I am impressed by the breadth of both the questions you have published and the depth of your answers. Clearly you are a computer aficianado who happens to publish books and not a publisher with shelf space to fill.

My idea seems pretty small. Linux is becoming my OS of choice since it does what I need. But I know I will have Windows around for some things I cannot do there. This is not a jihad--this is a way to solve problems.

Pick-up trucks are great for some jobs, but should they be my only choice? If I ask for help in loading things in my car, should I be insulted and told to get a real vehicle? The Linux?GNU people have the sneer of the anointed--after lambasting MS and Windows for trying to be all things to all people they often turn around and do precisely the same thing.

For all the excoriation you receive and handle, one issue was never addressed. A company responds to public needs. Maybe MS can dominate and force users to behave a certain way (though I think both their power and longevity are over-estimated; remember the Commodore 64!) but O'Reilly will never be able to influence what OS is on a desktop. People may research a bit before buying, but they are not likely to buy books to do that. You are a post-OS choice company, and if users vote for MS, you'd be crazy not to get a piece of that.

I have no problems with capitalism--in fact a great piece of Windows shareware I use will not be ported to Linux becasue the author cannot afford to work on something he can only give away. I would gladly buy it if he did. I want my problems solved and needs met, and I am afraid there are real limits to what people can and will volunteer. Someone once said "It takes a lot of money to keep Gandhi in that poverty" and I know what they meant. I wish I could volunteer more at church and help a little more often at my kid's school, but I go to work every day.

Keep up the great work--I have 4 of your books next to me right now!

-- Jim

Jim,

Thanks. I appreciate the support, and agree wholeheartedly with what you've said.

At the end of the day, Open Source isn't a religion, it's a software development and distribution methodology. As such it has many benefits--but no methodology is perfect, or solves every problem.

In an ideal world, there is a balance of free and for profit, proprietary and shared work. Meeting user needs is the end goal of any development methodology.

This is why I believe one of the things we need to do is to convince Microsoft that Open Source is good for them, rather than that it represents a system that is intrinsically inimical to their interests.

There are good analogies to the environmental movement. We want environmentally responsible companies, not to abolish companies. We want loggers who do sustainable forestry, rather than ones who do clearcutting, farmers who do sustainable agriculture rather than agriculture that requires a steepening cycle of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers to keep the machine running at a pace that produces an inferior product at higher cost to the farmer and the consumer, but for the benefit of the entrenched agribusiness conglomerates who have a vested interest in keeping the system working the old way.

Like proprietary software, agribusiness started out as a good thing. The idea of higher yields and unblemished fruits and vegetables sounds great. But the reality has turned out to be different.

The goal is to find keep what Microsoft has done a great job with, and to do the same with the great products of the Open Source community. The only issue with Microsoft is their paranoia. Ultimately, they consider everyone to be their enemy, to be destroyed or undercut.

If they put their focus on the consumer, really truly on the consumer, they would cut out their exclusionary business practices, and they would figure out how Open Source could help revitalize and improve their business.

(In this regard, I can't help telling a story I heard yesterday. I was told by the owner of a large bookstore that Microsoft Press told him O'Reilly has "an unfair competitive advantage" because we can talk about the warts on Microsoft products, while they can't! Now that's twisted! If they had their customers clearly in mind, they could of course tell their customers what's wrong with their products and how to fix them!)

-- Tim

Return to: Ask Tim Archive