Software Choice = Political Freedom

1. 1. HC says:
      Aug 8, 01:04 pm
      
      

      I think the negative reaction you received was and is entirely fair.
      Propreitery software, esp MS tech, has billions in advertising dollars. They have access to business suits, trade mags, websites.
      Linux has none of that. Have you ever compared the multi-million dollar “developers, developers….” MS dog and pony shows to Linux conferences where it is hust a bunch of programmers coding.
      Linux has reached where it stands today not from any marketing smoke and mirrors, but entirely due to the dedication of its programmers and its user base.

      Now when people like you, even though well meaning, put up stuff like you did, it strikes a chord. Have you ever heard any MS commercial say that their products suck. Its a war of mindshare and articles like yours only serve to take away from all the good work many people have done.

      
      
2. 1. Stephen Cobb says:
      Aug 8, 01:51 pm
      
      

      I am all for open source: Help me do it.

      My law firm uses a Windows server set up, XP on all of the computers, Word for wp and Outlook for calendaring. Because we telecommute extensively, we do not use many traditional law firm programs such as Abacus or Amicus.

      Since everyone is incompetent in some area, we need software that is usable by technically incompetent people: If you were arrested for a felony, are you competent to handle your Florida felony case? No, not any more than I am competent to write code.

      We use Microsoft because it is there, and we can do so. It has bugs, it still crashes, and networking is pure hell. However, we are not aware of an alternative nor do we know how to use it. So don’t trash us as microsofties, get us into a linux based system where I can word process, have a calendar, access files remotely (telecommute), get on the Internet, and not have to have an IT or EE degree to do it.

      In the final analysis, word of mouth is the most effective way for lawyers to get business, not advertising. The same is true for software – if Linux is so great, hook me up. I’ll spread the word within the profession.

      
      
3. 1. Keir Thomas says:
      Aug 8, 02:16 pm
      
      

      HC – I’m fighting the “war of mindshare” you refer to. I’ve written three books advocating the use of Linux. I write regularly for this blog. My day job is editing books on open source technology.

      But our weapon in the battle must be the quality of our software, not political dogma, even if political beliefs might provide our impetus.

      Let me give you an example: Mozilla Firefox. Seems like everybody is using it, including millions of people who have never heard of open source. But there’s been almost zero advertising for it. Why is everybody using Firefox? Because it’s a superb piece of software that’s better than what’s offered by Microsoft.

      Firefox shows that battles against proprietary software can be won solely on quality of product. Open source has won in other areas too, such as Web servers. At the moment it’s marching on the desktop with Ubuntu.

      Too many times people have tried to win the battle by stating political ideals. But it turns out these don’t work. Software choice is a meritocracy. Give people good software and they’ll be happy, regardless of its origins.

      
      
4. 1. Andrew Krause says:
      Aug 8, 07:46 pm
      
      

      I agree with you completely, on all points actually. I have been a Linux “zealot” for a few years now, but recently I started writing a book for Apress. I had pretty much no choice but to use Microsoft Office, and have to say that I love it.

      After using OpenOffice.org for a few years now, picking up Office really is an upgrade. I wouldn’t say that about any other MS products, but this one I must concede. I applaud you coming out and admitting that a piece of proprietary software is the best solution for what you are doing because I know as an OSS advocate, that is difficult.

      
      
5. 1. John Smith says:
      Aug 9, 09:28 pm
      
      

      If only there was choice. In reality, software choice is not down to free choice, it is down to how impractical the monopolist’s can make your attempts to choose freely – that is what the “practicality” you talk about refers to.

      People are entitled to make a choice based on this “practicality” issue, but do not blame them for being angry at being forced to make that choice.

      
      
6. 1. Jack Carroll says:
      Aug 9, 09:48 pm
      
      

      I find much to agree with in this essay. I have a few comments to add, though.

      Not every software user needs to be interested in political considerations when selecting applications and systems. Nevertheless, there are valid political considerations, which are important to some—notably, the Massachusetts state government. Particularly when document files need to be maintained and updated over periods of decades and centuries, open-standard formats are of great importance. Experience has shown that enforcing such a requirement involves intense political battles. A raw political struggle for power over others, opposed by a struggle against domination by others, is exactly what has occurred in the last year. About word processors: I’ve used MS Word at work for many years, and found it inadequate for any but the simplest jobs. When I try to use some of the more advanced features such as Tables, or use combinations of features, I’ve had it repeatedly corrupt data and/or crash. Sometimes it works for some users on some machines with some files, sometimes it’s just hopeless. This is not a tool I can use to get my work done, unless I carefully restrict what I’m trying to do. By the way, Word isn’t inextricably tied to Windows; it’s well-supported on GNU/Linux via Crossover Office. The obvious alternative is OpenOffice Writer: it’s explicitly designed to be a replacement for Word. I’ve been doing some jobs with it recently. I’ve found it to be somewhat superior to Word; I’ve been able to lay out moderately complex documents with tables inside anchored frames. It hasn’t corrupted any data on me yet, but I have had one crash, which the auto-save file recovered. What I don’t like about it is the same sort of dumbed-down operator interface Word has, with great numbers of narrowly-targeted features instead of fewer generalized features that can be used in many ways. Like Word, it wants to do things its own way, and it take extra effort to force it do things your way. (But at least you can.) What I’ve found to be a real professional document-creation tool is neither of these. It’s FrameMaker 3.1. I’ve been using it since 1994 on a Unix workstation. The user interface is very well thought out, control of page layout is very fine-grained and logical, and the manuals are superb. And I’ve never run into a bug with it. Not in 12 years. Too bad it’s so expensive, and isn’t offered on Linux. So yes, I too, use a proprietary application for certain jobs, because it’s the most efficient, adaptable, and obedient tool available. But it really does win on merit, not marketing hype, FUD, or lock-in. So far, the open source world has not surpassed it.
      
7. 1. BH says:
      Aug 9, 10:04 pm
      
      

      On paper your argument for using MS Word instead of OO Writer seems to add up … that is unless the use of a product sold by a company which has knowingly and repeatedly violated US law is factored in. These actions by MS disgust me so much that I now only use OO Writer and OO Calc. Using MS products makes me feel like I am aiding a criminal with ill-gotten gains.

      
      
8. 1. Alex Chejlyk says:
      Aug 9, 10:34 pm
      
      

      I think the reason you got so many negative comments was the title – Linux Expert Switches to Windows – I don’t call myself an expert, but I handle 70 linux based servers and dozens of linux based workstations. I am comfortable with Debian, Red Hat, Ubunutu, Mandriva, Gentoo and Suse. I often help people out in forums when I have time (less so lately).
      I still consider myself a n00b because the true experts are light years beyond us.
      I do believe you should use what is best for the job, if that is MS Word, than use it.
      IMO, a true Linux expert would have looked for a solution such as RDP, NoMachine + Vmware, etc. An expert doesn’t throw in the towel because it is easier, an expert will make it work and tweak it until it is better.
      I usually call MS M$ – why? because it stands out and rings true – they are rich and never let morals get in the way of their quest for the mighty dollar.

      Cheers,

      Alex

      
      
9. 1. Neil Gardner says:
      Aug 9, 10:39 pm
      
      

      What exactly can you do in MS Office that Open Office can’t do just as well and just as effortlessly? I regularly use both office suites (MS Office occasionally at work and OpenOffice at home). Between 1993 and 2004 I used various incarnations of MS Office as my daily work horse. I’ve even proof-read and revised a 200 page book draft, originally written in MS Office, in Open Office 2.0 on Linux (I have all common true type fonts installed) and forwarded it to the publisher, with no complaints, just my more revisions.
      The best thing about OO is the ease with which one can save as ODT, PDF or Word .doc. MS Office on Windows has but one compelling advantage, it opens Word e-mail attachments and Web downloads much faster than OO. Many MS Office users are probably oblivious to the differences between Word documents and HTML and most are completely unaware of the coming switch to XML-based formats. In still resort to antiword, if someone sends me two paragraphs embedded in a Word document attached to an e-mail. Sure, sometimes I checked documents I write in OO look just fine in Word 2003. They usually do, with a few minor formatting quirks.
      Besides the more we use open source products, the more programmers are motivated to write extensions and utilities that expand their functionality.

      
      
10. 1. Curt Howland says:
       Aug 9, 10:49 pm
       
       

       Stephen Cobb, you can solve your problem quite easily: Focus your development on a web-based application. But don’t host it on IIS or put in FrontPage extentions. Just run Apache and use standard HTML. Then it won’t matter what the OS is, or what browser you or your clients use. It will also keep all the data on one central server, much easier for backing up and for making bullet-proof.

       Switching clients to Linux will then be easy. Just use KNOPPIX to make sure their hardware works, and if it does there are no longer any barriers to swapping to Linux. Oh, and if there are problems, you always have the KNOPPIX disks to boot from until the problems are ironed out.

       
       
11. 1. Matt Wade says:
       Aug 10, 12:10 am
       
       

       Neil Gardner wrote, “What exactly can you do in MS Office that Open Office can’t do just as well and just as effortlessly?”

       The commenting feature in Open Office is horrible. When you are dealing with a document that has a hundred or so comments embedded it is a complete and utter nightmare to navigate through them and deal with them properly. Word does an excellet job of handling comments.

       Other than the poor handling of comments, I have no complaints against Open Office. It DOES work for our book publishing process. We are NOT forced to use Word. If we want to go through the pain of dealing with comments in Open Office we can certainly use it. Unfortunately when you are dealing with manuscripts each and every day and 10’s (and sometimes 100+) comments in a document Open Office just doesn’t cut it. It takes me twice as long to review a document in Open Office because of this.

       
       
12. 1. Stomfi says:
       Aug 10, 01:35 am
       
       

       Why did you have to use MS Office on Windows?

       Isn’t the same functionality there using Wine or Crossover Office?

       This at least would have given MS Office functionality whilst retaining Open Source security and reliability.

       Please explain

       
       
13. 1. Curtis Napier says:
       Aug 10, 03:37 am
       
       

       Excellent article, you summed up my feelings about FOSS vs Proprietary pretty closely. It’s also one of the driving forces behind Gentoo Linux/BSD. End User Choice.

       We never force you to use anything you don’t want to use while offering you the largest amount of choice that our volunteer development staff is capable of…including proprietary software.

       Of course, we push the FOSS applications with a very loud voice but we, like you, feel the decision is best left up to the person actually using the software.

       
       
14. 1. Rufus Polson says:
       Aug 10, 04:16 am
       
       

       I feel your pain and understand, in specific, your decision to switch. Well, more or less. But at the same time, I disagree with some of your related comments.
       You note that in the “I switched” entry you made what you consider some profound conclusions—specifically, that Windows is profoundly dependent on MS Office and MS Office’s dominance of its field. Well, yes, but it’s hardly a new or profound observation. I’d say that basic realization and related ones about the .doc format lockin has been behind several large projects in the Free software world—OpenOffice, KOffice, Abiword and other bits of “Gnome Office”, their strenuous efforts to make solid ”.doc” filters rather than just concentrate on their own file formats, the elaborate process of making Open Document a standard, Crossover Office (presumably there’s a reason they call it that rather than, say, Crossover Photoshop), and so on. So far not entirely successful efforts, but certainly efforts springing in good part from a stark realization of this problem.

       Similarly the observation that “There are many who believe an individual’s choice of software should be driven by politics, rather than practicality.”
       Well, yes, very true, and again, one would have thought rather obvious.

       But from there you enter territory where I must fundamentally disagree. First, you state that Richard Stallman introduced politics into computer science. This strikes me as distinctly misleading, based in a sense on a misunderstanding of what politics is. Politics is about the struggle between different interests. It’s happening around people whether they are willing to think about it, recognize it, sully their hands with trying to alter it, or not. When, for instance, a situation of de facto (but as yet not formally defined) open source begins to change into a more closed system because commercial interests begin concluding that they will make more money that way, even if it will negatively impact users, that is politics—the commercial interests are furthering their interests, the users’ interests are being affected. When Richard Stallman noticed that he wasn’t able to look at a printer driver because of this situation and consciously decided to do something about it, that was perhaps the first conscious application of political ideas to computer science, but a political situation was already unfolding, and politics had certainly been entwined in computer science since ENIAC.

       Then you bring in the totalitarianism meme:
       “totalitarianism, wherein people are expected to act a certain way because it suits a certain belief system, regardless of whether it’s the best thing to do.”
       This involves a misunderstanding that seems widespread among bloggers and internet commentators of all stripes. At the most basic level, here’s where you go wrong: Argument, condescension, verbal attack, even insult do not constitute force. Someone else’s free speech does not violate yours or your freedom of choice. You have a right to choose what you wish—but it is not totalitarian for someone to denounce your choice as stupid or even evil.

       That statement needs unpacking in a few other ways. For instance, the word “best”. It’s thrown in there with the assumption that everyone will agree on the meaning of “best”, and that everyone should agree that what you mean by “best” is the most important consideration. Ironically, this means in short that you expect people to act a certain way because it suits a certain belief system. Sorry, but it’s just not the case that everyone else’s notions about the right thing to do are political, but yours are not.
       I take it that by “best” you mean “most efficient for the immediate task at hand”. That seems to lots of people these days to be obviously the most important thing there could possibly be, and it’s absurd that “mere” politics could possibly trump this efficiency ethic. But it’s clearly not the case.
       Let’s take an absurd example: Let’s say that there was a motor oil which was clearly superior to all other motor oils, but to make it required boiling babies alive. I’d say it would be quite reasonable for someone to expect you to act a certain way (NOT use that motor oil) because it suited their belief system (boiling babies alive is BAD) regardless of whether it was the best thing to do (in the sense that it was the most efficient choice). People might be expected to look down on someone for choosing that efficient motor oil.
       Now that’s an absurd case, appealing directly to primal ethics. But say it appealed instead to the long-term general interest in a powerful way—say that motor oil didn’t require killing babies, but consistently doubled cancer death rates everywhere it was in common use and the government refused to ban it. Here we move into the realm of the political. The belief system involving immediate efficiency is pitted against the belief that everyone’s longer term good depends on giving up that immediate efficiency. Again, it might be quite reasonable for people to expect you to do just that, and look down on you if you did not.

       The ethical, political and long-term-general-good arguments revolving around Free Software are much subtler than an immediate doubling of cancer death rates. There is indeed room for considerable debate about just what if any the benefits are. But many people find the arguments for its value in the long term and its ethical importance very persuasive—indeed, you do yourself. In short, immediate efficiency is not the only valid question, the only measure of the “best” thing to do. The ethical, political, and longer-term benefit issues of a question do have a value.

       So if you decide to privilege immediate efficiency and someone else thinks some other facet, with maybe an ethical dimension, is more important in the case you faced, they’re going to think you made the wrong—even the ethically wrong—choice. And they may look down on you for doing so. They may perhaps be specifically wrong, but they’re not inherently wrong for even considering the importance of those other issues rather than focussing only on immediate efficiency. And the concept of judging people for the political or ethical dimensions of an action is not a totalitarian one—it is essential to have a functioning democracy. The point of a vigorous exchange of ideas in a democratic polity is precisely to make informed judgments among them, not to flabbily say I suppose everyone’s got a point.

       You may be bugged that people have been judging you—but you’re out in the public view making statements which, whether you like it or not, have political and ethical implications. People are going to judge you. It’s reasonable to wish that they will do so civilly and with some degree of relevance and thought. But it’s wrong to say they shouldn’t do it at all.

       
       
15. 1. Alan Jones says:
       Aug 10, 09:56 am
       
       

       I’ve got no problem at all with your switch – you have solid reasons and it’s an understandable move to immediately solve you problem.

       What I do think is missing though is your communcation with OpenOffice. Why aren’t you detailing exactly where the product is falling short, how it could be rectified (from a user’s POV, not codewise) providing it openoffice developers and doing what you can to assist them in making the product meet your requirements?

       Posting the information in your blog helps, but it’s still relying on chance for it to make it’s way into the hands of developers.

       The problem isn’t your switching to the tool you need to get the job done – it’s in your lack of active support for the open source community. Feedback and development are the currency of the open source world – what we really need is a stronger economy.

       Best Wishes,

       Alan.

       
       
16. 1. Keith B. Himelwright says:
       Aug 10, 11:17 am
       
       

       The inherent difficulty in separating the technical aspects (of open source vs. proprietary software) from the political arguments, is that proprietary software is judged to have poisoned the well, and open source advocates respond to that, rather than the purely technical considerations. If it is true, and it does seem to be, that Microsoft has engaged in monopolistic and predatory practices in the past, then it seems quite reasonable that open source users regard their software with a jaundiced eye. Is this fair? Probably not- but this is why you received so many negative reactions.

       It would be better by far to raise the level of discourse- to ignore, as a community, the name-callers and kneejerk zealots on both sides, and resolve to create the meritocracy you describe. But old wounds are easily opened, and inflamed with past inequities. You are to be commended for writing about your situation in an evenhanded manner, but I suspect it will quite a while before such analysis yields an evenhanded response.
       
17. 1. Grigor Gatchev says:
       Aug 10, 12:28 pm
       
       

       I both agree and disagree with you. :-)

       Often you will find a proprietary software that is superior to any FOSS solution at the moment. Under a meritocracy, everyone should abandon the FOSS solution, and use the proprietary one. Consequently, the FOSS solution will die. And, since practically every FOSS software have been, or will be at some point inferior to some proprietary one, a meritocracy would result in the death of the entire FOSS thing.

       This is not to say that you should never use proprietary software, even if it is the only one to do the job for you. Of course you will use it, if you have no choice. But if you can improve a FOSS piece instead, I believe this is the wiser move. On the long run, you have more merit in it.

       The more you think on the long run, the more the “political” and “ideological” affinity for the software freedom appears justified and bringing more merit to you. Binary drivers in the kernel bring more merit in short run, but much less in long. Tivo-isation is not a problem in the short run (you can modify and run the stuff on other hardware, right?), but what about that Microsoft initiative – to have the ordinary PCs running only OSes that are keysigned by the manufacturer?...

       On the long run, the Stallman-type fanaticism almost always turns out to give you the most merit. I don’t like fanaticism and fanatics, but that’s what my eyes say, and I trust them.

       
       
18. 1. David says:
       Aug 10, 02:31 pm
       
       

       Good article, and I agree. There are many who sneer at those of us who aren’t Linux purists. Sure, I have Linux servers. But I also have Netware servers, and Windows servers, and BSD servers. In each case, the server runs whatever OS it runs based on what the server is expect to do. I won’t host fileshares on Windows boxes or Linux boxes as long as I’ve got Netware boxes (and those wonderful login scripts). Likewise, I won’t host DNS, DHCP, NTP, etc on Netware or Windows boxes because those services are so much easier (and cheaper) to work with on Linux. As far as I know, MSSQL will only run on Windows boxes, and when your $750,000 accounting system only runs on MSSQL, what can you do?

       As always, the key is to use the right tool for the job. Each OS has strengths and weaknesses. As the Admin, my job is to match them accordingly, regardless of the lunatic rantings of Stallman, Ballmer, or Hovsepian. There are places where proprietary, closed-source solutions make sense, and there are other places where FOSS makes sense.

       Do I hate Microsoft? Sure I do, and I have since they decided to kill DOS 15 years ago. But do I denigrate folks who use Windows? Not at all (except maybe the Paper-MCSEs, but that’s another matter altogether).

       And if you wondered, Netware is still my favorite NOS of the bunch.

       
       
19. 1. Brendan says:
       Aug 12, 04:11 am
       
       

       More in response to your earlier post but…

       OOo track changes is inadequate – agree entirely there are bugzilla entries on it going back years.
       use comments in MS Word – I think you’re crazy, please don’t send me any documents.
       use Office on Linux – I’m surprised you had problems. Word on Linux is transparent for me. This is modulo some initial configuration.

       Brendan

       
       
20. 1. Bruce Miller says:
       Aug 15, 01:09 pm
       
       

       You might be interested in the following article describing how one *ix author and her editor substantially sped up the writing and editing process using only open source tools:
       http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2004/06/03/bsdhacks.html

       
       
21. 1. Keir Thomas says:
       Aug 15, 01:57 pm
       
       

       Bruce – Interesting article, thanks.

       I would point out a few things.

       From a layman’s point of view, authoring sounds like an open and shut case. Surely all authors need is the ability to mark-up headings, and some way to input copy? Surely a basic word processor with some kind of markup system will be more than enough?

       Well, yes and no. Yes, we need that, but there’s a lot more to authoring than creating first drafts. To work efficiently we need a sophisticated toolset, particularly when it comes to revising drafts later on. A typical Apress chapter goes through many revisions during authoring and copy editing. Believe me, good revision tracking and commenting makes our job a LOT easier. I would go so far as to say that it makes it possible. Without such features we might as well print out hard copies and use a red pen, mailing them between offices. I’m serious.

       Authoring is a complex issue when it comes to software. I might dedicate a blog posting to it at some point.

       It’s important for any potential authors to note that the Apress open source team is flexible. We also work with OpenOffice.org and we currently have authors working with an XML system.

       Additionally, we’ve made several enquiries about boosting OpenOffice.org’s commenting and revisioning features, and have even offered money toward this goal as a bounty. If any OO.org devs are reading this, and would like to learn more, they should get in touch.

       
       
22. 1. a thing says:
       Sep 5, 11:02 pm
       
       

       Perhaps you should take a look at the history of “open source”.
       http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html
       http://faifzilla.org/toc.html

       All this Free Software didn’t get here just because RMS said, “Use Free Software,” which was becoming increasingly rare back then. If he had just said that and switched to proprietary software, (almost) all software today would be proprietary. But we do have Free Software because he was inspired to write it by the ideology.

       
       
23. 1. Dennis says:
       Feb 26, 09:26 pm
       
       

       I totally agree with the switch to Windows. All I ever hear is how great and wonderful open source is. It even has “the easiest desktop in the world” called Linspire.

       I made the switch, thinking I would break away from Windows and the monopoly it has created. I now know why Windows has created that monopoly: Because it is a superior product.

       They say you get what you pay for. When it comes to operating systems, it is entirely true. There’s a reason why Windows cost money…because it works.

       Linspire was the biggest piece of shit system I have ever seen. Granted, it’s “almost there”, but it just could not perform and work in the manner I needed. Windows can.

       I’m all about free or cheap software and people being free to manipulate their own software. But, until such a thing can provide a product that actually works (Linspire couldn’t even stay logged on the net, much less work with a speed much greater than dial-up), I will spend my money on something that is worth the money that can get the job done, like Windows.

       Good for you in ignoring everyone telling you what you “should” be doing and using enough sense to understand that what “should” work is not what works;

       What works is what works.