Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)


"MSCHAEF.COM" <mschaef@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tqadnefklo61aKveRVn-hg@xxxxxxxxx
> In article <433658fe$0$25464$db0fefd9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Joe Butler <ffffh.no.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >Perhaps you could give an example of a closed source application that
"makes
> >it a lot more difficult to switch [to another] vendor [compared to the
open
> >source version]"
>
> WordPerfect

Rubbish - we moved from WordPerfect to Word with only minor issues.

> Lotus Notes

I can't comment on this.

> Visual Basic

That's a propriatory development environment for a propriatary language.
What exactly are you expecting here? You got burnt over Visual Basic,
didn't you. You presumably chose it because it gave you an advantages at
the time - now, for some reason, you feel bad about it.

> Office

Open Office seem to be able to manage Office documents.
The Office file format (Word at least) is publicly available from Microsoft.

> ...
>
> What all these have in common is that they're closed source, closed format
> applications that are used to develop large amounts of 'content'. For
> example, If I spend $2M developing a system built on VB6, that makes it
> $2M more difficult to switch away.

So, if you choose a propriatary development system and language, that's your
choice. I develop with Visual C - I've never felt locked in, and don't
recall having any major problems or even any annoying minor problems. The
problem is, that if you chose to use Visual Basic, it's highly likely that
you didn't have the skills to use any of the non-propriatary alternatives.
If that is the case, then you actually made a heavy overal win. If there
were no Visual Basic development environments (or VB programmers available),
you wouln't have had a $2M system to produce as an example.

> Office is a bigger example (although
> I'm not so sure what the impact of Microsoft's XML file formats will be).

If there are freely-available XML and open document format parsers
available, then even smaller companies will be able to work directly with
Office (and other) docs. If there are not, then the open document format
looks like a formidable specification to get right (for a small company).

> Every document developed in Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc. makes it more
> expensive to switch away to something else.

Not really so, is it. You probably don't realise that you can output most
of these documents as alternative formats which can then be read by other
applications. Also, any entity that really wanted your business would make
it a priority to seamlessly deal with Office format documents.

> A company can't effectively
> switch away from Excel and Access without paying the possibly huge costs
> of reworking all the possibly thousands of little in-house tools developed
> using those products.

So, if it's cheaper to stick with the product, stick with it. If it's
cheaper to switch to an alternative, switch. I can't see the problem. If
you had propriatary database front ends from open source vendors, you'd
still have the problem of needing to re-write all the front-ends and tools
if you want to switch. At least with, say Access (and I think Excel too),
you've got the ODBC layer that would allow your data to be accessed by any
application that can make SQL calls.

>
> >If you get software from a closed source vendor that becomes problematic,
> >you probably still have the option of moving to another system.
>
> Not without facing the costs I mention above.
>
> >There are
> >likely to be very few systems where a transfer of data is impossible.
>
> It's not just data: it's logic, training, business processes and dozens of
> other dependancies on legacy tools built into the organization.

So, that's the whole point - do an analysis and find out which is the
cheaper solution. It's either move or stick. I can't see what all the fuss
is about.

Basically, you are saying, "In the past, we had a real advantage in using
all of these productivity apps. We got stuff out there and it worked. Now,
we don't like MS, so we want to switch to something else. Ohhhh... It's all
Microsoft's fault. They should never have produced binary-type file formats
when 4MB, 16 MHz PCs were the norm. They should have produced a whopping
open file format with loads of redundant data to be swapped in and out RAM
everytime I wanted to quickly see what was in a document".

>
> > If,
> >instead, you are using an open source system that becomes a major
problem,
> >you are now reliant on the 'community' still being around and giving your
> >problem a high priority on the fix list.
>
> That't the 'free' solution. You can also hire someone to do the work for
> you.
>
> You're not likely to pay for a full development program, but you might
> well pay for key bug fixes, essential features, etc.
>
> > If the project is dormant, you've
> >now got the problem of finding a developer that can fix the problem
>
> If the closed source project is dormant you have no choice at all, except
> to pay for the costs of a rewrite, or switch, etc.
>
> >(at a cost - that's one of the OSS 'community' dogmas, remember)
>
> It can be about taking on personal responsibility. If you want a feature
> or bug fix, you can always take it on yourself or pay someone else to do
> it.

The fact of the matter is: the vast majority of software users are
technically clueless. The costs involved, for them, of switching from one
system to another, I belive, may very well be comparable to obataining a
single satisfactory bug fix for any major problem that does not have a
workaround accessible to the user.

> Closed source restricts you to making possibly impotent petitions for
> help from someone else.

Perhaps. But this is not the only factor to consider.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... What all these have in common is that they're closed source, ... expensive to switch away to something else. ... Not without facing the costs I mention above. ... You're not likely to pay for a full development program, ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... >That's a propriatory development environment for a propriatary language. ... >The Office file format is publicly available from Microsoft. ... >> expensive to switch away to something else. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Customizing A Number Format
    ... does not normally require a switch. ... Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org ... you are saying you can't have 1 field with numbers and alpha> characters? ... >>> Does this mean that you cannot format a field that contains both>>> text and numbers? ...
    (microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields)
  • Re: switching formats
    ... |>would be interested in is just how much such a switch affects ATSC tuners ... | Some PBS stations switch between PBS-HD plus their local SD feed at ... | local ID on the HD channel every hour, ... not have to be concerned right then what the format of it is. ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: Date format DD/MM in application wrongly converted to MM/DD in Wor
    ... Although this problem is known when the data comes from Access/Excel via the OLE DB provider, I haven't heard of it before when the data source is SQL Server. ... a date in the format YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY.MM.DD, which I believe Word will always interpret correctly - i.e. you will still need to use a date switch but it should always work. ... The business application developers who normally write the business application for US customers assure us that they have switched the application to show and export in UK date format. ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office.word)