[Gllug] [OT] Support model for Linux vs M$

[Simon Wilcox]

On 12/3/09 15:59, salsaman at xs4all.nl wrote:
> On Thu, March 12, 2009 15:40, Simon Wilcox wrote:
>> On 12/3/09 13:48, salsaman at xs4all.nl wrote:
>>> On Thu, March 12, 2009 14:22, j.roberts wrote:
>>>> salsaman at xs4all.nl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, you count the cost of the Windows lock-in to be a part of the TCO
>>>>> of
>>>>> any alternative solution ?
>>>> Yes of course. There IS no practical non-Windows solution in these
>>>> cases. So why pretend there is?
>>>>
>>> Can you give a few examples of Windows software for which there exists
>>> no
>>> Free alternative ? I am frequently asked by FOSS developers for ideas
>>> for
>>> products to develop.
>> On the desktop - Photoshop.
>>
>> The Gimp is OK but it's just not the same for getting the job done in a
>> professional design studio. It's not worth retraining users to use it
>> when there's a perfectly serviceable paid-for alternative. Photoshop
>> also gives you a much larger pool of possible candidates when recruiting
>> new staff and it makes it possible to simply exchange files with a whole
>> ecosystem of people that use the same defacto standard.
>>
> 
> It may be true that there are more people familiar with photoshop than
> gimp - but your point was whether or not free alternatives exist.

Actually Andy Millar made the point better, it's about whether there are 
any *comparable* products out there.

In the overall ecosystem of having to support and find users who can 
already use (or can be trained at a reasonable cost) there is no 
comparable product to Photoshop.

And here we get into the VHS/Betamax/V2000 debate. The best technical, 
or morally superior, product won't always win.

> 
>> In specialist applications - I've never seen veterinary practice
>> software that isn't Windows based.
> 
> Well, I found this after a few seconds of searching:
> http://www.shcircuit.com/~ross/view.php/page/vetabout
> 
> looks like a pretty reasonable package to me.

That looks cross platform to me so yes it fills the criteria I set. 
Perhaps I should have been more specific although I'd have thought it 
was clear from the context I was meaning non-FOSS/proprietary, which 
this is.

> I also don't know a decent FOSS
>> equivalent of QuickBooks for running the accounts of SME businesses. And
>> by decent I mean one that won't cost me more than the relatively modest
>> cost of QuickBooks in fiddling time and frustration.
>>
> 
> I haven't looked, but I am pretty sure there are decent Free alternatives
> to quickbooks.

I have looked. There isn't. Obviously there are more selection criteria 
than can be listed in this thread but I have yet to find one. SQL-Ledger 
came close a while back but in the end it was just too much effort 
required to set it up and I had no-one who knew how to use it.

Contrast with Quickbooks - £280 and a great pool of bookkeepers that 
already know how to use it.

>> Being pragmatic, I'm quite happy to pay for specialist applications
>> where they add value to my business.
>>
> 
> Sure, but why not check out the Free (as in speech) alternatives too ?

I do, always, but I rarely find what I need.

> Instead of paying for applications, companies can pay developers directly
> to add/customise new features. And if the features are then released
> publicly, everyone benefits.

Three reasons:

1. I'm not in the business of building software, I run a vets or a shop 
or a locksmith's business.

2. Many of these niche markets are not that interesting to FOSS authors 
and the risk to my business if they lose interest is high

3. So software authors have to be paid and if I'm paying then I'd rather 
pool my £280 (for Quickbooks) to a company along with thousands of other 
people and get a really great product than spend money on building 
something inevitably inferior (for the same price) that requires ongoing 
maintenance

S.
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug