PentaxForums.com - View Single Post

bjsmith · 08-05-2008, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Venturi

I would agree with this, and posit my own opinion that open source software, to a degree, is what is keeping Linux out of the stores. OSS projects like MySQL, Mozilla, OpenOffice and Linux itself as a Server OS work both in the SOHO as well as the enterprise because at their core they are very well funded. And in the case of some you have paid-for enterprise level support.
However when it comes to most other applications there isn't that corporate backing, and as such the software isn't up to snuff with the status quo. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux and shudder at the thought of being trapped in Redmond's idea of what computing should be. But I acknowledge that I pay a price for my "freedom".

I agree, but also disagree.

This "isn't up to snuff with status quo" is over-stated. I've been using StarOffice since 1995. It kicked MS Office's ass back then. Microsoft took years to add simple things like HTML export, let alone their document compatibility over years is junk. At Boeing we had to virtualize Windows just so we could run MS Word 97 so we could edit old F-15E documentation for the F-15K.

It (including OpenOffice.org) kicks it now, and even more so once 3.0 hits on Mac. Microsoft yanked the Solver and VBA in MS Office 2008 for Mac, which has never had good document compatibility "sending back" to Windows (coming from Windows ,it's tolerable -- long story). OpenOffice.org 3.0 and StarOffice 9 for Mac is fully Aqua native, and now has a full Solver with a subset of VBA.

In other words, if your corporation has developed VBA, your best bet for Mac users is the forthcoming OpenOffice.org 3.0 and StarOffice 9. People assume OpenOffice.org/StarOffice isn't up-to-snuff because of assumptions of how an office suite is supposed to work or how things are laid out. E.g., in Writer, the Page Format has always been with all the other formats, not "slapped on" into the "File" menu. The differences in Word - Excel - PowerPoint are because they were not integrated applications, unlike Writer - Calc - Impress.

People think open source exists to mock commercial software. NOT! If a commercial piece of software "does the job," the majority of open source developers will use it. Most open source software exists where commercial software does not work the same, or is not available. The developer "scratches his/her itch."

Even the GNOME desktop is not designed to be Windows-like, takes GUI queues from Jobs' NeXT (a few different than MacOS X/Aqua), integrates full CORBA network objects (and, more recently, .NET ones), etc... It was designed to be something very, very different than Windows. That's why it became the commercial UNIX standard as well, because it solves so many things that Microsoft ignored in its desktop.

And not always "SOHO" considerations.

Originally Posted by Venturi

Now look at Apple's Mac OS X. It is actually BSD Unix once you pull back the covers. In a brilliant move they made UNIX a viable OS for the masses by wrapping code libraries, a familiar and friendly looking GUI and robust applications around Berkley Unix. They turned a once scary environment for anyone but a systems programmer in to a virtually idiot proof platform. I mean no offense to Apple users; I'm merely stating that virtually anyone can fire up a Mac (a UNIX machine) and be instantly productive. Nice job, Mr Jobs.

But define "robust" applications? I agree, Apple does a great job at taking code -- from BSD UNIX to KHTML (KDE's HTML in Safari), and supporting open standards. But there are a lot of people running MS Office for Mac and just having a hell of a time sending any advanced document formatting back to Windows users.

I still remember when the "document exchange" between MS Excel 97 for Windows and MS Excel 98 for Mac was "CSV" (comma separated values). Other things still have issues. I know the Mac guys are still pulling their hair out on the 2008 release because Microsoft's own 2007 Windows implementation does not match their ISO documentation. It's one of the reasons it's up for review, because they submitted a standard (an incomplete and under-reviewed one at that) that is not as implemented in their own software.

Originally Posted by Venturi

But Linux is still playing catch up

"Catch up" how? Red Hat refuses to support proprietary standards, that has always been their stance. So support of proprietary codecs and other things aren't in their stock releases.

The modern, skinned "media player" was invented on Linux, among other things. Microsoft even hired several, key open source developers as a result. And that's just one example. Everything else is distribution channel and economies of scale, driven by the SOHO market. Even software installation is a "quantum shift" in difference, as Windows lets you install any trojan you download without much fuss.

In the Linux world, those "troublesome" and "bothersome" tasks to installing software are part of that whole, "Do you really want to be stupid or not?" question.

Originally Posted by Venturi

and will remain so until Redhat or Novell or a company like them steps in and gets serious about funding application development.

Again, distribution control and economies of scale. Microsoft controls both, and heavily.

Now in the case of Novell, enough of Microsoft's Partners finally complained enough that MIcrosoft was forced to engage Linux vendors. Their partners had too many people clamoring for Linux. Novell signed. Red Hat refused.

Red Hat's CEO has recently been quoted that he doesn't think a home consumer should ever have to pay for software. It's really about "getting around" those pesky "distribution control" issues. There's also little money in the area. It's better to give it away for free, than to try to support it.

Even Canoncial was recently "shot down" by Dell for its Ubuntu LTS Server, and this significantly hurts their bottom line. I.e., Canonical actually pays Dell to ship Ubuntu on its desktops/notebooks. That's something Red Hat and Novell are not willing to do, for obvious reasons. Shuttleworth's charity can only go so far, he only has so much money.

And it's not sustainable.

Originally Posted by Venturi

Just as an example, of all the photo editing software able to run natively on Linux only three of them can compete at any level in the Windows and Apple worlds: GIMP, Bibble and LightZone. And two of these are not open source. GIMP can and does serve as a viable alternative to Adobe PS for Win users, but it is a very exceptional case.

GIMP is not designed for photo editing, CinePaint is, and has 16-bit channel support. GIMP is a JPG tool, not a RAW one.

CinePaint came out of the Digital Domain (Titanic CGI) and was originally called "Film GIMP." It's improved, but it's still more for the "industrial professional" who wants to script and leverage other "geek" script-fu.

Originally Posted by Venturi

RawTherapee, UFRaw, DigiKam, RawStudio, et. al. are all good and fine applications but in the retail marketplace they could never stand on their own merits in their current incarnations. They simply are too unfriendly from a UI standpoint for the majority of people. If your UI intimidates people they won't use it and if they can't/won't use it they certainly won't buy it.

Again, "too unfriendly" depends on your viewpoint. If you mean "act like the existing Windows application/desktop," guilty! Even Windows users complain about Aqua on MacOS X.

I've known several individuals who never used Windows until they hit college. "Rude awakening." It's all about familiarity. When you grow up only knowing one OS, it's as Scott McNealy said it best a few years back, "it's the only thing you know."

Originally Posted by Venturi

I'm a big fan of both Linux and open source, but it's a real love/hate fanaticism.

For me, it's control. I lost half of my templates and documentation editing when I upgraded from Office 95 to Office 97. I still run into formatting differences between 97, 2000, XP, 2003 and, now, 2007. It's a joke for a corporation to standardize on it, because their documents will be malformed over several upgrades. The lack of Microsoft adhering to their own XML in 2007/2008 is only going to continue this in the future. Boeing was an original standardizing partner of OpenOffice at OASIS for a reason. Most long-standing law and medicine corporations, a 20M installed userbase, still run WordPerfect for that very reason as well, and are switching over to ODF.

The two "biggest holdouts" in the SOHO world are Intuit (Quicken) and Adobe (Photoshop). Intuit would be destroyed overnight by Microsoft if they ship Quicken for Linux, which would have an estimated 10M installed userbase (and possibly just as many for Quickbooks). Adobe has reserved Photoshop as a "WINE compatible" application for the same reason, although the have had Photoshop, InDesign, etc... -- let alone FrameMaker almost a decade ago -- running on Linux, natively, but only internally at Adobe (and select partners). They can't release them publicly, even though they are quite complete.

Again, it's all about distribution control and economies of scale. You don't cross Microsoft. After Corel bought WordPerfect, Microsoft shut them down. Corel unsuccessfully tried to move to an all-Linux approach, but then Microsoft denied them access to the distribution channel. It's not that people aren't asking for the Linux solutions, with paying dollars in the millions of units for several applications, it's that control of the distribution channel and the related economies of scale.

Heck, even Apple would have gone under several years ago if it wasn't for Microsoft's assistance. But that doesn't mean Microsoft is going to allow all sorts of Mac software into Best Buy like it had before Microsoft's control of Best Buy's distribution channel.

Which leaves Linux to the industrial markets where it is heavily adopted -- CAM/EDA in engineering and CGI/industry graphics for the last dozen years, financial and heavily embedded in the last decade, etc... Most SOHO apps aren't on the radar, because the radar is heavily controlled by Microsoft. Just ask Apple.

It's people's assumptions that draw these varying conclusions. The reality of control and focus, especially by Microsoft at the distribution, is what is at work here. If Apple wasn't a Microsoft partner, they'd would have died before the iPod took off. And even today, Microsoft could make it hell for Apple and its iPod if it wanted to, just like Intuit and Quicken. User preference has always been secondary to distribution control and bundling.

Microsoft learned this first-hand in the early-to-mid '90s and hasn't changed its approach since.

08-05-2008, 07:54 AM	#40
bjsmith Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Orlando, Florida (USA) Gallery Photos: 0 Posts: 238	Originally Posted by Venturi I would agree with this, and posit my own opinion that open source software, to a degree, is what is keeping Linux out of the stores. OSS projects like MySQL, Mozilla, OpenOffice and Linux itself as a Server OS work both in the SOHO as well as the enterprise because at their core they are very well funded. And in the case of some you have paid-for enterprise level support. However when it comes to most other applications there isn't that corporate backing, and as such the software isn't up to snuff with the status quo. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux and shudder at the thought of being trapped in Redmond's idea of what computing should be. But I acknowledge that I pay a price for my "freedom". I agree, but also disagree. This "isn't up to snuff with status quo" is over-stated. I've been using StarOffice since 1995. It kicked MS Office's ass back then. Microsoft took years to add simple things like HTML export, let alone their document compatibility over years is junk. At Boeing we had to virtualize Windows just so we could run MS Word 97 so we could edit old F-15E documentation for the F-15K. It (including OpenOffice.org) kicks it now, and even more so once 3.0 hits on Mac. Microsoft yanked the Solver and VBA in MS Office 2008 for Mac, which has never had good document compatibility "sending back" to Windows (coming from Windows ,it's tolerable -- long story). OpenOffice.org 3.0 and StarOffice 9 for Mac is fully Aqua native, and now has a full Solver with a subset of VBA. In other words, if your corporation has developed VBA, your best bet for Mac users is the forthcoming OpenOffice.org 3.0 and StarOffice 9. People assume OpenOffice.org/StarOffice isn't up-to-snuff because of assumptions of how an office suite is supposed to work or how things are laid out. E.g., in Writer, the Page Format has always been with all the other formats, not "slapped on" into the "File" menu. The differences in Word - Excel - PowerPoint are because they were not integrated applications, unlike Writer - Calc - Impress. People think open source exists to mock commercial software. NOT! If a commercial piece of software "does the job," the majority of open source developers will use it. Most open source software exists where commercial software does not work the same, or is not available. The developer "scratches his/her itch." Even the GNOME desktop is not designed to be Windows-like, takes GUI queues from Jobs' NeXT (a few different than MacOS X/Aqua), integrates full CORBA network objects (and, more recently, .NET ones), etc... It was designed to be something very, very different than Windows. That's why it became the commercial UNIX standard as well, because it solves so many things that Microsoft ignored in its desktop. And not always "SOHO" considerations. Originally Posted by Venturi Now look at Apple's Mac OS X. It is actually BSD Unix once you pull back the covers. In a brilliant move they made UNIX a viable OS for the masses by wrapping code libraries, a familiar and friendly looking GUI and robust applications around Berkley Unix. They turned a once scary environment for anyone but a systems programmer in to a virtually idiot proof platform. I mean no offense to Apple users; I'm merely stating that virtually anyone can fire up a Mac (a UNIX machine) and be instantly productive. Nice job, Mr Jobs. But define "robust" applications? I agree, Apple does a great job at taking code -- from BSD UNIX to KHTML (KDE's HTML in Safari), and supporting open standards. But there are a lot of people running MS Office for Mac and just having a hell of a time sending any advanced document formatting back to Windows users. I still remember when the "document exchange" between MS Excel 97 for Windows and MS Excel 98 for Mac was "CSV" (comma separated values). Other things still have issues. I know the Mac guys are still pulling their hair out on the 2008 release because Microsoft's own 2007 Windows implementation does not match their ISO documentation. It's one of the reasons it's up for review, because they submitted a standard (an incomplete and under-reviewed one at that) that is not as implemented in their own software. Originally Posted by Venturi But Linux is still playing catch up "Catch up" how? Red Hat refuses to support proprietary standards, that has always been their stance. So support of proprietary codecs and other things aren't in their stock releases. The modern, skinned "media player" was invented on Linux, among other things. Microsoft even hired several, key open source developers as a result. And that's just one example. Everything else is distribution channel and economies of scale, driven by the SOHO market. Even software installation is a "quantum shift" in difference, as Windows lets you install any trojan you download without much fuss. In the Linux world, those "troublesome" and "bothersome" tasks to installing software are part of that whole, "Do you really want to be stupid or not?" question. Originally Posted by Venturi and will remain so until Redhat or Novell or a company like them steps in and gets serious about funding application development. Again, distribution control and economies of scale. Microsoft controls both, and heavily. Now in the case of Novell, enough of Microsoft's Partners finally complained enough that MIcrosoft was forced to engage Linux vendors. Their partners had too many people clamoring for Linux. Novell signed. Red Hat refused. Red Hat's CEO has recently been quoted that he doesn't think a home consumer should ever have to pay for software. It's really about "getting around" those pesky "distribution control" issues. There's also little money in the area. It's better to give it away for free, than to try to support it. Even Canoncial was recently "shot down" by Dell for its Ubuntu LTS Server, and this significantly hurts their bottom line. I.e., Canonical actually pays Dell to ship Ubuntu on its desktops/notebooks. That's something Red Hat and Novell are not willing to do, for obvious reasons. Shuttleworth's charity can only go so far, he only has so much money. And it's not sustainable. Originally Posted by Venturi Just as an example, of all the photo editing software able to run natively on Linux only three of them can compete at any level in the Windows and Apple worlds: GIMP, Bibble and LightZone. And two of these are not open source. GIMP can and does serve as a viable alternative to Adobe PS for Win users, but it is a very exceptional case. GIMP is not designed for photo editing, CinePaint is, and has 16-bit channel support. GIMP is a JPG tool, not a RAW one. CinePaint came out of the Digital Domain (Titanic CGI) and was originally called "Film GIMP." It's improved, but it's still more for the "industrial professional" who wants to script and leverage other "geek" script-fu. Originally Posted by Venturi RawTherapee, UFRaw, DigiKam, RawStudio, et. al. are all good and fine applications but in the retail marketplace they could never stand on their own merits in their current incarnations. They simply are too unfriendly from a UI standpoint for the majority of people. If your UI intimidates people they won't use it and if they can't/won't use it they certainly won't buy it. Again, "too unfriendly" depends on your viewpoint. If you mean "act like the existing Windows application/desktop," guilty! Even Windows users complain about Aqua on MacOS X. I've known several individuals who never used Windows until they hit college. "Rude awakening." It's all about familiarity. When you grow up only knowing one OS, it's as Scott McNealy said it best a few years back, "it's the only thing you know." Originally Posted by Venturi I'm a big fan of both Linux and open source, but it's a real love/hate fanaticism. For me, it's control. I lost half of my templates and documentation editing when I upgraded from Office 95 to Office 97. I still run into formatting differences between 97, 2000, XP, 2003 and, now, 2007. It's a joke for a corporation to standardize on it, because their documents will be malformed over several upgrades. The lack of Microsoft adhering to their own XML in 2007/2008 is only going to continue this in the future. Boeing was an original standardizing partner of OpenOffice at OASIS for a reason. Most long-standing law and medicine corporations, a 20M installed userbase, still run WordPerfect for that very reason as well, and are switching over to ODF. The two "biggest holdouts" in the SOHO world are Intuit (Quicken) and Adobe (Photoshop). Intuit would be destroyed overnight by Microsoft if they ship Quicken for Linux, which would have an estimated 10M installed userbase (and possibly just as many for Quickbooks). Adobe has reserved Photoshop as a "WINE compatible" application for the same reason, although the have had Photoshop, InDesign, etc... -- let alone FrameMaker almost a decade ago -- running on Linux, natively, but only internally at Adobe (and select partners). They can't release them publicly, even though they are quite complete. Again, it's all about distribution control and economies of scale. You don't cross Microsoft. After Corel bought WordPerfect, Microsoft shut them down. Corel unsuccessfully tried to move to an all-Linux approach, but then Microsoft denied them access to the distribution channel. It's not that people aren't asking for the Linux solutions, with paying dollars in the millions of units for several applications, it's that control of the distribution channel and the related economies of scale. Heck, even Apple would have gone under several years ago if it wasn't for Microsoft's assistance. But that doesn't mean Microsoft is going to allow all sorts of Mac software into Best Buy like it had before Microsoft's control of Best Buy's distribution channel. Which leaves Linux to the industrial markets where it is heavily adopted -- CAM/EDA in engineering and CGI/industry graphics for the last dozen years, financial and heavily embedded in the last decade, etc... Most SOHO apps aren't on the radar, because the radar is heavily controlled by Microsoft. Just ask Apple. It's people's assumptions that draw these varying conclusions. The reality of control and focus, especially by Microsoft at the distribution, is what is at work here. If Apple wasn't a Microsoft partner, they'd would have died before the iPod took off. And even today, Microsoft could make it hell for Apple and its iPod if it wanted to, just like Intuit and Quicken. User preference has always been secondary to distribution control and bundling. Microsoft learned this first-hand in the early-to-mid '90s and hasn't changed its approach since. __________________ Bryan J Smith, Engineering Consultant, Photography Novice Striving for Amateur Abilities Pentax K20D, AF-360 FGZ, DA 10-17 f/3.5-4.5 FE, DA* 16-50 f/2.8, DA* 50-135 f/2.8, DA 50-200 f/4-5.6, FA 80-320 f/4.5-5.6 Taken with: Pentax K100D, DA 16-45mm f/4 Last edited by bjsmith; 08-05-2008 at 08:16 AM..