GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
You history of Microsoft's attempts to bend, warp, and twist standards is excellent. As I recall, I think their attempt to foist off *.docx" as an open standard was their most recent attempt.
I know one middle-sized organization that uses MS Office where the common practice is to "save as Word 95," because docx is so open to earlier versions of MS Office.
To go back to the original post, MS doesn't care about standards. It never has, except where the success of competition has forced it to (for example, the success of Firefox, the customer frustration over the incompatibility of Windows media formats with players other than Windows Media Player).
Microsoft cares about getting persons into their walled garden and locking them in.
Standards are decided by international consensus. If there is no unanimity, there is a vote with each country getting one. It needs two third majority to make a standard. Also, there can be multiple standards.
As of writing, open document format is a standards and open xml (the microsoft proposal) is just short of the two thirds needed.
Importantly, Microsoft is in the drafting committee of the open document format but didn't make any contribution.
OK
So what happens if ODF cleans house. Will Microsoft eventually conform--based on the history of other standards that won out against Microsoft?
So what happens if ODF cleans house. Will Microsoft eventually conform--based on the history of other standards that won out against Microsoft?
Based on MS past performance, I would expect them to start using it, then, in the next version of the software, start introducing changes so that, ultimately, *.msod? is ultimately no longer compatible with any other Office suite.
That has been their pattern, and it's the only pattern they know.
I like that.
except where the success of competition has forced it to
So then, does the burden of change fall to the open source community, to make our systems & apps more "user-friendly?" Hands down, open source is better. It's more stable, more powerful, more useful. Maybe all we need to do to eclipse Macrosoft (sic) is add some "cosmetics." Really, I think that's the only incentive MSFT gives end-users, and the reason why Microsoft holds sway.
Based on MS past performance, I would expect them to start using it, then, in the next version of the software, start introducing changes so that, ultimately, *.msod? is ultimately no longer compatible with any other Office suite.
That has been their pattern, and it's the only pattern they know.
Consumers don't read these reports, technical folks do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't publications like, "Smart Computing" and other consumer computing publications rather friendly towards Windows? Does't most mainstream media cater to Microsoft?
not just most BUT ALL media caters to M$ ever seen windoze adds on science channel
and history channel
starting at the same time Revolution OS came out
why on earth would M$ need to run adds for windoze not adds for the newest version mind you
BUT windoze it self
I submit these adds were to keep Revolution OS off the channels
So then, does the burden of change fall to the open source community, to make our systems & apps more "user-friendly?"
Frankly, the user-friendly war has been won long ago. The "Linux is not user-friendly" myth goes back to before my Linux-time, when getting X to run was a challenge.
Sure, there are some Linux apps that are immensely complex. There are some Windows apps that are immensely complex. I doubt there is a way to make high-level video-editing or photo-editing simple. But the stuff the average user does--look at websites, play videos, write documents, and email stuff--is no more complicated in Linux than it is in Windows.
But what boils down to "user friendly" for most users can be defined as "what I'm used to."
What made Windows successful is that customer brought Windows home with them when the bought a computer. In the minds of many, Windows = computers.
Microsoft knows that comtemproary Linux is user friendly (except maybe for Arch, Gentoo, and LFS, which are build-it-yourself), even as MS promotes the notion that it's not.
Heck, when I started with Slackware, with v. 10, I loaded up a computer with it and sent it to my daughter, who is not a computer person. She used it quite happily for years, because she is a typical home user.
The "Linux is not user friendly" thing is a smoke-screen. The most user unfriendly thing about Linux is having to install it yourself. Most home users have never installed an OS and think is a mysterious and magical process which they cannot possibly understand.
That's why MS fights so hard against major computer makers' making Linux available from the factory.
MS knows that, once users can easily obtain Linux without having to install it themselves, the Windows, dot-net, and ActiveX are dead; that they'll have to rewrite Office to run on Linux; and that it will be starting that run from way behind.
So what happens if ODF cleans house. Will Microsoft eventually conform--based on the history of other standards that won out against Microsoft?
Microsoft is a publicly traded company, so its' duty/goal is (obviously) to earn cash and keep shareholders happy. They will conform only if doing so will help their main goal. If you want to make them do something, you should look at situation from their position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel
So then, does the burden of change fall to the open source community, to make our systems & apps more "user-friendly?"
1: "user-friendly" has nothing to do with standards or microsoft.
2: Nobody really controls opensource community, so you can't place any "burden of change" upon it. Things happen when many people suddenly decide to do same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel
Hands down, open source is better.
No it isn't. "To each his own". Proprietary companies try to dazzle customers with useless features, and opensource constantly delivers half-baked products (plus opensource has ideological fanatics) that never reach final version. Both available options suck. IMO, if you think that one of them is better than another then you don't see complete picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel
Maybe all we need to do to eclipse Macrosoft (sic) is add some "cosmetics."
Concentrate on only one thing and you'll fail. Quality of "cosmetics" (gui) contributes to overall quality of product and IS important, but if you'll concentrate only on "cosmetics", you'll end up making a bad product.
But the stuff the average user does--look at websites, play videos, write documents, and email stuff--is no more complicated in Linux than it is in Windows.
I'm not complaining. Heck, I'm really fascinated and sold on Linux. But I've noticed navigating files in Linux is often still awkward, even in the gui.
Quote:
What made Windows successful is that customer brought Windows home with them when the bought a computer.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Quote:
That's why MS fights so hard against major computer makers' making Linux available from the factory.
Is it that MSFT has more "fight" or clout? What effort has the open source community made to win over computer makers?
Also, I think a big weakness we have is that it seems you can't even get a mainstream printer that works on Linux machines. I mean that's an absolute necessary for a computer user (again I'm not complaining, but it's a major issue for me, having to go over to Windows every time I want to print something).
Quote:
MS knows that, once users can easily obtain Linux without having to install it themselves, the Windows, dot-net, and ActiveX are dead; that they'll have to rewrite Office to run on Linux; and that it will be starting that run from way behind.
1: "user-friendly" has nothing to do with standards or microsoft.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if the case with Microsoft is hopeless insofar that they will ever cooperate--with standards, maybe we should make open source software more appealing to the common consumer, assuming we mean to contend with Microsoft.
Quote:
Concentrate on only one thing and you'll fail. Quality of "cosmetics" (gui) contributes to overall quality of product and IS important, but if you'll concentrate only on "cosmetics", you'll end up making a bad product.
I agree 100%. Just don't "throw the baby out with the bath water," either.
I'm not complaining. Heck, I'm really fascinated and sold on Linux. But I've noticed navigating files in Linux is often still awkward, even in the gui.
(snippage)
Also, I think a big weakness we have is that it seems you can't even get a mainstream printer that works on Linux machines.
I find navigating in either Konqueror (I prefer it to Dolphin) or Nautilus easier than in Windows Explorer current. (I have Win7 box so I'm up-to-date.)
As regards printers, HPs work great in Linux. So do many Epsons. I don't think you get more mainstream than HP.
More to the point, where the customers go, the hardware makers will follow. If enough customers demand Linux compatibility, hardware makers will provide it.
I find navigating in either Konqueror (I prefer it to Dolphin) or Nautilus easier than in Windows Explorer current. (I have Win7 box so I'm up-to-date.)
Konqueror, that's slackware right? Just installed slack on an old laptop. I tried slack over or about a year ago, but couldn't get it running right, but I think I burned the disks too fast. So far so good, this round.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.