[CS-FSLUG] The Moral Foundation of Free Software

[groundhog3000]

Now here is an interesting dilemma,

>>>More and more, students are taught how to use Microsoft's excellent
>>>suite of office tools in high school.  People are growing up with a
>>>computer that runs the latest Windows, and even adults are
>>>comfortable with it.  This competency is not a result of Microsoft's
>>>"intuitive" interface, but of long exposure and hard work.  Be that
>>>as it may, from a Church's perspective, its free (as in beer).  The
>>>church didn't have to pay to train its office people, they were
>>>already trained.
>>>      
>>>
>>Fortunately there is Free Software available which is similar enough
>>to what these people are familiar with, so that it is possible to
>>switch to Free Software without huge re-training expense.
>>    
>>
>
>Any number greater than zero is an overhead you are paying in this case.  What
>are you gaining by using free software?  Remember that I'm looking at time as a
>resource, and at different people's time as being worth different ammounts.  In
>order to retrain people to use whatever shiny desktop environment and whatever
>shiny office suite you are thinking of, you have to pay the overhead of the
>people you're training, the person who is training them, the cost of any
>training material (which in some FOSS products is HORRIBLE), etc.
>  
>
This really caught my attention.  In this section it is noted that:

> People are growing up with a
> computer that runs the latest Windows, and even adults are
> comfortable with it.  This competency is not a result of Microsoft's
> "intuitive" interface, but of long exposure and hard work.

This was M$'s plan from the start, wasn't it? Just like when apple gave
away free computers to schools in the 80's, M$ is trying to create a
monopoly ... excuse the faux pas ... they have created a monopoly
by exclusion.  To that end, most software producers create their
software for the platform that everyone already knows and therefore
most of the good "solutions" only run on Windows.  It's kind of like
a self fulfilling prophesy, with M$ at the head.

At this point I should note that people aren't stupid.  In the 80's we
used green screen IBM termnals, Dos terminals and old Unix machines
from who knows where.  Where those people any smarter than workers
today?  (Some, including me, could argue that they were).  However,
all in all, I don't see any reason why an employee can't learn to use
a Linux solution (if one should exist) rather than a rather expensive
M$ or Windoze compatible solution.

That said, the initial cost of Windows doesn't seem all that bad to
people when it comes preinstalled on every computer in the world
just about.

Can you spell, MONOPOLY.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>The person who maintains the machine already knows how to do it, as
>>>he's been doing it on his home machine for years.
>>>      
>>>
>>...using procedures which may be acceptable for a home machine
>>without any really valuable data, but which are not adequate
>>for maintaining a ministry's mission-critical computer system.
>>    
>>
>
>Ah.  You want a truly "production" quality system.  This is a problem that is
>not solved by having an amateur sysadmin use a FOSS set of tools, but by hiring
>a professional sysadmin to use the appropriate (which may or may not be FOSS)
>tools for the job.  By hiring, I mean, "retaining the services of."  This might
>be accomplished through a volunteer, if he's sufficiently dedicated to the job.
>The point here is that if you want a professional-quality job, get a
>professional.  Let HIM choose his tools.
>  
>
There is some merit to the facts of the situation here.  An average home 
user couldn't run
either a M$ IIS or Apache.  They can use M$ office (which makes them an 
M$ specialist
or some other big word that means very little) and they can use a few 
other apps that are
necessary for their chosen profession.  All in all they can use software 
and know little
about the actual OS they are running on.  I've done the secretary thing 
and know all about
what the 'average' worker can and cannot do.

When introduced to Linux via KDE or Gnome, it's, "Oh look, what is this 
software?" and
not , ''Hey! This is a new OS! Cool!"  In my experience, with a similar 
interface, and I have
tested this with family and friends, a user will quickly catch onto the 
way things work.

In my opinion the real decider isn't the OS, but the software needed for 
the job and
the platform the software is available on.  Until someone makes software 
for industry
x or industry y, those industries will continue to use M$ and that is that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>The main point here is as David said.  The point of church is to reach and
>teach people about Jesus, not to use FOSS or closed source software.  Use what
>works.
>
>Aaron Lehmann
>
And perhaps one day it will be Linux and GNU that works.