University Professor Tries to Hammer Ubuntu

[dspari1]

* Restricted choice - He has it all wrong, Open Source is an additional and not only an alternative choice.For example a person could use commercial software and open source software at the same time.

* Poor integration with Microsoft - How can open source integrate with Microsoft when they hold the patents that doesn't allow integration? Moreover, Mono is the Linux implementation of .net which is developed by Novell.

* Exposure to Intellectual Property theft issues - I thought he wanted better integration with Microsoft. Which is it?

* No warranty - Yes there is a warranty. If it doesn't work for you you get all your money back which happens to be $0.00.

* Greater exposure to security problems - That's why Google runs on Ubuntu instead of Windows.

* Lack of innovation / codification of obsolete architectures - I don't understand how this is a con? Moreover, not all Linux distributions support all architectures.

* Poor customer response - You can buy support from Redhat, Canonical, and Novell if you want better customer response.

* Lack of capabilities / features - I'm not going to argue this one since your professor is technically right about this. However, an average user may find that the features that are found in free software is enough to save money and not pay. For example K3b may not have as many features as Nero, but it does have enough features to fulfill my own needs; thus I don't have to buy Nero.

* Higher cost of technical support - Maybe, but I'm too lazy to do the math. Does a Redhat certified technician cost more than one that doesn't have one?

Higher cost of operation - Even a 3 year old can use Ubuntu

* Higher cost of installation - A live cd that has all my hardware drivers working out of the box is much less time consuming than installing windows and hunting for drivers.

* Difficult to use - Ubuntu users never have to touch any configuration problems. Moreover, Ubuntu users never have to touch the command line. It's just easier to give instructions through the command line than to explain where to click in the UI. For example, adding new repositories through synaptic(GUI navigation) is a lot harder to explain than to just give Command Line text (copy and paste).

* Poor interactive capabilities – We won't be seeing any ribbons in OpenOffice any time soon, but the UI are pretty standard compared to most windows apps.

* Poor vertical integration - So he wants everyone to rewrite code that already exist?

[richardh9936]

Isn't it funny that the arguments against OSS are the same as they were against Macintosh in the eighties, and against IBM before that?

Maybe they're just cliches now.

[Firestem4]

Isn't it funny that the arguments against OSS are the same as they were against Macintosh in the eighties, and against IBM before that?

Maybe they're just cliches now.

Everyone's gotta have something to hate.

About the OP..I agree with the post talking about being educated by a person like that...

[RuleMaker]

Just ask him how many linux systems he saw that got hacked into? And how many windows?
How many linux systems got destroyed by viruses? And win?
How many legal apps does he have on his PC?

He is poor on arguments, "not enough alternatives"?
What the hell is he talking about?!
-Lets see...commercial browsers are...IE...free browsers are firefox, opera, seamonkey, google chrome, flock...lets say there are about hundred, each 100x better than IE.
-OpenOffice is just as good as MS Office if not better.
-How many commercial multimedia players exist? I know only about WMP and there are, well I wouldn't start counting free alternatives because probably there is like 1000, half of them way better than WMP.
-Development? I wouldn't start counting free IDE's which commercial alternatives cost at least 500$.

You can run windows inside linux, what else can you integrate, Bill Gates maybe?

Only, but only thing that doesn't have better free alternatives are games, but as the time is passing free games are getting better.