech support it doesn't matter if you have Linux or Windows. If you want to pay a fee for OSS programs there are PLENTY of companies waiting for that: Red Had, Novell, Progeny, etc
This is just the sort of writing from ZD that stops me from bothering to read ZD articles for months. Yes, it is true that if you install Debian, for free, you get no training and only free support via a forum. And the same is true of Mozilla/Firefox. One is an OS and the other is an optional browser... Don't get confused because they are both OSS.
If you get a supported version of Linux, such as Red Hat, then you get support on a comparable basis with Microsoft. If you don't, then, um, you don't. Where's the beef?
OTOH, if you have OSS, and you are a programmer (in the language of the application) then you can get the source, see why it does what it does, and change it to be more suitable for your needs. Try that with MS.
OSS offers the competent programmer more opportunity to do excellent things. OSS offers the learning programmer the opportunity to see how it is done. MS offers an uncertain degree of risk reduction - in return for other risks, like frequent reboots, and no chance to tailor marginal programs to work better.
And the choice is not so stark as you paint. There are many copies of Windows running Apache. Indeed, Apache, a core piece of OSS, probably saved MS as a internet server operating system, because IIS was such a piece of dog-meat. If Apache had not been available, I suspect that Unix and OSS servers would have taken their place.
The article is flamebait and adds little to the sum total of human knowledge. ZD is capable of insightful articles, but this is not an example. I'm giving up on wasting my time on ZD, again, until there are signs that the editorial standard has improved.
buy apple pcs they work fine,avoid microsofts flawed aproached to computers,releasing unfinished untested product every hacker and virus writer will attack is no longer worth the trouble get apple pcs from now
One of the biggest problems for Open Source and Linux in particular is the concerted campaign by Microsoft and it's fawning minions to keep people from trying the only viable challenge to the Windows hegemony.
The first fact is if Open Source and Linux were really that challenging and ineffective people like Robert Bogue wouldn't have to try and scare people away even trying Linux.
The second fact is that most switch adopters of Linux in server room have stayed and expanded it's use much to the detriment of Microsoft's singular quest to dominate. Microsoft fears a repeat on the desktop and is pulling out all it's PR guns to staunch the flow to Open Source.
The third fact is Linux is a superior technology to Microsoft despite all the hand waving and wing flapping by the likes of Bogue. Lower cost, lower maintenance, longer uptimes, superior security, widespread home grown support and a rapidly growing network of commercial supporters/sponsors (IBM, HP, etc.)
Poke Robert Bogue in the eye and just try Linux on the desktop - there are numerous live Linux CDs that will allow a free trial without even having to install it on your HD.
Keep in mind that Microsoft is a convicted predatory monopoly so always consider that fact when one of it's hundreds of minions speaks out to spread FUD about Linux. Microsoft fears free market competition - just check out their published conviction records.
Bar
Vancouver, Canada
Strictly true, but misleading nevertheless...
Open source software doesn't work exactly like the Microsoft products it replaces. That's the good news! Over the years I've found Microsoft Word to be so buggy, that I end up giving up in frustration every time I try to use it for anything more demanding than the simplest memos and letters. OpenOffice.org Writer is much better-behaved, though it too still has some bugs, and its usability suffers from the need to cater to users' familarity with poorly thought-out aspects of the Microsoft operator interface.
So what do I use on large and difficult jobs such as engineering documents and technical manuals? FrameMaker, and a 1993 version at that. It doesn't need to be improved.
"How many documents need to be reformatted to pay for a licence of Microsoft Office? How much embarrassment will it cause to have your documents arrive at a customer in a poorly formatted state?"
Interesting questions and perhaps a bit loaded as well. Is Mr. Bogue moonlighting for Microsoft?
One might also ask, "Since when is open source software worse at converting documents than commercial software?". I seem to recall that converting other formats to MS Office was not exactly a piece of cake.
Another question worth asking is, "How does less than 100% compatibility automatically translate to 'poorly formatted'?".
Other questions worth asking include, "How much data loss due to macro viruses, worms, etc. does it take to bankrupt your company? and "'How embarrassing will it be when your PC is found to be serving porn to the masses, courtesy of the vulnerability du jour in XP, Internet Explorer, Word, or Outlook?".
As I was reading this article I knew that there would be a glut of feedback accusing the author of working for Microsoft or slating his journalistic and/or intellectual integrity. Such comments are a little silly in my opinion.
The fact is that there are new Linux users that experience such things as described in the article. The author is not bashing Linux, just stating the fact that just changing the way you do something (anything) can bring a cost in terms of time and sometimes money. The same could equally be said of someone who has used Linux all his life switching to Microsoft (perish the thought!!!). I dare say those who complained most vociferously have been using Linux for a long time and don't see any of this as a problem.
Bogues simpy made the point, as I understood it, that when you are making or considering making the switch, don't assume that it will be without problems but expect that there will be some issues you will need to address. All valid and worthy of mention. Not all the issues are going to be addressed within the limited space of a single article (some assumption has to be made in writing an article that readers of the calibre of IT professionals are going to have done their own research to garner all the facts).
Unfortunately, Linux has a fair number of zealots (not among the majority of respectable Linux users and promoters) who would only have everyone believe that switching to Linux from Windows will be nothing but a walk through a rose-scented garden. This is just simply unrealistic, regardless of the various merits of Linux over Windows. Such hype will create false assumptions and expectations which could result in early disillusionment and a possibly even a swift switch back to Windows.
Had some people I know read this article before starting with Linux they would have been far less prone to frustration when things didn't seem to go as smoothly as they was led to believe by comments from certain sections of the grass-root Linux user community.
I really think some Linux users need to be less defensive and more realistic and stop taking criticisms or comments about Linux as though someone just made derogatory comments a member of their family.
(I am a Linux "fan")