Microsoft Asks Open Source Not to Focus On Price 461
Microsoft's supposed open-source guru Sam Ramji has asked open-source vendors to focus on "value" instead of "cost" with respect to competition with Microsoft products. This is especially funny given the Redmond giant's recent "Apple Tax" message. "While I'm sure Ramji meant well, I'm equally certain that Microsoft would like nothing more than to not be reminded of how expensive its products can be compared with open-source solutions. After all, Microsoft was the company that turned the software industry on its head by introducing lower-cost solutions years ago to undermine the Unix businesses of IBM and Hewlett-Packard, and the database businesses of Oracle and IBM."
They will listen! (Score:2, Insightful)
Cost will fall flat... (Score:2, Insightful)
You can tell most Open Source advocates have never had to make costing decisions in large businesses.
Businesses are a lot more interested in the total value of something than its price tag.
Linux might be "free" but if you include the support contract, [re-]training, only then do you start to get close to its real cost in a business.
To get ever closer you have to look at how efficient it is for people to get their work done on that platform when compared to the competition.
I personally find getting almost anything done on Linux much more time consuming than either OS X or Windows...
So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Turnaround (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Focus on quality? (Score:3, Insightful)
Getting an ubuntu VM doesn't require approval like a windows VM does, because of the cost
If it's something I can do that way, the saving of half a day (not having to get approval) of my time is worth it to me, completely ignoring the difference in cost.
That's value.
Re:Cost will fall flat... (Score:5, Insightful)
> Businesses are a lot more interested in the total value of something than its price tag.
I'll go you one better: businesses, or more accurately, managers in charge of making major spending decisions, don't often understand the difference between value and cost.
If a typical empty-suit gotta-wrap-this-by-2-so-I-can-get-to-the-golf-course middle manager looks at open source software (priced at $0) and then Microsoft software (priced in the thousands or tens of thousands, for company-wide use), he's probably going to make the decision in favor of Microsoft because if it doesn't cost anything, it must not be worth anything.
Small business owners have always dealt with this mindset. If they want contracts from big companies they usually have to inflate their prices (even beyond what they would consider a fair profit margin) in order to even be considered as a potential vendor. This is especially true when trying to do work for governments or Universities.
The purchase price is NOT the "cost"... (Score:5, Insightful)
OSS software is a total boon to developers. I'm a developer, and we use OSS everywhere possible. Since we can easily support our software when something goes awry, we jump quickly and confidently.
But not every company has their own staff of developers. Companies that don't produce software have little incentive to hire developers if they don't contribute significantly to the bottom line. And for companies in this boat, OSS does, indeed, have costs that far outstrip the purchase price.
Windows Server licenses for needed servers might cost a grand or three. If this is sufficient to avoid the cost of hiring a developer (at around $100k/year) or an admin, (at ~ $60k/year) it's money very well spent!
Sure, I use OSS because it lets me sleep very soundly at night, with perhaps 1 significant unplanned incident per year in our hosting cluster of 14 servers. But part of that is that we already have paid the price of having developers on hand to maintain and understand our OSS-based servers.
And don't think that just because it's Microsoft, you can assume it's safe to laugh. I remember when MS Word was laughable. I remember when Windows was laughable. I remember when Excel was a toy compared to the "meat and potatoes" competition.
As a corporate culture, Microsoft learns how to dominate markets. They're losing right now, and maybe they won't turn things around in time. But they have massive assetts, they still have a monopoly in the desktop computing marketplace, and with Vista, they've shown a willingness to take risks if they are necessary to improve their software.
I know this is unpopular to state here on Slashdot, but many (most?) of the problems with Vista have been centered around making the changes necessary to more properly secure Windows. Software that was badly built that did bad things broke on Vista, and that's a necessary step to take in order to preserve their long term market share.
Don't laugh. Keep your head down, keep improving the OSS software, and be wary of Microsoft - they still have everything it would take to continue to dominate.
Re:cost plays a factor in value (Score:2, Insightful)
Typically the only "value" microsoft offers is compatibility with other ms products someone is already locked in to...
Re:cost plays a factor in value (Score:5, Insightful)
and for open source, the price point is zero.
Not always. Especially if you factor in support contracts or the average salary of someone who actually knows how to administer the software in an effective manner.
But that's also true of closed-source solutions. It isn't like a Windows server miraculously runs itself. You still need someone who knows how run the thing.
Obviously there's tons of wiggle room here... It may very well be that the average salary of a Windows admin is lower than that of a *nix admin... But *nix gives you better automation tools, security, and stability - so that one admin might be able to do more real work on a *nix box than a Windows box.
You can't just look at the sticker price when determining which piece of software is going to cost more or get you more bang for your buck... But you can't ignore the sticker price either.
Re:Funny but true.... (Score:1, Insightful)
How is open source a better solution when your only source of troubleshooting is Google?
I've used a number of Open Source products on my network here, (Nagios being one) and I tell you, when I have a problem it's next to impossible to find support. At least through a paid closed source application, you typically get a support contract along with it.
Re:Cost will fall flat... (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? I personally find that here on Slashdot the opposite tends to be true rather consistently. The obnoxious "oh you can replace X with Y, no problem, and if you don't then you're an idiot" proclamations to excited claps from the peanut gallery usually underscore the deep misunderstanding people have about how corporations license and use software.
That and the constant and rather weak (by now) efforts to imply that Windows and other commercial software cannot be used without risking most horrible death and destruction (which frankly is rather dumb considering how most of you are just preaching to the choir anyway) leads me to think that it's actually the average FOSS "advocate" who tends to be completely out of touch with the realities of corporate software policies.
But that's just me.
Cost is not zero (Score:2, Insightful)
The up-front costs of a system includes more than the sticker price, and that doesn't include non-up-front costs.
It includes taking the time to learn it, the time to train employees, the time to learn its power and limitations, etc. Initial training and the cost of post-decision-pre-purchase self-education should be considered an "up-front" cost.
Buy buying a "branded," supported product from a major vendor, you trade a sticker-price fee for reduced costs elsewhere. Another alternative is to buy a support contract from a major vendor or go to the bookstore. Either way, you can take advantage of existing tutorials or books to train yourself and your people.
On open- vs. closed-source:
90%+ of companies with under-$10000-per-box-hardware don't want the burden of compiling their own environments. They are better off buying an out-of-the-box supported solution. For them, "open source" vs "closed source" isn't nearly as important as "is there a big, reliable company that stands behind this" and "is there a contingency plan if our primary vendor runs into financial difficulties."
For Microsoft users, the answers are "yes" and "um, that could never happen, not in the next 10 years anyways, could it?" which is just a long way of saying "Nobody in recent times ever got fired from buying Microsoft."
For Linux users who buy from SuSE, Red Hat, or other vendors, the answer is "yes" and, "any number of other companies that have experience supporting Linux at the source code level, plus hundreds if not thousands of dedicated volunteer kernel coders and tens if not hundreds of thousands of other experts who have seen and understand various bits of low-level code."
Neither Microsoft Windows nor Linux is inherently a better value proposition than the other, the values vary by company and application. It may be that for most users, one or the other may be the better value, but there will be users for which the opposite is the better value.
Re:Focus on quality? (Score:5, Insightful)
After we got it all set up, got the multimedia stuff from Pacman, added malware and tracking sites to the hosts file, installed No-Script, configured his firewall, and loaded his music so Amarok could play, and gave them a tour of all the stuff Linux could do right "out of the box" and without costing a single cent, all of the educational programs and games, etc, they were floored.
They had a chance to explore yesterday and said they liked it so much better than Windows it wasn't funny. They regret not having switched before.
The simple fact is that Linux really does work beautifully for most people's purposes and with all the applications available for it and included in the distros, I don't see how people aren't flocking to Linux in droves. Maybe the word just needs to get out. I know my neighbors are planning to tell all their family members about it.
Re:Funny but true.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess you never considered paying for the Open Source product...
Maybe the magic fairies will troubleshoot your faulty servers for free?
eating grass (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but the commons MS could have joined is already well aware that letting MS anywhere near our grassy field would leave it a muddy field. There would be no grass left to eat and MS knows this, thus you see why MS cannot be convinced to act in other than their own narrow immediate interest. Sadly, MS's herd must be allowed to die off so that the rest may survive.
Re:The purchase price is NOT the "cost"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies that don't produce software have little incentive to hire developers if they don't contribute significantly to the bottom line.
They can, however, get a contract with a company that does employ developers. This company can then dive in and fix any bugs that they encounter. They can do the same with proprietary software, but only from the original seller, and unless they are a very big company they are unlikely to get bugs fixed in, say, Office or Windows.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Funny but true.... (Score:5, Insightful)
how would OpenOffice be a better solution for a business customer if it doesn't come with any support for the employees?
Closed source software support is basically either
1) Read the help file or try it and see, so the user doesn't have to be able to read or think
2) Third world script reader
3) Real support is huge $$$$$$$
So, overall, you get a better support experience using google and open source than script reader in india and MS office.
Also, there is more to support than answering "how do I print?" ... Such as the enormous cost of security / virus / worms plus the enormous cost of licensing documentation plus BSA audits that are only relevant for closed source products.
Re:Sure, let's examine the value: (Score:5, Insightful)
[Open Source] Cons
Interestingly, those are some of the exact same reasons why I dislike proprietary software.
Re:Funny but true.... (Score:3, Insightful)
How is open source a better solution when your only source of troubleshooting is Google?
Google is all the support I have ever had for Microsoft products, too. Sure, I could have paid to speak to somebody reading off a script somewhere that labour is cheap if I'd got into real trouble with a Microsoft product. As opposed to open source, where for a lot of products you can get straight through to the development team.
Re:Focus on quality? (Score:5, Insightful)
>They had a chance to explore yesterday and said they liked it so much better than Windows
>it wasn't funny.
I'll bet you forgot to tell them that a few months down the road he will have no way to install an up-to-date application unless he updates the whole system. And that he will have to update (aka reinstall) the whole system every few months, since thats the usual duration his applications officially are up to date.
Free Software is usually nice and all, and I'm using it exclusively on my desktops, but inability to install newer or older software on "stable" distributions kills it for Windows converts. You really can not talk someone into linux with a calm conscience without warning him that his system is considered "obsolete" by application makers the moment its published and a new development cycle has begun, and that there will be no way to install any older versions he might be got used to.
It's not about cost (Score:3, Insightful)
For me the biggest selling point of OSS is not its being free-as-in-beer, but being free-as-in-speech. The biggest selling point of OSS is _control_. You buy a proprietary program, it has a bug that bugs you and nobody else, and you are toast. In OSS you can pay somebody to correct the bug. At least you have the option. If you want to extend the program, you can do it. Difficult and costly, perhaps, but possible at least.
When you buy proprietary, and work to integrate your business's data flow in the proprietary solution, you are in fact a hostage of the software company that has the source code. If Microsoft decided now to start charging 10.000 dollars per Windows license, many people would be forced to pay. It would surely spell doom for Microsoft in the long term, but 'long' is the operative word here. The fact is that if they could do it, and you would have no practical alternative to paying, if your business processes are deeply integrated in Windows.
Remember, it's not for the money, it's for the freedom.
Re:it is pretty funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I could say that the Linux community wants more don.net integration just because Icaza, one of the most active contributors to the Linuzz community advocates this on his blog.
Of course if you want just another inflamatory article on /., just go on...
Re:Funny but true.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also important to add:
Open office is included in RedHat, Oracle, Ubuntu and several other commercially supported systems. With MS Office, if you are unhappy with your support provider then you are stuck. With open office, you can shop around until you find the support you want. Right now getting full support might well cost a little more, but if that were true long term then more competition would enter the market and keep prices low. No such thing exists with MS Office where nobody but MS can actually fix problems.
Re:Funny but true.... (Score:3, Insightful)
What about Microsoft's free software? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft really has no basis for griping about other people giving away software for free, when they've been doing it themselves as a competitive strategy for many years, from Internet Explorer to Visual Web Dev Express.
Re:Funny but true.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's only if you purchased it outright. AFAIK it doesn't apply to OEM software since part of the reasoning for the decreased cost of OEM software is that the system builder is agreeing to provide tech support for that software.
I'm not commenting on the quality of the tech support for the end users though. I've never called them personally. So that 90 days of free support could be crap.
Re:Focus on quality? (Score:4, Insightful)
She keeps griping at me because my Linux boxes always seem to be working, but her Windows PCs never do. It doesn't help that my answer is, "That's why I run Linux."
Re:Focus on quality? (Score:4, Insightful)
I and the GP were not talking about ourselves, but about possible Windows converts trying out linux first time.
>Or you could run a LTS of Ubuntu if you care about that?
Which means no way to install an newer application comming out after the LTS.
> Or compile your own local packages if you want different versions?
No Windows convert is going to do that and I dont like it either since theres no nice and clean way to uninstall them.
> Or use backports if you want to upgrade just a few packages?
Theres no "standard" (i.e. endorsed by the distribution) way to install backports, so anything you do is at your own risk. Again, not something you really would tell a Windows convert to have to do.
> Or, most importantly, don't run a stable distro if you don't want to run a stable distro.
So which one would you recommend a Windows convert then? And when you cant official "stable" distributions to Windows converts, what the heck are they then good for?
>That said, the upgrade process is quite painless (as is Windows update (including SPs)
>and Mac OS X's system update). I really don't see the issue.
The issue is you _have_ to update the whole system (all applications) and get used to any changes in the system just to update one single application.
The fact that application versions are so tightly tied to system versions on Linux in general absolutely sucks. Upgrading and downgrading single applications is a pain in the ass, or practically impossible. If youre talking somebody into Linux, sooner or later he WILL find this out, and then you practically only have to hope that he is so clueless that he either never updates anything or doesnt mind his applications changing every few months without him having any say on this.
Re:Focus on quality? (Score:1, Insightful)
So he's asking people to get a recent Ubuntu build instead of Vista?
It's getting pretty comical, watching Linux zealots cling onto the idea that Ubuntu is anywhere near production quality (for the desktop), let alone better than XP/Vista. Sure, pointing out this fact will get me modded troll and just perpetuate your false perceptions, but that's what slashdot is all about -- holding Linux back by failing to recognize its shortcomings and the delusional thinking that the competition is inferior. It's paradoxical and I would find it funny if I didn't want Linux on the desktop to succeed.
The overall lack of objectivity and the cynicism toward anything Microsoft displayed by the slashdot crowd is a stunning display of ignorance. You are pigeon-holed by a flawed ideology, and as Microsoft (and Apple) continue to evolve their products Linux remains stagnant. The Microsoft bashing used to be relevant, but is now nothing more than echoed sentiments which are now largely baseless. Linux is the joke now. You are in denial. The first step to recovery is to recognize you have a problem. And maybe, just maybe, to recognize that Microsoft has a point here.
Re:it is pretty funny (Score:5, Insightful)
"Open source your software, then spend development time porting it to our platform so we can use it for free!"
My favorite example is Chrome.
"Companies should open source their code so the community can port it!"
Google open sources Chrome.
"Google doesn't care about Linux! They won't port their OPEN SOURCED code for us!"
Google ports Chrome to Linux.
"I'll stick with firefox until they release adblock for Chrome, thus circumventing their primary revenue stream!
Step 4: Profit?
Oh you guys are too funny...
Re:Funny but true.... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Training" here means : "To access the program you need in order to do you work you click here and here".
Switching from WinXP to Win7 would constitute a jump in familiarity for them as big as switching from WinXP to Linux.
Have you stopped beating your wife? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is a marketing company more than a software company. This is a deft stroke of shaping opinion. Why?
Because the tacit assumption is that Open Sourcers focus on price, not value. They want to provoke the predictable "Microsoft software is too expensive" response. It lets them cast Open Sourcers as not being able to bridge the gap between technology and product.
Technology does something specific. A product solves a problem. All that this line of commentary does is to underscore Microsoft's message that Open Source isn't ready for business. Railing about expense without attacking the core problem of value only plays into Microsoft's hand.
What's more tragic is that they may be right. There are precious few Open Source technologies that are developed and focused to the point of being a product.
Re:Cost, quality and... (Score:1, Insightful)
...and if you are a closed source company, when someone asks for a change to one of your apps and you tell them "send money," what you're really saying is "**** off."
How is that different?
Re:Funny but true.... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also important to note that most of the existing systems evolved around the idea of distributing limited physical resources (that is, they manage scarcity) in which the investment of time and effort is directly related to the value of a physical good. The problem we're running into is that we're attempting to merge systems based on the management of scarcity with resources that by their definition have no scarcity to manage, merely one shot time and effort costs.
Re:Funny but true.... (Score:5, Insightful)
but how would OpenOffice be a better solution for a business customer if it doesn't come with any support for the employees?
Your employees need support to use a word processor and spreadsheet? I think your money would be better spent hiring component people over support contracts.
Re:it is pretty funny (Score:2, Insightful)
...one of the most active contributors to the Linuzz community advocates this on his blog... Of course if you want just another inflamatory article on /., just go on...
Stop ruining our Microsoft bashing with Linux bashing
Fixed that for you.
Re:Focus on quality? (Score:1, Insightful)
What the @#*%&?
I'm not even sure how to respond, but this seems to be a general strategy to avoid real discussion that I'm getting tired of:
1. Preemptively denigrate anyone with an alternate opinion using ad hoc arguments.
2. Create an anti-self-fulfilling prophecy by making anyone feel bad for doing what they should do. E.g., "pointing out this fact will get me modded as a troll..." You should get modded as a troll, because you are being one. But then you falsely "predict" that people will do that (because they should) and reinterpret what they're doing.
3. Make sweeping generalizations about things that may or may not be grounded in reality, depending on what you're talking about.
How is linux stagnant while MS and Apple are not? Would you care to be specific? KDE 4? New filesystems?
Frankly, I'm getting tired of the overhead associated with Windows, and don't want to pay the Apple tax for overpriced products. The only--and I mean *only* reason--why I use Windows is because use of MS-only programs are mandated by organizations I work with in work. They don't need to, but they just do it because it's the default.
Yes, sometimes I get annoyed by the relative inconvenience of installing software in linux, but then sometimes I get tired of how inconvenient it is to remove spyware (from "legitimate" corporations) from Windows. Sometimes I get tired of the crap I have to go through in Windows to remove viruses and trojans that appeared despite all the bullshit hoops I go through to prevent them. Sometimes I get annoyed by some simple bug in an linux interface, but then I realize I've seen many more of them in Vista than in KDE 4.
Linux isn't perfect, but neither is Windows or Apple. There is a very legitimate position in arguing that linux could be used in many desktops--I'm not saying it's definitely true--but it's not foolish or ignorant.
But instead of a real discussion of these sorts of issues, your post gets modded up.
Brilliant.
Re:Funny but true.... (Score:4, Insightful)
With MS Office, there is an incompatibility risk in merely updating to the latest version.
Re:Funny but true.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. That's my constant point. How many people out there actually phone Microsoft support? I've never actually done it myself, but was in the room once when a guy I was working for phoned them up over an issue with PPP connections in NT 3.51. It was a damned expensive call, but the problem was solved. Myself, whether it's an issue with a Linux box or a Windows box, I head to Google, or subscribe to some of the newsgroups out there, which are still, at least for now, filled with pretty bright people. Because I work with Linux-based routers and OpenVPN, I'm a member of the netfilter and OpenVPN mailing lists, and I doubt very much I could pay for the kind of support these guys give. Frequently, the developers hang around to, so you can actually deal with the guys doing the coding in some situations.
The last time I used paid support was for our crappy little accounting package, and it was utterly useless. We've been $300 a year for support ever since I started working at this job, and the one time I use the support, their answer is so convoluted that I gave up on it, joined up to some web forum, and had the answer in a day. Needless to say, we didn't renew our support.
Re:Focus on quality? (Score:3, Insightful)
>And that's different from Windows how?
In the fact that I still have to find an application I cant install under XP three years after Vista came out. With Linux this in general does not work because the underlying dependencies change too often and too much.
>Seriously, that's a load of FUD.
No way.
>I've had far, far less trouble getting old/obsolete software to run on new versions of Linux
You may have had no trouble, but without a proper package built and available for the new version and for the new dependencies, the Windows convert from our example would absolutely be out of luck.
>or new software to run on old/obsolete distributions of Linux than on Windows.
Absolute bullshit. Theres no way you could run anything from Debian v.N on Debian v.N-1 without total breakage.
> Saying that "...there will be no way to install any older versions..." is just wrong.
I was primarily saying that its a problem for _newer_ versions. With older versions it may work between two ubuntu releases, but I wouldnt hold my breath for anything with 2-3 years time difference. For comparison, on Windows (XP/Vista), I'm installing 15 years old applications without any problem.
The Linux ecosystem is changing damn too fast, faster than many users can bear. This may be exciting from a developer point of view, but it absolutely kills it for non-technical users and Windows converts. I would like to be able to talk people I know into Linux, but I cant, because of the backlash which would hit me sooner or later when they find out how tightly application versions are tied to and dependent on the underlying system/distribution and that the only way to update any single application is only by upgrading the whole system.
Re:I'll wait to get modded down, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
All I'm saying is that if you want this to be the year of Linux on the desktop there has to be first, better software for Linux and better open source software (and that means pretty GUIs and good graphics) available for consumption, and then you have to sign on enterprise level companies and make them make an investment into it.
You are correct in many ways - to the extent that this post made me irrationally angry on some level.
I'd actually take a small hit in productivity if it helps me avoid using a proprietary system. If our company buys a system that "integrates" with a proprietary solution, I'll go a long way to learn an "open" workaround. Or try to get by without the service in the first place. People have survived without flashy services for ages, why would they suddenly need those? Complicated "integrated" tools are a distraction from actually getting stuff done.
I know it's sort of foolish pride, or juvenile rebellion, but that's just the way I feel. I know our company has paid a substantial amount of license fees for the software that I could use, but I think I've managed to avoid using any of that software.
I don't really care whether this will be the year of Linux on desktop - I just want this to remain the year of Linux on *my* desktop. Being able to use Linux for your daily work has a huge value for me, and trying to use windows for anything apart from gaming feels like crawling in a tarpit.
Luckily, doing Linux development pretty much gives you a permission to use Linux exclusively, and it's the company IT that has to be flexible to your direction as oppose to you having to bend to the whims of company IT. As more people start using Linux desktops, I hope IT purchasing will learn to avoid purchasing services that lock out significant portion of ther users, despite of how "handy" or "flashy" they appear on surface.
Re:it is pretty funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah, seriously, /. must learn to separate one of MS employers opinion from the company's opinion.
Now, I could say that the Linux community wants more don.net integration just because Icaza, one of the most active contributors to the Linuzz community advocates this on his blog.
Are you angling for BadAnalogyGuy's job?
What you could say is that Novell wants more dot.net integration just because Icaza, one of their employees and a VP of the company, advocates that on his blog.
Re:it is pretty funny (Score:5, Insightful)
I always found the OSS crowd's sense of entitlement even more impressive
"Open source your software, then spend development time porting it to our platform so we can use it for free!"
My favorite example is Chrome.
You would have a much better point if your favorite example wasn't ~90% OSS to start with, such as WebKit.
Re:it is pretty funny (Score:2, Insightful)
adblock plus doesn't block anything by default - you either need to define your own filters, or to subscribe to a published filterset.
Filtersets that block ads will block some of the JavaScript used to embed Google's text ads, if not to reclaim the space on the page, then to protect the privacy of the user, who is trying to download content from the web page, and not have their browsing activity tracked by Doubleclick.
You might not understand value, the managers do (Score:3, Insightful)
Usually, that is....
The thing is, it isn't about cost at all. The issue is that you are trying to position one package against another, and this is the wrong approach. The manager will compare it and see if, out of the box, the extra features are worth that extra cost, whether it fits into what they currently have, etc.
Instead, you need to take the time to understand what the management NEEDS and see if you can offer a more complete set using FOSS plus some optional customization or extension. Maybe you can, maybe you can't. But that is the question.
Usually, if you come up with something that is more complete in supporting their business tasks, managers will take it even if it costs a bit more. The reason is that this is VALUE. Repeat after me: "Value is defined by how a piece of software supports operations in your business." Unless you understand that and make it the key point of your proposals, you will not get many managers to take your approach seriously.
Now...... I have seen managers choose software for reasons that had nothing to do with value. "The CEO's wife works for Microsoft, so we won't use FOSS" is a case where you just should walk away and not even try....
Re:Funny but true.... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Google your support. It's every frickin' where.
2. Go to the support forum for the closed source software. They usually have ones that don't have any real tech support helping. These are often as good as any open sourced ones I've seen.
3. Go to the support forum that you have access to as a licensed customer. This has developers and tech support on it. Often much better than #2.
4. Call, email, or live chat.
Get over the crap people, and be honest. It's better to extol the true values of open source software than to make up bullshit. I hate it when liars agree with me - you always make my side look like crap.
Here goes my Karma (Score:3, Insightful)
It's times like this, we should take a step back and honestly evaluate FOSS solutions and how they compare with commercial offerings.
I do a LOT of network admin, in a mixed Windows, Linux and BSD environment. I can't really say that one is better than the other, because they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Windows can be a pain with its disjointed admin apps (hate AD), but it's pretty easy for our developers to VNC in and twiddle checkboxes in IIS. Linux is my favorite, because I know it well, but many things are needlessly obscure (like openssl command lines).
Windows costs money up front, but for non-CLI people the TCO could be lower due to the often self-explanatory interfaces. Linux is free, but I've invested quite a bit of time writing touchy-feely scripts to bridge the usability gap, and that time is money. Hell, half of my billable hours involve supporting clients' Linux servers. I haven't billed Windows support time in over 6 months.
Regarding Microsoft's marketing attacks on FOSS, we should see it as a challenge. We have the advantage of zero up-front cost, now we need to focus on reducing maintenance costs. Don't leave it up to individual distros to write the touchy-feely front-ends, we don't need 15 different network config apps, just one but a good one. I shouldn't have to learn contorted, error-prone MD/LVM commands just to set up and monitor disks, how about a little wizard to do it for me ? Thinks like that have a far greater impact on TCO than any sticker value. Enterprise deployments have a lifetime measured in years, it doesn't take a huge difference in maintenance costs to catch up with the difference in sticker price.
Re:it is pretty funny (Score:2, Insightful)
Chrome "excluding" Linux has less to do with "entitlement" than it does Google rebuilding the old Microsoft web hegemony.
Google shouldn't be building a Windows only web while using Linux to do all of their heavy lifting.
The community expecting something back is not "entitlement".
Re:it is pretty funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Google shouldn't be building a Windows only web while using Linux to do all of their heavy lifting.
Even if they refused to make a Linux version of Chrome, it's still only one (barely used) web browser. There are plenty of others out there, and most of them run on Linux. Google couldn't build a "Windows only web" if they tried.
The community expecting something back is not "entitlement".
The community getting something back, but constantly insisting that it's never enough, even when they get back exactly what they asked for in the first place, is most definitely a sense of entitlement.