Talk to the GNUWin II Team

google cache by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-16 14:49 · Score: 2, Funny

is not available

Re:google cache by Katalyzt · 2003-01-16 20:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

so i click the site, click the english flag next to the pretty picture, click programs and what's the first thing I see? Celestia (a beautiful planetarium) described as a 3D Game! sheesh have these people even run this software?

--
version 0.0002

Pun time by MondoMor · 2003-01-16 14:54 · Score: 5, Funny

Those guys are really dedicated.

They don't GNU Win II Quit! LOL OMG WTF

kill me

Missing FAQ question by MoThugz · 2003-01-16 14:55 · Score: 4, Funny

Q20: Who's the chick in the pictures?

--
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers

Re:Missing FAQ question by rmarll · 2003-01-16 15:09 · Score: 4, Funny

Q20: Who's the chick in the pictures?

That, is the girl that gets guys like me to buy their software.
Re: Missing FAQ question by Black+Parrot · 2003-01-16 15:29 · Score: 5, Funny

> Q20: Who's the chick in the pictures?

I forsee a worse than usual slashdotting coming on.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Missing FAQ question by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-16 15:58 · Score: 5, Informative

That answer question is answered on the site, there's a The GNUWin team [en] page. Her name appears to be Thi Ngoc Tu Ho and then a little search on Google seems to reveal she has a Home Page and if you go there, and click on My Life Partner you'll see that her life partner is one Ivo Blöchliger and if you cross reference back to where it all started, the GNUWin team page, you'll see that this guy is the first guy on the GNUWin team. Maybe they can add it to the FAQ now that I've done the legwork.
Re:Missing FAQ question by Migrant+Programmer · 2003-01-16 16:52 · Score: 3, Informative

Hmm, I don't think that's the same girl.. her picture doesn't seem to match up with "logiciels".

Perhaps it's Vicky Rezzonico (see the picture on the team page, and here)? The hair colour matches at least, there. But I'm probably wrong, there are several women on that team list who have no pictures up.

Okay, next person gets to go hunt down photos of all the photo-less people on the team page =)

--
Bitchslapped. Neat.
Re:Missing FAQ question by Bullet-Dodger · 2003-01-16 17:51 · Score: 3, Funny

Q20: Who's the chick in the pictures?
Wow, there's one way of getting people to read the article.

Major problems by kruetz · 2003-01-16 14:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

What was the hardest aspect of producing the GNUWin II CD? Was it selecting the software? Was it making sure the software worked okay (ie, were there any major portings issues, and if so, how much work did you have to do vs. how much did the developer do). Was it something else entirely?

Also, what criteria did you use to select the software? Did you consider which applications had a UI that Windows users would find more comfortable? Did you consider any programs that you weren't able to get running under Windows?

BTW, best of luck with the project. My father has been using the Win32 port of the GIMP for about two years now and loves it! As I type, he's (ab)using his work's net connection to d/l the ISOs.

--

This sig intentionally left bla... dammit!
Who's got the whiteout?

from the "making-windows-liveable" dept? by TheReckoning · 2003-01-16 15:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

Windows is pretty easy to live with as it is.

I guess it depends on your paradigm... command-line commandos don't like the GUI's insulation, while GUI geeks hate remembering a bunch of bizarre program names.

Unless I'm missing the point - the only real failing of Win32 is that a lot of stuff can't be scripted because of the lack of a CLI. Does GNUWIN allow for some of this? Does it have hooks into system admin programs on Win32?

Re:from the "making-windows-liveable" dept? by stratjakt · 2003-01-16 15:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

>> Unless I'm missing the point - the only real failing of Win32 is that a lot of stuff can't be scripted because of the lack of a CLI

If anything, Windows is even more scriptable than linux because of COM and it's progeny, ActiveX. The functionality of just about every portion of the OS is available, and that of any application that chooses to expose it's functionality. So script away in VBScript, Javascript, TCL, or any other COM-aware language - dealers choice.

Linux is great and all, but you really wind up with an incohesive jumble of software, each developed in it's own little bubble with no knowledge of the others. If your lucky you can get an integer return value to tie it all together.

The problem with most free software for windows is that it carries the *nix school of thought. No exposed interfaces, and they don't like to play nice with the rest of the system. COM is really a binary format that has nothing to do with OS's (there's no reason it couldnt be implemented in linux), so it's not about it being proprietary.

MS-bashers are quick to point out shortcomings in the OS, but never seem to notice the Good Things (tm) that make it popular.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:from the "making-windows-liveable" dept? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-16 15:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

I agree that COM makes Windows scripting quite functional given a large object model that lets you control many aspects of the system, including full CIM support. The OOPish nature of it is considerably easier to deal with than parsing stdio anyday. I also like that Windows Scripting is a plugin model that lacks a language (although it comes with VBScript and JScript.) I use Windows Scripting with ActiveStates Perl. Works wonders.

However, while I enjoy the world of scripting, I greatly dislike the standard Windows commandline. I think it was a big mistake to hold onto the DOS moniker, especially when the advent of Windows NT made it possible to provide something entirely new. Batch scripting is a horrible joke given it's syntax and shortcoming of useful commandline utilities. The latter is slowly changing with Windows XP and Windows 2003, but it's still not *ix level.

But then the question becomes do I really want it *ix level for the shortcomings in that I mentioned in the first paragraph? Why not an object-oriented moniker like Windows Scripting provides? You would spare yourself the requirement of parsing and gain the possibility for command completion and parameter information that could even get new users into the habit.
Re:from the "making-windows-liveable" dept? by cscx · 2003-01-16 15:39 · Score: 2, Informative

Um, no, in fact, Windows IS VERY scriptable. In fact, I've gotten quite a bit of use out of VBS that does some really cool things. For example, I have a machine that runs Windows Media Encoder 24 hours a day. Well, in case of power outage, system reboot, etc, I want it to automatically log in as a user, start Encoder, select the appropriate settings, click the "Start Encoding" button, then lock the machine using NT's workstation lock command (usually ctrl-alt-del, then click Lock Workstation). Sound impossible? One might think that, but with the super coolness of the Win32 API, I have a script that does just that. It 'talks" to the application, and virtually clicks all the buttons necessary. Totally automated.

And that's just one example.
Re:from the "making-windows-liveable" dept? by stratjakt · 2003-01-16 15:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

"DOS" is just another application on the system, all it does is fire up command.com. No more different than "bash" fires up /bin/sh. There's no reason not to use a better CLI if you need one, and they do exist because I've seen 'em.

Thing is, they're pretty much irrelevant. It's just the CLI vs GUI thing; Windows is a GUI driven OS, and there's really no need for DOS save backwards compatibility.

Fankly I'd love to see the OOP goodness of COM partnered with the process control and flexibility of a good CLI like bash. Which is why I wonder why COM (or something like it if it's so abhorrent to use something MSFT invented) hasn't been implemented in the linux world.

Heck, they could start with a consistent method of cut n' pasting.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:from the "making-windows-liveable" dept? by pyite · 2003-01-16 15:56 · Score: 2, Informative

Way to go on this one moderators. Um, ever heard of CORBA or ORBit? They too are ways of moving objects around (CORBA being the standard, ORBit being an implementation thereof). Yet, CORBA is considered an accepted standard. DCOM is not. Microsoft once again decided to reinvent the wheel. There's no reason you can't use CORBA on Windows.
I particularly liked "incohesive jumble of software" comment. By downloading a Windows program, it might be dependant on something else that I don't have. So I have to go and get that. In Debian, I apt-get and have everything I need and nothing I don't. Authors of Windows programs generally adhere to no standards except their own. Open source projects are pretty predicatable.

--
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
Re:from the "making-windows-liveable" dept? by Patrick13 · 2003-01-16 16:10 · Score: 3, Funny

If anything, Windows is even more scriptable than linux because of COM and it's progeny, ActiveX.

Yah... Haven't you noticed all the great viruses that people have been making?

--
::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
Re:from the "making-windows-liveable" dept? by m8pple · 2003-01-16 17:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

There is a COM implementation for linux from softwareag. Admittedly it's geared towards transparent DCOM interop with windows machines rather than ActiveX style scripting, but pretty much all of the base COM stuff is there. Can be a bitch to get things working on it sometimes though.
More interestingly, Mozilla is largely hooked up using COM (well, they call it XPCOM, but it's extremely similar in the fundamentals), and there are mappings to JavaScript and Python. Maybe more people will expose applications/components using XPCOM in the future; isn't the web browser supposed to be the operating system anyway?... or maybe I'm out of date :)
Anyway, I agree, OLE/ActiveX/COM are great, and hopefully linux (or I guess more probably KDE/Gnome) will eventually incorporate some or all of the functionality they provide. But better, with less stupid gotchas, and less bloat (as a user I love OLE, as a developer I loath it:)
Re:from the "making-windows-liveable" dept? by jesdynf · 2003-01-16 18:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sound impossible? One might think that, but with the super coolness of the Win32 API, I have a script that does just that. It 'talks" to the application, and virtually clicks all the buttons necessary. Totally automated.

That's really impressive until you remember that the whole, original, blasted POINT of Windows was to present a Graphical User Interface.
The fact that there exists a backhanded way to sit there, at a console, and figure out how to direct buttons to be pushed is exactly like something that's a good idea, but backwards. The fact that this is the most efficent way to conduct this automated task is nothing short of laughable.

--
Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
Re:from the "making-windows-liveable" dept? by IamTheRealMike · 2003-01-16 21:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

If anything, Windows is even more scriptable than linux because of COM and it's progeny, ActiveX.
Well - yes and no. Yes, in that COM has "proper" scripting support, but no, in that most apps don't expose services in such a way. Believe me, OLE Automation as it was known when I learnt about it is a total pain in the ass for developers, the only reason it's possible AT ALL is that Windows IDEs have lots of wizards to do it all for you. It's not just a case of building a COM object, you've got to provide the IDispatch interface (to allow for method invocation), you've got to register it, give it a ProgID, set up the server when the app is running, deal with cases when then server isn't running so the app has to be specially started etc....
Don't get me wrong, OLE Automation is cool, but it's HARD and therefore rare outside of Microsofts own products. Also, it's harder to program. Because it's available via actual programming languages, to do something like access a file via WSH you create an object, call it's methods etc.
Scripting on Linux (with the command line) is totally, totally different. bash started out as a command line, and mutated into a programming language as well. All command line apps support scriptability to some extent because they take input, parameters and output. It's crude, but it works surprisingly well.
Oh, and for those who are wondering about GUI apps - the boys over at freedesktop.org are working on a new message bus architecture, similar to DCOP, called DBUS, which looks like amongst many other cool things will allow for simple object scriptability in a desktop-neutral fashion, from the command line or other languages. It's not as powerful as ActiveX, but then again most of the power of COM/OLE/ActiveX was never used anyway, so that's not too bad, and because it should be simple and easy to add support hopefully we'll see lots of apps adopting it.
Disclaimer: nothing about DBUS is actually official, it's a bunch of KDE and GNOME hackers working on something that may or may not be adopted by either project. You know how it goes - it'll be adopted when it's shown to be mature and better than the current solutions.
Re:from the "making-windows-liveable" dept? by sql*kitten · 2003-01-17 00:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Way to go on this one moderators. Um, ever heard of CORBA or ORBit? They too are ways of moving objects around (CORBA being the standard, ORBit being an implementation thereof). Yet, CORBA is considered an accepted standard. DCOM is not. Microsoft once again decided to reinvent the wheel. There's no reason you can't use CORBA on Windows

Yes, there are ways, but that's not the point. COM is deeply ingrained into Windows. You can use the same basic technique to request that the OS add a user as to request that Excel draws a graph for you as to query SQL server on a remote machine. Once you get your head around it, it's enormously powerful.

Meanwhile, on Unix, they can't even decide if a configuration file should be .conf or .rc or .ini or even have no extension at all, let alone standardizing the format of the files. The only standard way of getting data from some applications to others is as a stream of text, it's very difficult to move structured data around on Unix - why do you think, after decades, that it's still so hard to cut and paste in X windows? Maybe XML can address that, but your point stands: why reinvent the wheel?

Authors of Windows programs generally adhere to no standards except their own. Open source projects are pretty predicatable.

That simply isn't true. Example: if I want to pipe the output of lynx to a file, I need to use -source on the command line. If I want to do the exact same thing in wget, it's -o. In netcat, I can just use the redirection of the shell. Open Source programmers are notorious for doing their own thing (and why shouldn't they, not as if it will hurt their revenue stream). In the commercial world, on NT or Unix, playing well with others is much more important.
Re:from the "making-windows-liveable" dept? by Des+Herriott · 2003-01-17 05:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

That simply isn't true. Example: if I want to pipe the output of lynx to a file, I need to use -source on the command line. If I want to do the exact same thing in wget, it's -o. In netcat, I can just use the redirection of the shell.

How would I do the equivalent task with a script in Windows? Not a troll or a flame, an honest question: what's the Windows equivalent of lynx -source http://slashdot.org/ > file.html ?

Re:cygwin? by damiam · 2003-01-16 15:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

Really? Their first documented release was around 1996, five years after Linux. Am I missing something?

--
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.

Re:cygwin? by Kourino · 2003-01-16 15:11 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually, GnuWIN includes Cygwin, as well as several packages that aren't in Cygwin. For example, LiteStep, which only makes sense on Windows (since it's an alternative Windows shell - that is, litestep.exe runs instead of explorer.exe). Not all of the stuff in GnuWIN is actually GNU. It's just a convenient collection of free/gratis (are all these free/libre?) apps for Windows.

This bothers me ... by SuperDuG · 2003-01-16 15:14 · Score: 4, Funny

GNU/FSF is ran by RMS who feels that the world should be free, but GNU now wants to support the windows platform officially? If you can run these popular tools on windows will RMS be emailing windows and telling them to rename windows GNU/Windows?

--
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed

Re:This bothers me ... by jcast · 2003-01-16 16:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you can run these popular tools on windows will RMS be emailing windows and telling them to rename windows GNU/Windows?

No. For some reason, RMS considers Windows a ``complete system'' which is left in place by these sorts of things. So, no GNU labeling (just like installing GNU on BSD doesn't involve a GNU/ holy war from RMS). I'm not entirely sure what crucial system component Windows has that Linux (as distributed by Linus) doesn't (however you want to read that), but RMS has appearantly identified something.

Btw., this came up on the Cygwin mailing list a while back (RMS was cc'ed); google cygwin.com for it if you're interested in a link.

--
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
Re:This bothers me ... by civilizedINTENSITY · 2003-01-16 20:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Linux (as distributed by Linus)" is a kernel. There are no applications. There is no commandline interface, because the shell isn't there. There is *nothing* but a kernel. So I think its fair to call a working system GNU/Linux. Windows will boot without GNU tools. It is complete unto itself.

Slashdotted, FAQ and software list by jonman_d · 2003-01-16 15:20 · Score: 4, Informative

The site's moving at a crawl, so here's the FAQ and software list (what I just happen to have open when I noticed its slashdottedness):

Q1: What is GNUWin II ?
R1: GNUWin-II is a free software distribution for MS-Windows. It includes a large spectrum of programs, notably a whole office suite (MS-Office compatible), Internet utilities, development tools (C, C++, ...), typesetting software (LaTeX), calculus environments, games, ...

Q2: Who made GNUWin II ?
R2: GNUWin-II was made and is still being improved by GNU Generation, a team of students of the EPFL who promote free software and operating systems. It is a collaborative and voluntary project.

3: What is the purpose of GNUWin II ?
R3: The purpose of GNUWin-II is to help Windows users discover the free software and Open Source world. After using free software on MS-Windows, it is easier to migrate to a free operating system (GNU/Linux for instance), where the same programs are used.

Q4: How much does GNUWin II cost ?
R4: GNUWin II is free (as a "free beer"). The programs included on the CD are free software (here, free is to be understood as free in "free speech"). The edition work and HTML pages that contain GNUWin-II are themselves copyrighted under a free license.

Q5: Why GNUWin II and not GNUWin 98 ?
R5: Because GNUWin-II is the second version. The first one can be seen here. GNUWin is not a Microsoft product, and we do not count "3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 2000" !

Q6: May I copy this CD ?
R6: Yes, you are encouraged to do so, and to distribute copies of this CD.

Q7: May I lend this CD to a friend ?
R7: Yes, you can give / lend / copy / distribute this CD as often as you want to.

Q8: Where can I get the licenses so that I can use the programs included on the CD ?
R8: You do not need to buy licenses, as all applications on the CD are free software or Open Source software.

Q9: May I use the programs included on this CD for professional or commercial purposes ?
R9: Yes you may. There are no restrictions on the use of the programs.

Q10: What is the difference between the programs included on this CD and freeware that can be found on the Internet ?
R10: Most freeware programs are "free" in the sense that they don't cost you money ("free" as in "free beer"). This is your only freedom. On top of this, these programs are often watered-down versions of commercial products (be it with limited functions or limited time of use). The programs that are included on this CD are "free" in all senses of the term : they are "costless", they are unlimited, you have the right to distribute them, and most important, their source code is freely available, and you may modify it to improve the program or fix bugs.
This ensures that the program will always be costless in the future, and allows to keep the program alive, even if its original developers lose their interest in it.

Q11: What is "source code" ?
R11: Source code is a text written in a programming language that was used to create the program. The source code is often kept secret by companies so that nobody can understand how the program works, nor check what it actually does. All programs on this CD are "Open Source", that is their source code is available; thus, everybody can improve, correct or check the program.

Q12: Where can I get the source code for the software included on this CD ?
R12: The source code is available on the Internet on the official program site. The link to the site in available at the description page of the program.

Q13: Can I install the programs included on this CD on my Macintosh computer ?
R13: No you cannot, for technical reasons, unless you have a PC emulator. There is already free software distribution for Macintosh, like fink. In addition, MacOS X can be turned into a full GNU system, using GNU/Darwin.

Q14: Can I install the programs included on this CD on my Linux/Unix computer ?
R14: No you cannot, for technical reasons, unless you have a MS-Windows emulator. But most of the programs included on this CD were initially developed for Unix or GNU/Linux. In this case, you can download the GNU/Linux version or the source code on the official site. The link to the program official site is available at the description page of the application.

Q15: Do I need to install Linux to use GNUWin-II ?
R15: No, you do not need to. On the other hand, most of the programs included on this CD were originally developed for GNU/Linux; if you want to migrate to Linux, you can go on using the same applications on the Linux platform.

Q16: What version of Windows is needed to run GNUWin-II programs ?
R16: GNUWin-II should not require any particular version. But we cannot test all applications on every available Windows version, and it might happen that some programs work badly, or even not at all, on some Windows version. Should this case arise, we would be grateful if you report the problem to us.

Q17: Who can I contact if I have questions or problems ?
R17: Please send an e-mail to gnuwin@listes.epfl.ch

Q18: Why is the XXX software not on GNUWin ?
R18: There might be several reasons for this :
o The software might not be free. It's not enough for a software to be free of charge to be on GNUWin, the source code must also be available to the public.
o There might already be an application on GNUWin that has the same features. There is no need to have half a dozen of FTP clients, for instance.
o The software might have a very specific use. GNUWin is aimed at a wide public who have discovering free software, not at specialists.
Anyway, GNUWin also holds a list of links to similar projects that cannot be o n the CD itself, but deserve attention.

Q19: Why is software XXX on GNUWin even though it's not free software ?
R19: GNUWin promotes free software in the sense of the FSF, and advocates use of the GPL. However, we do claim our right to decide by ourselves whether or not an application is "free enough" to be part of GNUWin.
To be part of GNUWin, a software must be free to execute, the source code must be available freely and widely, and redistribution must be authorized without restriction. Freedom to distribute modified Source, although a valuable and esteemed feature, is not required. Thus you can find for instance Scilab and Povray on GNUWin.

--

Quick start:
* OpenOffice
* 7-Zip
* Mozilla

General purpose:
* The Gimp
* Zinf
* X-Tractor
* HTTrack
* WinJab
* Sylpheed

Engineer:
* MiKTeX
* Dia
* GnuPlot
* R
* Scilab
* Maxima
* PuTTY
* HTTrack
* GPG

Developper
* SciTE, Vim or XEmacs
* GNAT Ada Compiler or Mingv32 or Python
* MySQL
* HTTrack
* GTK+ or Simple Direct Media Layer or wxPython
* Inno Setup
* MiKTeX

Kids:
* TuxPaint
* TuxType
* Jump'n'bump
* TuxRacer

Webmaster:
* Apache
* MySQL
* Python
* The Gimp
* iXplorer
* PuTTY
* CatFish

--

--
http://nemilar.net - Not your grandmother's soup kitchen

Bait-n-switch, it works! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-16 15:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was a hardcore Windows developer. I downloaded a lot of free software, started to like the open source concept, and now I have Linux installed on both my home computers and I write open source apps. I just wanted to say that open source on Windows is a good thing, even for the Linux community.

Richard Stallman quote by Guiri · 2003-01-16 15:28 · Score: 4, Funny

"It's GNU/Win and no GNUWin"

--

DVD Ripping, Divx, VCD, SVCD under Linux

Dear Good Sirs by Amsterdam+Vallon · 2003-01-16 15:36 · Score: 3, Informative

I have set up us the Google cache of every page. Just keep clicking 'next' to view each page of their site in various languages.

http://www.google.com/search?q=link:codwwioy63YC:g nuwin.epfl.ch/en/&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe =off&start=10&sa=N

--

Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.

Question from the group by Znonymous+Coward · 2003-01-16 15:43 · Score: 3, Informative

GNU Win II is an excellete project. Good job guys! Also, check out The Open CD as well.

www.theopencd.org

--

Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

Please answer tps12's question by Amsterdam+Vallon · 2003-01-16 16:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

"In the past year, we've seen a lot of attempts by companies to make a profit by selling mixed open and closed source software. Lindows and CrossOver spring to mind. How do you, both personally and as a representative of the EFF, react to this trend? Is it beneficial to the Free Software Movement in the short and long term?"

---- By tps12, one of the best Slashdot members of all time

--

Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.

Popularity by bfree · 2003-01-16 16:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

Do you have, or would you consider adding, a voluntary popularity rating system for the programs on your CD? I'm thinking of the likes of the debian popularity-contest which tracks which programs are installed (and how often they're used I think) to decide what programs should be included on which CD of their release. It would also help for the Linux (BSD, any other FreeOS you care to name) community as they could see which programs Windows people like and therefore can help most in bringing them across from Win to Lin.

--

Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

No: there are no Legal liabilities from GNUWin II by No+Panic · 2003-01-16 16:19 · Score: 3, Informative

GNUWin does Not use SCO libraries.
There is no liability to SCO.

There is no registration.
Nobody is tracking you.

--------

Some legacy SCO applications were ported to Linux using SCO libraries. Those are the ones with legal libabilities. GNUWin did not do that.

Linux is Open Source but Open Source isn't Linux by Da+VinMan · 2003-01-16 16:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have to agree.

The parent also makes the mistake that just because something is Open Source, that is has to run on Linux. Open source is open source and open source that runs on a proprietary system is still a good thing. One could argue that you shouldn't be using a proprietary system in the first place, but that's not relevant to the question of whether open source programs should be developed for use on proprietary systems.

If you don't expose users to open source programs, then how can they ever become supporters of open source? If all you use is proprietary software, you won't know that there are other options.

--
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!

Re:Why Bother? by kirkjobsluder · 2003-01-16 17:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Windows already runs more software then linux.

People who use windows often pirate copies of commercial software so they don't need or want open source software.

Believe it or not, there are people who prefer to use open source software on windows. Some of these people consider piracy to be ethically problematic.

The biggest point about open source software is not price, but freedom. Even though I get Microsoft products legally for $5 a CD (one perk of university life), I still don't like the closed security model, the license restrictions and the understanding that using the software after I leave the university will require shelling out $400.

The fact that I use (and pay for) some closed source software on windows, does not mean that I should not benefit from open source software when available.

Re:Why Bother? by gad_zuki! · 2003-01-16 17:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

>People who use windows often pirate copies of commercial software so they don't need or want open source software.

I'd say people as a whole don't like getting into the porn pop-under world of serial websites, P2P spyware, etc just to use a common app. It makes you wonder why the software world is such a free-market failure. Not only are the major players few in number, but they can afford to let others copy their software just for the name recognition, format dominance, and free advertising.

There's also the question of ethics. I'm sure technophobes wonder why they have to either pay through the nose or "steal" and office suite. I wonder how many acrobat users out there know there are free Windows alternatives to producing PDFs?

I think Open souce and linux can only win by becoming more prominent in the windows world. Not only will people go for the easy install and stop serial/crack hunting they'll be exposed to OSS philosophy, name recognition, etc which can only help the transition from Windows to Linux, that is if that's all you care about.

Re:Why Bother? by kirkjobsluder · 2003-01-16 18:14 · Score: 2

Showing my unix age here, why port most of the gnu unix filesystem utilities to SunOS, AIX and Irix?

How does keeping open source development excusively on a single operating system that runs on only a handful of hardware platforms advancing open source?

Pardon me, I was under the mistaken impression that free software was about empowering all computer users, not just users of your favorite operating system.

Re:Why Bother? by The_Dougster · 2003-01-16 18:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

I use Cygwin all the time at work because I don't have the option of installing Linux. It is pretty dang convenient for a lot of things, especially little bash 1-liners for doing bulk file renaming and such. Consider:

$ for i in *.ps; do ps2pdf.bat $i; done
$ for i in *.pdf; do mv $i form_${i%.pdf}-031015.pdf; done

If you have a hundred or so files which you want to rename or prepend things or change the suffix, for instance, it is a slick way to do it rather than clicking away for hours.

Likewise, you can use awk to do some pretty nifty tricks with large text files.

And finally, I don't rate to get a copy of Visual Studio, so if I want to write a little program for some reason then Cygwin's g++ is my only option, or the GNAT Ada95 compiler in GNUWin (I have it installed as well). These GNUWinII programs are more GUI-style programs which really Cygwin is mainly command-line based. I can't get by without Gimp and I have been using the GNUWin version for a couple years at work now.

--
Clickety Click ...

Re:Why Bother? by JordoCrouse · 2003-01-16 18:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

That way you actually encourage people switching to linux.

Lemme stick some numbers out there for you. Of all the people currently using Windows, I would only say that about 10% feel comfortable in a Unix environment. And lets say that another 5% are beginners, but are willing to try. And of that 15% who might switch, at least half will switch right back again. So really, you only have roughly 7% of all personal computer users that would end up choosing Linux (and feeling comfortable with it).

Given these numbers, why would you even want to keep open source programs like Mozilla, Apache and the GIMP away from 93% of your possible user base? Why not expose as many people as possible to the chewy goodness of open source? Why cut them out because they are unwilling or unable to use anything except a operating system from Redmond, WA?

Free as in speech, indeed.

--
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!

From the "stupid-joke" deparment by doorbot.com · 2003-01-16 20:16 · Score: 2, Funny

And that's just one example.

So you have others?

"super coolness"

That sounds like a Microsoft marketing term used to target MTV viewers. "Windows Media Player: Get lost in it's super coolness and DRM."

Re:Why Bother? by An+Enormous+Coward · 2003-01-16 21:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

why make it so that it runs on windows. Aren't you discouraging people from using linux by doing that?

Because it's better to advertise on TV during the superbowl than put a small ad in the back of a trade journal?

Just getting the concept of free software across to the windows using world is a major feat.

The main obstacle to moving to Linux for many people is the perception that "it's too different" despite the fact that in any discussion about window managers every other post usually complains "they're too the same".

Re:Why Bother? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-16 23:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

this smacks in the face of EVERYTHING I have seen..
EVERY windows user I have met has no problem with stealing software. I constantly hear "can I have a copy of Office 2000? Visio? can I have a copy of Filemaker Pro for home? can I have a copy of Photoshop? etc.... they gladly steal software. and this is a sampling of 5 businesses that I contact on a regular basis... over 300 people and 99.997% of them have asked me to make illegal copies of software for them. I started to ask why.. and this is the string of responses I get.

They charge WAY too much for that.
I already PAID for windows. - this is my favorite
I only need it for a little bit.
I cant afford it.
Those companies make billions, they dont need my money.

While in the LUG I am a member of I asked the question about piracy... how many of them have a cracked copy of vmware, copies of Loki Games, etc...

I was almost attacked... First response was "That's stealing!"
You dont do that!
etc....

Linux users have more respect for software and software writers than windows users. why?? is it that the linux user is generally 40% higher in IQ? is it that a linux user is smarter and more educated than a windows user?

I have met some supposed windows users that are against software sharing... yet they sill asked me for a copy of a "neat" program that they dont want to shell out cash for.

Note: I am a IS/IT freelance person. I have access to a HUGE legal pool of software between the 3 companies I maintain... this is why I am asked.

Re:Why Bother? by trumpetplayer · 2003-01-17 00:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

My understanding is that this is about free software. This may not be a distribution for every user, but it is a good move.

For instance, my off-line HOME PC is better served by a concept like Windows than Linux. I don't need nor like to have all that functionality I wouldn't use at home, so it is a nightmare for me to configure a Linux system so it doesn't do all the stuff I don't want while overloading my CPU and hard disk.

Other people use Windows instead of Linux simply because it came preinstalled (together with driver and some application support for all the hardware and peripherals).

Complementing those applications with other free ones is a great possibility (there's nothing wrong with MS paint, but I prefer the Gimp). Switching to Linux would be way more difficult.

> People who use windows often pirate copies of commercial software so they don't need or want open source software.

Well, even if I wouldn't care about piracy, I wouldn't learn how to use some software that may not be available to me in the future (because I copied it from some friend instead of downloading it, and then I had to patch it with a crack specificaly made for that version blah blah). It is the same reason why I wouldn't learn a programming language unless it is ANSI or ISO or very widely used.

> Even if a an open source software was clearly superior to a windows equivalent (zope, apache, postgres etc) why make it so that it runs on windows.

Because (I hate to admit this since I hate MS with a passion) I like Windows.

Alex

Re:Why Bother? by kirkjobsluder · 2003-01-17 03:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Perhaps I just work with a better quality of computer users who are aware that piracy can result in getting slapped with huge fines for the organization.

But focusing on gratas as opposed to libertas is missing the point about why we need free software on Windows. By all means, I could be using and distributing gratas software that just fell off the back of the truck, but cost of ownership is only one small reason for adopting open source software.

So why would I want to promote open source software for windows?

1: Because I need software that I can print on CDs and pass out to dozens of students. Software that does not cripple its self after the end of the semester, software that they can install on multiple computers, software that spports existing standards, software that does not suck, software that will not advertise AOL or install spyware, software that will not leave me vulnerable to audits, suits or prosecution.

2: Security. I may be stuck with a proprietary operating system but that does not mean that I should be stuck with a proprietary word processor or email client that runs viruses. I want the hundreds of eyes auditing Mozilla and Open Office code.

3: Standards compliance. I can't expect students to design cross-browser standards compliant web services without using a standards compliant browser.

Not IQ. Awareness. by dmaxwell · 2003-01-17 05:23 · Score: 2, Informative

The LUG I occaisionally attend also takes a dim view of stealing software. They basically tore a mailing list poster a new poop chute for defending some warezing he was doing. Ditto on the typical LUG reaction to copyright infringement.

LUGs are largely polpulated by sysadmins, programmers, technical managers and highly computer literate users. I don't think the higher respect for software licensing comes from greater intelligence. It comes from a higher awareness of the issues around licensing. A sysadmin who doesn't want warez showing up on HIS network is going to take a dim view of stolen software. Ditto for anyone who has spent more than an hour worrying about licensing.

It is also the flip side of the outrage these people feel when a high profile GPL violater is outed. How can we expect the likes of MS and Adobe to respect (phobic paranoia in MS' case) our licences if we don't respect theirs? Linux users also often feel that draconian licensing terms are Linux' best advocates. If users can just steal software for whatever reason then why try out the free stuff?

Re:Say What? by doggo · 2003-01-17 06:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

"I must have downloaded/purchased hundrerds of Windows apps over the years and I have NEVER, let me say that again, NEVER found myself in a situation where I had to go "get" something to make that application run."

Dude you've never had a windows app missing a .dll, or that had a conflicting .dll? Never had to go download DirectX*.* to get something to work? Dude, how long ya been in the business again?

"Believe me dude, I'm a computer pro."

Dude, I believe you, I believe you.

48 of 178 comments (clear)