[CS-FSLUG] The Moral Foundation of Free Software

[Aaron Patrick Lehmann]

On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 11:20:40AM -0800, groundhog3000 wrote:
> 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.

I agree.  Microsoft has an unfair monopoly, which it uses to support its
illogical business practice.  FOSS is a good idea, and should be used whenever
appropriate.  Let me reemphasize:  WHENEVER APPROPRIATE.  A church's business is
not to provide Linux training, and its staff, paid or otherwise, are not there
to learn to use Linux.  They are there with the admirable goal of winning souls
for Jesus.  The resources required to start a Linux shop in a church are
greater than those needed to have a Windows one, because most people already
have minimal exposure.  Therefore, compelling evidence needs to be shown before
FOSS should be used exclusively.  I'm the first person to proudly proclaim that
UNIX is no harder to use than Windows if one starts from zero computer
experience, but in the US that is not usually the case anymore.  

If you operate a computer resale business, and want to use that vantage to
break the back of the evil empire, more power to you.

> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> >>>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.
> > 
...snip...
> >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.

Possibly.  I couldn't care less what works, so long as SOMETHING does.

Aaron Lehmann
-- 
Why do the Democrats complain about Nader losing them Presidential elections?
Republicans don't complain about Libertarians.