On Monday 26 January 2004 00:50, der.hans wrote:
> Am 23. Jan, 2004 schw=E4tzte Craig White so:
> > On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 13:52, der.hans wrote:
> > > Am 23. Jan, 2004 schw=C3=A4tzte Ed Skinner so:
> > > > rarely works out that way but, nonetheless, the threat is there a=
nd,
> > > > as a consequence, most sellers of commercial software products do=
a
> > > > mediocre to good job of post-sales support.)
> > >
> > > As you point out here, proprietary support does not mean you'll
> > > actually get resolution...
> >
> > It is REALLY REALLY hard to get quality support on technical products
> > and will continue to worsen as it has the past decade. ...
Good points, and an excellent ("bad") example of where closed source=
has=20
failed. And I dare say that many of us have experienced similar cases.
I'm going to back-off one of my earlier statements but then try to=20
reframe it.
Specifically, I'm going to retract my statement that companies prefe=
r=20
closed source because they have the option of forcing the provider to giv=
e=20
support. Obviously that is not always, or possibly even "frequently", the=
=20
case. Der Hans's example is prime evidence of this. Motorola is what I wo=
uld=20
consider to be a "big player" and if they can't force a supplier to provi=
de=20
support, what hope does anyone else have?
The resistance I think I see to open source, nonetheless, is tied to=
the=20
issue of support. Perhaps at senior management levels the thought is "if =
I=20
buy software from a company that owns that software, I can sue them if th=
ey=20
screw up really bad but with open source, how can I sue the 'community'?"
This is a FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Dread) claim, of course, but ve=
ry=20
difficult to counteract, and more so because it's a question that comes u=
p in=20
the mind without any particular provocation from anyone else.
In a sense, it is a fear of the unknown, or just plain a fear of cha=
nge.
As far as senior management in most businesses is concerned, FOSS is=
a=20
new way of doing things. I'm sure some executives are thinking, "This ope=
n=20
source sounds like a good idea, and Microsoft sure is costing us a huge=20
amount with no sign of improvement but, nonetheless, a bird in the hand m=
ay=20
really be worth two in the bush. I think we'll stay with a known, but=20
bounded, solution rather than try something that may not, in the long run=
,=20
pan out on a larger scale."
That, I think is the problem. FOSS is, to many, new. Using it is ask=
ing=20
them to make a change, which always raises the blood pressure, and for ma=
ny=20
it is a change in the infrastructure that is already working fairly well=20
(admittedly at prices that are bad now and getting worse, and for which=20
support is certainly less than ideal).
Fortunately for us (FOSS advocates), a couple of "big players" are c=
oming=20
over. IBM's advertisements for Linux are just so cool. Every time one of =
them=20
comes on I just think, "Damn! It's really happening!!"
This is fabulous, and IBM is but one example of the change beginning=
to=20
happen.
As FOSS advocates, one of the things we can do to help is to just ke=
ep=20
"Linux" on people's minds. I wear my "Got Linux" baseball cap to the kid'=
s=20
soccer games. And when the church secretary complains that her notebook i=
s=20
freezing up during the PowerPoint presentation during the Sunday sermon, =
I=20
calmly state that I use OpenOffice on Linux and have never had my system=20
freeze.
My biggest fear is that, with all of Microsoft's clout, and with the=
ways=20
in which our political system is influenced by richly-funded lobbyists, F=
OSS=20
will get bull-dozed by the legislature.
--=20
Ed Skinner,
ed@flat5.net,
http://www.flat5.net/
(text/plain)