Anthony wrote:
On 12/31/06, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Interesting... They're donating computers
pre-loaded with Windows and
providing technical support and training. Would they still donate the
computers if the library told them they intended to install Linux on
them? Maybe. But would they still provide the free technical support
and training for those libraries? Somehow I doubt it (although it
would be really cool if they did).
Why would those libraries _want_ to install Linux? The primary reason
for free software evaporates when they are spared the costs of
proprietary licences.
I'm sure entire books have been written on why one should use free
software rather than no-cost software. If you really have trouble
finding information on this let me know and I'll do a better search
for some resources. Or maybe someone else can provide us with some?
I don't think that it's a question of availability of information.
Motivated library boards could look it up just as easily. I think that
it has more to do with budgetting processes. A cost free, and at least
superficially reliable, alternative can look mighty inviting in the
current budget when there is serious competition for funds. Problems
that may not arise for five years can wait five years to be addressed.
Decision makers don't like complicated choices, even more so if those
choices involve technical matters that they do not understand. For some
Microsoft has been in their face for years; the marketting strategy has
been successful.
The technically super-savvy people fail to appreciate the enormity of
the gap between them and the end users of the technology. In a society
that embraces specialization, those who pursue a non-technical specialty
leave behind the skills needed to understand technological change. How
can you expect somebody to understand how to change the clock on a DVD
player when they aren't yet able to do it on the VHS player? Personally
I get my son to change the clock on my car radio when we change between
daylight and standard time. I can't be bothered to go through a thick
manual to figure it out. Under those circumstances I should probably be
pleased with year around DST. :-)
I recently had my stereo amplifier die after 20 years. Replacing it was
a daunting task the results of which do not satisfy me. My original
unit did what I wanted it to do, and I am now faced with the prospect of
working around a lot of features that I never wanted in order to achieve
my old functionality.
I suspect that Microsoft has grokked this problem.
But for the purposes of this discussion, it's
enough for me to merely
point out that the software license being given to the libraries does
not entitle that library to free upgrades.
I don't know enough to comment on that last point.
That alone should be
enough reason to prefer Linux, if all other things were equal. the
clear strategy here of Microsoft, if not the Gates Foundation, is to
give it away for free, get 'em hooked, and then start charging.
They don't need to start charging the libraries. That would not be good
marketting. The end users of the software in the libraries are young.
Their loyalty to the Microsoft product line for the next 50 years is far
more valuable. The managements of large for-profit corporations have a
big advantage in this kind of long-term strategic thinking and problem
solving. Compare that with the enormous energy which some organizations
expend over whether dates should be marked A.D. or C.E.
Of course, all other things aren't equal. If the
library gets free
support from the Gates Foundation with Windows, and doesn't get free
support with Linux (which tends to be more costly to support in the
first place), then it's going to be really hard for them to choose
Linux.
That's consistent with my point.
If the Gates Foundation really wants to help the
libraries, then they
should help the libraries free themselves from relying on the
continued charity of Microsoft.
I can't imagine that Bill Gates' altruism would include
auto-deFenestration. ;-)
Ec