M$ Vs Open Source debate - email/browsers
tcith
Sydney, Australia Member
I was interested in the vemence that surfaced in this thread regarding a person asking for advice on an Outlook issue.
The usual flames erupted and I ask why do people get so vitriol about people not using the free alternative to M$ product?
Why the abuse?
Why the flames?
The comments of the devotee's to the Firefox/Thunderbird camp regardless of the forum tends to be "convert or else you will fall down in flames and ruin" which is far from true.
Alternatives to the M$ offerings suffer from vunerabilities and ultimately the end user is the weak part of the link.
A college of mine recently installed the alternative products after reading a post in a different forum about the evils of M4 products and the safe haven of using these open source alternatives, only to contact me as his machine was full of new virus and other issues due to the fact he thought (incorrectly) that he wa now safe from such nasties.
A browser is a browser is a browser, an e-mail client is just that, it is the preferences of the end user that changes.
I prefer to use different products in different situations - I use Outlook 2003 for my main e-mail client for work, it intergrates with my PDA and calendar applications, it interoperates with other software I use.
I use alternative clients for home use or for friends who don't need these features, but for each one I examine their needs before going down that path.
What annoyed me about the above thread is that the advocates of M$ alternatives did not ask the person what features of Outlook he uses or what ebvironment he was using it in, they just spat out "it's evil change to something more stable" when in reality in that particular situation it may not have been the case, if that user had swapped to an alternative and it did not work they would may be turned off using an alternative in the future.
Just thought I would open this can of worms and see what eventuates ....
The usual flames erupted and I ask why do people get so vitriol about people not using the free alternative to M$ product?
Why the abuse?
Why the flames?
The comments of the devotee's to the Firefox/Thunderbird camp regardless of the forum tends to be "convert or else you will fall down in flames and ruin" which is far from true.
Alternatives to the M$ offerings suffer from vunerabilities and ultimately the end user is the weak part of the link.
A college of mine recently installed the alternative products after reading a post in a different forum about the evils of M4 products and the safe haven of using these open source alternatives, only to contact me as his machine was full of new virus and other issues due to the fact he thought (incorrectly) that he wa now safe from such nasties.
A browser is a browser is a browser, an e-mail client is just that, it is the preferences of the end user that changes.
I prefer to use different products in different situations - I use Outlook 2003 for my main e-mail client for work, it intergrates with my PDA and calendar applications, it interoperates with other software I use.
I use alternative clients for home use or for friends who don't need these features, but for each one I examine their needs before going down that path.
What annoyed me about the above thread is that the advocates of M$ alternatives did not ask the person what features of Outlook he uses or what ebvironment he was using it in, they just spat out "it's evil change to something more stable" when in reality in that particular situation it may not have been the case, if that user had swapped to an alternative and it did not work they would may be turned off using an alternative in the future.
Just thought I would open this can of worms and see what eventuates ....
0
Comments
I've often been asked why I use Mozilla's applications, and people are sometimes surprised to hear that I am not on some sort of crusade to topple Microsoft. I simply find that they are simple, effective and feature-rich applications. I especially enjoy things like tabbed browsing, among many other things. I find thunderbird to be a very good personal email client, and I find it to be more flexible than outlook express, as well as 'thinner' than Outlook, as I don't need all of those features. I will simply use the best-suited tool.
I find the whole 'take back the web' campaign to be a little pushy and open for negative interpretation. Truly, I think that these Mozilla apps have some genuine pros, and they speak for themselves. When in doubt, give it a try, and see if you like it. It is as simple as that. That is how I began to get hooked on Firefox, as well as Thunderbird. I will most certainly do another personal evaluation once IE7 comes out, and I will decide upon what suits me best.
As someone mentioned in that thread, they are just tools to get a job done. I know that in many cases, you have little choice but to use a specific app. In my case, I am doomed to Lotus Notes 6.5 at work
I've had this conversation on numerous occasions, and I think it is important to think about why you use the applications you do. You are only doing a disservice to yourself if you are using a product, not suited to your needs, for the wrong reasons.
My two $0.02CDN
That's what has eventuated.
I for one use MS products almost exclusively and never had a security problem. I do have Firefox on my PC, but use it as a tool when designing websites to allow for good cross-browser coding. Yes, I patch MS products regularly, but I also patch my Linux box regularly as well. And as evidenced by several news posts on this forum, FF has had its share of vulnerabilities as well.
Ask most IT folks and they will tell you that poor passwords, putting login info on Post-Its on your monitor, social engineering, and other user lapses in judgement will account for more problems than errors in code. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times- no OS is 100% safe. Windows gets the lion's share of press because it's the most widely used. Reverse the market share of Linux and Windows, of FF and IE, of Outlook and Thunderbird, and I'll wager dollars to donuts that you'd see MS fanboys touting the safety of their "alternatives."
I strongly feel everyone should at least try the alternative
*Just a side: Correctly is I am wrong but isn't vitriol some sort of acid*
The admin abuse ?
You seem to be misinterpreting people's posts. No one was really flaming each other, we were just having a debate.
No it won't always, But it is far less likely using a closed source common application.
Yes but the fact it doesn't suffer then same venerabilities will keep you safe 90% of the time
You should never believe you will be save from all virus's and spyware . Its not possible anyone who believes so is a fool.
That is entirely correct any user switching to a open source alternative, That is less popular then the closed source version will be a much smaller target and not worth getting. Also keep in mind closed source programs have to be made much more securely due to the fact that anyone can see there source.
Power to you if your software/hardware is not compatible then use what is.
We installed firefox on every clients machine renamed it to Internet set it to default browser and informed clients gave them a quick 2 minuet tutorial. We never had a dissatisfied customer everyone loved firefox and we got many recommendations from just from that.
90% of users don't need the few features outlook has over thunderbird, If he did need them he could simply switch back by double clicking his outlook short-cut.
I used to use Internet Explorer for years... from '95 to less than 6 months ago. I never, ever, ever had a problem with it. No spyware, no nothing. I switched to MyIE2 (same thing, different interface) for awhile, and now Firefox. Like someone said in either this thread or the linked one (it's late, and there's a lot of whining going back and forth), it all depends on the end user.
That's all there is to it. Firefox now has a "major" security hole (which I still haven't patched... whoops), along with a lot of small ones. IE has the same. No biggie. Everything has its flaws. I used to use OE, but tried Thunderbird for awhile. I didn't like it much, so I switched back. Now I just use Gmail, and the web interface is good enough for me.
The point is, it doesn't matter. Do what you do, and do it well.
That's great, and it can be done in a calm and intelligent manner.
Yes Vitriol is an acid and I used the term correctly in the sentence.
I did not mean to have my comments to be assumed where about that one post/discussion. I was talking in general about forum "flame wars" that do errupt on this topic. I liked the debate and thought it would be nice to move the thread into a more focused topic so that others might comment.
Unfortunately 90% of the time is not often touted by those advocating the open source alternative, in fact many of the times the issues are never mentioned.
I would not go as far as saying a "fool", uneducated and misinformed perhaps, but not a fool. Again the reason for thinking this was he was told in a forum similiar to this that the alternanative would be safe and took that as gospel as he was a newbie.
I would never presume to do anything without a clients approval. I advocate many of the open source applications you yourself recommend, and often install them on clients equipment, there may be a requirement that they are using a closed source product over an alternative.
Do you install other open source alternatives for office or do you only advocate for e-mail and browsers?
But that's not how you presented your solution - you advocated that the alternative was better and that they should change with out ascertaining if that change may cause them issues or if in fact they required the features of Outlook, if the person is a newbie they may not understand how simple it is to jump back and forth.
Thats quicker then ive ever seen microsoft patch anything.
You are correct there many of the newer converts think there fully sheilded from everything bad and evil. (They were also usealy ones to be hijacked in the past.)
Most users already had a copy of microsoft office, The ones that don't we asked if they wanted a free alternative that is slightly harder to use.
I did jump the gun a little there, But he appeared to be a normal user.
I haven't meet one that hasn't yet.