[clug] Internode dumps FOSS for MS Exchange

Lana Brindley lanabrindley at gmail.com
Tue Feb 16 20:19:39 MST 2010

On 17 February 2010 13:50, Chris Smart <mail at christophersmart.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 3:35 AM, Robert Brockway
> <robert at timetraveller.org> wrote:
> > When OSS solutions have failed to work it is virtually always because
> there
> > was a problem integrating with a proprietary solution where the protocol
> in
> > question is not well understood.
> >
> Right. So as free software users/developers, how much should we be
> integrating our stuff with proprietary systems?
> On one hand, we don't want to perpetuate the vendor lock-in model. On
> the other, if users (like Internode) can't integrate FOSS with their
> "required" proprietary systems, they will continue to use adopt
> proprietary systems and forego free software options. We simply can't
> educate everyone on avoiding vendor lock-in in the first instance (if
> Internode hadn't bought their Apple products, maybe they would be OK.
> I mean, Google does does not use Exchange). So if users paint
> themselves into a locked-in proprietary corner, do we care? Should we
> just continue to make great products and build technology for us.. If
> they want to migrate to free software, then we can help. If they want
> to continue to use their proprietary systems, then they can do that
> too.
> I guess it depends on our world view and whether you are trying to
> convert the world, or just using free software to do your own thing.

Oh, I love this topic!

I've written something about it too, so I won't repeat myself here, but will
engage in some linkspam instead:

> This is something that has been on my mind a lot lately, causing me to
> write two articles on the topic:
> "Proprietary Software and Linux: Good, Bad or Somewhere in Between?"
> http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7677
> "The Importance of Fitting In"
> http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7685
Good articles, thanks for these :)

You say that driving Linux adoption is the main reason for integrating
proporietary software support in Linux desktops. But you don't say why
having more people running Linux is a good thing. *Why* does a little
penguin die every time someone refuses to change? You cite Linus'
"unintended side effect" line, but are still arguing for widespread
adoption, which I don't really understand.

On the one hand, you say that we should allow people the *freedom* to choose
their operating system. On the other hand, you provide ideas for "breaking"
Microsoft's stranglehold on the software market.

Some may call me elitist, but I really think it comes down to assessing our
priorities as a a community. If the community exists solely to drive market
share, then I'm not really interested in being involved. If the community
exists simply because we're a group of people excited about free software,
then I'll be in the front row.


Cheers! Lana

Good-bye. I am leaving because I am bored.
 - George Saunders


Please avoid sending me Word, Powerpoint or Windows Media attachments.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html for more


More information about the linux mailing list