Why do lawyers not like linux? (or even freeware/OSS for that matter)
proteanthread
<SNIP>
put this article from Law.com's Legal Technology page, "Commentary:
The Penguin Doesn't Fly, Avoid Linux" in News Picks because I found it
hilarious, in the Rob Enderle kind of way. But then I thought I'd look
up the author on Google, and lo and behold, I find he said something
that appears to be not exactly true. I'm not talking about the FUD
stuff. I'm talking about his assertion that he couldn't get any
answers to a request for help from Mandriva Forum:
And, Linux proponents claim that if there is any kind of problem, or a
viral threat or other OS disaster, there is an army of Linux
programmers standing by to remedy the situation.
But these claims do not reflect my experience. I tried to install
Puppy Linux without success -- and my e-mails to the developers were
ignored. Ark Linux developers could not explain why my computer’s Wi-
Fi card didn’t work. The Ubuntu forum could not explain why a DVD
player would not eject. The Mandriva support site did not respond to
queries at all. And it took a tech support person from Wine, a program
supposed to allow Windows applications to run on Linux computers, 6
days to finally respond to my requests for help; which he was unable
to resolve.
I know. I love that touch about a viral threat in Linux. Hilarious.
But look what I just found: two pages of responses to a request for
help from someone with his name. If it's the same individual, it's not
so funny now.
<SNIP>
and the original article:
http://legaltech.law.com/commentary-the-penguin-do.html
<SNIP>
Linux fans begin with this claim -- that freeware costs nothing. Next,
that it is quicker, more flexible, more customizable and more
resilient to crashes and headaches inherent to Windows, while less
subject to attack, identity theft, adware, spyware and malware. And,
that new life can be wrung from old computers staggering under the
burden that Windows necessarily inflicts on them.
Linux and freeware proponents also maintain that a free operating
system and free software comes without the ethical and legal
conundrums associated with Microsoft’s business practices. For
example: preventing computer manufacturers from installing competing
operating systems and software on new computers; providing OS upgrades
that alter and/or nullify existing programs; and failing to provide
sufficient information to allow competing free software distributors
to inter-operate their wares with Windows.
<SNIP>
Psyc Geek (TAB)
Lawyers do not like to re-learn things.
To do the same thing, a different way,
is nuts to them.
They also do not want to sit and figure out linux.
Not gonna happen. Many have a system that works,
and do not want it to change. This is their money.
You do not have Legal templates for different courts
in OO. (this is different from pleading paper.)
Cheaper to buy MS and Bit Defender then relearn linux.
Time is money.
Rex Ballard
> <SNIP>
> put this article from Law.com's Legal Technology page, "Commentary:
> The Penguin Doesn't Fly, Avoid Linux" in News Picks because I found it
> hilarious, in the Rob Enderle kind of way. But then I thought I'd look
> up the author on Google, and lo and behold, I find he said something
> that appears to be not exactly true. I'm not talking about the FUD
> stuff. I'm talking about his assertion that he couldn't get any
> answers to a request for help from Mandriva Forum:
> And, Linux proponents claim that if there is any kind of problem, or a
> viral threat or other OS disaster, there is an army of Linux
> programmers standing by to remedy the situation.
Postig of a really ignorant WinTroll.
> But these claims do not reflect my experience. I tried to install
> Puppy Linux without success --
Puppy Linux was designed for the OLPC project, was designed to be
preinstalled, and works fine on the machine it was designed for.
There are planty of commercially supported Linux distributions, many
of whom depend on the good will based on their support of their
customers. SUSE, RHEL, Linspire, and Ubuntu/Cononical are good
examples.
> and my e-mails to the developers were ignored.
Not so surprising. New Linux users should purchase supported copies
of Linux if they don't have at least one or two friends who have used
Linux before. If you go to a community event, church, or much of any
other gatherings and ask "Does anybody know anythig about Linux" there
will be about 1 in 10 who would be happy to star that conversation
with you.
> Ark Linux developers could not explain why my computer’s Wi-
> Fi card didn’t work.
Perhaps you had an Atheros A/B/G/N card. This has been a problem for
Mac, Thinkpad, and Sony users. Atheros claimed that support would be
available by march of 2007, but binary-only drivers for Linux weren't
released until early 2008. Ironically, much of the module
configuration for the drivers had to be rewritten by an OSS
development group because the one guy who worked on the HAL driver
configurations was too busy tryig to fix problems in Vista and
problems caused by security fixes to XP.
> The Ubuntu forum could not explain why a DVD
> player would not eject.
A bit difficult to diagnose over the phone. Sticking a paper clip in
the little hole should help you determine whether the latch is working
properly. Ubuntu won't let you eject the CD or DVD if you have a
program that has opened the directory or a file on that directory/
device. This was done to keep from doing horrible things to
applications because some administrator tried to eject the CD or DVD
on a server while they were in the middle of running a program that
was interacting with a read/write file on the hard drive, such as
installation of software.
Make sure that you have nothing open on the DVD drive before you try
to eject it.
> The Mandriva support site did not respond to
> queries at all.
They will respond if you purchase a copy or license and register your
license. But they probably just laughed when you started asking them
about your puppy dog linux installation.
This is much like asking a heart surgeon about a wart on your foot.
It isn't his specialty, and he wouldn't want to give you advice
because he doesn't want to get sued later on. Instead, he gives you
the name of a qualified foot doctor and tells you to see him as soon
as possible.
Rex Ballard
> On Aug 15, 6:25 pm, proteanthread <rt...@rtdos.com> wrote:
> Lawyers do not like to re-learn things.
> To do the same thing, a different way,
> is nuts to them.
That's not necessarily true. Lots of lawyers get a sports car, and
hawe to make the transition from automatic transmission to 5 speed
stick shift. If they see value and satisfaction in it, they will do
it.
> They also do not want to sit and figure out linux.
> Not gonna happen. Many have a system that works,
> and do not want it to change. This is their money.
And they shouldn't! A lawyer's billing rate can be as high as $400
per hour in the US, and he doesn't want to waste his valuable billable
time futzing with Linux installation. If he wants Linux, he should
purchase a machine with Linux preinstalled, perhaps Emporor Linux.
Alternatively, he could hire someone to create a Linux system for
him. It's a bit like having a body shop turn your luxury car into a
convertable, or adding a sun roof. You can buy one from the factory
that way, but if you want exactly what you want, you can get a more
specific custom built job. If you have enough money, you can have an
entire motorcycle done by Orange County Choppers or a car custom built
by a custom shop.
How many lawyers do you know who spend their weekends and evenings
working on their own cars?
> You do not have Legal templates for different courts
> in OO. (this is different from pleading paper.)
You can get them from other lawyers.
> Cheaper to buy MS and Bit Defender then relearn linux.
Of course, most courts won't accept Microsoft word documents. They
will accept PDF, WordPerfect markup, and many courts now accept Open
Document Format.
The problem with Word documents is that documents can be challenged
because the version of word rendering a 15 year old document won't
look exactly like the original document. Ask Dan Rather about that
one.
> Time is money.
So you should probably be sticking with Windows XP, or maybe you are
one of those who is still using Windows 2000.
thufir
> Lawyers do not like to re-learn things.
how to click on the "firefox" icon? The intricacies of a word processor?
> To do the same thing, a
> different way, is nuts to them.
>
> They also do not want to sit and figure out linux.
Well, all we need is one example to disprove that bigotry.
-Thufir
The Ghost In The Machine
<psyc...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
<867819f4-edb2-4948...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
> On Aug 15, 6:25?pm, proteanthread <rt...@rtdos.com> wrote:
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080809033233244
>>
>> <SNIP>
>> The Penguin Doesn't Fly, Avoid Linux" in News Picks because I found it
>> hilarious, in the Rob Enderle kind of way. But then I thought I'd look
>> up the author on Google, and lo and behold, I find he said something
>> that appears to be not exactly true. I'm not talking about the FUD
[snip for brevity]
>> http://legaltech.law.com/commentary-the-penguin-do.html
>>
>> <SNIP>
>> Linux fans begin with this claim -- that freeware costs nothing.
Not true, though it depends on the definition of "cost".
To be fair, I frankly don't know which would be harder to
learn for someone who is reasonably intelligent but who has
never seen a computer before. Unfortunately, most people
cut their teeth on Windows, as it is near-ubuquitous,
so they know things such as <Ctrl-Alt-Delete>,
<Ctrl-C>/<Ctrl-X>/<Ctrl-V>, click-to-focus, double-click
on icons, and pulldown and popup menus.
There are also issues for creating a new document, which
implies starting a tool. I frankly don't know if Windows
bothers anymore but at one point a lot of Microsoft Office
was alleged to have been preloaded, whereas OpenOffice had
to be loaded every time. (I'd frankly have to research
exactly how an executable is loaded; the simplest method
is to map the executable file, and let the pages fault in
as needed. Unfortunately that only works if the executable
file doesn't require fixups.)
>> Next,
>> that it is quicker, more flexible, more customizable and more
>> resilient to crashes and headaches inherent to Windows,
Not an issue for a lawyer. Why? Lawyers aren't about to
fiddle a lot with their systems (on the client's time,
anyway). At best, one guy in a small firm might be the
network manager.
>> while less
>> subject to attack, identity theft, adware, spyware and malware. And,
>> that new life can be wrung from old computers staggering under the
>> burden that Windows necessarily inflicts on them.
Not an issue for a lawyer if he has a good NAT frontend
and keeps up to date with all AV software. The system
surrounding Windows is very adaptable, and looks for things
to make a profit, after all.
Personally, I prefer the Linux method, but it is not the
only one -- or even the most prevalent one.
>>
>> Linux and freeware proponents also maintain that a free operating
>> system and free software comes without the ethical and legal
>> conundrums associated with Microsoft?s business practices. For
>> example: preventing computer manufacturers from installing competing
>> operating systems and software on new computers; providing OS upgrades
>> that alter and/or nullify existing programs; and failing to provide
>> sufficient information to allow competing free software distributors
>> to inter-operate their wares with Windows.
This is true but also generally irrelevant to a lawyerly
type, I would think. (There might be some out there who
would be ultra-ethical and analyze everything from the
pencils and paperclips that they buy to ensure they're
not made in objectional countries/with slave labor/using
poisonous-to-the-Earth manufacturing methods, to the
software they use and the business practices of the
companies creating/supporting such, of course -- but most
lawyers, like most others, just want to get the job done,
methinks.)
>> <SNIP>
>
> Lawyers do not like to re-learn things.
> To do the same thing, a different way,
> is nuts to them.
The definition of insanity is expecting a different
result while repeatedly asking a question. [*]
>
> They also do not want to sit and figure out linux.
> Not gonna happen. Many have a system that works,
> and do not want it to change. This is their money.
>
> You do not have Legal templates for different courts
> in OO. (this is different from pleading paper.)
>
> Cheaper to buy MS and Bit Defender then relearn linux.
> Time is money.
There have been reports that Microsoft Word leaves crap
in a document, if one takes and copies one client's document,
deletes everything in it (using <Ctrl-A> <DELETE>, or
just selecting everything using the mouse), and then types
in a document for a new client.
This is easily forestalled by using good document
management practices (specifically, creating a new document
every time), though hopefully one can ensure that the
template is clean.
[*] except for questions like "What time is it?" or
"Is the weather sunny?", of course. ;-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux sucks efficiently, but Windows just blows around
a lot of hot air and vapor.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Psyc Geek (TAB)
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:46:55 -0700, Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
> > Lawyers do not like to re-learn things.
>
> how to click on the "firefox" icon? The intricacies of a word processor?
You assume it is already set up and working.
Do you really think they know what an ISO is?
I am shocked by how may linux geeks things
the world knows all the geek stuff required
to get linux running and keep it running.
We have not even gotten into the Billing System,
which runs on MS. You really t hink he is gonna
mess with Wine or something like that?
I was married to a lawyer, and wrote legal software,
and what you say is not the way it is in a law office.
Maybe work there for a while.
chrisv
> Fsckwit wrote:
>>
>> Lawyers do not like to re-learn things. To do the same thing, a
>> different way, is nuts to them.
>
> That's not necessarily true. Lots of lawyers get a sports car, and hawe
> to make the transition from automatic transmission to 5 speed stick
> shift. If they see value and satisfaction in it, they will do it.
Ask the fsckwit this:
Is it *really* his position that once one learns the nuances of a certain
OS, that, FOR THE REST OF ONE'S LIFE, it would not be worth the effort to
learn the somewhat different nuances of a different OS?
Remind the fsckwit that, even if one stayed with M$, learning new ways of
doing things is required.
Remind the fsckwit that a lifetime is a long time, with, hopefully, new
things being learned all the time.
Remind the fsckwit that people spend YEARS being educated and trained to
become proficient in what they do in their professional lives.
What is the effort required to learn to use Linux, compared with the
effort of Law School? Do professionals not go on seminars to learn new
things? Is learning a new, potentially-valuable skill RULED OUT because
because, well, it's "nuts" to learn a different way of doing things?
Does the fsckwit realize how incredibly God-damned STUPID he looks?
Professionals are ALWAYS needing to learn new things. Smart, competitive
businesses are ALWAYS rethinking their methods and training their
people.
Things change. Technology and methods change. The world is not standing-
still so that people can do things "the same way" their entire lives!
chrisv
> fsckwit wrote:
>
>> Lawyers do not like to re-learn things.
>
> how to click on the "firefox" icon? The intricacies of a word
> processor?
Exactly. Professionals have IT people to do "the dirty work" of setup
and configuration. Actually using the computer is then point-and-click
easy, as we all know.
Ari
> Linux fans begin with this claim -- that freeware costs nothing.
See, that proves they are brilliant.
--
http://www.bushflash.com/idiot.html
thufir
There was a point raised about billing systems, but as I think about
that, aren't they going to be server based? I dunno.
-Thufir
JEDIDIAH
There's going to be a desktop client probably.
Think Lotus Notes.
Groupwise is big in some law firms.
--
Sophocles wants his cut. |||
/ | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
JEDIDIAH
> On Aug 15, 7:44 pm, thufir <hawat.thu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:46:55 -0700, Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
>> > Lawyers do not like to re-learn things.
>>
>> how to click on the "firefox" icon? The intricacies of a word processor?
>
> You assume it is already set up and working.
> Do you really think they know what an ISO is?
It's really not a problem under Linux. Why should it be
harder under Windows? I mean, the GUI technology necessary
to make this seamless existed with the 1985 version of GEM
that the Atari ST used.
Nevermind Linux CDs what about disk images for MCE?
>
> I am shocked by how may linux geeks things
> the world knows all the geek stuff required
> to get linux running and keep it running.
Same goes for Windows.
Although this is just part of the "big lie" anyways.
Ubuntu is not hard. You can even try it just by booting
the DVD if you like. You don't even have to risk changing your
system.
Or you could just buy something pre-configured.
>
> We have not even gotten into the Billing System,
> which runs on MS. You really t hink he is gonna
> mess with Wine or something like that?
Vertical apps are another matter entirely.
The only valid point in his entire obviously biased rant.
>
> I was married to a lawyer, and wrote legal software,
> and what you say is not the way it is in a law office.
>
> Maybe work there for a while.
Big fat liar.
The older lawyers don't even touch the computers. Someone who
graduated when this guy did probably fits into that category.
[deletia]
Ezekiel
"Rex Ballard" <rex.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:828444f7-4646-42e3...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 15, 6:25 pm, proteanthread <rt...@rtdos.com> wrote:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080809033233244
> Postig of a really ignorant WinTroll.
We'll see in a few seconds who the ignorant one is.
>> But these claims do not reflect my experience. I tried to install
>> Puppy Linux without success --
>
>Puppy Linux was designed for the OLPC project, was designed to be
>preinstalled, and works fine on the machine it was designed for.
Puppy linux version 0.1 was released by Barry Kauler on June 18, 2003.
Both the OLPC project and organization were first announced at the World
Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January 2005.
But sure Rex.... Puppy Linux was designed for the OLPC which was announced
two years later.
Any more "stories" that you'd like to share with us? How about the one
where you invented the web-browser, or where you invented Java or where you
invented SSL or where Martin Marietta broke into your high school locker to
steal plans for a military weapon.
Moshe Goldfarb.
Rex is on a roll!
Tell me the one about "RMS and the Three Compilers" Rex
Please!
That's my all time fav!!
I'll be good and drink my milk and go right to sleep!
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
eatfastnoodle
OS and Computer are just tools. I,for one,don't understand why so many
people opt to make it a ideological/political battle. If you had
something to do, find a system that can do it and stick to it. No need
to waste money and time on changing from this system to that, then
back to the original system just to make you feel good. Stay at Mom's
basement and spend days to install and configure a system you
ultimately will only use for web surfing are lame to say the least.
nospamatall
§
> Linux is free. Lawyers don't like that.
Lawyers are just WILD about the concept of free... free for them.
Linonut
> Lawyers are just WILD about the concept of free... free for them.
Say, how do you pronounce your name?
--
There is a natural hootchy-kootchy to a goldfish.
-- Walt Disney
JEDIDIAH
Business in general LOVE the concept of gratis (for them).
This why Free Software is where it is today. The fact of the matter
is that Software is an EXPENSE to the vast majority of companies
rather than being a profit center. They don't see it as a means to
make money. They see it as a tool and an expense.
So the idea that some form of software is better because you can
make money selling it doesn't really impress most companies or
most people.
--
The average IT manager is a less effective mentor than a
Spongebob Squarepants cartoon.
chrisv
>* § peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Lawyers are just WILD about the concept of free... free for them.
>
>Say, how do you pronounce your name?
"Idiot"
§
So chrisv, your a lawyer?