Reading notes on:
"Introduction to Linux: A Hands on Guide" by Machtelt Garrels
"What is Mac OS X? by Amit Singh
Wikipedia entry on Mac OS X
"An Update on the Windows Roadmap" by Paul Thurott
Regarding the Linux article, it was interesting reading about the free and democratic nature of open source software. At my former workplace, the IT staff were shifting to open source in order to allow them greater freedom in influencing design and performance of company software. They spoke of open source as the future of computer software. It was a big deal to them. As someone who doesn't know much about computers, I enjoyed listening to them talk about it. They were passionate - almost treating it like something sacred! Free open source software seems to support the most democratic ideals that arose with internet culture and which continue today. It will be interesting to see how free open source software competes with the products of companies like Microsoft.
In contrast, the article by Paul Thurott reveals how Microsoft products are very dependent on Microsoft's willingness to support services that people pay for one way or another. Also, some software, upon becoming dated, simply loses support services as Microsoft focuses their time on only their newer products. There are some exceptions, but it still shows that Microsoft is in control. It's pretty much the opposite of what happens with open source software. On the other hand, for someone who is not a programmer, it is much easier to use Microsoft products and to get help troubleshooting problems and securing updates than to try to use open source software. Microsoft products are user-friendly for the average person. I for one would be lost without them. I find Windows easy to use, and when I have a problem I can go to their website for help and usually find a solution or answer fairly quickly.
I think a lot of non-technically inclined people, like me, find comfort in the fact that proprietary software comes with backup service, open source will demand more handson input from the user. This means time, skill and an innate inclination, many of us are lacking in one aspect or another. This means that paid-for systems will exist for a long long time to come, the market may contact but it will persist.
ReplyDeleteGood points all on the nature of open source software. As I've been in the program, I've come to appreciate how dependent we tend to be, as librarians even, on proprietary software systems to do our jobs. It seems almost antithetical that in a profession devoted to freedom of information, we find ourselves almost enslaved to a controlling system of proprietary integrated library systems (think Innovative Interface, for example) as well as proprietary operating systems. The availability of easy support is one reason that librarians (who in years past focused on 'being librarians' and didn't necessarily concern themselves with being technology experts in the way they almost have to today) still tend toward proprietary systems. Still, libraries seem ripe with potential for the move to open source systems.
ReplyDeleteI think other segments of the market that shift over to open source software may eventually push more libraries to follow suit, though I have a feeling we'll be behind the trend a bit. Working in a college library where the larger institution is looking to change its course management system over from a proprietary system to an open source system, I can definitely say that there are passionate people on both sides of the argument for vastly different reasons. Primarily I've seen those who favor the financial savings of open source conflict with those who see the move to open source as an increased work load to support and customize.