I happen to think the competition between proprietary software and FOSS is healthy and necessary.

First of all, people who are putting together proprietary software are doing so because they think they can make a buck off it and they don’t want someone else to be able to do the same.  Which most of the time means the end result should be expected to be something of remarkable value and quality.  While this is not always the case, it is interesting to see how close they can get.

Believe it or not, no software is really original.  code can only be written so many ways, to do so many functions, in so many languages.  There is a limit to ‘original’ programming code.

How that code is used might be original, the ends to which it is applied.  Really, locking code down as proprietary is an exercise in futility and greed.  Having said that, FOSS developers would do well to watch proprietary software to see how creative they can be in achieving end results, because it is the end results that are important.  Proprietary developers are actually concerned first and foremost with end results.  filling a niche, serving a need they believe is important or desirable enough to be paid for time and time again.

They are focused on the end users opinion and intentions.

For those of you whiners in the FOSS developer community why cry that you code for yourself first and foremost, after all, what you contribute is free so leave you alone, well, this is what you aren’t getting.

The litmus test in software development isn’t if you can use the software, even though you might be developing to fill a need you have. It’s to meet a usability goal.  Can anyone use it who has a need for it?  That’s what the proprietary developers struggle to achieve and that’s why they still get the lions share of attention.

This is not to say that all FOSS code and effort is selfish and whiny, far from it. Especially now, with all the code support from big companies like Novell and IBM and so many others paying programmers to contribute code to open source projects. They want those projects to be successful to the end users.  Not just themselves.

Proprietary development is a necessary counter-balance and gauge against which to measure FOSS goals against.

Not to see if their apps are better than ours, but to see if they are as good as we are in meeting end goals and making software that people can and want to use.

Two aspects of FOSS often get confused in the discussion. Those would be using open source software and developing it.

In terms of making money by developing software, there is no reason what so ever that a programmer/developer can’t or shouldn’t be able to be paid for the work of creating solid and usable code in applications.

Something that doesn’t always seem to make it into the discussion of being paid for FOSS development is that the GPL does allow for software licensed as open source under it can be sold. It does not prohibit the sale or generating income from sales of open source software.

If Company A decides they need to create a custom application to do something in their business, nothing is stopping them from hiring a developer to write that program for them.

Nothing is stopping them from paying that programmer for the service he is providing them in writing that program.

Nothing says that they have to license it as proprietary either.

If the program itself isn’t concealing trade or national secrets within it’s code, why not make it open source and allow others access to use it and maybe even improve it over time as their needs demand.

Greed, that’s why. If the possibility exists to make a nickel on something, they will. Too many people would rather lock something up and throw away the key so that no one else can have it if they can’t make a buck from it themselves.

As a matter of fact, that’s how most FOSS projects start, as in-house projects trying to fill a local need. Yes, there are those companies that develop applications as a product to be sold and that’s ok too.

As mentioned already, there’s nothing wrong or illegal with selling open source software. However, people will be more skeptical about paying premium prices for open source software as most people who understand the principles of open source also are aware of the intent to make quality software more available and easily accessible.

Companies like them supposedly champion ‘free’ and ‘open’ market places, because as it is governed currently, there are boatloads of legislation and rules that have loopholes to be taken advantage of.

Fact, Microsoft has a history of trying to manipulate the marketplace by removing or eliminating competition.

While the free/open marketplace that is touted by the American government and almost every big business in America as the place where progress happens, they themselves do not embrace making things "better". They instead prefer to have ‘status quo’ or average products and no competition, thereby creating a situation where customers have no alternatives but to only buy their products.

Fact, Microsoft and many other companies engage in buying patents and copyrights of products created by others in order to control or prevent use of those products when they have a similar product on the market.

Their first reply is that it’s "just business" but, it’s not good business for the consumer. They have no alternatives now or comparisons. It’s only beneficial to the company.

When true open markets are ensured, there will be true competition, healthy competition where providers are able to make their best pitch. Make improvements and tweaks to make their version of a product more useful or appealing and catch the eye of the buyer. The competitors will offer a range of levels of quality, a range of prices and just about any other area of adaptation they can affect.

Fact, Microsoft as well as other ‘big players’ when confronted with a competitor they couldn’t prevent or eliminate, resort to throwing mud and making every effort to make the competition look as bad as possible instead of letting their supposedly ‘better’ product speak for itself or letting facts stand on their own.

Thanks to the words and antics of corporate minded people like Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates and others who drive that type of environment, Microsoft is the embodiment of "un-ethical business" and unfair practices.

When people argue against Microsoft, it isn’t just because it’s Microsoft by themselves, it’s what they represent. It’s how they choose to operate.

The article says the surveyed businesses aren’t doing it just for the cost reductions, but for increased reliability and usability as well.

It’s more than that however. Those in the business world know that cost savings is never a good reason to make changes if it is the only reason. Reliability and usability help make the decision a better thought out one, but still, it’s not enough.

One thing that is alluded to but never really explored in the other article is that enterprises are even so involved in adopting open source software that they are enthusiastically contributing back to the open source community.

That one idea speaks volumes.

Businesses don’t make full blown adoptions of software unless there is a need for it. Status quo rules the enterprise in terms of software. There must be something seriously compelling about the new software that makes it worth the effort of testing, introducing, implementing, training and more that is involved in adopting new software.

Open source software has indeed become more usable and it has indeed become more reliable. The whole time though, open source software has been adaptable, customizable, fluid and accessible.

With open source software, you, the business, have access to the source code of the software. That might not mean much to the everyday home user, but to companies who employ programmers and technicians in IT departments in the enterprise, it means freedom to make it your own. Tweak it, customize it, add to it or take from it those things that will make it work most uniquely for that business.

It also means improvement and advancement is removed from a third party or single vendor that would otherwise make the business dependent on them for upgrades and fixes. They, the business, have control of the upgrade/update cycle. They are now free from vendor lock in that might force dramatic changes and incur great expense due to controlled releases and updates.

Now, step back and look at open source software.

Lower initial cost

Improved usability

Improved reliability

Improved security

Local control of source code

Local control of update/upgrade process

Lower cost to sustain software

Now, get this…

Improved PR by openly contributing in-house improvements and modifications to the software back to the community.

Enterprise business has many more and better reasons to increase adoption of Open Source software than just low cost.

Debian has introduced their own web based ISO creation app, Debian Live Studio.

The potential is enormous.  If ever there was a time to proclaim that “It’s your Linux” as we do here at BEL Project, it is surely now.

Linux is not a ‘cut rate’ system that only people and businesses with little to no money uses out of desperation.

Linux is not developed by people and companies who  don’t intend serious use of their software.

For the informationally challenged, most of the software and code for GNU/Linux is written and developed by no less than some of the top programmers in the world. That is the truth of it.  These are programmers employed by IBM, Oracle, Novell, HP, Dell, General Electric and many more.

It just so happens that many of those developers also happen to believe, just as people like Ben Franklin did, that patents and copyrights are not good things.

They think that making information and software available to everyone is the best way to go about things.  IN many, if not most cases, many of the same people benefited themselves from others freely donated contributions and are working on the same principle.

Also, many of these same developers have a vested, personal interest in the software they are developing because it has personal use and meaning to them.  It’s not just software they are getting paid to write that they will never use in their day to day jobs themselves.  This is software that is made to help someone they know or even themselves, so they want to make sure it is working to the best of it’s ability.

The best part of it is, just as often as not, by making software ‘open’, you can get help improving on a program because someone else is wanting a program for themselves just like the one you are making.  Thus, free collaboration is born.

Linux is not made to replace Windows or Apple or any other OS.  It is meant to be installed intentionally and with the knowledge that you are using some of the best software ever written, by people who use it just like you do.

This is not the whole story

In regard to users, the current generation in the workplaces of the world has been using computers since at least high school and the following generation since elementary school.  The vast majority of people in the workforce are familiar with “common” software such as word-processors, spreadsheets, email, internet browsers and more.

Most open source applications are created with these common experiences in mind.  They are not trying to introduce software that is alien to users, they are producing software that is similar to what exists without the proprietary closed-ness and high prices.

The objective is to put an application in front of users that will barely cause an interruption in how they work.  They will take a bit of time to familiarize themselves with the very similar toolbars and commands and then will get right into the swing of things.  There is no real “re-training” that is required here.

When it comes to specialized applications, training is always involved regardless of who it’s made by.  This is because it’s a specialty app and most users have never had a need to be familiar with it until it was requested of them to use it. So, training is training in that regard and applied equally across the board.

In regards to technical support and admin staff, There is where you may see some costs involved. However, remember that on the server/technical end of things, training is pretty much an ongoing process as updates and upgrades, software companies going out of business and new products that meet needs better being released.

Every technician and admin should expect to participate in ongoing training and education in new concepts and new developments. They should also be prepared to be open minded toward new technologies as the tech/sysadmin field is forever changing.

Only 10 to 15 years ago, Novell Netware was one of the most installed and depended on network operating systems in this country, but now, it is not.  People had to be re-trained to use the new operating systems like MS Windows and AS400 and updated versions of Unix.

So,  businesses big enough to have IT staff should already have training budgets and schedules ready.  If they don’t, they are poorly prepared and are going to be caught out along the lines anyway eventually.

Something else to consider is tech preparedness.

The most prepared and well positioned technicians are those that come from ‘nix backgrounds.  The person trained in Unix or Linux of some variation has only a small adaptation to move into another ‘nix like system.  Even Those trained in Novell Netware are not hard pressed to pick up nix knowledge as the similarities were already present.

The least prepared techs are those who are trained only in MS Windows software.  Adapting from MS software to any other OS base is the most difficult as MS software is least like ‘nix based systems.  The cost to the business wi l be higher to train MS only trained techs to a ‘nix style software system than it will be to train any other tech who has training from a ‘nix like background.

How is this important to the discussion?  Because if a company hires people who are trained in a closed, proprietary environment with no experience outside of that limited area, they have set themselves up for un-preparedness.  They created a situation and fully bought in to vendor lock in willingly.  A little foresight and knowledge of the ever changing landscape of software should lead businesses to not hire techs with limited education and experience.  That business has already decided the increased cost of training for future changes of software was to happen.

To get it out in front, we all know that Linux is the kernel of the whole OS, just as we know the GNU is the pool of software that the vast majority of support apps that ‘fill out’ the OS.

A graphical user interface in GNU/Linux is an add on.  It is extra software installed onto a ‘base’ system to allow people to interact with the computer beyond the command line.

The ‘natural’ or default method of interacting with the OS is with the command line.  In the absence of all else, that is what there is.

“Why is this important?” you may ask.  It allows the OS to be more flexible, to be ‘lean’ and to be more secure  (when proper steps are taken at installation).

The GUI is not ordinarily tethered or built in as a core part of the OS to facilitate those issues  I mentioned above.  To not have it tied in is to prevent another means of exploiting the system.  One cannot hack a door that does not exist.

This means, GNU/Linux is a very flexible and scalable operating system where technically, other operating systems may not be so because of choices to tether or build in the GUI to the system.

The GUI has allowed ‘regular’ people to make use of computers in a number of ways that weren’t really available or easily accomplished without it.  it makes the system more accessible to a larger pool of users with a greater variety in experience.

But that is essentially on the ‘client’ or user end.  The GUI is not needed at all to run a server. in fact, it usually is best to not have a GUI present or installed at all on a server to maximize the capabilities and resources the server has to offer.

At BEL Project, we believe the greatest thing about Linux is in it’s potential for greater usability.  All of those benefits of having the GUI not built in to the os are the primary reasons we think that.

An operating system can be solid as a steel rock in terms of security, but if it isn’t usable, what good is it?

An operating system might be attractive looking with millions of options and tricks. Again, if it isn’t really usable, what is the point?

When compared to other operating systems like BSD or Windows, one might say that in one or two areas, they do something better than Linux.  This is seen by those who proclaim BSD to be more secure or those who say Windows has more features.

But just having better security ror having tons of features can’t make the whole OS.

A system that takes all of these things into consideration AND makes them all readily usable at the same time, that is an efficient, comprehensive, get the job done right, kind of operating system.

The “big boys” were the network operating systems like Unix and Netware.  Novell had something special in Netware as many applications and file storage were server centralized.  Meaning to access the program or file, you ran it or got it from a server somewhere.

The possibilities were tremendous.  You could have 5 people in different offices working on the same file each one modifying it and the others would be made aware of changes.

Then we arrived at this world of redundancy and fragmentation we live in now.  Everyone has their own copy of a given file and perhaps in different formats and two others need that file and make changes to their copy but didn’t remember to send you an updated version and so on.

We have now come full circle and returned to centralized apps and files.  Only this time, they aren’t on a program or file server in a closet down the hall, they are on the internet.

Do you want combined app and file collaboration and don’t mind possible leaks?  Try Google Docs, the online suite of apps and file storage that you can share your files with others you choose to provide access to.

Don’t want to use the online apps and just want centralized files?  Again, they are online so there are risks, but you could try a service like Dropbox which allows you to install a client on each users PC and given the correct name and password, veryone logged in has access to the files al lstored in one place, all updated assoon as it is saved and bet of all, it’s free. Well, up to a point, beyond 2 GB o fsapce, you have to pay for more space.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Of course there are risks associated with using online services.  What if their service crashes or is unavailable for a period of time?  What if your ISP blips out and you can’t get online to the service?  How do we know that the data isn’t being sold or is easily accessed by snoops and hackers or even the government for that matter?

There are pro’s and cons, just like everything else in life.

One of the best parts of using most of these online services is that all you need most of the time is a web browser.  AS website service develops offer these services, they are becoming more standards compliant which means the days of Internet Explorer or Microsoft OS only are going by the roadside.

A great many of the services which offer clients to be installed are offering Linux versions as well.  They are waking up to realizing that there is no point in blocking potential customers just because of the OS they use.

If most of the computers are MS Windows based machines, odds are very high people are using MS Office as well for the majority of their document creation.

The Linux/FOSS community has made many efforts, largely with limited success at opening and writing to the .doc format, which is what MS word processor uses.

Most of the FOSS word processor applications default to the .odf file format.

PDF is a file format that is pretty much universal now.  Most word processors can read and write to pdf with varying levels of being able to edit and use the extra functions of editing and sharing as well.

What we want to accomplish is usability.  We need to be able to have efficiency and cooperation when creating and sharing documents.  That’s just a necessity for any business and even at home where we interact with all manner of banks, schools, government agencies, prospective employers and more.

One school of thought suggests picking one format and demanding that everyone use only that one.SO, if the majority of the computers run MS Office, the rule would be that all machines coming into the environment would have to use .doc.

Another school of thought is to have the same applications across the board.  So with OpenOffice being at no cost and easily installed and updated, some will insist that only the one office suite is used, therefore making it easy to keep everyone on the same file format.

Of course, we come back to PDF.  It has become known as the web document format because so many people post files such as forms and informational briefs, educational documents and more on web sites for public use in the pdf format.

Some have even declared it as the “finished” document format.  Basically, using local formats such as .doc or .odf for in-house draft level documents. The expectation then is when the document is ‘finished’ and ready for sharing or widespread use and access, it is to be saved as a pdf.

In a way, the use of file formats is a bit like historical times when travel was less common and people learned about two languages, their local language and the language of the traders that would come through towns and villages.

The trader language in many parts of the world became the common language in terms of sending messages and information to others.  Similarly, PDF has become like those trade languages in that it conveys the information people want to make sure is available to as many others as possible.

Instead of focusing on a file format that is unique to only one application, we at BEL Project think it is good to make use of a “trade” format as often as possible. Both in sending and receiving.  Especially where interacting with the larger public beyond your business or home users.