> I believe there is room for both OpenSource and commercial=20 > software. The=20 > solution to the perpetual upgrade issue is to have independent data=20 > transfer standards. I completely agree. I hope IFC really takes off for this reason alone; = then it wouldn't matter what software I use to generate information. =20 > 2. I have been experimenting with alternative office suites=20 > and for the=20 > low level requirements of the majority of my staff there are=20 > low cost or=20 > free options available on Windows and Linux OS's that mean=20 > that MS Office=20 > is dead in our organisation except that we may maintain one=20 > licence for=20 > file conversion purposes. I've been using Open Office at home for a while now, and I really like = it. Yes, it's lacking some of the features that I was using with word, = like mail merging and mailing label making (I manage a local events = newsletter for what could be called for lack of a better term an = 'adventure's club'). Whatever. It's free, and it does almost everything = I need, and when I switch to Linux or Mac OS X in the future I'll still = be able to use it. It's win-win for me. However, if I do switch completely to Linux, then I'll probably buy the = Ximian desktop software. This way I'll have their full support in making = my palm pilot talk to their PIM software, evolution, that I rather like. = Plus I'll get other goodies too, like the ability to connect to my = office's existing exchange server, so it will be worth the money. > 4. If ever there were reasons to move away from MS operating=20 > systems it is=20 > the lack of stability & lack of security. It is the operating=20 > system that=20 > produces the most problems with the regular and incompatible=20 > upgrades,=20 > predatory use of the operating system to disadvantage both users and=20 > competitors and this is where an OpenSource operating system=20 > produces the=20 > greatest benefits. Additionally, IMHO, the last several releases of Windows have been %50 = developed to make my life better, and %50 for Microsoft's benefit in = positioning themselves in the market. I mean, OK, Windows 2000 is easier = to use than NT was. It's easier to manage as well. But about half of = it's features, like integrating the explorer browser, direct X, windows = media player, and automatic updating don't have anything to do with = making my work easier or faster. And with Windows XP and future windows = OS's, things like the purposeful downgrading of MP3 encoding so you'll = use the windows music format, DRM, licensing servers, and such don't do = anything to help me. What if, on a Sunday, my CD-ROM burner dies, and = I'm using windows XP, and I replace that drive and it triggers the = Windows XP licensing server so that I have to contact Microsoft to get a = new key. Can I do that on a Sunday night when I have to have this = working my Monday morning? What about in five years, when XP is no = longer the current OS and is no longer supported by Microsoft? How is = this helping me? how is this worth money? =20 > So, I have had the dubious pleasure of swearing at Microsoft=20 > for hours as I=20 > try to rebuild the system and reload the software I need to function.=20 > Getting the right drivers on for the hardware takes quite a=20 > while as Win 2K=20 > doesn't correctly identify the hardware. As you can see I=20 > have my email=20 > working but there are still hours to go. Gimp won't load due to some=20 > component missing (though I started from the beginning) and=20 > many other=20 > programs are yet to be reinstalled. After rebuilding one of my Windows 2000 computers twice to try to get it = working, then having the other BRAND NEW top-of-the-line windows 2000 = system at home start to have troubles I decided to be completely off = Microsoft by the end of the year. I'm going to buy a Mac, because I = still want to use Photoshop and watch movies and crap for my home = system; but I want to be able to use Unix tools too. Maybe I'll switch = the high-end machine to a complete Linux box (rather than it's current = dual-boot) for rendering and such, or I'll sell it. If I can get a = working CAD system on it, then I'll use it for my fledgling business. = But I've had it with the Microsoft stuff. I want to be an Architect that just happens to use computers; Not a = computer/3D/CAD expert-operator that also happens to be an Architect. =20 > When I loaded Suse 8.0 onto my test notebook it was less=20 > trouble to install=20 > than Win 2K has been so far. I have to say that MS is losing=20 > the battle for=20 > ease of installation. What a shame :) When installing Mandrake on a old laptop that my brother-in-law gave me, = it went so smooth and easy that I was sold. I really liked how open it = was about everything, telling me every step of the way what it was doing = and why, and allowing me to tweak everything in any way I wanted. Rather = than treating me like I've done something wrong by wanting to know = what's going on with MY computer. > Our guest from Autodesk should take note. As a user I detest forced=20 > upgrades, I detest buggy software (but LT has been quite good=20 > to me), I=20 > want freedom of choice. Linux appears to give me that to a=20 > far greater degree. My Palm pilot has crashed twice in the year that I've owned it, and it's = never lost a thing. It's never had a problem. It's an APPLIANCE, and it = just does it's job. That's what I want from technology. =20 > Of course, if someone produced an OSS Cad program with the=20 > capabilities of=20 > LT 97 & file compatibility, and wanted to charge me a=20 > reasonable fee for=20 > the use of it that would be OK too. The OSS guys still need=20 > to be paid. I have no problem paying for software; I do have a problem when I feel = like the same company I'm giving my money to is taking advantage of me. = I do have a problem when they refuse to have open standards so that = other's may use there formats (AutoDesk and DWG) or refuse to adhere to = well-published standards so that everything works like it should = (Microsoft and FrontPage, Java, ect).=20 > So, for me, OpenSource operating systems, Open data standards=20 > and then let=20 > the software guys do what ever they like. If the OSS guys do=20 > a good job=20 > (Apache!) then that is great, but if they don't (CAD) then we=20 > may need to=20 > pay for what we need. Agreed! Jeffrey McGrew=20