←back to thread

473 points edent | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
constantcrying ◴[] No.43769695[source]
The EU and member states are currently putting in quite a bit of money trying to limit their exposure to US tech companies.

Looking at the list of projects you can see that they support a huge variety of projects, with all kind of different scopes and intentions.

While I think that the overarching goal is good and I would like to see them succeed, I also think that they fail to address the single most important issue. Which is that Apple and Microsoft are the only real system vendors, corporations who can offer an entire integrated system and aren't just either single components or many different components packaged together, but without the interaction necessary to compete with Apple or Microsoft.

The funding goes to many, but small projects, but this means the single biggest issue, actually deploying an open source system over an entire organization remains unaddressed.

replies(12): >>43769726 #>>43769744 #>>43769766 #>>43769768 #>>43769783 #>>43769847 #>>43770463 #>>43770538 #>>43771011 #>>43771079 #>>43773087 #>>43774240 #
jonathanstrange ◴[] No.43769783[source]
There is still an application barrier. If you want to make a OS that becomes popular, it needs to have better applications than other operating systems. Making the OS compatible with existing ones is bound to fail and violate IP rights. Making it Linux-based doesn't help because existing Linux applications are not competitive enough. They could be improved with consistent OS-level services and APIs but that requires developers to actually use them.

Nobody is interested in an OS without killer applications.

replies(1): >>43769812 #
constantcrying ◴[] No.43769812[source]
I don't think administrative work needs any killer applications. You need a complete system which actually works together and can be sourced by a single vendor.
replies(2): >>43769875 #>>43770141 #
noirscape ◴[] No.43770141[source]
Administrative work needs 2 killer suites to work: Microsoft Office and the Adobe design suite.

Any replacement for these will basically have to be a bug for bug clone if you want them to work. LibreOffice is 80% of the way there, but it still mucks up too often to be reliable. PDF viewers are plenty, but there's no effective replacement for Acrobat, InDesign, Illustrator and Photoshop[0].

Third party vendors you have to work with for other things (ie. Printing folders) require stuff to be in the formats made by these two software suites and their response to "your printing press isn't following the PDF spec" isn't gonna be "oh sorry, we'll migrate our hardware", it's gonna be "the printer says no and my other customers don't complain so just send me the files correctly."

Since Adobe and Microsoft are the default, this is something third party vendors can say and get away with. The shoe is on your foot, not on theirs.

[0]: GIMP doesn't even come close to being a Photoshop replacement, they do very different things. Photoshop is a photo editor + drawing program, while GIMP is aimed at image manipulation. The difference comes into play with how the interface is designed and the complexity of certain actions in each program. GIMP is designed to let you do specific individual things to an image, while Photoshop is more aimed at giving the user entire workflows.

replies(5): >>43770183 #>>43770610 #>>43770625 #>>43771042 #>>43772088 #
1. p_ing ◴[] No.43770625{3}[source]
The issue with the Adobe suites is that their alternatives need to be workflow-identical, it's not just how good or bug compatible the competitor needs to be.

The Affinity suite is excellent, but a heavy Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign user isn't going to want to move to Affinity due to workflow changes, and possibly plugin ecosystem gaps.

replies(1): >>43772036 #
2. bluGill ◴[] No.43772036[source]
They do not have to be workflow identical. They just need to be equivalent. I can teach someone a different workflow and they will catch on with time. However if the new workflow is worse (slower, worse results, or other such negatives) that will be found out.

Now it will take power users several years to learn all the tricks of the new workflow and that is productivity lost in the short term. This alone may not be worth the cost. If the new workflow is better though it will be worth it.

replies(1): >>43772574 #
3. p_ing ◴[] No.43772574[source]
> I can teach someone a different workflow and they will catch on with time.

And this is why a Photoshop user won't move to a new suite of tools.