Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Free Standards Group launches Linux Standard Base Desktop Project (NewsForge)Free Standards Group launches Linux Standard Base Desktop Project (NewsForge)Posted Oct 19, 2005 1:53 UTC (Wed) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989)In reply to: Free Standards Group launches Linux Standard Base Desktop Project (NewsForge) by darthmdh Parent article: Free Standards Group launches Linux Standard Base Desktop Project (NewsForge)
>They're expending so much time, money and energy into defeating the purpose >of having X11, and indeed an open source operating system, in the first >place - that the end user be free to choose whatever works best for them. >Not that some greedy corporation dictate to them what they must have - >particularly when its their own inferior pieces of crud.
Hm. I gather that you may not have tried to manage a significant amount of users running a business intent on turning a profit.
(Log in to post comments)
Free Standards Group launches Linux Standard Base Desktop Project (NewsForge) Posted Oct 19, 2005 2:39 UTC (Wed) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link] the 'user' in your example would be the company, not the individual.
please give an example (any example) where the LSB has actually helped, so far I haven't found a single company that will certify their product to run on the LSB instead of listing individual distros (and this is justified by the fact that if their tech support gets a call from a user, they had better be able to walk through the individual distro to find the problem, saying that it works on X LSB distro doesn't help solve the problem, so they need to have copies of every distro they support running (or runnable) somewhere, they can't afford to be blindsided by some new distro)
Free Standards Group launches Linux Standard Base Desktop Project (NewsForge) Posted Oct 20, 2005 2:16 UTC (Thu) by darthmdh (guest, #8032) [Link] I gather that you're attempting to equate bland, one-size-will-fit-all working environments with lower support costs and somehow tie this with profit.
In just two weeks of providing support for ~1500 users running Microsoft Windows, I had more support calls than I ever recieved in the three years I co-developed WindowMaker; to the point where we had to draw the line in the sand with the organisation between what fell under 'free support' for the job we did, and what was billable for T&M because it was out of scope.
The bland, across the board, everyone-wears-size-six-shoes desktop environment that people mistakenly believe means lower support costs actually cost far more in support than something that was both far more flexible in how it could be built and configured, and cross-platform to boot.
A business that is intent on making a profit will focus their efforts on their core business requirements, and will provide their employees with what they need to accomplish those goals to the required levels of quality, punctuality and budget.
If you hand a construction worker a garden fork and tell him to excavate a city block, he's not going to be as productive as if you gave him the keys to the Cat 385CL. Similarly, you give an IT worker tools that they find frustrating, inflexible, and inadequate and they will likewise be far less productive. Lower productivity results in things like low job satisfaction (and then higher turnover of employees, knowledge loss, etc), low quality, higher costs, failing to meet deadlines, etc.
If people wanted bland, boring, inflexible desktop environments, they can already get them from many places. Trying to ramroad this mentality into some kind of standard for open source operating systems means we lose another major benefit we have over those other environments - that we already solve the problem that one size doesn't fit all.
|
|||||||||||