It's not us vs. them...

Martin Hattingh has a weird us-vs-them post. I tend not to write short comments, and since I'm not posting here as often as I used to, I think I'll pirate back my comments.

My first reply...

For someone who claims to promote simplicity, you seem to confuse issues yourself.

Firstly, you're creating a false dichotomy. It's not like you can't support both Microsoft's vision for the future and Linux. It's not "us vs. them".

Secondly, you don't seem to specify your target audience correctly. While you say "Linux friends" and "Linux dudes", I think you probably want to talk with "The Open Source community". I guess, in particular, the Open Source development community, since you're talking about thinking about your software (ie, the stuff you're developing) in terms of everyone else.

Thirdly, you're purposefully mischaracterising your audience using straw men arguments. Elsewhere you said you didn't want people to read between the lines, which I think is justifiable when these tactics are used. You're also purposefully attempting to put people on the defensive in this "communication".

Overall, I think this rates as a troll. While there may be a real message inside, it's argumentative, attacking, and deceitful.

Okay, on to the real message.

Well, how much travelling do you do in Africa? In South America? In Asia? You know where "the rest of the people" live. How many classrooms with Open Source based solutions have you seen providing an option where no other exists? Are you saying that the people creating these solutions using Open Source _aren't_ thinking about the problems of the rest of the world, these billions of people without access to ICTs?

How much do you know about the work of Open Source developers and supporters in the creation of standards that allow others to choose the implementations they want of something? Do you think Microsoft really has that much of an innovative advantage? How much do you attribute their continuing (but dropping) domination of the market to their installed base, to the same effects that cause leaders to remain in power in markets, and so forth?

Are you saying that no Open Source developers are thinking about information classification? Any such claim is easily falsifiable. Are you saying that no Open Source developers are thinking about team-based activities? You're talking about the Open Source _community_ here - the people who've created the ability for millions of people to interact and build software together successfully in thousands of projects used by millions of users.

I _do_ understand why "good enough" is okay when you're in Microsoft's position. I _do_ understand why people still choose to use Microsoft's software. I _do_ understand why it's going to be a long and arduous journey to educate people that they want competition, alternatives, and especially standards that allow them to change from what they have to what they _need_. I'm not alone in understanding these things.

However, it seems you _don't_ understand what drives the Open Source community, and why it will grow to be a bigger player in this next evolution of the ICT environment. It also seems you haven't put particular effort into seeing what's available outside of your self-imposed environment. Take a look. Try to understand. Then write something simple, aimed at a particular audience, with the purpose of attempting to make real change for the better of society.

Not what you've just posted.

Regards,

Neil

I then started to suspect his arguments were not about Linux or even Open Source, but to do with some single-vendor strategy. So I checked the waters:

Oh, one thing I forgot previously.

Microsoft is often the path of least resistance for some people.

Groupwise, for example, has continued to provide a much better collaboration environment than Exchange in many respects.

But it seems that only when Microsoft deems a feature is important do some Microsoft supporters consider that feature worthwhile. Before that, they'd either not think about it, or considered it something they'd live without to stay with what they know. It's not that they were caring for their users...

Same with eDirectory and Active Directory. And Java and C#. And MacOS and Windows. And Eclipse and Visual Studio.

In any case, I'm sure there are great proprietary alternatives to what Microsoft is doing too. It seems silly to say that one needs to have "thinking with an economic mind" when one is placing oneself on a single vendor's bus.

Neil

Then it became pretty clear he was advocating a single-vendor strategy (talking about the ability to "integrate"), which I countered more specifically with this comment:

There are two types of integration. There's integration in terms of providing two products, that when both installed do wonderful things. And then there's integration in terms of disparate systems from different vendors being able to provide each other with information and services, allowing the user to get the software that suits their specific requirements from different vendors without problems like duplicated and unsynchronised data.

The Microsoft Way you're talking about (where Microsoft is representing single-vendor thinking, not Microsoft itself) is that businesses should change the way they work so that they can make best use of Microsoft's software. They should avoid all other software vendors for fear of them not "integrating" as nicely. (It doesn't matter to you that Microsoft is the problem in terms of not allowing that integration.)

In the real world, thinking how _other_ people think, like you're saying, it's _my_ business, and my business works a certain way, and if I can find software that allows my business to work more efficiently, I'll choose that piece of software for that task. It could save me millions a year. Also, Microsoft may not have a "solution" to an area my business requires. What then?

In reality, users really should be taught that they have the economic power to force their vendors to interoperate, and that going the single-vendor route is giving up major control over your business. Standards give the end-user, the business, power over their own infrastructure and the way they do business.

The single-vendor strategy, although certainly easier to make money off of, does not cater for the needs of the real world. Individual products may do so for specific real-world users, but the single-vendor strategy does not. It's about as naive as thinking that, in the next iteration of software, Open Source can create solutions for everyone.

Open Source is a fine tool for creating competitive products in areas where creating proprietary ones would not be affordable. If used where appropriate, it puts pressure on vendors in monopoly positions to innovate for their money, and to interoperate.

Neil