All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
I have a diferent point of view
mobrien_12:
quote:Originally posted by worker201:
Why is windows so easy to use? Because of the over-exposure to windows. Why is windows over-exposed? Because it's so easy to use. Why is windows so easy to use?
infinite loop, terminating. That's ridiculous logic, and it needs to be flushed.
--- End quote ---
I remember the first time I tried to work with MS Word 6.0, never havning used a Word or Wordperfect program before, but being fluent in LaTeX. It was a frigging nightmare. It took a hellof a long time to learn how to use it ("how do I do this in Word when it's so easy in LaTeX?").
So NO, MS stuff is not easier. It's just what people learn first in most cases. And now I know more about Word than most people, and I can tell you that from what I see, 90% of the people don't know how to use it correctly.
Orethrius:
quote:Originally posted by M. O'Brien:
And now I know more about Word than most people, and I can tell you that from what I see, 90% of the people don't know how to use it correctly.
--- End quote ---
I know, Word isn't a word processor, it's a tool for accessing otherwise restricted drives. ;)
flap:
quote:Then again, when you actually find an operating system that meets your needs exceptionally well, and hasn't been forced upon you, you might just find yourself purchasing software to support your community. Imagine that.
--- End quote ---
If you're talking about purchasing proprietary software, then that's an easy way to undermine your community, not support it.
bedouin:
quote:Originally posted by flap:
If you're talking about purchasing proprietary software, then that's an easy way to undermine your community, not support it.
--- End quote ---
That all depends on who my community is, and if I believe I solely belong to just one. In that case support means a number of different things. If you're going to have a kind of polarized "with us or against us" mentality then you're just as backward as the one's you're against. The line becomes even less clear when you have a company like Apple that regularly contributes back to the open source community.
Seeing as I'm not much of a developer, the best I can contribute back to the OSS community is the occasional donation and bug reports. Well, that and actually using said program -- which is a kind of support by itself, that commercial vendors fail to understand (yes, warez does help in some cases).
However, I don't feel compelled to use a program just because it's open source when there's a superior alternative available. Furthermore, I don't have a problem supporting a company that makes quality products, assuming they continue to do so, and act in a morally acceptable fashion (Microsoft fails not one, but both of these criteria). In short, I'm with whoever has the superior solution, and acts in an acceptable manner. In some cases that may be a small shareware developer living in New Zealand; in others it may be the makers of a Linux distribution, or open source app. In the past it was BeOS and various Linux distributions; nowadays it's largely Apple.
Yet when a viable open source app comes that meets my needs I'm the first to adopt it, and then spread the word about it. I have absolutely no qualms suggesting a Windows or Linux user check out OpenOffice instead of MS Office; I'm the first to install Firebird on someone's machine after repairing it, giving them a brief rundown of why it's a superior product, and why they should consider other non-MS alternatives. I'll quickly ask a struggling Windows user who owns x86 hardware if he's ever considered Linux. However if someone comes to me for advice about making their next computer purchase, I'd quickly suggest nothing other than a Mac running OS X, for their sanity and my own.
The battle for me isn't so much about commercial vs. open source; it's about destroying a very dangerous hegemony, that could destroy computers as we know them. In my eyes the promotion of any alternative is a good thing. The presence of many alternatives doesn't hurt open source, it only reenforces to the consumer that there are multiple choices. What I hope for is computing to return back to what it was in the 80s, where a number of platforms were available all with their strengths and weaknesses. What I don't want from the 80s is the lack of cross-platform compatibility. This means eliminating file formats not supported across platforms, closed protocols, and coding with portability in mind.
worker201:
quote:Originally posted by flap:
If you're talking about purchasing proprietary software, then that's an easy way to undermine your community, not support it.
--- End quote ---
Like Bedouin says, it depends on what your community is. As a Linux user, support means bug reports, donations, art submissions, etc. But in the Mac community, this may just mean sending $10 to a shareware developer. A lot of Mac software is free, but not open source. If I build autoconf or gnutls from source on my Mac, it's really more of a support to GNU than it is to Apple. Supporting Apple means something else entirely. Apple makes good software and good hardware, and I am willing to put my money where my mouth is.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version