[mythtv-users] Why Free Software has poor usability ?

[Jason Antman]

It looks like this thread is wrapping up (finally - it got a bit heated
a few times) but I just wanted to throw one more thing in:

Raphael wrote:
>  MS has 
> intentionally obsoleted it's own older software (as it is still trying 
> to do with XP), but that certainly doesn't have much bearing on the 
> question of whether OO is obsolete or not.
>   
The question here is how we define the word "obsolete". I lot of vendors
(especially think of network hardware vendors) try to convince you that
once a new version is out, the old version is obsolete and needs to be
replaced. Some less scrupulous vendors do this by having very short
support lifecycles or, in the case of Microsoft, making fixes to
previous versions but not backporting new features.

In the end, "obsolete" should be defined by the the end-user's needs. I
have a storage server running SuSE 9.3. It hasn't been supported, or had
fixes released, in probably 3 years. But all the box does is connect to
3 backup machines via a dedicated LAN, and provide storage. Novell might
say that 9.3 was obsolete years ago, but it does everything I need it
to, and there's no reason for me to change unless my needs change.

On the same note, my main LAN at home runs on a Bay Networks BayStack
450-24T switch. The thing is probably 15 years old. I bought it surplus
from a large company, who moved to Gig-E (among other newer
technologies), and considered it obsolete. But all I need is a 10/100
switch, and it does the job wonderfully (and, at $10, a lot cheaper than
brand-new consumer-grade hardware).

Regardless of whether a vendor says a product is obsolete or not (and
when they do, we must consider their financial motives), as far as I'm
concerned, nothing is obsolete if it meets the user's requirements and
expectations.

-J