So the 'Open Source Specilaist Group' referred to Microsoft Windows as a virus. Well, they would wouldn't they?
Shades of fanboy there, and that was a cheap and nasty shot although possibly justified, partly.
Our Tariq wonders why Open Source has failed to make an impact within Goverment IT circles.
Lemme see.
How many Linux/Open Source IT specilaists are there compared to those specialists familiar only with MS Products?
Human nature. A lot of the people responsible for purchasing software probably distrust something that's free and gain some kind of (false) security by paying money for something. This, in fact, is a large stumbling block for Linux in general which makes me believe there are a lot of stupid human beings on this planet.
Having said that, most Linux server software costs money and prices are on a par with what Microsoft charge. But - the backup is every bit as good as MS's (probably better) and if a Goverment department has 500 computer systems then that's 500 OS installations on desktops that will be free.
500 OS's, how much would MS charge for a licence for that lot?
And if a goverment worker can use Word & Excel, they will certainly be able to come to grips with Open Office. And that's all they need to know, the IT Admin takes care of everything else.
In it's favour Linux OS's are far less susceptible to viruses and are certainly more stable than Windows.
So why the failure for Open Source to make an impact in the Goverment workplace? Perhaps public relations, I don't think Open Source suppliers have quite the same advertising campaign as Microsoft.
Microsft's agressive sales policy and dirty tricks dept is also responsible. The general public largely think Microsoft when they think of computers.
Current IT staff are scared of Open Source, all they know is Windows.
What's needed is more IT Admins schooled in Open Source but that's going to take money, training courses don't come cheap. And as Open Source software has it's roots in being freely available this could be seen as something of a stumbling block, a stalemate if you will.
Ok, terminology - Gimp. Call something Gimp, call something Photoshop, they both do much the same thing, one costs about £500 the other one is absolutely free. I personally find Gimp easier to get my head round than Photoshop but that's just me.
Personally speaking I haven't been able to find Open Source software to do everything that I do in Windows yet. Within Nero I can burn all types of movie files onto a DVD complete with menu and chapters that I can watch in any standard DVD player.
I can't do that in Linux and I've tried about 5 different Open Source programs that I thought might work.
But it's getting better, I can do most other stuff, Scribus does what MS Publisher does, I can record from Line In in Audacity, and so on.
I do use Mint regularly now, I'm still on V8 cos I'm happy with it but will probably change to V10 soon. I also note there's now a version of Mint with a KDE desktop, I'm using Gnome atm but I don't really have a preference between the two. Ok, perhaps I like KDE just a smidgen better
There are a million and one tutorials for Linux available online and a thriving community who offer help. Despite all that I still find some some aspects of Linux a little daunting.
But compared to how things were as little as three years ago Linux is now comparitively a doddle.
So, there ya go, I never expected to say that much but that's my tuppence halfpenny for what it's worth
