Respuesta a 'Why Linux isn't on the desktop yet'

published Apr 29, 2002, last modified Jun 26, 2013

En el artículo Why Linux isn't on the desktop yet, hay una clara exposición sobre por qué Linux no ha llegado a dominar el escritorio. La verdad es que el autor está completamente equivocado sobre por qué es (falta de apoyo de los vendedores de hardware, prácticas monopólicamente exclusivas de Microsoft, falta de exposición al usuario común son algunos de los motivos, los cuales ya están siendo superados), pero el hecho es que me molestó tanto la ignorancia, que decidí escribir una respuesta:

The article is misguided. It attempts to reflect a common sentiment regarding Word files as a common format. But it makes two FUNDAMENTAL mistakes:

  1. Word files don't work with software running on Linux. Simply not true. Word files are handled 95% correctly in StarOffice 5.2, and (also tested by me) close to 100% in StarOffice 6.0. KWord, Abiword and others have a decent capability to read Word files, and fulfill most expectations of people about word processors. What we now need is to write import filters for OpenOffice, KWord and Abiword so all four are directly interoperable.
  2. Lumping Word format with HTML and SMTP. Wrong. HTML and SMTP are open standards, both recommended by the W3C and the IETF, with no patents or strings of any kind attached. Word isn't any of those. Fact is that no one is going to change from the Word format, but that will only be true WHILE PEOPLE KEEP USING Word. If people start using Star/OpenOffice, KWord or Abiword, that will change. And StarOffice is increasing in viability.

So this is basically an article that is not only focusing on a problem, but ignoring the current solutions or providing any others. It is a well written piece of flamebait (seek the definition of troll to understand why it fits so well).