Subject: [ILUG-BOM] Pushing Linux through small vendors From: Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:53:41 +0530 To: "GNU/Linux Users Group, Mumbai, India" linuxers@mm.glug-bom.org
<snip>
But the problem with Open Office:
- With average machines, it performs slow
- The documents it generates are not 100% compatible with Ms.Office
- Advanced features are not completely compatible
But they need to inter-operate with the rest of the world which means a good compatibility is important.
Case 1: WHEN the recipient needs to read or view the file THEN use OpenOffice to create/edit, then export to PDF, and send the PDF to the recipient. I think this above case covers 65% of nett usage and context.
Case 2: WHEN the recipient must read or view the file with M$Office THEN use OpenOffice to create/edit, then save as the M$Office format (doc, xls, ppt) and release that file. I have not experienced any issues in traffic FROM OpenOffice TO M$Office.
I think this above case covers 25% of nett usage and context.
Case 3: WHEN sender and recipient must collaborate on a document, i.e both contribute to editing/marking/revising the file via electronic file exchanges THEN it is most practial or efficient to work with the same application/tool on both sides, and this case is NOT specific to OpenOffice; it is equally applicable to almost all computer applications, especially those that do not support open standards/specifications of data storage.
I think this above case covers 8% of nett usage and context.
Case 4: WHEN something other than above THEN I need to know more, to share my prescription for that case ;-)
I shall presume this above case covers the last 2% of nett usage & context.
LASTLY, if you take two similar segment cars for example, how much of compatiblity is expected ? Do we expect say an Indica and a Santro to be the same, with all parts to be interchangeable ? This example many can easily comprehend. However, when it comes to M$Office and OpenOffice, many of us tend to struggle with explaining or realising compatiblity. I guess we have to EITHER pay-up (and remain a loser) OR move-up to open standards (with longer term gains).
The other issue that people in India generally face is of bandwidth. Ubuntu installs well. It impresses them. But then it runs up HUGE bills downloading softwares.
Figure out how to re-configure the linux-desktop so that it does NOT get upates automatically via the internet - thus manage their internet usage better. Instead use CD's to effect updates, as other posters have suggested already.
With the virus-risks on Linux-based desktops being relatively lower, not having the latest releases is often a non-issue, in terms of real-life utility of the environment/computer, for most average desktop users.
If you want to be up-with-the-Jones with the latest release, then paying some price is inevitable (internet bandwidth costs).
Thanks Vydya
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 09:38, VKB wrote:
[snip] if you take two similar segment cars for example, how much of compatiblity is expected ? Do we expect say an Indica and a Santro to be the same, with all parts to be interchangeable ?
No, but you do expect them to use the same fuel. If the world is using petrol and you decide to run your car on recycled plastic bags, be prepared to make your own recycling and fuel producing plant.
Sorry, car analogies don't work in the IT field. Let's just talk about compatibility in the context of computers.
Regards,
-- Raju
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 12:57, Raj Mathur wrote:
Sorry, car analogies don't work in the IT field. Let's just talk about compatibility in the context of computers.
IMO they do. And indeed the parallels fit neatly. All vehicles have engines that burn fuel, produce power, drive the wheels, use brakes the same way, use steering the same way, have seats, lights etc. Infact all the components are equiv. of each other and do the same job. BUT u cant switch components from one to the other.And a technician evem with good knowledge in one type of vehicle will have initial difficulties with another type. In the case of users too the analogy holds true. A zen user is going to have some initial difficulty driving a Santro. And to complete the analogy the locked down boot example holds true. One might also add: Unlike a modern car, a comp does many navigation tasks automagically like finding files, figuring out their formats, finding urls, etc and this intelligence is where the OS's show their strength (linux can read and write most things on windoze) or lack thereof (windows cant do most such things). Further when linux drives u can see thru all the scenery, trucks and mad drivers included. Doze rolls up the windows, blakens the windscreen and tries to sedate u with jazz. The scenery with trucks and mad drivers are still there, but u are blissfully ignorant, resulting in the all to familiar crashes.
Quoting jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in:
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 12:57, Raj Mathur wrote:
Sorry, car analogies don't work in the IT field. Let's just talk about compatibility in the context of computers.
IMO they do. And indeed the parallels fit neatly.
true - but in the old days, we used to interchange parts, everything was openable and one always carried pliers and binding wire and tape with which almost all problems could be fixed. A car was never started without a thorough check through the engine, battery, radiator, tyres etc. Todays cars are so specialised that even if you know where the engine is (many car owners dont), you cant do anything other than gape at it if you *do* open it. Even the mechanics use special tools to work on the vehicle - and without them they cannot do a thing with the vehicle. From this we come to the conclusion that progress means using black boxes that perform without any need to 'look under the hood'. Which would lead to strange results if we apply this thinking to the computer world.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
VKB wrote:
[snip]
if you take two similar segment cars for example, how much of compatiblity is expected ? Do we expect say an Indica and a Santro to be the same, with all parts to be interchangeable ?
This is really a very lazy analogy :) Unless you are planning backward and forward integration in all aspects of car manufacturing and usage, perhaps there would be saner reasons to use standard bits that allow the car experience to work.
- --
You see things; and you say 'Why?'; But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?' - George Bernard Shaw
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 09:38 +0530, VKB wrote:
Good work. But what he's currently looking at is a heterogenous office environment where there are Windows and Linux machines both.
LASTLY, if you take two similar segment cars for example, how much of compatiblity is expected ? Do we expect say an Indica and a Santro to be the same, with all parts to be interchangeable ? This example many can easily comprehend. However, when it comes to M$Office and OpenOffice, many of us tend to struggle with explaining or realising compatiblity. I guess we have to EITHER pay-up (and remain a loser) OR move-up to open standards (with longer term gains).
Flawed analogy. We dont expect to rip Ms.Office DLLs and expect OOo to use them :P But what we DO expect is that both cars run on the same road. It shouldn't happen that the roads on which Indica runs, Santro
-
Dinesh Joshi -
jtd -
lawgon＠au-kbc.org -
Raj Mathur -
Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay -
VKB