Microsoft or Open Source?

[Highstream]

Hi all,

I am just curious as to other peoples opinions on suitability of open source software versus Microsoft.

I personally use Linux as my main desktop OS with a VM for windows stuff (only for my invoicing software). I do everything else in linux and have had no problems.

Has anyone else steered away from Microsoft?

What would be the deciding factor to go to Open Source?

Thoughts, feedback?

Cheers,

[ray_223]

Hi Richard,

I'm a huge open source fan.

I used Linux as my main home desktop for a few years - but I always struggled with product compatibility (camera's, video cameras, printers, web cams etc). And when time wasn't crucial I usually eventually got everything I wanted to work. But now that I just don't have the time to make things work (and with running a business from home now) I just want things to work as best as possible with as little effort as possible. So hello MS Windows again!

I do have to say Windows 7 has been working for the last 6 months or so without a hitch, I have heard that Ubuntu in particular has improved compatibility support in Linux. I do have 1 program in particular that doesn't have a Linux equivalent and it is a resource hog so I doubt if it would work well under emulation.

I really don't like Microsoft much but at the end of the day I find it less hassle to use MS Windows instead of Linux. I still use many open source programs on Windows which is very very helpful.

Many of the "business" orientated people you dislike MS seem to have gone Mac (which is probably better but not open source).

[JohnSheppard]

Microsoft's biggest problem is that they're capitalists.
Open source's biggest problem is they're socialists.

It really depends on what software you are talking about and what you are trying to do.

If you are talking about applications and desktops;
Bottom line is, use what you know or your users will know. The costs are in the training/existing knowledge. Hypothetically if people got their work done faster in Linux it would still cost you more to go with it cause you'd have to retrain everyone.

If you are talking about actual programming;
My experience (which will differ from everyone else because its such a fragmented industry) is that Microsoft Technologies and the proprietary ecosystem around it is better for bespoke and large systems, whereas your open source techs are better for your bolt together small business solutions. (In very general broad terms, there are situations this wouldn't apply)

[PerfectNotes-Kathy]

My response to this is a variation on JohnSheppard's - it depends on what the person who is going to create and/or support your system(s) is most comfortable with.

If the technical people who will help you when you have issues are used to Windows, then use Windows. If the technical people are into open source (of whichever flavour), use open source.

If you will only have Microsoft itself to call on if something goes wrong, be aware that this will be expensive - but that they are there to help you.

Be aware that most open source software is supported by communities of people who do it for love - the support may be free in a lot of cases, but it may not be immediate - and they may need you to help yourself a bit along the way.

So, it's really horses for courses - whichever scenario best suits your background and needs.

Kathy

[FionaFell]

My most recent adventure into software was open source (SimpleInvoices.org FYI) and it has been very favourable, but as I am a web geek, installation and running of software on a webserver comes naturally.

This natural affiliation with 'actually doing something' in order to make something work, may not be so familar or easy for folks who don't play with computers, dislike computers or perhaps even have a strong hatred towards them.

In the case where people do not care about customisation and use the standard or basic features, a wizard install and toll free number support is what they may need, or the helpful hand of a local onsite tech geek.

[beckles]

Interesting topic!

I'm not a tech geek (I made sure I married one though *G*) so when it comes to operating systems, I stick with MS Windows. I use a lot of different desktop apps and I can't afford to 'tweak' my open source O/S just to get them to work.

When it comes to productivity suites, while I have used OpenOffice in the past, and I do see the possibilities with it, I will admit I am a hardcore Microsoft fan. I know, I'm probably in the minority!

To me, the Office suite is intuitive and has evolved into a much better system in the 2007 release - I have the Beta version of the new Office 2010 and love, love, LOVE it. I would use Word & Outlook especially every single day and for at least 4-5 hrs and these 2 versions have just improved my productivity dramatically.

However, regardless of whether you prefer OO to MS (because OO really has the same basic features as the MS products) it really comes down to compatibility in your workplace and between you and your clients. All well and good to develop a whizbang presentation or document in OO, but there is no guarantee that your recipient is using the same software. So you may find changes between the two docs - enough to make the difference between looking professional and looking like you don't know what you are doing.

Given the monopoly that Microsoft have on sales to big business and government through better volume licensing and extended support for products that the rest of us don't get, it would take a LOT for those target groups to switch to open source software. Open source can be just as unstable as MS products and due to the nature of its development, support can be difficult. IT Managers for corporations and govt departs look for 3 things when reviewing desktop applications - cost, on-going support, and cost of training staff. Microsoft have all three bases covered superbly. This isn't my MS bias talking here - I used to work in IT depts of both corporations and state government so it's all personal experience.

[scotty]

Being a Linux user since '95 (Slackware on diskettes!) and currently 'enslaved' in a corporate environment developing software that are forced to be deployed into Microsoft stack -- you know what my opinion is going to be! I did venture into the Mac territory back in 2003-2005, but it was even more proprietary.

I guess it does not really apply to end users - after all they will use whatever works for them. But as a software developer it is much easier writing on top of open source stack. If something breaks, I have the full source to delve into (instead of waiting for the supplier to resolve it for me).

[JohnSheppard]

Originally Posted by beckles

IT Managers for corporations and govt departs look for 3 things when reviewing desktop applications - cost, on-going support, and cost of training staff. Microsoft have all three bases covered superbly.

I think that about sums it up.

Originally Posted by scotty

I guess it does not really apply to end users - after all they will use whatever works for them. But as a software developer it is much easier writing on top of open source stack. If something breaks, I have the full source to delve into (instead of waiting for the supplier to resolve it for me).

Trawling through someone else's code when you don't have to is inefficient though. Any code base is a specialised area most efficiently solved by those who maintain and know it. Open source is just a different kind of prison IMO.

I reckon the reason open source has its uses and is successful is for other reasons, but maybe I should shut up about that or it'll turn into an off topic err debate

[Highstream]

Wow, a lot of different opinions out there.

I thought this topic would be interesting and it is proving to be. The one thing I can say about the responses from most people is they do not have a clear comprehension on what Open Source is about or can offer. Oh and I am not trying to convert people, look at this as a small study group because I am considering expanding my business to include open source consulting.

So here's just a couple of points I wish for people to consider.

1. Open source doesn't mean free, it means the source code is freely available for modification in line with stated agreements. Often though the software is free.

2. There is clearly a misconception of none or lack of support for open source software. In fact this is the main area of income for most open source software manufacturers. Whilst Microsoft provide support for it's products this is tightly regulated to full retail version software, not OEM or bundled software which 90% of the computer population use. For that they charge, just like open source software manufacturers.

3. Training users is another point that has been highlighted. I have found that normal use of open source software is as easy to learn as a new updated version of the same software from MS. For example the change from office 2003 to office 2007 was huge in terms of GUI. This would have facilitated a large outlay in costs for licensing as well as for training. With open source (Open Office or the like) there would not have been that same huge change in GUI but if training was required this would have been the only cost, the software is free.

4. Compatibility issues with open source software, for the most part, has been completely eliminated. Creating an OO document and saving it in DOC or DOCX format will display the document in it's intended manner in MS software. Likewise for just about any other software format, certainly not enough for this to be an issue.

There are many other advantages of open source software, for example things like reduced system load increasing hardware lifespan. Increased Stability over MS, higher level of security, not susceptible to virus attack. I have not ever found a software package from MS that doesn't have an open source equivalent. Software installation is easy with a large number of repositories to instantly download and install the software for free.

The one thing, for me, that MS did have over open source was a cleaner and more pleasing GUI. Take Windows 7 for example. This is by far MS's best OS (Yes I love it and would use it if not for the costs) but now open source has caught up, take a look at my linux desktop (See attachment).

For me MS offer nothing I can't get from open source that is more stable, easy to use and free. But I stress that's for me! A lot of things have changed in the last couple of years with open source software, people and businesses might just be surprised how much money they can save by going open source.

So having said all that, let the debate/discussion continue.

Click here for Hi Res image of my desktop.

Cheers,

[jasonm]

I've wanted to try out a Linux OS for ages but whenever I've had the time I haven't had a spare PC and now that I have a couple of spare PC's I haven't got the time or space to set them up.

I'm a DOS lover from way back and I'm really starting to get the snits with Microsoft software. The missus has W7 on her laptop and it drives me bonkers every time there is a problem, you don't get any information and sometimes is doesn't even give any sort of error at all, it just doesn't do anything. Then theres the big change from 03-07 office. WHERE ARE MY MENU'S.

Maybe I dont cope well with change, but I used to be very quick and productive and knew where everything was then they went put the stupid toolbars in. Most people have whopping great screens nowadays, do they really need oversized icons for all the useless stuff while the good stuff is hidden away in obscure places. I can't recall what it was now but I spent half an hour pulling my hair out looking for something when I first started using Word07.

I know they are trying to make things easier for 'less computer literate' people but I know what I'm doing and would rather be able to do it myself.

So to answer the question, I'm trapped in a microsoft prison wondering what the open-source world looks like outside. But then does the grass always look greener on the other side.