It is well known that the free and open source software, including systems GNU / Linux, currently have a presence almost anywhere (web servers, data centers, mobile devices, embedded systems), except desktop, but why? If it is such an adaptable and extensible system, why is it not so popular? I will explain a few points in this regard.
The goodnesses
Little is currently debated about the flexibility and adaptability of GNU / Linux systems (or even just Linux), the same of free software in general. Not only can it be adapted to the needs of the people or companies that install them, but also acquiring the software is much cheaper, in many cases it is free.
In addition to all these benefits, the four freedoms basic ones defined by free software which are freedom of use, freedom of study of the source code of the program, freedom of distribution of the program, and freedom of modification and distribution of modified copies.
Free software also seeks to use and encourage the use of free standards (file formats, protocols, etc.), so that there is greater interoperability between systems, not only those Linux systems but also other desktop systems, and any other device.
Free systems are also payments, guaranteed under the argument that being the free code, it can be read and audited by several people, discovering any vulnerability or backdoor found in the code. And from a technical point of view, the development of free applications is much more diversified, becoming easier the more collaborators and developers there are.
The disadvantages
Now, not everything is rainbows and stars. Seeing as free software has so many points in its favor, why has it not been adopted so much? In the technical aspects we have lack of compatibility, both in file and program formats as well as hardware. This topic is really debatableSince Linux supports a number of important hardware.
Failure at the time that the specific hardware specifications are not known, so the community has to do reverse engineering when it comes to supporting that hardware; the same with file formats that are not free or do not have published specifications.
From this point it can be seen that also free systems seem to be a little behind with respect to their proprietary or commercial counterparts. This is because the other systems or devices are created by companies that are only interested in selling them, and it is the work of the communities to achieve the developments of these systems or devices.
This is currently changing thanks to the projects created by free communities, or even companies, that contribute to the world of free software (for example Raspberry Pi, Ubuntu touch, etc.)
And, as a last technical aspect, we have the user experience. The user experience in GNU / Linux, in many cases, it can feel fragmented, frustrating, and even difficult. This is largely due to the fact that current education, or lack thereof, when it comes to the use of computer systems, does not provide for free systems.
This is being remedied for desktop environments, for example GNOME and KDE to name two quite famous, making the experience less frustrating and more user-friendly.
Although there are technical disadvantages in free systems, the points of greatest disadvantage lie outside the technical space, entering the human and social space.
The first of these is the mercadeo. Although free software is so easy to get (the Internet, free software events, etc.), people don't know about it from aggressive campaigns of the companies that create proprietary systems, which are in charge of filling all the steps of the distribution and sale chain with their products so that most people only get these.
Few free software communities have undertaken such campaigns. Because, although there have been marketing campaigns in the past (Novel, Canonical, FSF), the communities respect the freedom that they develop themselves.
Another disadvantage of free systems is all the fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) that is created around them. Most of the people have heard something negative about linux, or some other free system, and at once they cross it out.
Also people are very used to what they know and do not want to change it, even if it is failing you or causing you constant discomfort. This has to do, in large part, with the Education, which is another of the biggest disadvantages of free systems.
The educationRegarding the use of technology, it is currently very poorly focused. When people receive an education about using a computer, they usually learn to use a series of specific programs (Windows, Microsoft Office), but not the logic or general workflows that must be followed when using a computer.
In addition to this, software causes dependency, and if a person learns to use only proprietary software, they will always prefer it over any other alternative, whether it is free or not.
The current education model must be changed so that the common people do not develop that dependence. Richard Stallman explains it well in the following video
Currently, the only way to remedy these disadvantages is making free software more visible to all, not only doing smear campaigns to proprietary software, but also showing the benefits described above.
Having said that, there are other aspects of free systems that are inherent to themselves, but that you have to be careful with or they can become double-edged swords.
The double edged sword
The first of these points is diversification. This is one of the strengths, but at the same time a weakness, of free systems. The fact that it is free, and that it respects the 4 freedoms, causes many slightly different versions to be created between them, thus creating a very large number of programs, or others, slightly different between them.
This can cause confusion for someone who is not used to this phenomenon. This is why there are so many GNU / Linux distributions available. Diversification also produces the phenomenon of "Forking" (branched), which, in some cases, it can completely divide entire communities.
Another point to take into account is the customization. Free systems are known to have a degree of customization at impressive granularity, which is what makes it quite flexible, but at the same time it can cause confusion for someone who does not know these options. Many times people prefer wear something stiff, but wearable, instead of something so flexible that it always requires some configuration.
The next point leaves a bit of the technical and enters the social, which deals with the communities. Free systems would not exist without communities, and at the same time it is communities that can destroy free software projects.
It depends on the creators of such projects create and nurture healthy communities, lest later your project die due to a bad "community administration" and run out of followers, or end up creating a poisonous community, rejecting any criticism or similar to the original project, preventing it from improving and evolving properly along with the advancement of moment when it comes to technology.
The best communities are those that are not fans, contributing with a cool head to the project and to the community itself.
The last point is the most delicate of all, since it deals with freedom. Not only software freedom, but also the freedom of users. It is absurd to think that both concepts are contrary, but currently they are.
Carrying out the four freedoms of free software fully restricts the potential of the technology we are using, even in one of the main objectives of technology, which is to help us communicate more efficiently with each other.
By imposing these freedoms, should we restrict the freedoms of those who use these systems? As paradoxical as it may sound, in our world today this seems to be the case.
In conclusionSeeing that free systems have so many benefits, they also have many points to improve, points that go beyond the technical and reside in the social.
To resolve these points the best we can do is raise awareness of the operation of these free systems, and little by little change and adapt the current culture to one that is more open to free software.
What an excellent video of RS .. A great man.
it lacks good design, marketing and solvency.
Perhaps advertising, the problem is that there is still no fixed market to target. Design and solvency I believe the opposite: nothing like GNU / Linux for that.
I've heard from güindoseros users:
"If it's free, it's because it must be bad" (but they still use pirated windows)
y
"If it's open source then it can't be safe" (but they confidently download how much crack there is out there)
In order.
Computer paradoxes.
It is proprietary software that needs popularity to stay current. Free software only requires good programmers and self-sufficient users.
Even computer hermits like Stallman.
Taking into account that today education is based, simply and simply, on training new workers, most of the time it is normal, that they are taught the proprietary programs that most companies use (pirated ...). Although I understand that both should be taught.
I don't think it just depends on that. For example, here in Mexico the Spanish bank BBVA uses GNU / Linux with KDE, and I think that those who work in a bank are a good example of the productive subject that the capitalist system tries to train.
It is that they use SUSE Linux Enterprise. At least the Latin American BBVA banks are much more reliable than the same Spanish BBVA, which uses Windows Server on its PCs and / or servers.
I really liked the article. I think that above all there is freedom, even the freedom that whoever uses Windows or Mac (which I consider the worst) to use whatever they want. I think that writing opinions that consider plurality is a good step to inform those who want to learn. Very well.
this is rare when reading I notice that he throws a stone but then he picks it up giving a negative argument but then putting the same but positive in summarized how many gnu / linux and free software does not seek to be popular or enter each pc without giving an "alternative" which means that you are no longer obliged to work with a paid application that is imposed on you that many times comes pre-installed without anyone asking you, you have the "option" to use another application that in many cases exceeds the private one I was a winbug user for a long time And now that I am on gnu / linux there is not an application that is proprietary that I find better than a free one, they are lightweight, fast, secure and fulfill their objective, here nobody is forced to use something that they impose on you, you have the variety that those of us here We like to try many applications and stay with the ones we like the most, that is why they are many and different, they are almost personalized for each user and each need, not like the proprietary ones that are taken a iversally for everyone in general no one is asking to change from windows to gnu / linux for me stay there the free software does not need popularity or massify the one who knows about it takes advantage of what it is because he really knows it but does not dare approve and These types of users do not work in gnu / linux because our system is to try to experiment and know new things every day I learn new things every day applications distributions and that I love therefore those that are in windows for me stay there it does not make me I need them to be here, I don't need them, I only need people who dare to experience and live a new experience. Experienced futuristic programmers with a vision of freedom and diversity. I do not tell them, nobody needs them, we do not need overcrowding, we do not need popularity or make ourselves known as we are worth the redundancy we are well and excellent and little more are added and finally leaving something clear gn / linux and the free software will never accommodate windows users to use our system, it will accommodate our needs and tastes, not that of windows users if some distributions are easy to use and According to some, similar to windows is simply because there are users who like it that way, not because they want to switch from windows to gnu / linux LONG LIVE THE FUN AND VARIETY for me there are a thousand video music programs a thousand distributions to try and experiment know and enjoy and those who like to have windows stay with him we do not need it (hopefully they do not delete the comment as they always do xD do not censor me)
I had to stop at this comment because I can't believe that someone would ever be so sectarian and fanatical in life.
Of course, hey, be a little more careful when you write comments, use punctuation and separate by paragraphs, which was quite difficult to read.
Anyway, basically what you repeat in the chatter are 2 things:
GNU / Linux does not need publicity or popularity. Right? Well, I'm just telling you that you're "pissing out of the pot", Linux distros need to be echoed and if it weren't for the fact that within the same communities they are echoed, they wouldn't grow.
It is not that you do not have a point or the right to express it, but it is that what you say you say from a totally personal point and with fragile bases, why is popularity not needed? It is bad? Isn't it good to have the means to reach more people? In any case, you mean that a more commercial GNU / Linux would be bad?
I have used many proprietary programs and none of them do I find anything better than the free ones. Oh please, enough, this is already ridiculous and you will excuse me, but you have to know how to recognize where there are deficiencies within the SL, and for example in graphic design and in the variety of graphic development tools there are also deficiencies. Flash is practically non-existent in Linux and Gnash is not a panacea, and HTML5, although progressing well, is still lacking ... Still?
Anyway, that was it, I think you have some crossed cables regarding the bro issue.
Okay not Nano. It could not be more clear and impartial… We will move a little further the day when we are much more self-critical.
[correct] Agree with Nano. 🙂
More in agreement, I can not be. Many of the GNU projects like Gnash and / or the Hurd kernel do not advance practically ANYTHING. Google barely released a Flash Player replacement candidate called Google Web Developer (no GNU / Linux version for now).
I hope that HTML5 progresses as it should, and the truth is that Flash Player is becoming more and more of a nuisance than something that makes our lives easier.
Nano teaching.
I got tired and only read half of your comment.
Who are you to say we don't need more users? That is your very particular opinion.
For comments like that is why they have branded us as Taliban linuxers.
Free Software differs from proprietary software for its versatility and adaptability. You may know a few like Transmission, Libreoffice and / or Firefox, but there is a plethora of free software that is sometimes much better than proprietary software.
If GIMP, Inkscape, Scribus and / or other free software focused on design were optimized a little more, there would definitely be a breakthrough in free software without relying on the castrating licenses of proprietary software like Adobe's (I admit that I like Creative Suite, but if they ported the entire suite to GNU / Linux, it would be spectacular).
I'm going to be 100% honest, in general I consider these types of articles garbage, they always say gnu linux lacks this that such thing and in osx / windows that does not happen, in the end they end up being a post of supposed linuxers that do nothing more than whine and and advertise osx / windows. Those users give the feeling that they feel bad because they expect an exact win / osx clone from linux, so with that predisposition I read your post. However, when I finished reading the truth, I cannot do anything but congratulate you, an argument, from my point of view, solid and with good examples I think you hit the nail on the head when talking about the social, it is more than evident that the Sweeping marketing campaigns work so well that so-called "computer scientists" don't know Linux, and I've heard a person with 0 computer skills tell me that Windows is free. Anyway. Good post
One thing to keep in mind is that Linux made it to the desktop después for Windows to become a de facto standard on over 80% of home computers, leaving 20% for Macs and so forth.
It is very difficult to change the mentality of a human being used to communicating with the machine through Windows.
I think that the most complicated part of this whole thing is the Social. The Pragmatism wielded by the majority that "if I can do it with Windows, why am I going to change?" Is a very strong argument to defeat.
The SW lacks nothing to be popular. It is the business user, and especially the domestic user, who needs to remove the tree that Windows put in front of his eyes, so that he can see and look at the Forest that exists behind.
As a Cuban song says: «Those who do not see beyond their noses live very happily ...»
Windows 8 looks like GNOME-Shell. The interface of Windows 8 has nothing to do with that of Windows 7. The Windownians change and move to 8, not the GNOME-Shell.
GNOME-Shell has nothing to do with GNOME 2.xxx. The Linuxeros rejected in the beginning -and many forever- the GNOME-Shell. We look for alternatives in other environments.
We Linuxeros are human beings and we also resist change within the same operating system.
What can we expect from other human beings if we are telling them to change their operating system?
Only The Irrefutable Truth that GNU / Linux is infinitely superior to any Windows, will make its way over time despite the marketing; Despite Piracy and Viruses; despite its apparent and highly debatable difficulty of use; despite the massive mental manipulation that Gates and his followers have achieved. Nonetheless.
Good article. It touches most of the tender points.
There is a question, which triggers the title. What free software should do to be popular.
The point is the logic of the societies we live in, it is not software.
In a consumer society, those who sell goods have as their goal the accumulation of capital and marketing as a means to that end.
It does not matter that the product / service offered meets real needs, it matters that the consumer (not the citizen) is satisfied.
So all the effort is in the technology of desire: having MC is cool, it is a symptom of distinction, of belonging to a class or of the appearance of belonging.
Free software does not necessarily have the logic of being profitable. Then it doesn't have the shell on to be palatable.
In Argentina where I live, the Conectar Igualdad program gives a free Netbook to every secondary student and every teacher.
The latter are dual-booted: Huayra Linux (based on Debian) by default and Win 7 as an option.
I am not saying that everything the government of my country does is correct, nor is it covert propaganda, just that it is not naive that Windows gives its software free to students: it is creating consumers.
Nor is it naive that the government incorporates free free software by default and includes programming in the mandatory curricula of students.
Free software can only be popular in a free society and that challenge exceeds the consumers / producers of software.
There is a tendency to think that the greater the individual freedom, the greater the well-being of the people, and that the way to increase individual freedom is to increase the possibilities of choice, so that the more things a person has to choose from. the more likely you are to make choices that enhance your well-being.
However, studies have shown that this may not be the case, but that increasing the possible choices increases well-being up to a certain point, but above that point it may even be harmful.
Currently, the number of options available for each thing we want to do or acquire is very high. From choosing a career to buying a vacuum cleaner or car, the number of options can be huge.
But when we have too many options to choose from, instead of feeling freer, we feel more blocked and paralyzed, and the choice is much more difficult. We do not know which is the best option, but we do not want to make mistakes and realize after we made the wrong choice. Therefore, we need much more information about each available option to make a good choice. The result is that having too many things to choose from increases the chances that people will be dissatisfied with what they have chosen, whatever it is. In fact, what is often happening today is that once we get what we want it does not satisfy us as much as we expected.
Sometimes when a person has to choose from too many possibilities, they may not choose any at all, or may postpone the choice indefinitely, due to the work involved in that choice or because they really don't know what to choose.
There is already an article on that topic;): https://blog.desdelinux.net/la-paradoja-falacia-de-la-eleccion/
Very interesting…
Linux needs to improve in small details that make a difference. I still wonder why in Linuxcon they used Mac OS for the slides, possibly because in those operating systems it is managed from a simple button, while in Linux desktops you have to go to preferences> screen and monitor, etc. I say that it is necessary to improve those small details that make an OS much easier to use.
In Argentina, the Conectar Igualdad program is being implemented, and based on the progress made, a distribution (Huayra) was developed for the notebooks that the government delivers.
Some bring Linux Mint instead of Huayra.
This initiative seems good to me. But I don't know if it is being implemented well, I don't know if the teachers have been properly trained.
Mainly I am concerned that both teachers and students learn the meaning of the word "Free Software", rather than learning to use a particular tool. That is the key, I think, what should be taught more than anything.
I've read it all and I can't agree with you more. In free software, despite being very good, many things still need to be improved such as fragmentation and communities, as well as compatibility not so much with hardware but with software, for that reason of proprietary formats. As well as making a total change in education and in the way of thinking and if it is achieved then we will stop using private systems. I stopped doing it a long time ago and I don't regret it, but unfortunately in my work they still force us to use windows and its derivatives.
At the risk of repeating myself, I think that the factors that most strongly contribute to Windows maintaining its almost monopolistic presence among operating systems is its majority use in schools and other educational institutions, as well as the fact that it is installed by default in almost the all equipment marketed; Let me explain, if when we "teach" children computing we do it with Windows, we are actually teaching them to use THAT particular operating system, with all that that implies. On the other hand, the almost absence of alternatives in terms of OS when buying a computer makes it very difficult for the average user to know that GNU / Linux exists and its advantages.
In the case of my country, Cuba, which theoretically has the best conditions for the adoption of GNU / Linux, with some honorable exceptions, Windows continues to be "taught" in schools and Windows computers continue to be sold, so I don't see that the much-mentioned migration takes place, not even in the long term.
Claaaro, and if we teach a child with Ubuntu, we are teaching him to use "that operating system" (or distro whatever they call it). In short, the same old story is repeated
Maybe. That is why it is better to teach on the basis of The Philosophy and not on The Tool. 😉
For more philosophy if you don't know where the option you are looking for is, you got screwed and you should look for xD.
This article is not yours? WTF!
The question lies in teaching how to use several, not just one, or as many others say, instead of teaching computer science such as office automation, that they teach programming at basic levels, that they teach how a pc works, how it is inside, how it is armed and disarms, how to make simple webs, basic algorithms ... things that work the same for all systems
I agree with this monopoly, I recently bought a new laptop with imposed windows 8, I wanted to install linux and it turned me into a fascinating odyssey, how complicated it was to do the bottling of the system with the bios being so protected, of course, for that another operating system is not installed at the same time or completely.
Following the theme, I consider that the excessive fragmentation of the community in creating so many versions of the system ... has created more confusion than there should be in the LINUX world, and I say that for newbies who are starting out.
Good article, although perhaps something I see differently or with a different nuance.
Times have changed in terms of security / stability and win and Linux are more or less the same.
Today more attacks are used using social engineering, so the user tends to be responsible for security flaws.
It is true that zero days are usually reported earlier on Linux than on proprietary systems, and that many people use cracked and trojanized software, which gives a false appearance of being more insecure.
Free software needs to be published, of course, its programmers also eat, but I don't think it is necessary to discredit.
Since we have certain shortcomings, sometimes that loss of prestige turns against us. You have to be realistic and encourage collaboration, which is linked to education. In addition to being cheaper, in computer-related studies it allows working directly on real software and teaching teamwork and on projects already started.
Using Free software in education and public organizations allows a better distribution of economic resources.
As for servers, I don't know of banks that use win, at least for databases, they all go with Unix systems. Another story is their clients.
On the other hand, it is necessary to improve in the graphical environments.
An aspect that is also very important to highlight is that free software allows the use of less powerful equipment, without renouncing technological advances, which allows economically depressed areas to have the possibility of competing in the market and gradually generating business networks to stop being so.
Here if it is used in public education, in computer science the two are already touched. An attempt has been made to implement it in the public administration but, due to mismanagement, it has not given the results that it should, becoming practically as expensive as using proprietary software. This is because of "I make my own distro" and having 200 at the state level at the end.
For free software to be more popular, it has to prove technically better than its proprietary alternatives.
Example: you cannot argue that Microsoft Office even hurts, it is by far the best office suite on the market, I know that you are going to attack me and tell me "with LibreOffice I can do the basics without problems", but there it is the problem. Many free alternatives work, well, and fulfill their objective, but many times they are used for basic things, but when we talk about professional environments, without a doubt, proprietary software beats it. Will they say that GIMP is much better than Photoshop, that LibreCad beats AutoCAD, that Inkscape gives Illustrator a thousand kicks, that Audacious is more professional than LogicPro? hahaha not even in dreams.
I won't tell you anything about LibreOffice because I have no basis to establish a fair comparison against MS Office. But about GIMP and Inkscape? I have seen jobs done with these tools superior to those done with their counterparts. You know why? Well, it is not the tool that matters, but how well you know how to use it.
Well said!
But if a more powerful tool like photoshop allows you to do X things more easily and in much less time than GIMP (although the results are the same), that also represents a comparative advantage from photoshop to gimp, since it makes you more productive
Ironically, there are people who get used to poorly designed interfaces like Inkscape and / or GIMP, and the results are just as great. Anyway, a matter of customs.
From my perspective there is no good or bad software, simply if it solves your problem it is good if it does not it is not good and that is enough for many of the end users, something that in my experience I have seen and that can be a real limit is that Unfortunately, proprietary software has a greater margin for marketing campaigns, and this influences in a very important way, why do I say this ??, I am from Mexico and some time ago I was at a university where a Linux talk was given, it is a university renowned and particular not to mention his name, what struck me was that at the high school level and above they did not know these software alternatives (linux), they mentioned that they only knew Windows for desktop and windows server, and this is because companies such as MS offer or give away the software to these types of institutions in order to train them with their tools, which is part of why only one technology is known.
Man, it depends on what you mean technically better. When it comes to the kernel, linux proved to be better than the win kernel long ago. In the case of OS X, it is a BSD although, this system in general, in terms of security, is well below the levels of the other two.
On the issue of servers it is clear that UNIX-like systems are the ones that rule: linux and * bsd in free, although the proprietary ones are also usually used (UNIX-like, of course). What is weirder is seeing a win-server, for a reason.
As for office suites and others, well yes, for certain issues it may be more complicated than in proprietary software, although when we use SL we must be clear that not everything is done. You can contribute to add new features, from making requests, to sending code, to contributing translations. If you do not want to contribute, there is always the possibility of melting € 100 in an office, or much more in autocad, in short, if you are going to start a company, you are going to go broke before you start.
It is not the same to have to invest several hundred or thousands of euros in licenses that have to be renewed every year (an example, some applications that use sql-server, just for the server license plus each of the clients, can cost several thousand euros, not counting the application itself), than to make an initial investment in training the worker and forgetting to pay licenses for the rest of the years. The cost is usually much lower with a correct implantation of SL. Just look at powerful companies, for example, google, to see that what they use, in general, is SL.
At the desktop user level, yes, they need to be improved in general but, given that old machines can be used, obsolete for other systems, it allows us to amortize the initial investment when buying it.
In my case, I have not had any proprietary system on my home PCs for two or three years and, except for a work spreadsheet that I have to keep in format, I don't need any proprietary suite or software. Well yes, the flash to navigate.
I agree with the aggressive advertising and the lack of education.
I learned in high school computing with Windows 3.1 and '98, GNU / Linux was still very early and it was not known, I think (it was in 2000-2004).
I think we should not wait for him to just become famous, but we should teach people around us. I am not saying to convince or force them to use GNU / Linux, but to let them know that there are alternatives, and especially know the meaning of "Free Software".
What you can is called. Android and this in most phones, and I think anything goes. In it, everyone is "free" to do what Samsung, Sony or LG put you by default, unless you gather the knowledge to try to assert your freedom (without quotes).
That I change GNU / something for android and be in all machines to be POPULAR for the hell ... I like GNU like this. He may not be popular but he is my friend.
Free Software is already popular. In fact, it's sooo popular. Those of us who use SL are not the majority, it is true. It is also a fact that we are a huge minority. Now: why do we use SL and not S.Privative? What convinced us to use SL? the way I see it: our innate curiosity and desire to learn. That gentlemen (curiosity and the desire to learn) is not everyone's quality (nor does it have to be). If something abounds in this world, it is laziness. So we hope that we are the majority ……: it is a utopia, that we have neither time nor $$$ to pay for TV commercials, nor to force PC assemblers to pre-install a free OS, much less do we have the logistics to make it onerous commercial agreements with hardware producers so that they let me see their technical specifications to me and only to me… ..in short ……
PS: the things that are read of the ruindows fans: MSOffice is said to be by far the best office suite …… .By Diossssssss !!! (I am an atheist I think) What a great lie: In writer I create text documents of a complexity that exceed 'normal use': dynamic tables, indexes, page styles, etc etc etc, technical reports and with a simplicity that I have never found in Word. In Calc I still do complex Spreadsheets ..
If you can't handle LibreOffice or others (it is too big for you), don't spread fallacies: if you don't understand Chinese, don't say that Chinese is an idiot, you are simply not prepared to enhance or take advantage of a conversation with an Asian. point.
Haha ... great comment ... end to end ... I agree.
Hug! Paul.
Good point of view. Although of course, not all those who use GNU / Linux do it to learn, but they surely began thanks to someone with that desire to learn convinced them.
Actually a spreadsheet made in Excel with many formulas and data could never be replicated in libreoffice with the ease that you do in Excel, the ones you do will be complex, but at the business level there is no rival. And that doesn't mean libreoffice is bad.
If the same could be done, at least the government would have changed.
regards
do not talk about what you do not know. There was a Spaniard who said: «If we only spoke about what we understood, there would be a great silence that we could take advantage of to think»…. Tell me what do you understand by business level? By propagating the "business-level no rival" fallacy, you take it for granted that libreoffice only uses it domestically. I assume that you do not know how to use LO: that gives you to affirm that it does not measure up? ... I am speaking from my experience: what do you think I do with Calc?
What kind of Spreadsheets do you think the Construction industry produces?… .Just addition and subtraction? no statistical analysis? What kind of reports do you think those of us in this industry provide?…. Imagine this scenario:
Managements 5-10 construction projects simultaneously, you have to make Work Budgets, from these budgets prepare reports of inputs, yields, labor, carry out work schedules, cash flows, investment programs, perform control on time real progress, prepare 'n' reports ... .. does not this seem like a 'business environment'?, and all this kind of documentation you have to cross with various companies and individuals ...
If that is not ... is it that what I do is a hobby instead of my professional activity?
A separate case is that they try to sell you the idea that they only use it at home and that professionals do not look at this great software. ERROR. I approached LO and did not change it at all. In fact, I haven't worked with MS formats for 4 years. And no, the 'incompatibility' of formats has not affected my productivity ... I have already accustomed those in my environment to have LO installed on their computers so that they understand me and we work perfectly ...
If you do not want to use LO, you are within your right, but stop denigrating that software that you do not know.
I think that people would start to worry about free software when they have to pay for the licenses, while the cracks continue to exist I doubt.
The common user does not see the real difference between Windows and Linux, it is not enough for you to tell them that Linux is faster, efficient, secure, free, etc., they only care about having their computer functional and being able to use it in a simple way. This is what Microsoft gives people.
I have reread the reflection you make several times that the application of free software freedoms restricts? the potential of the technology that is used, or personal freedom ... and I can't link it. I don't understand how the freedom of software affects the potential of technology, and I don't know exactly what you mean when you say, "Are we to impose these freedoms by restricting the freedoms of those who use these systems?" You mean that the GPL license obliges whoever modifies a program to keep said software free. But in this case, whether we like it or not, so that everyone can enjoy freedom, there must be a mechanism that ensures it, even with a restriction, because regrettable as it may seem, not all freedoms are good (a example in social life: imagine the havoc that freedom to kill people could cause, for example).
At that point I mean, for example, using a 100% free distro. In these distros the use of Flash is not allowed, because it is a proprietary technology. So if you want to watch videos over the internet you can't do much. Or if you need to enter a web page that works 100% in flash, like the ones made with WIX (thank goodness this is an ancient practice and modern heresy), you cannot even see it. Realizing the full freedoms of free software limits your own freedom. Do you want to talk to your friends who use Skype? you can't because that is proprietary software.
Completely carrying out the freedoms of free software does not limit your freedom, but rather certain functions that, today, with the most widespread software today, and with the level of development in certain areas of free software today today, they are not fully or partially usable. In any case, it is the proprietary software that limits that freedom, by forcing you to use a specific proprietary program, plugin or protocol to perform certain tasks. Beware of pointing out the false culprit.
Nope, I agree with HaPK, a 100% "free" distro (only proprietary software as they call it around here) limits my freedom of choice.
And using my freedom of choice, I then decide to use the software that best suits my needs, whether it is proprietary or not, I can also use Skype, Gimp, utorrent, Microsoft Office, Mozilla FireFox, MySQL and a long etcetera.
STOP DOING KILOMBO AL PEDO !!
Sharing and protecting oneself is something instinctive, no species evolves if it is not a community and shares its gifts freely. So free software will always exist. It is going to overcome capitalism and it will become a fence to know what for the future. Music for etheric machines maybe or source code for the beginning of a matrix ...
Will it be closer to the user? Will it be further from the user? Will Debian put a 4G repository on pluton? Will it use Ubuntu Mir by default?
All that is sensationalism, bread and circuses. Goodnight.
in the union is the strength, I have mint, ubuntu and window installed on my computer, well the point is that in window I run free office, gimp, inkscape, blender, firefox, without any roll, in free systems I still do not get the form that it is not something easy to update and install without having to be a computer expert