Earlier quoted context omitted.
In all fairness, there is hardly anything to be done about it. You just can't come up with a full MS Office replacement fast enough to be relevant. Short of completely dismantling Microsoft, or even seizing their assets by governments (two options I don't approve of), I don't see a way to break that monopoly as long as this kind of Office Software is relevant.
Exactly. An industry with a high barrier to entry is prone to becoming a monopoly.
Linux pioneer Munich poised to ditch open source and return to Windows
151–160 of 177 posts
Re: Linux pioneer Munich poised to ditch open source and return to Windows
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. An industry with a high barrier to entry is prone to becoming a monopoly.
This is why I think governments should fund libre alternative projects substantially and long-term. It is a matter of national interest. LibreOffice Calc is missing features that are required by many users? The government should pay for it to be developed. The ironic thing is that it is not even expensive to break this monopoly. So many countries share this interest in breaking the monopoly. Why the EU spends billion…
Instead, they... did nothing. Classic US government.
>The ironic thing is that it is not even expensive to break this monopoly. So many countries share this interest in breaking the monopoly.
It's not expensive at all, no. It's the opposite of expensive. Microsoft has done countless things that are completely explicitly illegal to do, that are very anti-competitive. They should have been fined billions and broken up a decade or more ago. No lawsuits, no juries, just the FTC doing what it was made to do.
>Why the EU spends billions to protect farmers but is not willing to spend millions to finish and maintain a nearly workable independent software infrastructure is beyond me.
I have no idea how you think it's okay to blame the EU for 'protecting farmers' while not blaming the US for its much more pervasive farmer protectionism and subsidies (including paying people not to farm their land) and not dealing with Microsoft themselves, an American company.
>Most politicians are old and most old people don't understand computers, the internet and it's consequences. They don't get what is at stake. I still hope that some day people will get elected in Europe that understand theses issues.
Saying that 'politicians are old and don't understand computers' might have made sense three decades ago, but it makes less and less sense today. Politicians today grew up with computers.
Re: Linux pioneer Munich poised to ditch open source and return to Windows
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why I think governments should fund libre alternative projects substantially and long-term. It is a matter of national interest. LibreOffice Calc is missing features that are required by many users? The government should pay for it to be developed. The ironic thing is that it is not even expensive to break this monopoly. So many countries share this interest in breaking the monopoly. Why the EU spends billion…
The issue here, is that even as LO is firming up, the masses are moving to google docs and o365's online options... Which does reduce some barriers to switching, but introduces other development costs. MS is really good at making software, maybe not the best at UI/UX, but meeting needs in a relatively short period of time compared to competitors. o365 seems at first glance to be a bit better than google docs, and MS…
That's not really true, it's never ever really been true. It's capitalist propaganda that 'the Government is useless', and it's mainly propped up by extremely liberal governments (Republicans and Democrats, for example) that make the Government useless on purpose then say 'hey look the Government sucks'.
Not that it should ever need to be Government writing software to compete against Microsoft. Governments have much, much better tools for dealing with monopolies than trying to outcompete them. They're the only ones that have those tools. They should use them aggressively.
Re: Linux pioneer Munich poised to ditch open source and return to Windows
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue here, is that even as LO is firming up, the masses are moving to google docs and o365's online options... Which does reduce some barriers to switching, but introduces other development costs. MS is really good at making software, maybe not the best at UI/UX, but meeting needs in a relatively short period of time compared to competitors. o365 seems at first glance to be a bit better than google docs, and MS…
The government can fund private business developing free software to outpace another private business. For example Continuum Analytics is partly funded by public sources to work on open data science, competing against commercial offerings from SAS, for example. The Blender Foundation has some public funding for developing new features for the Blender 3D software suite, partly through public film funding.
Why? Governments are the only ones with the tools to actually deal with monopolies properly without competing with them: breaking them up, fining them extremely fiercely, etc.
Re: Linux pioneer Munich poised to ditch open source and return to Windows
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have an Ubuntu dev box for GPGPU computing, the UI sometimes completely freezes. Maybe it's NVIDIA's drivers. I've also noticed that some software that has automatic updates doesn't automatically update by default (Chrome? Firefox? I can't remember right now). In 2014, dual monitors didn't work by default and I had to find some command to put in my startup scripts. Maybe this is better now, but that wasn't that lon…
I'm guessing you went with the open source drivers that have transitioned from horrible to merely inferior without much help from nvidia. The official drivers from nvidia, which you would install as a matter of course with windows, both work better and come with a gui to configure your settings and multiple monitors.
But the fact that users are presented with a choice and have the opportunity to screw things up sort of shows the misalignment between Linux and the general public.
The general public wants and needs a computer they can't screw up, not something endlessly configurable.
For most people, if things don't work out of the box, they might as well not work at all. Many people don't even know drivers exist because they've never had to manually install them.
Re: Linux pioneer Munich poised to ditch open source and return to Windows
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue here, is that even as LO is firming up, the masses are moving to google docs and o365's online options... Which does reduce some barriers to switching, but introduces other development costs. MS is really good at making software, maybe not the best at UI/UX, but meeting needs in a relatively short period of time compared to competitors. o365 seems at first glance to be a bit better than google docs, and MS…
>Government can very rarely outpace private business in terms of getting things like this done. That's not really true, it's never ever really been true. It's capitalist propaganda that 'the Government is useless', and it's mainly propped up by extremely liberal governments (Republicans and Democrats, for example) that make the Government useless on purpose then say 'hey look the Government sucks'. Not that it should…
I'm not entirely in favor of governments competing with business... or propping them up. They should only interfere when there is a lack of opportunity to compete, either with unfair practices, or coercion.
Also, is there something wrong with capitalism? Note: that what we have is not really or nearly a free market, and that patent/copyright protections really need to be adjust to move in that direction.
Re: Linux pioneer Munich poised to ditch open source and return to Windows
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
I rather have proprietary formats on my hard disk, than open formats stored on someone's else computer.
why? I fail to see the logic, both are bad.
The one where I am productive and don't expose my data to third parties like Google.
Re: Linux pioneer Munich poised to ditch open source and return to Windows
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having to rewrite any macros for any reason is a no go. You may as well have just stopped there.
Depends on the company. Some have no problem replacing it with something else, some do.
Re: Linux pioneer Munich poised to ditch open source and return to Windows
#159Does anyone have some examples of the practical problems they experience using Linux, which can't easily be solved in any other way than going to Windows? It just seems odd to me given my good experience switching my fairly computer illiterate parents over to Linux previously. To be fair they presently use Mac, but I found the Linux switch a great advantage initially as I ended up with much less tech support dealing…
> Does anyone have some examples of the practical problems they experience using Linux, which can't easily be solved in any other way than going to Windows? I worked there. The biggest problems back a few years ago: 1) So-called "Fachverfahren", basically software for stuff like managing drivers' licenses or other bureaucratic procedures, is written and supplied for Windows only. Often enough that meant Munich had to…
4) and 5) would've been problematic on Windows, too (in fact, Windows would've struggled even more with 4).
Hopefully 2, 3, and the remainder of 1 will continue to improve, but they are indeed obstacles even today (users tend to get frustrated with Linux's "quirks", and the driver situation is still abysmal for printers and scanners, which are vital in offices; Wine is getting good enough to be a viable solution in some situations, but it's by no means a universal solution at this point).
Re: Linux pioneer Munich poised to ditch open source and return to Windows
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
In all fairness, there is hardly anything to be done about it. You just can't come up with a full MS Office replacement fast enough to be relevant. Short of completely dismantling Microsoft, or even seizing their assets by governments (two options I don't approve of), I don't see a way to break that monopoly as long as this kind of Office Software is relevant.
Dismantling Microsoft would absolutely be the correct response. That's what they did to Bell or AT&T or whatever they were called, and it was a good thing. Break up Microsoft into a company that makes Office, a company that makes Windows and a company that does .NET.