Getting Our Beans In A Row To Fight Vista Circa Q4 2006

[Markbnj]

[Competing Unix versions drove a large amount of new developements in hardware and software.]

Competing UNIX versions also drove a large amount of development off of that platform. I'll grant that if the Win32 API were nationalized, so to speak, and made an ANSI standard, we would probably have many more stable versions of it to choose from. From that perspective it would be a good thing. But on the other hand, new versions would take forever, and probably suffer from bloat well beyond what current detractors slam MS for. Committee-ware usually ends up that way.

Something like what happened to AT&T may someday happen to MS, but in the meantime it is still the best choice of desktop operating system if what matters to you is stability, support, the widest application availability, most hardware choices, etc.

I remember the Windows vs. OS/2 debates back in the early 90's. Linux guys today sound a lot like OS/2 guys did back then.

 

[R3MF]

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: mechBgon

OR, use Windows, be happy, and leave the linux community alone .

I generally do leave the Linux community alone, but your little bit about Windows not being capable of even marginal security without help, and no qualifiers added, deserved to be criticized.

Touche. However, though I do agree, and push for, your argument on Windows security. My point was to compare purchasing Cedega with purchasing Antivirus/antispyware. BOTH fix problems that do not need to exist, but they both DO exist because of the nature of novice computer users.

I should give up the whole 3D thing, I can't afford the pro-level software and my Ford Pinto software just frustrates me.

Granted, I myself am going off-topic addressing this, but I just want to mention: there opensource alternatives, even that run on Windows. A quick search string on sourceforge.net of "3d AND modeling" (the AND is a boolean operator on sourceforge.net's search function) brings up some stuff and I see there is K-3D which is considered stable and runs on Windows. Although, I know nothing about 3d modeling so I don't know if it is good or not, but if you care you check it out or the other options on sourceforge.net or even try freshmeat.net. I did have a coworker who liked to dable in graphic design but only had a "less-than-legal" older copy of Photoshop which he had played with but he didn't use it because he felt he should pay for a license (rightly so of course). So I recommended the GIMP to him and the next day he was singing it's praises. He liked it even better than Photoshop, regardless of the cost.

SUSE 10.0 comes with a full version of Arcad (3D CAAD), tho i don't know if its any good or not.......

http://www.novell.com/products/suselinux/img/screenshots/arcad.png

 

[Nothinman]

And why isn't that true if my business adopts one of the various Linux releases?

Because if RedHat changes something you don't like then you can move on to another company because the source code is open. Everything RH puts out is GPL so anyone can change or fix it.

Will they better support me over five or ten years?

That's the thing, you don't have to worry about whether RH will be around in 10 years because their software will always be able to be supported by someone even if they're gone. If MS decides to close up shop and take their source code with them, you're scewed beyond belief.

But almost all common hardware has some native support in Windows.

Only common hardware that was released before XP was, how else would the drivers get on the CD?

 

[Markbnj]

[Because if RedHat changes something you don't like then you can move on to another company because the source code is open. Everything RH puts out is GPL so anyone can change or fix it. ]

I'm ignorant about the differences between various Linux distros, but are you saying there aren't any? So if I built my enterprise around Redhat, and they went out of business, I could just drop in any other Linux version and it would work?

[If MS decides to close up shop and take their source code with them, you're scewed beyond belief.]

Yes, but this falls into the "what if the U.S. government defaults on treasury bonds" category of risk.

[Only common hardware that was released before XP was, how else would the drivers get on the CD?]

Yes, and I have already granted that the more frequent releases of Linux makes it easier for them to bundle, but really, that's not much of an advantage. The common model now is for the O/S to enable you to fetch all the stuff you need from the web. Really, you don't even need CDs anymore.

 

[Nothinman]

I'm ignorant about the differences between various Linux distros, but are you saying there aren't any? So if I built my enterprise around Redhat, and they went out of business, I could just drop in any other Linux version and it would work?

Obviously there are differences, but any reasonably experienced person shouldn't have any problem jumping between them. The main thing that RH gets you is corporate support and certification for other big named things like Oracle, but yes if you want you can get Oracle to work on Debian, Ubuntu, Slackware, etc it's just that Oracle won't support you. And if RH went out of business I bet you wouldn't have any problems getting a contract from IBM, HP, Novell, etc to support your existing RH infrastructure.

Yes, and I have already granted that the more frequent releases of Linux makes it easier for them to bundle, but really, that's not much of an advantage. The common model now is for the O/S to enable you to fetch all the stuff you need from the web. Really, you don't even need CDs anymore.

The frequent releases are only a part of it, the drivers included with Linux are almost always the only drivers available so you get all of the possible features of your hardware supported out of the box. The notable exceptions are video cards that require closed drivers from nVidia or ATI to get accelerated 3D support and newer wireless cards that require firmware that companies won't let distributions bundle.

And the only drives you can get from MS WU are the crappy drivers that they bundle which usually only handle the bare minimum of hardware features. Personally, I don't really care about all of the bundled crap and never used it, but most people do.

The most fun hardware to use with Windows is anything on the USB bus. The first time you plug it in you have to install a driver even for something simple like a drive and then if you plug it into new port the next time you have to do the exact same thing. For things like USB wifi cards I can understand because you usually have to feed them some firmware to get them working, but a flash drive, hard disk, DVD-RW, etc should "just work".

 

[stash]

but a flash drive, hard disk, DVD-RW, etc should "just work".

I've never seen any of those things not work on XP. DVD and HDDs use a standard driver and most flash drives have their driver embedded.

 

[Nothinman]

I've never seen any of those things not work on XP. DVD and HDDs use a standard driver and most flash drives have their driver embedded.

I must be thinking of Win2K then.

 

[Markbnj]

[Obviously there are differences, but any reasonably experienced person shouldn't have any problem jumping between them. The main thing that RH gets you is corporate support and certification for other big named things like Oracle, but yes if you want you can get Oracle to work on Debian, Ubuntu, Slackware, etc it's just that Oracle won't support you. And if RH went out of business I bet you wouldn't have any problems getting a contract from IBM, HP, Novell, etc to support your existing RH infrastructure.]

It's not just support, but the work of porting applications. If there are differences, then I would maintain that you don't have one, homogenous, widely supported open source standard o/s; you have several.

I do agree that there is benefit in having the operating system source be a public standard, but you have to admit two things: 1) in the past such open public standards have rarely, if ever, resulted in broadly-compatible products with true portability; and 2) the risk of Microsoft failing dramatically and leaving users with an orphaned operating system is virtually nil. The U.S. bailed Chrysler out. I think we would do the same if MS crashed. So if you don't have a true standard open-source o/s, and you don't have any real risk of MS failing and leaving you on the beach, why again should people switch to Linux? I'll even concede its technical superiority, and entertain the theory that every user in the world would be better off if they switched tomorrow. Even so, technical superiority alone, lacking the other motivations, is never enough to overthrow a standard.

 

[Nothinman]

It's not just support, but the work of porting applications. If there are differences, then I would maintain that you don't have one, homogenous, widely supported open source standard o/s; you have several.

The work of porting applications is generally minimal, especially with closed source apps that were designed to work on closed source unix. Vendors like Oracle are already used to dealing with many variations of the same thing.

So if you don't have a true standard open-source o/s, and you don't have any real risk of MS failing and leaving you on the beach, why again should people switch to Linux?

Why do some people drive cars with a manual transmission and some with an automatic? Why do some buy motorcycles and some don't even own cars? It's about freedom, I shouldn't have to own a Ford car to drive on certain roads, just like I shouldn't have to run a MS OS to work with certain documents or visit certain websites.

 

[Markbnj]

[I shouldn't have to own a Ford car to drive on certain roads, just like I shouldn't have to run a MS OS to work with certain documents or visit certain websites.]

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but we can get to that ideal if standard interpreted languages like Java took hold for desktop apps. We could have had it from Smalltalk for that matter. We could even get it from other o/s implementers porting the .Net JIT environment.

The fact is that you don't have to use MS to work with documents or websites, and you really haven't ever had to. Apple has always been an alternative, and now Linux is another. MS has become the de facto standard because it works, and they have done a great job promoting it, to the point where now every app you need is available for it and works well, at a decent price point, and with a lot less setup hassle than most of the alternatives.

 

[tcsenter]

what needs to be achieved to ensure (eventual) victory?

What needs to be achieved is to insert a Linux Distro on CD/DVD, boot it, click a mouse button three or four times, or alternatively press a couple different keys (e.g. F8 and Enter), go get a cup of coffee and have an OS installed 15 minutes later with unparalled baseline driver support (like XP does and Vista will do even better).

Linux might approach Windows 98's level of user-friendly installation and native driver support by Q4 2006. That's a very big "might".

Only because our defense systems run on linux.

Embedded, if only because Microsoft has never made a serious foray into embedded systems until very recently, and even then it is focused mainly towards consumer appliances, as opposed to industrial, medical, aerospace or military. If Microsoft should ever seriously decide to enter these markets, it has the technical resources, deep pockets, and clout to do so. Linux advocates ought to be very careful about what they wish for, since Microsoft could very easily squash Linux by fetching a few nickels out of its pocket to build a real embedded OS from the ground up with these applications in mind.

Microsoft has been content with the current arrangment, because embedded systems are near-perfectly transparent to the user or customer (and very often is perfectly transparent). Developers need an embedded OS on the cheap (free is good), since the OS isn't a selling point or a feature, and thus they are very hard-pressed to charge for it. Nobody cares what embedded OS is used, thus it could hardly be any other way than for the cheapest embedded OS that does the job to be the most widely used.

 

[Nothinman]

The fact is that you don't have to use MS to work with documents or websites, and you really haven't ever had to. Apple has always been an alternative, and now Linux is another.

It would be nice if that were true, but it's not. The most immediate example is the new NHL streaming that Comcast is offering, even though I'm a paying Comcast customer the only way I can watch the games is to use WMP on Windows. Yes, probably 95% of the time I can work around whatever problems may be created by me running Linux and I'm fine with that, but the other 5% of the time can be extremely frustrating. Same thing goes for documents, if I want to work with MS Word docs, sure I can use O or Abiword but because the format was reverse engineered since MS won't release good docs on it, the formatting doesn't always look the same and it makes it impossible to share docs with Word users.

MS has become the de facto standard because it works, and they have done a great job promoting it, to the point where now every app you need is available for it and works well, at a decent price point, and with a lot less setup hassle than most of the alternatives.

It's the defacto standard because when they started out they were the only real choice and they've done a great job of making it really hard to convert.

If Microsoft should ever seriously decide to enter these markets, it has the technical resources, deep pockets, and clout to do so. Linux advocates ought to be very careful about what they wish for, since Microsoft could very easily squash Linux by fetching a few nickels out of its pocket to build a real embedded OS from the ground up with these applications in mind.

Don't you think that if it were really that easy, MS would have done that already in the markets that they do care about?

Nobody cares what embedded OS is used, thus it could hardly be any other way than for the cheapest embedded OS that does the job to be the most widely used.

The developers of 'other' embeddes systems like VxWorks and HP-RT might disagree.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

what needs to be achieved to ensure (eventual) victory?

What needs to be achieved is to insert a Linux Distro on CD/DVD, boot it, click a mouse button three or four times, or alternatively press a couple different keys (e.g. F8 and Enter), go get a cup of coffee and have an OS installed 15 minutes later with unparalled baseline driver support (like XP does and Vista will do even better).

Linux might approach Windows 98's level of user-friendly installation and native driver support by Q4 2006. That's a very big "might".

I'd be willing to bet you can install ubuntu in less clicks/key presses than xp. And for someone who knows what they're doing, it wouldn't be a big deal to make a completely automated cd for either os, although I suspect it'd be easier and more powerful with linux.

It's kind of irrelevant anyways, as the average user doesn't really need to install an os all that often. The big numbers are business machines, where you have trained i/t guys already, or home machines, where the os comes pre-installed.

Only because our defense systems run on linux.

Embedded, if only because Microsoft has never made a serious foray into embedded systems until very recently, and even then it is focused mainly towards consumer appliances, as opposed to industrial, medical, aerospace or military. If Microsoft should ever seriously decide to enter these markets, it has the technical resources, deep pockets, and clout to do so. Linux advocates ought to be very careful about what they wish for, since Microsoft could very easily squash Linux by fetching a few nickels out of its pocket to build a real embedded OS from the ground up with these applications in mind.

That's complete bs. Microsoft has been targetting the server market very agressively and even though they're not doing badly (by a long shot) they are no where near 'squashing' linux. I don't see how it would be any different for another market.

Microsoft has been content with the current arrangment, because embedded systems are near-perfectly transparent to the user or customer (and very often is perfectly transparent). Developers need an embedded OS on the cheap (free is good), since the OS isn't a selling point or a feature, and thus they are very hard-pressed to charge for it. Nobody cares what embedded OS is used, thus it could hardly be any other way than for the cheapest embedded OS that does the job to be the most widely used.

You're not selling an embedded os to the user, you're selling it to the company that puts the whole package together and they most certainly care what's going in there. The selling point is what the os is capable of. But even desktop operating systems are almost completely transparent to most users in the sense that they don't even understand that windows isn't the computer itself and that there are alternatives. So I don't think the embedded market really is any different than other markets ms is interested in.

 

[Markbnj]

[And for someone who knows what they're doing, it wouldn't be a big deal to make a completely automated cd for either os, although I suspect it'd be easier and more powerful with linux.]

The point is, 97% of the people who need to use an operating system have no idea what they are doing, never will have any idea, don't want to have any idea, and shouldn't have to.

I agree with what Warren Keufel said in Software Dev. Magazine a couple issues back: Linux is a "geeks only" operating system, not just due to its features and interface, but because most of its users want it that way.

Come on Linux experts: tell me you really want your O/S wrapped up all nice and pretty like Windows or Mac-OS! Tell me you never, ever want to have to use the command line and switches to run a utility again.

 

[Nothinman]

Come on Linux experts: tell me you really want your O/S wrapped up all nice and pretty like Windows or Mac-OS! Tell me you never, ever want to have to use the command line and switches to run a utility again.

But that's the point, it doesn't have to be one or the other. OS X manages to have both in most cases, certain things like NetInfo are crap but they're minor IMO. Linux can and will be the same way eventually, Novell is putting a lot of work into usability testing.

http://www.betterdesktop.org/welcome/

 

[Markbnj]

[Linux can and will be the same way eventually, Novell is putting a lot of work into usability testing. ]

Sure, I have no doubt. One last thought and then I leave this thread to the true believers. I have not read a single thing here that convinces me most people will be motivated to switch from an OS that already works, and does 97% of what they want efficiently and cheaply, to a new one that may or may not have those attributes. I think it is more likely that the U.S. nationalizes MS and makes the OS a government-subsidized resource with the source in escrow, than that Linux succeeds in winning over the bulk of desktop users. These debates have been going on forever, literally since there have been operating systems. Standards are incredibly difficult to overthrow, especially the ones that are not imposed by fiat, but rather adopted through the economic decisions of millions of users.

Best of luck, Linux-heads .

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Come on Linux experts: tell me you really want your O/S wrapped up all nice and pretty like Windows or Mac-OS! Tell me you never, ever want to have to use the command line and switches to run a utility again.

But that's the point, it doesn't have to be one or the other. OS X manages to have both in most cases, certain things like NetInfo are crap but they're minor IMO. Linux can and will be the same way eventually, Novell is putting a lot of work into usability testing.

http://www.betterdesktop.org/welcome/

I think Apple's moving away from NetInfo...

 

[Nothinman]

I have not read a single thing here that convinces me most people will be motivated to switch from an OS that already works, and does 97% of what they want efficiently and cheaply, to a new one that may or may not have those attributes.

Most users don't know what OS they're using, they just use whatever came on the thing. So if Dell starts selling Linux based computers a lot of people will just use them without knowing any better.

Best of luck, Linux-heads .

Luck isn't necessary, it already works for me and that's more than enough for me.

 

[earthman]

Linux doesn't "compete" on the desktop, really. In all my travels I've never seen a linux desktop in a home or office, unlike Macintosh, for example. Given the number of Mac systems I've seen versus their 5% user base, I would say the linux user base (on the desktop) is probably under 1 percent. Given that, any talk of "competing" with Vista or anything else is silly. Linux advocates need to figure out how to get the vast numbers of computer users out there who have never heard of linux to become aware of what it even is. Once there is awareness, then they need to figure out how to convince them to consider switching, which is a much harder proposition. Given that the current Windows product is pretty stable, the only selling point is security and resistance to viruses and trojans, and that's the area that everyone should be talking about, not whether KDE or Gnome is "better", etc. Most people just want to be able to use their computer for mundane tasks without worrying about someting bad happening such as their identity being stolen. They also want to be able to use familiar programs like Office, Quicken, etc. Linux advocates have done a remarkably poor job of getting across the facts about relative security versus Windows, as well as promoting programs that can replace proprietary software such as Office, Quicken, etc. Admitedly, supplanting well established apps like these is a tall order, and alot of effort has been put into emulators and things like that, rather than promoting real alternatives. Linux needs less debate and alot more salesmanship to "compete" meaningfully with Windows, be it Vista or anything else. Microsoft has always been successful because of marketing, not because their products are inherently superior.

 

[tcsenter]

The developers of 'other' embeddes systems like VxWorks and HP-RT might disagree.

Irrelevant, since they aren't consumers of their own embedded systems. On the other hand, it only supports my point, since competing developers of embedded systems have a difficult time competing with Linux purely because they need to charge for their product, not because their product is somehow inferior.

That's complete bs. Microsoft has been targetting the server market very agressively and even though they're not doing badly (by a long shot) they are no where near 'squashing' linux. I don't see how it would be any different for another market.

Again, Microsoft is content with the current arrangment. Just because there is some overlap between the segments Microsoft competes for doesn't mean Microsoft is making a serious effort to directly take Linux on. 95% of Microsoft's sales are to people and companies who have no interest in Linux, and vice versa. If Microsoft should ever make a serious effort to directly take Linux on, it has the resources to do so. It would have to slash its typical profits on any such venture, which is precisely why it has no interest in doing so.

You're not selling an embedded os to the user, you're selling it to the company that puts the whole package together and they most certainly care what's going in there. The selling point is what the os is capable of.

The selling point is what the whole package is capable of, not the embedded OS used to get the job done. Companies make money on what their customers feel is important, and their customers don't care who's embedded OS is running their TIVO or POS. Further, Linux takes no risk, in that if your TIVO or POS goes on the blink or doesn't work right because of a bug in Linux, nobody says "stupid Linux". They say "stupid TIVO" or whomever is the integrator or OEM of that product (again, because they neither know nor care about the embedded OS).

Microsoft is every bit as likely to get the blame for malfunction or instability as the OEM computer builder, often more so, unless it is clear even to the average user that the problem is defective hardware, third-party drivers or applications. And that is why Microsoft wants to be in a market where they get to charge for their product, because they are delivering highly visible turn-key platforms to co-branding integrators and OEMs.

Imagine if you had to assemble your new automobile. Would you pay substantially more or less for a vehicle you had to put together? Further, just because there are hobbyists and enthusiasts who like to build their own cars, do you think kit car companies are on the verge of overtaking Toyota and GM anytime soon? The don't compete for the same dollars.

The bottom line is, five years and hundreds of millions of dollars invested into proprietary Linux systems and distros have not resulted in Linux encroaching into any segments it wasn't already in pervasively, nor has Microsoft encroached into any segments it wasn't already in pervasively.

We've already seen that after a few hundred thousand Microsoft haters downloaded Firefox 50 times each, the anti-Microsoft 'revolution' faded pretty fast, as most predicted.

 

[Nothinman]

Irrelevant, since they aren't consumers of their own embedded systems. On the other hand, it only supports my point, since competing developers of embedded systems have a difficult time competing with Linux purely because they need to charge for their product, not because their product is somehow inferior.

My point was that they're still in business so they must be selling their product to someone.

Again, Microsoft is content with the current arrangment. Just because there is some overlap between the segments Microsoft competes for doesn't mean Microsoft is making a serious effort to directly take Linux on. 95% of Microsoft's sales are to people and companies who have no interest in Linux, and vice versa. If Microsoft should ever make a serious effort to directly take Linux on, it has the resources to do so. It would have to slash its typical profits on any such venture, which is precisely why it has no interest in doing so.

According to IDC "Linux servers posted their 12th consecutive quarter of double-digit growth" and you don't think MS cares about that?

The bottom line is, five years and hundreds of millions of dollars invested into proprietary Linux systems and distros have not resulted in Linux encroaching into any segments it wasn't already in pervasively, nor has Microsoft encroached into any segments it wasn't already in pervasively.

So you don't see support from Oracle, IBM, HP, nVidia, ATI, Linksys/Cisco, EMC, Intel, AMD, etc as progress?

 

[tcsenter]

According to IDC "Linux servers posted their 12th consecutive quarter of double-digit growth" and you don't think MS cares about that?

Its called telecom and the Internet, which expanded at least as much per quarter (if not more). How's Microsoft's server business doing over the same period?

So you don't see support from Oracle, IBM, HP, nVidia, ATI, Linksys/Cisco, EMC, Intel, AMD, etc as progress?

Again, not new segments, but the expansion of existing ones.

And yes, it took hundreds of millions of dollars invested to get the attention of many developers. Guess how long their attention span will last once they see the dismal cost/benefit relationship of developing Linux drivers? Remember the internet advertising bubble?

 

[Nothinman]

Its called telecom and the Internet, which expanded at least as much per quarter (if not more). How's Microsoft's server business doing over the same period?

It doesn't matter what it's called, MS has been looking to kill off UNIX since NT 3.1, you would think that they would want to stop any momentum that isn't their own. As for their growth, I couldn't tell you, all I did was a quick google search and got frustrated quickly because most of the links were from 2000 and most of the rest were simply synopses to reports that you have to buy.

Again, not new segments, but the expansion of existing ones.

What new segments have been created since then? People have been crying about how bad Linux on the desktop is for years but if you want to be pedantic about it Linux started on the desktop since that's why Linus wrote it in the first place.

And yes, it took hundreds of millions of dollars invested to get the attention of many developers. Guess how long their attention span will last once they see the dismal cost/benefit relationship of developing Linux drivers? Remember the internet advertising bubble?

Dismal? I guess you've got some crystal ball that those companies aren't privy to? Oracle just released OCFS2 for inclusion under the GPL, Intel has been releasing networking drivers under the GPL for years, HP's SCSI RAID stuff has had solid GPL'd drivers for as long as I can remember, Linux has supported AMD64 for as long as the hardware has existed and what's even better is that since the nearly all of the drivers are OSS they worked with little or no changes; unlike Windows which is still lagging behind in the AMD64 driver market.

How can there be a bad cost/benefit ratio if the cost is virtually 0 since once the drivers are in the kernel they'll be maintained by the community.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
The bottom line is, five years and hundreds of millions of dollars invested into proprietary Linux systems and distros have not resulted in Linux encroaching into any segments it wasn't already in pervasively, nor has Microsoft encroached into any segments it wasn't already in pervasively.

No encroaching? Ummm, take a look at the top 500 hundred list 5 years ago and take a look at the current one. Do you see a change in linux machines? Do you see microsoft at all?

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: earthman
Linux doesn't "compete" on the desktop, really. In all my travels I've never seen a linux desktop in a home or office, unlike Macintosh, for example. Given the number of Mac systems I've seen versus their 5% user base, I would say the linux user base (on the desktop) is probably under 1 percent. Given that, any talk of "competing" with Vista or anything else is silly. Linux advocates need to figure out how to get the vast numbers of computer users out there who have never heard of linux to become aware of what it even is. Once there is awareness, then they need to figure out how to convince them to consider switching, which is a much harder proposition. Given that the current Windows product is pretty stable, the only selling point is security and resistance to viruses and trojans, and that's the area that everyone should be talking about, not whether KDE or Gnome is "better", etc. Most people just want to be able to use their computer for mundane tasks without worrying about someting bad happening such as their identity being stolen. They also want to be able to use familiar programs like Office, Quicken, etc. Linux advocates have done a remarkably poor job of getting across the facts about relative security versus Windows, as well as promoting programs that can replace proprietary software such as Office, Quicken, etc. Admitedly, supplanting well established apps like these is a tall order, and alot of effort has been put into emulators and things like that, rather than promoting real alternatives. Linux needs less debate and alot more salesmanship to "compete" meaningfully with Windows, be it Vista or anything else. Microsoft has always been successful because of marketing, not because their products are inherently superior.

Linux doesn't need any kind of salesmanship and it doesn't need to 'compete.' I personally don't care how many people buy vista, so long as linux continues to do it's own thing and improve (as was the main point of this entire thread). If you want to call having more users a victory, that's fine. *nix users will go on enjoying their platform doing mundane tasks without worrying about someting bad happening such as their identity being stolen. We'll go on using our familiar programs like O or Abiword, Gnucash or whatever anyone else dreams up, etc.