Comment Too less stolen software in Linux ? (Score 1) 3212
I'm using Linux as server and desktop system. I have to admit, I just can't
get rid of the applications I got used to. I don't want to list all the apps
I'm using in my Linux enivorment. I'm not writing this comment to tell the
outside world which software I like.
Stolen software, there is another word witch starts with an w and ends with an z which I don't want to use, was making Microsoft applications very famous. I think this is one of the major reasons why people stick with windows. Looking back to my time at school, the first cd writers were out and the culture of sharing software enlarged. When disks were mainly in use there was software traded as well, no doubt but in my eyes this all starts getting big when cd writers were out.
It was just cool to own always the latest software and share it with the rest of your school to make some new, false, friends. What did they trade? Mostly Microsoft applications like the operating system itself and Office of course. People started to install the new software and stick with it without thinking about alternatives, because it is cool to have the latest Office version.
Well, what does that affect? When most people talking about computer skills the mean their ability to use Windows, Word and Excel. Remember, it is cool to run the latest verion of Office and Windows so many people are used to such software. What shall a company do? If Office is used to widely the got no chance, running Office might be the best. Switching to alternatives may be to expensive because of the needed trainings. I don't want to discuss if this really counts even if the interface of the alternative software is identically. Think about it yourself..
I don't want to say every user running one of the above mentioned software packages is running it because it's stole or something. This is indeed big nonsense. However, I just think such software trading is a damn big reason why such packages are famous.
Adobe Photoshop is shared very often, too. People start using it and discovered it is a great piece of software. Indeed it is, but everything looking different is just wasted software? Something you better move to the trash? When talking about this I think about this gimp Photoshop thingy. Is Gimp just a bad piece of software because it's interface is totaly different in most ways? Once you stick with using Gimp for a while you will findout this is mostly not true. Image what would be if Gimp would be traded that much and there would be dozens of tutorials available on the net? Would Photoshop be a "bad piece" of software just because it looks differnt? I do not want to compare Photoshop and Gimp, both are great pieces of software. Running it on Mac is just powerfull. However, I'm just trying to say don't give something a chance because it is looking different from what the know. After the first look at it, it is damn bad because the button x is not at the same place than you are used to.
Indeed, it is true, there is much more software available for MS Windows than Linux, no doublt. Does that really impress you? Earning your living by writing software what are you going to do? Let's take a "cash-cow" like a printing software for instance (maybe a id card printing software or whatever...It's not very importand anyway). Which platform would you support if you want the maximum software packets to be sold? Of course you would choose Windows.
Would that be different if Linux (just for instance) had been traded that much? Remember, it is cool to run always the lastest version of office. It's cool because of your friends, everybody thinks that so you assume it must be cool. Okay, Office is running under Linux only. What are you going to do now? No doubt, you would install Linux and stick with it! The more users the more software will be available. Think about the last paragraph now.
This is just my point of view on that. I don't think technical reasons are mainly important as I don't know of anybody comparing MS Office and Open Office (or other packages) first and then use them. I exclude special cases like server usage here...Just the mainstream systems.
Stolen software, there is another word witch starts with an w and ends with an z which I don't want to use, was making Microsoft applications very famous. I think this is one of the major reasons why people stick with windows. Looking back to my time at school, the first cd writers were out and the culture of sharing software enlarged. When disks were mainly in use there was software traded as well, no doubt but in my eyes this all starts getting big when cd writers were out.
It was just cool to own always the latest software and share it with the rest of your school to make some new, false, friends. What did they trade? Mostly Microsoft applications like the operating system itself and Office of course. People started to install the new software and stick with it without thinking about alternatives, because it is cool to have the latest Office version.
Well, what does that affect? When most people talking about computer skills the mean their ability to use Windows, Word and Excel. Remember, it is cool to run the latest verion of Office and Windows so many people are used to such software. What shall a company do? If Office is used to widely the got no chance, running Office might be the best. Switching to alternatives may be to expensive because of the needed trainings. I don't want to discuss if this really counts even if the interface of the alternative software is identically. Think about it yourself..
I don't want to say every user running one of the above mentioned software packages is running it because it's stole or something. This is indeed big nonsense. However, I just think such software trading is a damn big reason why such packages are famous.
Adobe Photoshop is shared very often, too. People start using it and discovered it is a great piece of software. Indeed it is, but everything looking different is just wasted software? Something you better move to the trash? When talking about this I think about this gimp Photoshop thingy. Is Gimp just a bad piece of software because it's interface is totaly different in most ways? Once you stick with using Gimp for a while you will findout this is mostly not true. Image what would be if Gimp would be traded that much and there would be dozens of tutorials available on the net? Would Photoshop be a "bad piece" of software just because it looks differnt? I do not want to compare Photoshop and Gimp, both are great pieces of software. Running it on Mac is just powerfull. However, I'm just trying to say don't give something a chance because it is looking different from what the know. After the first look at it, it is damn bad because the button x is not at the same place than you are used to.
Indeed, it is true, there is much more software available for MS Windows than Linux, no doublt. Does that really impress you? Earning your living by writing software what are you going to do? Let's take a "cash-cow" like a printing software for instance (maybe a id card printing software or whatever...It's not very importand anyway). Which platform would you support if you want the maximum software packets to be sold? Of course you would choose Windows.
Would that be different if Linux (just for instance) had been traded that much? Remember, it is cool to run always the lastest version of office. It's cool because of your friends, everybody thinks that so you assume it must be cool. Okay, Office is running under Linux only. What are you going to do now? No doubt, you would install Linux and stick with it! The more users the more software will be available. Think about the last paragraph now.
This is just my point of view on that. I don't think technical reasons are mainly important as I don't know of anybody comparing MS Office and Open Office (or other packages) first and then use them. I exclude special cases like server usage here...Just the mainstream systems.
