Oh Dear
Another Windows/Linux flamewar with hardly anything relevant being said.
I'm really, really looking forward to the point where there is a viable alternative for the home user to Windows. Linux isn't it, yet.
Because, despite what several hysterical mouth-foamers are saying, the vast majority of people can simply walk into a Staples, buy a copy of Office for *much* less that $500, load the disk, install the software with a click and (Vista users only spend another 45 minutes trying to register the thing and having to set up a passport account but hey, that's Vista, doesn't happen on XP, which should have been a clarion call to SOME Linux vendor out there years ago), and you are up and running.
Someone mentioned GIMP. Gimp. The benchmark for maddeningly unintuitive intefaces that is thrown up time and time again as a "viable" alternative to well-established packages like Photoshop (the full-blown thing). I've had people patiently explain to me that the *problem* in Madison Avenue is that all the graphic designers for some reason refuse to dump a package that they have used for years so they can move into the Linuxy goodness of GIMP. When I suggest that perhaps the evangelical effort would be better spent lobbying hard for a Linux port of Photoshop, I am condescendingly told that I don't understand the issue. Riiiiight.
Suse. I was enthusiastic when I saw this in action, demonstrated by some eager young things who were salivating at the business market assembled before them. Like many others there I was slightly *less* impressed when the tech lead for office systems integration sardonically related that "one person had baulked in using Open Office because of lack of pivot table support, so we put it in even though we don't see why anyone would use it". Once again a know-nothing-outside-his-narrow-field techie blew off his own size ten and he didn't even realise what he'd done. I wanted to grab him by the neck and scream "Geat a f*cking clue and do some research, dimwit!".
But then he went on to say that he couldn't see why a firm in New York would want digital camera support either (Goodbye medical market, newspaper market, insurance market and those are just the three waiting at the top of Mr Head).
What puzzles me is that it is largely the same crowd that bleat over the horror of having web-site choices forced on them as being the very anathema of what the modern computer user experience should consist of, that then turn round and say "Well, you should stop using whatever tool you've been doing business with for x years and switch to <linux "equivalent"> just for the pleasure of using Linux". When the inevitable list of shortcomings of that "equivalent" mounts too high for them to answer, they generally fall back on "what do you expect, it's free?" which, of course, is the death of what they're trying to argue for. Can't use *that* one in front of the Board of Directors.
Until the major third party software vendors start producing for native Linux, there will be no sea change in the way people in the street view their computers.
Stop whining about how the other guy doesn't do it right. Make the alternative a better choice FOR THE USER.