There’s something I really don’t get about articles like this one… of which there have been any number -
The surprised tone in which the writer - often a declared, experienced, GNU/Linux user - expresses the fact that, actually, you can do everything you need to do with open source software. Well wuppy-do! STOP PRESS!
Obviously I’m pleased that he feels able to bring Linux into work, but is this really so mindblowingly rad? Or is there a subliminal message being perpetuated here : the lingering suspicion that open source software can’t possibly be up to the task.
I’ve used open source software exclusively for near enough a decade now, with no problems at all. Do I live in alternative Universe? Or have I had a charmed life?
Sometimes career-specific workflow is hard to replicate with free software. As a lawyer (not the one in the article), Libreoffice is generally a decent replacement for MS Office, but it was challenging to find a reliable way to prepare documents for litigation with open source software. I need to put custom numbering on pages, add exhibit stamps, redact information, and flatten/convert/remove metadata from the pages so that nobody can see what was redacted. Adobe can do all of these things easily. They can all be done in Linux, but not as easily and not with a single tool. For a lot of jobs, this wouldn’t matter, but it is mission-critical for a lawyer who needs to protect client information. Lawyers don’t get any sort of IT training and it is beyond scope for most paralegals.
If the article is aimed at encouraging timid Linux-loving-lawyers to “jump”, then it doesn’t really work either, does it? He could have named the apps he uses to deal with metadata, redaction, pagination etc… Lots of Linux distros come pre-installed with Libreoffice… there’s nothing particularly helpful there.
Meh - sorry - I’m really not trying to be critical of this article in particular… I’m critical of the possible underlying message that articles like this carry - that somehow open source software is not quite up to the job.
I get what you’re typing. It is a problem that I also have with a lot of ‘How to try Linux’ or ‘I tried installing Linux’ posts. Most people who use Windows at work got a fully-installed operating system with functional programs provisioned for them by IT. They didn’t have to install anything or troubleshoot edge cases. That kind of support can be done with Linux boxes, too.
As someone who has made a dozen or so tradeoffs to run Linux in a business environment, the real story is the ‘how’ of doing it, or the ‘how’ of delivering a straightforward computing experience to the other people in your workplace.
Maybe, but I can’t help but wonder who would use it. Based on personal experience, I don’t think that ‘timid Linux-loving lawyer’ is a significant part of the lawyering population. It is a technologically conservative profession by nature - paper law libraries were a must-have for any significant firm well in to the 2000s and quite a few firms still have them.
Most lawyers treat their computers as a necessary evil. Windows is the default OS, with creatives and technical people gravitating towards Macs assuming that the firm supports them. There is a strong tendency among lawyers to spend money instead of time on technical issues. As a result, many firms grow dependent on niche proprietary software that is heavily marketed to lawyers: billing/timekeeping/voice transcription/firm management. The arguable good news is that thanks to SaaS taking over that realm of software, more and more of the proprietary stuff is available on Linux through any decent web browser. Less buggy, more up to date, lower switching costs.
If Linux ends up being pushed out to employees in law firm environments during my lifetime, it’ll be because someone handling the IT/software decisionmaking for a firm has made a compelling business case to go that route for some percentage of the firm’s computers. Anything that gets deployed would probably be based on something like Red Hat since corporate support isn’t optional in a lot of these environments.
On the small firm side of things, lack of time and inclination to mess around with a new operating system is probably the biggest barrier.
I was being a little facetious, perhaps, attempting to put off a debate.
The world changed somewhat after 2007… arguably enabled by a successful ad campaign that said “There’s an app for that”. Younger generations are no longer mystified by / afraid of tech, or of downloading apps - and Linux has developed easy ways to make apps available.
The point both you, and the writer of the article make is pertinent : a lot of stuff is done through a browser these days, and that’s platform-agnostic.
And I think what you say about IT departments and a compelling business case is true too - and not just for law firms. OpenUK’s recent survey suggests that many companies, in diverse sectors, are seeing the numerous advantages of using open source software.
I agree, Windows gets advertised as for everyone, while Linux never gets advertised because there is no marketing behind. If people would spread or advertise more Linux, the entire picture would be different.
There’s something I really don’t get about articles like this one… of which there have been any number -
The surprised tone in which the writer - often a declared, experienced, GNU/Linux user - expresses the fact that, actually, you can do everything you need to do with open source software. Well wuppy-do! STOP PRESS!
Obviously I’m pleased that he feels able to bring Linux into work, but is this really so mindblowingly rad? Or is there a subliminal message being perpetuated here : the lingering suspicion that open source software can’t possibly be up to the task.
I’ve used open source software exclusively for near enough a decade now, with no problems at all. Do I live in alternative Universe? Or have I had a charmed life?
Sometimes career-specific workflow is hard to replicate with free software. As a lawyer (not the one in the article), Libreoffice is generally a decent replacement for MS Office, but it was challenging to find a reliable way to prepare documents for litigation with open source software. I need to put custom numbering on pages, add exhibit stamps, redact information, and flatten/convert/remove metadata from the pages so that nobody can see what was redacted. Adobe can do all of these things easily. They can all be done in Linux, but not as easily and not with a single tool. For a lot of jobs, this wouldn’t matter, but it is mission-critical for a lawyer who needs to protect client information. Lawyers don’t get any sort of IT training and it is beyond scope for most paralegals.
If the article is aimed at encouraging timid Linux-loving-lawyers to “jump”, then it doesn’t really work either, does it? He could have named the apps he uses to deal with metadata, redaction, pagination etc… Lots of Linux distros come pre-installed with Libreoffice… there’s nothing particularly helpful there.
Meh - sorry - I’m really not trying to be critical of this article in particular… I’m critical of the possible underlying message that articles like this carry - that somehow open source software is not quite up to the job.
I get what you’re typing. It is a problem that I also have with a lot of ‘How to try Linux’ or ‘I tried installing Linux’ posts. Most people who use Windows at work got a fully-installed operating system with functional programs provisioned for them by IT. They didn’t have to install anything or troubleshoot edge cases. That kind of support can be done with Linux boxes, too.
As someone who has made a dozen or so tradeoffs to run Linux in a business environment, the real story is the ‘how’ of doing it, or the ‘how’ of delivering a straightforward computing experience to the other people in your workplace.
:) Yeah.
Lawbuntu anyone?
Maybe, but I can’t help but wonder who would use it. Based on personal experience, I don’t think that ‘timid Linux-loving lawyer’ is a significant part of the lawyering population. It is a technologically conservative profession by nature - paper law libraries were a must-have for any significant firm well in to the 2000s and quite a few firms still have them.
Most lawyers treat their computers as a necessary evil. Windows is the default OS, with creatives and technical people gravitating towards Macs assuming that the firm supports them. There is a strong tendency among lawyers to spend money instead of time on technical issues. As a result, many firms grow dependent on niche proprietary software that is heavily marketed to lawyers: billing/timekeeping/voice transcription/firm management. The arguable good news is that thanks to SaaS taking over that realm of software, more and more of the proprietary stuff is available on Linux through any decent web browser. Less buggy, more up to date, lower switching costs.
If Linux ends up being pushed out to employees in law firm environments during my lifetime, it’ll be because someone handling the IT/software decisionmaking for a firm has made a compelling business case to go that route for some percentage of the firm’s computers. Anything that gets deployed would probably be based on something like Red Hat since corporate support isn’t optional in a lot of these environments.
On the small firm side of things, lack of time and inclination to mess around with a new operating system is probably the biggest barrier.
I was being a little facetious, perhaps, attempting to put off a debate.
The world changed somewhat after 2007… arguably enabled by a successful ad campaign that said “There’s an app for that”. Younger generations are no longer mystified by / afraid of tech, or of downloading apps - and Linux has developed easy ways to make apps available.
The point both you, and the writer of the article make is pertinent : a lot of stuff is done through a browser these days, and that’s platform-agnostic.
And I think what you say about IT departments and a compelling business case is true too - and not just for law firms. OpenUK’s recent survey suggests that many companies, in diverse sectors, are seeing the numerous advantages of using open source software.
I agree, Windows gets advertised as for everyone, while Linux never gets advertised because there is no marketing behind. If people would spread or advertise more Linux, the entire picture would be different.
Well… to be fair to him, perhaps advertising is what he was attempting to do - but the evangelist’s fervour predominantly falls on deaf ears.
I think you’ve just been lucky. There’s still a lot of use-cases free software doesn’t cover effectively. Like if you were a professional artist etc.
Krita is pretty popular and it’s GPL?
There’s not only Pixel artists and Krita is only part of the solution. Look at how well the proprietary art toolmakers built their walled garden.