| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SlySlyPosted Apr 25, 2003 22:18 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165)Parent article: Myths of Linux on the Desktop (ZDNet) This is a very sly article. Its overall level of articulateness and internal cohesion suggest that it was written by a Gartner customer and published more or less unchanged. Make no mistake, despite the apparent evenhandedness, this report is meant to muddy the water. If Free Software really offers only a "slight edge" here and there, and numerous "problem[s] replicating this [or that] technology", who would dare switch? The section headings, identified as "myths", are meant to be taken as false, when in fact they all remain substantially true despite the author's quibbling. Perhaps the slyest bit of slight-of-hand was the claim that the cost of supporting Linux users would not be significantly less than for Windows users. As support, the author quotes somebody saying that Linux required about as much support staff as Unix -- then just guesses (ignoring contrary reports) that the same would obtain vs. supporting Windows desktops. Another is the suggestion that working well on older hardware actually counts against Free software. The author says, for instance, "After warranty support is over, many enterprises choose not to repair broken PCs, but to replace them with new ones." This is in large part because the repaired PC would no longer be able to run current MS software versions anyhow. Similarly, the author suggests that keeping older hardware means managing many more varieties of hardware. Yet, it is not old, well-understood hardware that is hard to manage, but the forced influx of new hardware needed to run new versions of software. Absent that forced turnover, an enterprise may reasonably stick with substantially the same hardware configuration (with optional upgrades in clock speed and storage capacity) until there are compelling, objective reasons to switch. Equally damning are the omissions. The author carefully avoids mentioning lock-in, and never mentions the possibility of obtaining support from independent (and possibly local, and competing) third parties, or from the in-house expertise that can only develop with Free software. For a good comparison, consider the SUNY Faculty Senate resolution published at http://orange.math.buffalo.edu/csc/resolution2_april2003_approved.html . I could go on and on, but the point is that the opposition has become more sophisticated. This is more clever than "Free software is a cancer that threatens the American Way", but the intent and the conclusion are the same. Now the strategy is "make minor concessions, but sow seeds of fear, doubt, and confusion." The falsehoods reveal the true intent.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||