Discussion on:

Open computing is dead (long live open computing!)

... which is older and far more complete than even Linux and an OS class in which OS X belongs as a fully-certified version. Even iOS is a spinoff version of UNIX.

Microsofts offering is also a a bunch of bundled components, it's not as open because in order to achieve a "fully integrated suite" or at least as close as they could come as a viable commercial proposition, they had to restrict how open it could be.

There's the short term advantage of going monolithic.

There's the long term cost of being monolithic.

There's the long term benefit of vendor lock in.

There's the long term benefit of choosing of choosing closed interoperability mechanisms to stifle competition,

Go have an off the record honest conversation with some of the boys from the big closed software vendors. Are they happy with how dead open computing is, I'm guessing not...

Within the non-"I like to work on my computers all day to make them do what I want them to do" group (consumers who just want the computer to work and not have to spend more time getting it to do what they want to do than actually doing it), the real problem with all software is change.

Versions and updates change rapidly and sometimes just as you're getting something to work well for you, the rug is pulled out from under you and you have to start looking for something else to do the thing you did so well on the previous platform (usually this is related to hardware change - drivers in particular - but sometimes software as well). If you aren't into the searching and tweaking, that can be a nasty proposition.

Closed systems seem to mitigate the problems of change by managing them for us. AKA MS Windows changes frequently, but the underlying systems are never far from where they were even several versions ago, and for the most part there is a backwards compatibility and a hardware testing process that allows you to continue to use older software or at the very least files, in ways that are still useful.

Yes, all of that is true with "open source" but keep in mind my comments about not wishing to have to continually tweak the software, but just have it work.

Ubuntu has come a long way in trying to mitigate the changes and manage them as a whole (rather than simply as smaller components) in the same manner as MS & Apple have, but without the huge corporate monster eating up people's wallets, but it is still lacking in the focused direction those companies have.

I hear a lot about Apple and MS embracing the Open Source community and learning from their model to improve their products, but I don't think I have ever heard of Open Source learning from the Closed systems to improve on their own model... or is that what Ubuntu was all about?

I hear about the lack of advertising of the *nix OS's a lot - why can't someone - perhaps even for a few $ that could be paid by the hardware vendors - pull together a managed system that is useful to the non-technical, consistently managed with clear direction and a user focus, driven by user focus groups and feedback rather than the technical whims of developers (that should still not be lost)... that is the challenge for Ubuntu I think.

That too (to some extent), appears to be Google's approach, and it seems to be working for them.

Sorry for the disjointed thoughts...

When I was beta testing Vista, I reported a bug concerning errors with Outlook 2000 running (or better said, failing to run) in Vista. Microsoft's official answer was that they were aware and their solution was for me to go out and spend $??? on a new version of Microsoft Office Pro. When I ran the compatibility wizard for Win 7, I was informed that a few of my 3rd party software programs would have to be replaced with "compatible" versions.

I have been using various versions of "nix" for several years now. With most every upgrade, there is nothing to tweak. I simply save my "home" folder and copy it to the new system. It works far better and with less headaches than the "Documents and settings transfer wizard" that Microsoft supplies. What I find to be the truth of open source is that the rule is that it works out of the box, unless you have a cutting edge wifi or TV card you are trying to use.

The biggest hold back for open source is the simple fact that the average customer hates learning a different way of doing a task, even though the new way may be much more efficient than how they have been doing it. Just look at how a very large group of people bash Win 8 before it's even out, due to the fact that Metro looks different and they will have to change the way they do common tasks. Many Linux customers dislike the Gnome 3 desktop for the same reason.

In the end, it's not about tweaking something to make it work. Windows, Mac, and Linux all work. It's about having to learn a new way of doing things, and that terrifies the crowds of people that struggle just to remember where they saved "that file" that they can't find. Even Microsoft is learning that. Their $39 per copy of WIndows 8 Pro is a panicked attempt to get the software out into the wild so that a few people will say "Hey, it's different, but it's not that bad", so that the software may start to sell by "word of mouth". At $39 per copy, I'll buy it several copies for myself. But then, I'm a Linux user, so I'm not that terrified of "different".

The fear of change is the biggest hold back to open "computing" . When you try to give a person who's career is dependent on Excel and Word a copy of Open Office you see fear before they even open the first document.
Fear of something different.
Fear of learning something new.
Fear of losing skills with professionally excepted tools of the trade.
Then when they do use the software and they can't format and print a page because the menu is in a different group. You have more fear and anger.
Microsoft deals with these same feeling everytime they come out with a new version any software that they have made changes to the face of the program.
As more and more goverment offices change to open computing private bussiness will also.
As more and more cloud based applications come in and are accepted the less need we will have for a closed operating system.
Open is not Dead its just learning to walk!

I have only been a member of the ZDnet newsletter (which contained a link to this article) mailing list for a short period of time. I will say that both ZDnet and TechRepublic appear to be very bias towards Microsoft in general. Just flipping back to the newsletter, the first article listed in the New at TechRepublic section is titled Windows 8 closes feature gap with Mac OSX.
Dont get me wrong, I dont have a Mac, but am attempting to get into the Linux world of computing (because I am tired of paying to be a software tester for MS, just so they can charge me an arm and a leg when they need to maintain their residual income by spitting out a new operating system), but I digress???
At any rate, the title of the article I mentioned above clearly is bias towards MS. An unbiased title would be more like Mac OSX is still better than what Windows 8 will be. Instead the article might as well read, Be patient with the MS, they are still trying to recover from the Vista fiasco, but dont forget to buy Windows 8.
No, I didnt read that article, because I dont want to. I am sure that many people simply dont have time to read the article to see if it is unbiased. They just read the title and might think Hey Windows 8 is coming out soon, and it is competitive still. Then they read the next title (this articles title) and say Open computing is dead? Well I should probably stick with Windows. --- propaganda implanted.
Now, I did read this article and it is an obvious smear campaign against the open source movement. It attempts to get the reader to believe that closed systems such as MS are still the best game in town. They are only still dominant because they have locked companies into licensing contracts that have statements like, and I am paraphrasing, the customer agrees to install the latest MS OS and Office products as they come out, even if the hardware cant handle it and the users productivity will actually decrease because of it.
So basically corporations use it because they a locked into a contract and dont want to spend the resources to get out of it and move to open computing. People that have a choice, like me, are moving to open source (just installed Debian Squeeze a little bit ago.. I am so exited, FREEEEEEDOOOoom! as William Wallace would say). Linux distros have come long way over the last several years in making it user friendly for the end user; however, I will admit that it isnt quite there yet for server administration. Even so, I am willing to be patient with software developer who admit their flaws and ask for help rather than hide them then force me to pay for an upgrade which may fix it.
Lastly, the point of this post is to point out that I cant trust what is being said on this site, because you are obviously biased towards MS.

Let me first say I don't think open source is bad. I have several Linux VM's that I play around with. But, I don't necessarily think it's better than closed source and in some cases its worse.

Open Office is a really nice office suite and for the most part, conversion between documents created in Open Office and documents created in Microsoft Office is pretty good, but not perfect. So why waste your time with a piece of software that MAY render your documents incorrectly when opened by 90% of the rest of the world? In my world, it's worth $200 not to have to worry about that embarrassment.

There are some pretty good (free) Linux distros out there now. However, there's a learning curve to go from Windows to Linux. I'm willing to bet, unless you already know Linux well, you'll spend at least a day configuring a new Linux install to work how you want it to and installing software and codecs to work with the files you want, etc. I don't know about you, but a whole day of my time is worth the $200 price tag on a retail version of Windows. But lets say you spend $400 and get the "Ultimate" version of Windows and you stay on that version for 3 years. That's $133.33 per year... $11.11 per month... $0.37 per day. Is it really worth saving that 37 cents per day? To me it's not.

dearer than you claim and also a lot bigger than going from Windows to some variants of Linux.

I have a new client who has been using Windows 2000 with MSIE 7, Office 97, Photoshop 5, and Outlook Express for many years as they do all they need. They were recently looking at a new computer and were horrified at how much it was going to cost them software wise as they need to replace ALL their software if they get a new system; even with Windows 7 with MSIE included, it doesn't have Outlook Express and it Office 2010 with Photoshop costs over a thousand dollars more - total bill nearly $3,000 for PC plus software and replacement peripherals as there's no Win 7 drivers for his older laser printer and scanner that still work. But the real horror for him was how huge the learning curve to use the Office Ribbon system.

Needless to say he didn't buy a new system. After he was referred to me and we spoke about what he needs, I got him two year old ex lease higher end Dell on which I installed Zorin OS Linux with Libre Office, Gimp, Fire Fox, and Thunderbird. He was very happy as it looked so much like his old system while still being much faster. Also, the learning curve was next to nothing as all the new stuff had a similar look and feel to his old stuff he's used to.

Mind you, I'm sure the learning curve between Vista and Win 7 is nothing, but few are upgrading just ONE level. Also a shift from the Win 2000/XP to the Win Vista / 7 means new peripherals and application.

is every bit as jarring as the one from 2000 to 7. This could be a prime opportunity for Linux, but I still think it suffers from not being available pre-installed.

via Dell on-line and then only on a few very low end systems or servers. The problem is getting it as an alternative on ALL the Dell and HP lines and readily available in the retail stores. Heck, I've seen people walk out of the retails stores since the sales staff knew nothing about Linux and the client wanted Linux.

as well as the functionality. Don't like the way something behaves? Change it. Can't do that with closed source.

how many people care enough about making changes to go to the trouble of learning how? Paint and canvas may be cheap, but it's going to take a while to learn how to recreate the Mona Lisa.

Because some folks think Open Source means a free lunch rather than freedom of expression.

Even the article author uses the term "freely available" in a monetary rather than an intellectual/knowledge sense.

Imagine if I gave you a pencil and paper, but said you couldn't use the words "The, I, and, but". You don't have to be a famous writer or painter to realize that limits your communication options.

Imagine you gave me a book, but I didn't know the words "The, I, and, but" and didn't have any sense of context to puzzle them out. That limits the benefit of my having the book, or the source code. Sure, it didn't cost me anything, but I may have to pay someone to read portions to me to get full benefit.

if you have source code you have options. If you don't have source code you don't have options.

With regards to your analogy above your precondition of "no sense of context" falls apart as soon as you acknowledge that someone, somewhere could read to you. (if they can do that they can also teach you to fish if you so desire :))

They simply don't know how. They don't want to know, either.

But there is a difference between not wanting to do something and not being able to do it. That is the difference between closed and open source. It's also why closed source works as a model. And there is nothing wrong with just being interested in functionality.

Open Source works because there are people who want to push boundaries, learn new things and basically go where no one has gone before. And they are the ones the closed source critters watch closely to get ideas from .

... since apps like OpenOffice and Gimp came out because of MSOffice and Photoshop. I've tried both and I still keep OpenOffice as a backup on my Mac because it has the capability to open files from long-gone applications--though all it does is open them with all the formatting commands converted to text. At least I'm able to harvest the old unformatted text out of the 50 or so pages of commands.

It's no different from learnng how to work on your car or build your own furniture. Sure, you can learn how, but is it worth the payoff? Is it worth whatever other activities you'll sacrifice while you learn, or the money you'll spend on the tools?

I downloaded and installed a copy of Ubuntu 12.04 on my ASUS Eee PC just to try it out. I put it on an 8 gig thumb drive, and after hours of installation, when I tried to launch it, I needed to supply the password that I couldn't remember. I have found a way around that, but still have to implement it. I have heard so much about Linux, that though that I would try it out. Also tried to install Android 4.0.3 ICS on my Netbook too, and it installs as CD application which means that you cannot store any information. Computer language in general is way too complicated, and Microsoft has not made it any easier. If you want to have W7, Ubuntu, and Android on the same machine, it should not be so difficult to do. One thing for sure, you have to put them each on a separate partition or you will be in big trouble. Also installing to a thumb drive allows you to try it out, but at a real price in convenience. Effectively each time you turn it on, you have to start from scratch.

Want a good Linux version, try Zorin OS Linux as it's a lot easier to install and use and it has a range of GUIs so you can make it look like Windows if you want.

...I still have to say that Windows is the more complete install--from scratch. I've installed two different versions of Ubuntu Linux on different machines that were both readily internet accessible (Wi-Fi) through Windows and OS X (one of each). In both cases, the basic install went incredibly quickly and smoothly; obviously due to the much smaller footprint. On the other hand, both machines then had to be configured and Ubuntu had trouble with both of them configuring the specific Wi-Fi system in the two machines. Sure, they're both 802.11(x), but they both used different brand 'cards' and ended up requiring manual configuration before they could go online to download drivers for the rest of the internal hardware on the machines. In other words, while Ubuntu was obviously faster to install, Windows and OS X carried much more complete installs, though admittedly the old, white, G3 iBook obviously can't run the later iterations of OS X the way it can Ubuntu.

And that kind of brings out the other drawback of Linux: While Linux is a great OS, a lot of the more current software relies on current video cards and newer processors. From what I've seen, you can handle legacy or current hardware, but you cant force current software to subsequently operate on legacy hardware all that well. Linux is great since it doesn't require massive overhead, but that means, again, that you have to search for and install the drivers for anything newer. The average consumer doesn't know that; doesn't want to know that; and wants the OS to do everything for itself--including support.

scratch, but every time I have, I've had more troubles getting it up to working that i have when installing Ubuntu, Kubuntu, or Zorin OS from scratch. The only time you need a driver for hardware with Linux is when the hardware in question has been designed to work out of the box with Windows and is NOR set up to use the Industry Standard Commands. By ISC hardware and you don't need any specific drivers - graphics cards are a little different in that most now have extra stuff on board that need their own drivers, but the basic graphics work great.

I agree the average user wants the system delivered and all working, so that simply means someone else has to load it up and set it up for them, either at Dell, HP, or the local IT store.

On a pre-assembled system, the ease of installation is dependent on how easy the vendor has made finding the right drivers. Dell good, Toshiba okay, HP bad.

It's been years since I've loaded W on a custom-bullt system. In some ways, it's easier to get the right drivers since you know exactly what you installed. However, you lost the advantage of the OEM making sure all the pieces play nice together.

Obviously MS FUD. Open src is still around. It's the core of OSX, Android, iOS, chrome. The LAMP stack is still the overwhelming majority of deployments on the web. Open standards will be the only way to survive the mass exodus from the closed standards of windows and proprietary API's. My TV is running Android and the TiVo or any other DVR is using Linux. Our security cameras, routers, and every computing device that we have is running some form of open source OS. This movement is still very active and open is winning... you can tell how soon the Vista 2.0 release is coming by the FUD that's being put out.

A while back, visiting a contractor with whom I was corroborating, I happened to glance at her computer screen, and commented, "Oh, I see you use Ubuntu, too!" She responded, "I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. All I know is I used to have a lot of problems with my computer until a friend of mine came in and fixed it. Now, everything just works." That is probably a common attitude in the "consumer" market.
I personally use primarily a distro called CAELinux, an integrated engineering software package built on Ubuntu. On the same computer, I have a version of Fedora optimized for electrical/electronic engineers, that I will boot up on occasion for specific projects. I have a couple of other Linux flavors on the same computer (changing occasionally, as I like exploring new options).
But, the real reason I use Linux is that it has significantly reduced the amount of time I need to dedicate to system maintenance. If I break the system with my experimenting, it is trivial to wipe the sector and reload the operating system- usually a matter of hours, compared to more than a week to get my old Windows systems back up and running (which were more often broken by malware or MS updates rather than my own experimentation). Updates? With Linux, trivial. With Windows, I always cringed when updating, because it was almost a sure bet that the update was going to break some third party package on which I depended...
However, I must encourage you to continue spouting the "Open Source is Dead" line. The more people who believe this, the greater my competitive advantage...

To make an architected computing environment it takes a LOT of work (hence money), managment, time effort and risk tolerance. Especially in a fast paced changing world. This is not a technical issue, it is a funding / business issue. The only way open flourishes is if it is a true business model with all the development, support (and design resources) for the next iteration.

four versions of Windows had been tried out on Linux systems first and then the code copied for Microsoft to use it on their systems.

Patrick,
Be well in your opinion. It is opinion, is it not?
If it is journalism, state some hard facts.

Oh, no worries from here. I deal with MS based stuff all the time at the corporate level.

And then they let us veterans cast that out.
Then it works, flawlessly. Yes, in Unix land.

I really do think you're bloviating here.
Send me your response, no worries.
Btw, your Ajaxian dictionary doesn't and that is nearly
what bloviate means.
Wow, I used to think there was some sense here.
Notta.
morourke@theworld.com

I, for one, hate the Microsoft Monopoly. Every day I have to fight with old OS's such as Windows 2000 because my company cannot upgrade the main PC which houses our databases and CAD/CAM software. The machines that the PC controls do not have XP drivers available, and it is unpredictable what would happen upon upgrade. Commercial plotters and printers are key to our business, and we don't have the capital to upgrade everything, just to hang on in this economy! So I stick with Firefox because it runs on more PCs there. I've noticed that even Firefox is dropping support for Windows 2000 because they are upgrading to a new Visual Studio compiler. Give me a product that runs all of the business software I need, is rock solid, security-wise and doesn't need constant updates. Oh -- PLUS an interface that doesn't change with every release (from Windows 2000 to Windows 8, plus Microsoft Office and its "dynamic ribbon." This is what I would have hoped "open source" software could do. It's nice to have Open Office to open .docx and .xlsx files that I get sent, but a truly flexible, open source system will only be a pipe dream. It's all about throwing money at a problem, then doing it again in a few years when the software becomes obsolete.

As Mark Twain said. Oh come on . I'm using tons of open source software. It's part of an eco-system with some payment and some which has tried to recoup some payments with donations. My Linux server, by virtualized Xen environment, wikipedia and so on and so on.....

No - open source did not take over the world (yet). But it is a viable alternative and a practical one for many people.

We are not all sixties drop outs singing Kumbaya. We are supporters of a serious techical alternative. Live with it.

I have worked recently with MySQL, PostgresSQL, Mongo, Hadoop, Firefox, Linux, Arduino based systems all of which hew to the open source model. I work as a consultant and so get to see what is going on in lots of companies in a relatively short period of time. And the ultimate open source based OS that is out there big time? Android. And according to an article I read not too long ago 3 out of 5 enterprise server OS installs are Linux, not Windows. So while open source may not be showing up on the execs laptop, it is very much a factor in nearly everything else. And Mr. Patrick appears to be a one man, executive level consultant based in the happening state of South Carolina. Not exactly a source I would give much credence at first blush.

Then you ruined a perfectly good post.

By making an ad hominem attack without doing your research–a quick look at a map would have told you that Fort Mill, SC is a suburb of the not-so-happening city of Charlotte, NC–you lead others to question your abilities.

... since I know damn well Microsoft has a training center in Charlotte and a certain group of Systems Administrators I know are going there for higher-level IIS training next week.

in which rmycroft2000 used the phrase "the happening state of South Carolina".

If open anything does not work who do you go to for a fix? Its easier to get on the phone and tell the vendor who you gave good money to to sort it out asap. Try that with open whatever.

the company for tech support. Even with a system from a vendor, you have to pay to ship it back or take it to their approved tech, and then they usually say it's not a warranty item and you have to pay anyway. SO you see an IT tech anyway and pay to get it set up.

That's what's done by the customers of IBM, Red Hat, and other companies in the open source support arena.

You can complain to that closed source vendor; that doesn't mean they're going to change anything. Obviously, some are better than others, but they already have your money.

Good points to be made here - and if the "open" community would STOP building offshoots, sprouts, and derevations from anything resembling normalcy that would help as well.
Open used to mean anything LAMP - and although that term can still be used, you now have a House of Flavors when it comes to describing the combinations and possibilities (which has benifitted folks who dev in .NET, SQL and MS server land)
Add strange beasts like HADOOP and NoSQL into the mix - and resurgence of UD/UniVerse on Linux platforms - who can make any informed choice as to which to settle on.
In the "open" world, many are at the behest of hobby-programmers that build for fun and show and not for a paycheck - and they come and go as often as a stormfront so don't rely on stability/continuity in your business model if you choose these paths.

and especially on the fact that some modicum of standardization has been good for FOSS. I'm having less resistance from my clients in trying LiveCDs of Ubuntu or other well defined Linux distro. One only has to look at the veritable stampede to open source developed smart phones to see the future, and it is bright! Maybe Android is closed now, but it would never have existed without an open source background.

Folks just want stability - what scares them is all the blizzard of distros peppering the field - it leads to confusion - I doubt most FOSS fans really want this to jell anyway, as they like to sniff and pontificate about their exclusivity. This just drives many of my clients away from FOSS, not toward it. Now when I explain to them that their very much loved Android came from that same community, it opens their eyes to the possibilities. I think the public is better primed than ever before for the big jump in computing - all it takes is a little stability.

To make FOSS an OS for the people, you gotta have some consideration for the people.