Slashdot Mirror
Open Source on Windows - Boon or Bane for Linux?
A not-so anonymous Anonymous Coward puts this tough issue up for discussion: "There seem some more
determined
efforts underway currently
in some corners of the KDE project to port substantial parts of the software
stack to the MS Windows platform. These efforts are now met by fierce resistance on the part of some of their core developers. Aaron J. Seigo summarizes his reasoning in his blog:
'If the applications people want are available on Windows, they will tend to stick with Windows...by porting software to Windows, we eliminate the
majority of the competitive advantage of Free Software desktops in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of consumers while Microsoft has all the rope they need to shut the door once again on us ... Free Software desktop applications on Windows represent a no-win situation for Open Source, but
Open Source desktops on Free Software operating systems do.'" (Read more below.)
"Does it hurt the 'Linux to the Desktops!' battle fanfare, if Linux apps and other OSS are ported on a large-scale to MS Windows,
or will it rather have a 'pave the way' effect? Does it help to migrate enterprises and public sector units if users to Linux if users are already familiar with Firefox and OpenOffice.org from Windows, or does it take away the motivation to migrate at all? Is porting Unix desktop software counterproductive? Does it even help Microsoft and damage Windows users?"
If KDE is an app then it's a win for MS.
If KDE is a platform then it's a win for FOSS.
But it's noon and there haven't been any Roland Piquepalle posts, so I guess today is a good day... Go linux ?
..and I got it.
If the applications people want are available on Windows, they will tend to stick with Windows
But competition is a good thing.
Similar software on Linux and Windows makes it easier to move users from Windows to Linux... it's the OpenOffice argument.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
because of the closeness of windows.
Seems to me, if a windows user who normally wouldn't consider a full switch to linux is able to try KDE applications on his machine without an OS change, and grows to like them, they'll be much more likely to consider linux as a viable alternative the next time they upgrade their machine.
The day I see Quickbooks(as one example) for Linux then that is the day I can kill Windows for good. People will NOT go to Linux unless Windows software makes the leap to that platform. Otherwise Joe User will not notice or care.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
This is making the assumption that everyone goal is to move everyone to Linux. Maybe some people's goal is to have the best tools available to everyone, regardless of their platform. I don't see it as any sort of problem that people are downloading FireFox for Windows and OS X.
At the end of the day, its about everyone having the best computing experience possible, not whether they use Linux or not.
Mod point free since 2001
It definately will pave the way. Many people want to move off Windows but can't just make that huge leap all at once. Give us apps to help get the users ready for the move and then we can take care of the underlying OS when they are ready. I know 10 people that now use FireFox..none on Linux. They all use Windows and now see that good software can be free.
Create binaries for distribution where the Linux version is always 0.1+ version numbers ahead of the Windows version. And I mean actual functionality, not just the name.
Gets you both worlds.
It's not such a bad thing.
The biggest problem people that I know have with Linux is that they can't use the apps they are used to.
If the same apps are on both Linux and Windows, there is the chance the apps they are 'used to' will already be free software that works on Linux.
People let goofy ass politics in the way of practicality. There are a lot of great reasons to have OSS running under windows. Cygwin, mysql, X servers and clients..
The underlying OS should be less and less relevant as time goes on. It shouldn't matter whether you're running on Linux, Darwin, NT, BSD.. Well-defined and implemented standard APIs should let you easily recompile and run the same apps anywhere, without some bloated Java runtime or CLR in the way.
But no, we have petty "M$ is teh bad deval!" bullshit further fragmenting what is a relatively small talent pool to begin with. What goal are people working towards? If it's really as simpleminded as "destroy Windows", it'll never be reached.
So keep KDE "GPL OS only", and when the OS itself becomes irrelevant, so will all OS-specific apps.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
By porting the OSS to MS Windows, people are using and getting used to OS Software in general. They only thing that it is hurting in the OSS movement is the Gnu/Linux operating system, if anything. Many people are used to using MS Windows as their operating system of choice due to the ease of use compared to Gnu/Linux (Mind you, it has been a few years since I tried a Linux instal, so I haven't tried the ones that came out this past year). But the good news is that people are looking outside of the proprietary software makers for their applications. That, at least, is a start. Besides, isn't locking in OS Apps to an OS OS no different than Microsoft locking people into using Windows for any of their apps?
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
the GPL open source concept has NOTHING to do with Linux vs Windows adoption rates
if the software is free, it's free !
maybe the story should of been
"Does Linux evangelism hurt Linux"
because the answer to that is yes, force it(opinion) down peoples (managers/people who make $ decisions) throats and you will turn people off regardless of how noble the cause
for windows... keep it working nicely for Linux. People will switch to Linux because "look how crappily windows runs KDE".
Meh.
If Windows users aren't locked in to KDE they might choose based on the OS/desktop's own merits. Which means Windows wins. Poor KDE, maybe they should work on actually having a better product.
And who is anyone to tell a developer what platform to write for. Maybe they want to write an app that people will actually use. Otherwise what's the point?
Is it wrong that I prefer to use OpenOffice over MS office in XP when I have to use my laptop? Or that i'd prefer to use fluxbox (I know, I know, it's not right now, but think outside the lil box for a second) instead of that horrible gui that XP uses?
I don't know about the rest of the implications, but I know the more I can replace of MS on XP with stuff I like to use in linux, the happier I am to use my laptop with XP on it.
For people who don't know anything about computers, switching to Linux will probably be as easy as switching from Windows 98 to Windows XP (though a lot of people think that switch is hard), once they get used to KDE, Firefox, Thunderbird and Open Office on their Windows machine (of course, someone has to put those programs there for them first!). Non-tech savvy people don't care about the operating system, they just want everything to stay the way they like it. That's why it's hard to convince Windows users to Linux.
:-P
However, people using Firefox and Open Office will switch to Linux faster, because it won't be all that different!
Once all of the applications are available on both operating systems, people will just choose the best operating system.
That would be... the most secure and stable one! Right?
Well, almost.
If we can get Linux as user friendly as windows (ah, we're almost there!) and make all applications available on both operating systems... They'll choose Linux.
I know my mom would... And if my mom would do that, everybody would!
Join the anonymous, help develop the network: http://www.i2p2.de
Once people are used to apps, it doesn't matter what OS is underneath. Get people hooked on the OSS stack, and sooner or later, they'll realize that they could run the same great software without paying microsoft for the privledge.
You say
I would think that with software available for both Windows and Linux, it would make the transition easier for companies and individuals who are looking to migrate to open source.
Since when is FOSS about *restrinting* choice? I though the reason that FOSS was superior was because the users has the source and the power to do with it what they wanted, if they want to port KDE widgets back to windows in a way that does not violate the licence ... more power to them.
It's people like this that get misquoted and give the FOSS community a bad name.
You don't hear people complaining about Firefox running on Windows, do you?
Which is better: to say "if you move to Linux you can keep using Firefox" or "if you move to Linux you'll have to stop using IE"?
There is a much lower barrier to entry for Linux if users are already familiar with its apps.
--
Karma: Chameleon (you come and go)
... But it is certainly useful for those of us who are forced to use Windows in a particular environment (like say, at work), but would like to be able to run KDE applications from Windows. Also, as people become more comfortable with open source applications (Mozilla Firefox, for example) on their Windows platform, I think they will be more likely to migrate to another operating system when they see that all of the applications they are accustomed to are available under another OS.
By running Open Source Software on Windows, it builds acceptance and framiliarity with these software packages that will make more users comfortable with migrating in the future. Its hard enough to go to Linux as it is, but if you were already comfortable with these software packages on your windows box, it would make the transition much smoother in the long run.
I.E. FireFox, OpenOffice, etc. These in and of them themselves aren't worth moving to linux for, but If you already know how to use them, and you do migrate, it isn't so daunting of a task.
In order for people to make the jump from one platform to another, the other platform has to have something that the current one lacks. not a 'killer app' but a 'killer feature.' There's very little available only for Mac OS X that's doesn't have a Windows port, or an app on Windows that does the same thing. However, Apple says that it's superior in it's performance, ease of use, and stability. That's what drives switchers to switch. Linux needs to offer something Windows doesn't, and just as importantly, GET THAT INFORMATION OUT THERE.
I think there is a need fore more killer apps that run on Linux and Windows. When people are ready to make the jump to Linux, the applications they already use will already be there waiting for them.!
I got nothing...
Does it really matter? One thing I liked about Open Source when I first got into it was that it was all about choice. Now days it seems like the matra is "OSS/Linux is all about freedom and choice, as long as the choice you make is OSS/Linux". I enjoy using FireFox, GAIM and Apache. Not a fan of OpenOffice.org but it's a choice if I need one. I'm not a fan of Linux, so I enjoy the choice and freedom to use the apps I like on my platform of choice which happens to be Windows. I hear all the arguments how such and such app only exists on Windows and that's just so evil yet here this person is talking about only having the apps exist on Linux. I'm all for multi platform applications, let the user choose the OS they want.
Isn't the whole point of computers to run applications? If so isn't the OS going to become less and less relevant as real standards start to emerge? The best marketing for the Open Source idea is a game or other very common application that people are used to paying for. Maybe they'll ask "I don't get it, why is this free and not accompanied by tons of syware?" Then, hopefully, the lightbulb turns on.
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
Why should OSS be considered Linux software?
OSS is not just a battle of Linux vs MS, it's a battle of the open source development model vs the closed source model.
Open Source is not a Linux exclusive term, and developers that are limiting themselves to Linux only development are probably hurting there marketability in the long run. [Because we all know OSS is free as in speech, not beer]
Mainly because it took the port of many current open source projects to windows to let microsoft be scared of a invasion.
It is hard to say what direction it will go.
Nobody has to be scared that I switch back to Windows, if you have a precicion power tool (GNU/Linux) you never switch back to a axe.
Just a couple of years ago, the Linux environment was seen as purely a geeky fringe platform, where everything was completely different from the Windows world. That attitude is still prevalent, but it's fading, in large part because people on Windows machines are now getting to use some of the same applications that these Linux geeks have been using all this time.
More importantly, since these applications are now on Windows, and are therefore easily accessible to the masses, the media is starting to report on them, especially Firefox, and not just the geek journals. Invariably, when these things are reported on in the media, "open source," or at the very least "free," is mentioned. Often, Linux is mentioned as an aside in the same story.
All of this means positive free publicity for Linux and Open Source in general. People hear about this stuff, try it, find that they like it, and maybe ask their geeky neighbor down the street what the big deal is. All of this is positive stuff, and taking the attitude that we need to pigeonhole ourselves back into our one geeky platform, and exclude the rest of the software world, is counterproductive.
Open applications that work on Windows CAN help migrate users to another platform IF two or three things happen:
1) The Open application is better than the non-Open equivalent application.
2) The more great Open applications, the better. 3) Microsoft closes down the way the Open application(s) work on Windows.
Thus users who really liked the application(s) will migrate to where they can still use it. This partly explains why some people still use DOS, and WordPerfect 5.1
In my opinion, the KDE app that can be downloaded from kde.org aren't that special. For most of them, I have an alternative that I prefer. No doubt the same goes for Windows users. So what's the big deal?
Don't people remember that it was the apps that drove people to Windows? If the app is available on all platforms, at some point people will figure out that it's stupid to pay $200 for their operating system, when the apps they know,love, and most importantly, need are available on something that's free and better.
They have a tremendous selection of fresh juices
Opensource is a bigger movement than Linux and Operating Systems in general. Opensource on Windows does have a positive effect .... for the application being used and opensource in general. It increases the userbase of that application, which increases the visability and thus brings more possibility of contributors to the project, while introducing people to opensource.
Not all of us interested/involved in opensource are Linux fanatics, you know. Not everything opensource developers do is supposed to be viewed with a 'how does this help linux', and indeed why the hell should it? These people mainly do it for personal reasons, not political. Its just unfortunate that only the politically orientated people get into the limelight.
Since open source developers usually have very limited resources, why is the KDE group wasting theirs on this project? There are plenty of other things that can be done to improve KDE, mainly bugfixes.
To this day, you can't open tar.gz files in a separate application by default or click the navigation buttons in rapid succession in Konqueror. The latter problem makes file browsing so much slower. Things like these need to be addressed first before wasting time on Windows.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
Some of these apps can be considered transitional apps while others need to be platform-centric. For instance, Office and Web Browser apps are TOTALLY transitional apps, making the environment friendly for those who are familiar with those apps on other platforms.
But other apps are unnecessary to port like KDE; no discernable advantage is gained by porting it to Windows because the vast majority of users only use about 5% of the operating systems functions thus something like KDE would have only a negligible effect. ASlso since this is a GUI app aimed at end users and not developers so much, this is your target audience and they would not really be switching from Windows for this.
MySQL and Apache are classic examples of transitional apps for developers and both of them are used from a command line or via a text based conf file so again, KDE would only have a negligible effect.
So far, I tend to agree with those developers that there is no point in porting it.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
What about the "freedom" of choice?
People don't switch because of their apps not being availible. If they get used to apps that are on many platforms and OSes, then they can switch with no loss at all.
we speak the way we breathe --Fugazi
The main obstacle to many people adopting Linux is both the lack of familiarity with the OS, but also (and more importantly) a lack of familiarity with the programs they will be using.
Until people adopt and know that they can functionally use Open-Source programs, they will likely never even consider moving to an open-source OS.
Yes, we end up giving microsoft help in the short term. But in the longer term, we let people know that they are no longer dependant on microsoft. More importantly, we get the feedback of designing for a much larger audience, the one we would (I assume) like to cater to in the longer term.
While the primary purpose of open-source is to liberate tools, a definite secondary purpose in my mind is to allow people to actually use them. I'm mostly for open-source because I think it's a real waste of resources to have software being reinvented from scratch over and over again.
If you just want to provide people with what they want, you should go ahead and port these things to Windows. If you are on some crusade to force people to switch to open source, then go ahead and restrict where they can use their applications. Just be aware that it is somewhat hypocritical: denying someone the ability to run OSS on a non-open OS is essentially restricting their freedom. Especially when your only reason to do so is philosophical, and not technological.
If someone writes an Open Source app that's appreciated over on Windows, the chance that people will donate in order to keep the project moving increases dramatically. This means that we'll get better applications over in Linux-land and that Windows users will get a better Open Source app over there. There's nothing wrong with cross-pollination. If Ogg Vorbis were only usable on Linux systems, there would be zero adoption of it by hardware manufacturers. The traction it has, even though it's very small, is due to a large extent on availability of Vorbis tools for Windows. This 'writing Open Source apps for Windows hurts Linux' attitude is exactly the kind of flag-waving ideological bullshit that keeps resources (as well as the public eye) *away* from Open Source projects.
Free software on windows is both good and bad. I've put an awful lot of effort into migrating a few friends and family members to linux, and getting them past the whole "its made by hobbyists so it must be crap" stage has been made MUCH easier by being able to show them firefox and openoffice etc.
On the other hand though, one of the biggest motivators in my experience for people to migrate to using free apps like openoffice is to save money. They couldn't give a flying f*ck whether its free as in freedom, they just want to save a few hundred £. Therefore, I conclude that it will do more harm than good in the long run, as most people dont want the hassle of making the change. They dont care what the OS is if they can use office suites etc for free. Of course, money can be saved by not having to pay for windows itself, but while it still comes by default with shop bought PC's, I dont see many people giving that too much consideration. Especially when you consider that they (may) have to give up their Microsoft only app's as well.
If people start using KDE apps on Windows insread of Word, etc. The next time they buy a computer they won't bother paying for Windows -- all the apps they need run on a "free" OS.
--t
If the potential users didn't even _know_ how good open source software is, they would see no need to change to it.
And how are they to know how it is if they don't get the chance to use it on their own platform? Moreover, if they are already familiar with open source software, then they are more likely to stick with Linux once they've installed it, because they are already familiar with parts of it. Else they are more likely to want to switch back, as they do not get anything done on their new OS because it's too confusing.
Another point is that if we port open source software to windows, and people use it, we lessen the control which the cooperations have over the format, etc...
So, even if we did not get any users to use Linux, the closed source market would be more competive, thus making software better for e.g. Windows users.
But I don't think we lose potential users by porting it to windows. It's more like showing them how good open source software is, and if they want more, then they'll move over to linux.
Besides, I think Windows security holes are reason enough to switch to Linux. There is one thing you cannot port to another OS, and that's the OS itself.
The funnies part is that if when they realize that they are using mostly open source programs, the step for migrating to a full open source solution (now, including the OS) will be a lot easier.
Also, one of the benefits of having open source programs is the multiplataform part, going against that part is not taking advantage of one of the main features of open source.
If you end up using OSS applications in your Windows machine, what's the incentive not to migrate to Linux? Sooner or later you'll have to upgrade or change the OS. At that point, you can pay Microsoft a tax, or just install Linux, which will be free (gratis and libre) and able to run all your apps. And then it will matter, because the issue won't be if you like one interface or another, but hard, cold cash.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
in the long run it will mean that users become more familiar with the types of applications available in open source. And more importantly they will become acquainted to the open source delivery channels.
This will mean that they will be more likely to try other open source apps and operating systems....especially Linux.
It depends on whether you see software as software or religion.
While it is no particular advantage to the open source movement to have open source tools on windows, it is of extreme benefit to have platform independent tools in use on Windows. Open source benefits substantially from the availability of non-proprietary software on the (proprietary) OS with the largest market share. The idea that Open Source advocates should be against open source programs on Windows is asinine. Is anyone really worried that Windows will transpire to be a superior OS to run platform independent software?
So far it seems that closed source can work well on top of open source (OSX, Oracle, etc.). But open source hasn't been proven to work well on top of closed source (maybe Firefox will change that, but not yet).
The biggest issue is that if the underpinnings are closed the vendor can change it as they wish to disturb the higher layers. If MS wanted to they could easily release a patch to Windows just to break Firefox and nothing else. But it would be nearly impossible for someone to release something to GNU/Linux which would break Oracle without someone else fixing it. Closed source producers can make it difficult for competition to run on top of their software. But open source software, by way of its being open, can't limit the software people want to write on top of it.
Developers: We can use your help.
Is the point behind OSS to "scratch an itch" and solve a problem, or is it to replace MS on the desktop? I would argue that the point behind it is to make good, useful software that solves a problem. I just don't understand how "Free Software desktop applications on Windows represent a no-win situation for Open Source." Is this truly a zero-sum game where one either uses an open source desktop or a closed source one? I would argue that it is not. I use OSS at home (Linux and *BSD), but I am forced to use Windows and Solaris (again, closed source) at work. It's very handy for me to have the same apps (OO, Firefox, Thunderbird, Ethereal, etc.) available on both desktops.
"It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey
A more important issue is, what happened to freedom? If people want to port OSS to Windows, they should be able to. Otherwise, OSS isn't truly free. Free as in speech.
They don't use windows to use windows. They use windows because that's where the stuff they use is. A large part of why the transition to Linux seems unpleasant is that everything changes. It isn't just changing the little logo in the start bar from an ugly shattered window to an ugly foot. They have to change every program they use. They can't use the programs they're familiar with.
Except, what programs do they use? Well, pretty much, Internet Explorer, AIM, Kazaa, and games. Maybe Mirc and Word. I'd be willing to bet most people spend 99% of their time in those six things.
Games are probably a lost battle. OpenOffice may or may not ever really be as nice as Word is or WordPerfect was. But if someone reaches the point where they find themselves using Firefox, Gaim, Bittorrent and Xchat all the time... well, then, switching to Linux doesn't seem like so much of a transition, at least superficially, does it?
This said I think when this person linked at the top talks about what is good for "Free Software", he is confusing what is good for "Free Software" with what is good for the Linux Desktop. I don't use windows so I can't particularly comment there, but as a programmer who uses OS X-- a similarly closed-source desktop-- I don't think it is wise to look at things in terms of what is good for Free Software. I would look at it as, Free Software and OS X have positive things to offer one another. If either side ignores this it is to their own detriment. Something similar can probably be said about Free Software and Windows.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Or so I say.
If KDE isn't compatible with my scanner than it's a win for Microsoft.
Currently, Microsoft has the advantage in driver support from the manufacturers of PC peripherals. Many manufacturers refuse to port their drivers to a Free operating system and refuse further to disclose specifications that free software developers would find useful in writing a driver.
I would have though by know we all would have realized it's open source software that will end the Microsoft's domination, not Linux.
Less Talk, More Beer.
So, developers shouldn't port applications to comercial OSes, because free operating systems need them for people to switch to them? Is that the arguement?
Free operating systems should be good enough that the operating system itself should be enough reason to switch.
If the programs I use run both on Linux and Windows, and I pick Windows over Linux, that says something bad about Linux. It's not saying the developers of my programs are in the wrong for not forcing me to use Linux.
If the applications people want are available on Windows, they will tend to stick with Windows...
That conclusion is exactly the opposite of my experience. Before I tried OpenOffice, I hadn't thought about making the switch to Linux. After my baptism by OO, I soon had a great variety of OSS apps that I can use at work (MS shop) but take home to work on (slackware) during the weekend.
I think it is more about freedom to work with the same data across more than one platform. What would have happened if only IE was capable of rendering HTML? Would the internet be where it is today if everyone decided to use their own format instead of a standard? I doubt it.
Bottom line is a wider variety of Open Source applications available to all consumers will only help the Open Source movement.
Why? Because as users are exposed to high quality Open Source apps, they will be more accepting of Open Source in general. They will contribute to those projects, if only by finding bugs during use. Once Open Source apps are what their business runs on, then they are free to switch OSes.
Sure, there are factors (such as IT departments ignorant of everything but Windows) that will make this harder. But in the end, a business running on Open Source apps will quickly ask itself "why should I pay the MS tax for my computers? I don't use the OS, I just run these apps. Why not run them on Linux/BSD/ReactOS?" This will be doubly true if some alternate platform, such as PowerPC or cell processors, starts to really outperform Intel hardware.
...windows users who don't have to migrate to new apps to use linux are ussually more willing to try it out. So if all the apps are in place on Linux when they want to switch, the user is left with nothing but benifits. Linux distributions are generally free Most applications on linux are generally free Linux performs better and is more stable Linux gets the most out of your hardware in other areas(ex software RAID arrays with features of very expensive RAID cards) If there is a problem a user is having with their software/hardware someone can ssh in with their permission and help them find and fix the problem. I help maintain about 6 of my friends computers that are running different versions of Linux and it's actually easier on me to have them run Linux, because their computers aren't loaded down with adware and viruses, and generally they know to avoid the root account, and they like it more because their computers offer them more features and less down time. I say port anything you want to windows so long as those developers doing the porting wouldn't ussually be working on linux versions of the software. The main features of linux don't ussually come from the apps, it comes from the kernel and the unix userland.
"Locking people into a platform or upgrade path is bad! I hate $software_package, because it only runs on M$ Windoze! All software should be free! But no way in hell should anyone make FOSS available to Windoze users, because the lazy bastards don't deserve a choice!"
Does anyone else see the problem with this argument? These are all things I've heard people say (in some cases stretched slightly, but I've kept true to their sentiment), and I've never understood it. If your goal is to make good software, and prove to people it's good, you have to make it available for them.
Most people won't be willing to switch to a new OS. Those who will, won't be willing to switch to one which bears very little resemblance to the one their used to, and which they have no way of knowing they can use. If they can't even try any of the apps before switching, it ain't going to happen.
Software and politics is like religion and politics; they mix all to easily, and it causes problems when they do.
Or, to put it more offensively (since I've had a bad day): Get off your fucking high horse, and stop thinking you're better than everyone else because you don't use a mainstream platform. If you really think putting good Open Source software on a proprietary platform hurts your "movement," then you're a fucking moron, and you'll never accomplish anything because people will be too busy hating you to try your software.
It's always "can it run office?". "Can i do this?" Instead of saying "uhh.. yeah you could use open office instead", you might be able to say "yeah! of course it runs open office!" when they ask "does it run open office?". It's not an all or nothing thing, and most people are scared to switch away from what they know.
http://www.rustyrazorblade.com
That is ridiculous. Making KDE run on windows doesn't solve the two big things that Linux has over Windows: a technologically better kernel and it is free. If a corporation can build applications on KDE for both platforms then its worker bees that use _only_ that application can use just Linux, while everyone else has Windows and KDE. It will get Linux more exposure in the managerial mind and more applications will be built for Linux.
I have been inventorying government sites, their computers, what's on them, how do they use them, etc. A lot of them run Windows with terminal emulation to IBM machines. Some are just thin clients. It's cheaper to have that thin client, it hasn't been replaced in 10 years. If that persons job is only working with the IBM AS/400 they have no need for a Windows machine. No reason to pay a grand for a new computer.
Even better here is that if that person starts to do other things they can now just use Linux. As long as they are doing just word processing, email, and the like. With KDE being so well associated with Linux it has a lot better chance of _being_ an option.
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
This guy has just proven to me that the open source community is just as ridiculous as the commercial software community. They put themselves and their ideology/bottom line ahead of the consumer.
People seem to love modding me down for pointing out their stupidity and arrogance...
We heard the same thing years ago about Windows vs Mac. Same wailing and whining, end result was Photoshop on both.
Competition is what will make Linux (or any competing operating system) and its applications better.
If Linux and applications for Linux didn't have competition, they wouldn't reach their potential.
This is especially true in user-friendly GUI front-ends when it comes to Windows apps providing much-needed incentive for Linux apps to improve.
Indeed, I already find some Linux and FreeBSD apps more intuitive than similar Windows apps but they are the exception rather than the norm at the moment.
I just hope that console-based apps (on all OS) will continue to get the attention they deserve. Especially curses-based console apps that can be used remotely via SSH.
...but for now there is Linux.
Conversely, I'm just as unhappy about MS apps being ported to Linux.
We really need a purely alternative solution to MS.
I have users that just can *not* run an MS box thanks to the crippling effects of Malware, Spyware, Adware.
Solution, if the user simply wants email, browsing and letter typing, Linux is what I put in now.
Gone are the need to run 4 spyware programs and 2 Virus scanners just to keep things running.
With a little retraining on Linux, I now don't have to baby-sit and reinstall every 2 weeks.
MS is becomeing more of a Guru OS than Linux from the end-users perspective just because you have to run such a complicated series of diversive apps to keep it running once connected to the Internet.
...about the politics of open source? When I write a piece of open source my goal is to write something useful that can be useful to as many people as possible. My goal isn't to bring down a particular corporation, or promote a philosophy (except maybe a coding style), or get a particular OS into companies or anything like that. I have no time for such politics. I just want to write something cool or useful. If someone ports that to an OS different to that for which I wrote it then that's great, even more people can use it. It's kinda depressing that people have a problem with this. What should be a simple act, writing a bit of code and making it available to others, has become a political statement even though I don't want to make any such statement.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
One of the nice things about OSS is it allows the end user to participate at a level at which he/she is comfortable.
User - happy to use what tools are to hand
Administrator - pick the best tools at the price and level of configuring he/she is comfortable devoting
Developer/Hacker - sees open source as being important enough to be evangelised and expanded.
I run WinXP, Firefox/Thunderbird and MS Office. I have used Linux and OpenOffice. I use what works for me, not what works for MS or OSS zealots.
by porting software to Windows, we eliminate the majority of the competitive advantage of Free Software desktops in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of consumers while Microsoft has all the rope they need to shut the door once again on us
i'm going to get modded down for this, I know but...
Aside from the US vs. THEM mentality displayed by this guy, what is wrong with porting programs to windows?
By porting to windows, you give yourself a larger user base. By porting to windows you make your program easier to install (as opposed ot having to compile binaries). Lets face it, the average user will not give a fuck about linux, they just want their software to be free and easy. Adding unneeded steps to get something working reallycuts it short, becasue really, not everyone who has a computer will be technical enough to use linux.
-------
Support Indy Music. Buy
My company has a restrictive policy and I use FOSS exclusively at home.
Am I barred from using my favourite applications at work due to someones misunderstanding of the word 'free' as in freedom?
This is so utterly, utterly wrong I don't even know where to begin.
Look. When it comes to the average user, the challenge is not getting them to ditch Windows for Gentoo. It is getting them to accept open source as a concept. The average user out there has a mind that is freighted with misconceptions about OSS products:
... and on and on and on. People have a seriously hard time wrapping their brain around the notion that there is software out there for free that is better than the stuff they are paying for.
This is why OSS products on Windows are insanely important -- because they provide a gentle way for people to experiment with OSS and learn just how wrong those misconceptions are. When I set someone who just wants to create a few PDFs of Word documents up with PDFCreator, or show them how Firefox stops them from getting infested with spyware, these are steps that encourage them to not reject open source solutions out of hand, which many, many of them do right now.
Will all of these people end up as full fledged GNU/Linux users? Of course not. But a lot will. It just takes time. And even the ones that don't will be growing the user base of lots of other valuable projects -- and not doubting the local IT guy's sanity when he starts talking about dropping IIS on the company Web server for Apache.
Read my blog.
The answer might be "bane" if the availability of a particular piece of software might have prompted an OS migration if it were otherwise unavailable on windows.
However, consider also if OS software becomes very popular on windows. If the same software is available on 'nix, then there's familiar territory awaiting anyone who switches. Users whom are used to FireFox/Thunderbird for their daily email shouldn't have too much trouble using the same on a well-configured 'nix machine. Generally I'd say it's often enough a question of the software availablity/familiarity that hinders switching than the OS iself
Let them port it. You can't fundamentally stop it anyway; that's why it's free software.
My other gripe with the article, and this is relatively common on Slashdot summaries, but quite annoying, is when you put several different links next to each other in a phrase, like "some more determined efforts underway currently".
This is really annoying and bad, for two reasons:
1. It's not obvious that there are three links -- it looks like one.
2. I have no idea where any of the links go, and no description giving me a clue.
Instead please do:
"...some more determined efforts underway currently (link 1, link 2)."
IIRC, RMS is on record as saying that had Linux existed when he was writing the GPL and the first GNU progs, he would have made it a term of the license that GPL software only be run on GPL OSs.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
Much of the lock-in associated with Windows is associated with the availability of apps. If you provide OSS cross-platform software for free, people will adopt the apps to save money and stay legal. If all the apps a user employs are cross platform he has no lock-in with Windows. Cost and security can then be used to push the adoption of Linux. This will be particularly true once 1-2 GB usb keys capable of supporting Knoppix and a tolerable workspace become common.
In many respects this is Apple strategy in reverse . Rather than putting a proprietary desktop on top of OSS, put an OSS desktop on top of a proprietary OS.
Finally, with the replacement rate of computers leveling off Microsoft has less profit from OS and more from apps, if they have to compete with free on every app they are in trouble.
Lets be honest, not many people switch to Linux so they can use KDE, now I far prefer KDE over explorer.exe but still it's not really a reason people migrate over. At this point people switch for three general reasons,
1. Geeks, enough said
2. Tired of viruses and spyware
3. Cost and stability, though this is generally only for corporations.
Porting linux apps over to windows doesn't really hurt any of these reasons, all it really does is expand the user base and help with the transition in showing these people that if they do switch they will still be able to use their computers. Right now the biggest hurdle to Linux adoption is the transition itself and anything we can do to ease that can only help.
I stole this Sig
If the goal of Open Source is to drive a company out of business, then FOSS on Windows is a bad strategy.
If the goal of Open Source is to have as many people use/develop your software as possible, then FOSS on Windows is a good strategy.
Some of us do not have a choice as to what OS we get to use (company computers for example). Why should we be left out?
I use Cygwin/X on my computer, which enables me to take advantage of a good number of FOSS programs. If I were to develop a new program, one of my design goals would be that it run on as many different platforms as possible (including Windows), so that the greatest number of people can participate. Deliberately excluding people does nobody any good.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
The debate is a good one and will probably never be resolved. My personal belief from years of tech support is that people use applications, not operating systems.
;)
I've moved people from Dos -> WFWG -> Windows 95 -> 2000 -> XP, with no complaints about the operating system. But if WordPerfect changes a menu or the name of a frequently used feature, I hear about it.
We don't train most of our users to use "the operating system" we train them on how to use Word, WP, Outlook, etc. That's because for the vast majority of our users and the vast majority of the time, they don't (and in fact shouldn't) make any changes that involve the operating system. We do that when we roll out computers.
So if you get someone to use OpenOffice.org, firefox, and thunderbird, I don't think the operating system they run on makes much difference. This both helps and hurts Linux. It helps, because when you want to move your people to linux based computers, they will feel right at home and there'll be almost no training needed, especially if you set them up correctly in the first place. The downside is that there's no real incentive to move.
And that pretty much sums up the debate.
Who in his right mind still uses the Microsoft Windows operating system nowadays? Man... that was back in the days of viruses, crashing, and freezing. Those people need to wake up and realize that we are almost in the year 2005 and use a real OS e.g. Linux.
platforms.
I love bashing M$. I love bashing them tremendously and open source, TRUE open source on Windows is an excellent thing.
Obviously we all know what open source means but to the average Joe M$ user switching to open source means changing platforms for just about everything.
If we can get people informed as to what open source is on Windows first, then our evil nefarious plan to make them all switch to Linux should happen with less difficulty.
Open Source is a philosphy, not a platform.
In a sense Linux (and the open source movement perhaps) is already loosing big time to Mac OS X. With fink, I can get a good amount of open source tools to run on my Mac, with no regard of the open source movement, etc.
If I'm using windows ... and I see all these FOSS tools available for Win are also available for Linux (and written, primarily, for Linux) ... then wouldn't it stand to argue that it would make me more interested in Linux? I could ditch Windows (and all the costs associated with it) if all the tools I'm using are available on Linux anyway.
Who doesn't like free music?
Actually, I think this is a win for both open-source and Linux. Think about it: if lots of people start using Openoffice on Windows, it will become much better much quicker (Windows programmers outnumber UNIX programmers probably 100 to 1 -- just look at Mono, for instance). People will become less dependent on Microsoft's products (Visual Studio, Office, etc), thus removing a major barrier for Linux. In return, Linux gets high-quality free software and lots of users familiar with it.
If you don't believe me, try to find any successful open-source project without a Windows port of some kind. Look at Mozilla/Firefox, one of the most successful free software projects -- 90% of its users are using Windows. Look at Openoffice -- same deal.
Free software succeeds by being available to everyone. Artificially restricting the number of users is just stupid. It has been tried many times before, and a killer application has never been enough to support a platform. The iPod is a perfect example: Apple first thought not making it available for Windows would help sell Macs. The situation is actually quite the opposite.
I say definitely let people port things if they want to, although if people are asking you to port your program but nobody's stepping up to do it, your resources may be better spent improving your program on Linux instead. Ultimately, the more FLOSS, the better.
1. Good, working open source software can "pave the way" and convince people to try Linux. Many people don't know that open source exists, or don't believe that it can work, and proving them wrong without forcing them to change their entire OS is a very good idea.
2. Let people convert to open source software in stages. First switch to a free browser, then to free e-mail/IM clients, office suites, etc... And then, if you're not relying on any proprietary programs in Windows any more, why shouldn't you switch to a completely free OS? That was my reasoning for switching to Linux.
3. If a program is cross-platform, it can draw developers from all of those platforms, and improve more quickly.
4. Open source software should be about choice... Microsoft and other evil proprietary vendors try to get customer lock-in. We should never lock people into our platform if we can avoid it. People should be free to use free software no matter what platform they're running, and that's how we can show that we're better than Microsoft. Let's not sink to their level.
Free Speech, Free Software, Free Culture
...in which MS is Satan and whatever contortions the penitent must endure to avoid supplication to the dark lord will be suffered gladly.
It enables user to use the software they want to use, regardless of platform. None of us are that died-in-the-wool that we use one platform and one platform only (are we?). As another poster pointed out, Windows users will eventually learn that they really don't have to put up with a shoddy, insecure product that they have to pay for, and that there are many alternatives to said product(s). How can that be construed as A Bad Thing?
JoloK
The short term effects of OSS on Windows might appear to keep people on Windows but in the long term the OS will become a non-issue. All things being equal, Linux still has "free" going for it. Once all the applications you require run on any OS you choose, why would you choose to pay for that OS when a free version is available.
Two reasons;
1) All the software you require isn't available on "any" OS you'd could choose to run.
2) The operating systems aren't actually equal.
Neither of which has anything to do with OSS being ported to Windows.
Unless one makes the argument that it's a matter of weighing a certain amount of useful applications on a "free" OS vs. those required on your "pay" OS -- but that doesn't seem to be an argument made in the best interest of the user.
On one hand, making the kde platform and applications available for windows definitely adds value to the platform and can drastically cut the cost of running windows on desktop clients. Not having to take out licenses for cd burning software (k3b), desktop publishing software (scribus), office software(OOo & koffice), vector and raster graphics software(inkscape & gimp), or email/groupware software(evolution/kontact) makes it far, far easier to stay on the windows platform and at the same time, get the benefits of open source software at the application level. You get the benefits of OSS without the pain of changing a platform. In addition, it takes away any incentive people might have for adopting some "killer" app that might develop on the Linux platform. If it were exclusively available for linux, then there would be a much better incentive for people to switch platforms. This is the position apple has take with its iApps only porting the apps that directly further their platform goals (Quicktime & iTunes). You can draw a lot of people to the platform by making your "killer" apps only available on that platform. On linux, it has been argued that asterisk might be such an app, but this has more to do with the lack of windows support for the digium hardware than anything else, and this is mainly a server side app that people don't really see on thier desktops.
On the other hand, this type of thing would dramatically expand the user base of OSS software, which can be considered a very good thing if it results in overal improvements to the software that a larger, and involved, user base can bring. In addition it makes people "more used" to OSS apps so that if and when the platform changes (withouth thier choice/intervention most likely), the apps they are used to are still there and available. This assumes that people don't really choose operating systems, but merely accept what they are given.
...and IN SOVIET RUSSIA, beowulf clusters imagine 1, 2, 3 profit!!!! jokes made out of YOU!!!
I think this argument is somewhat off, even if the goal is to "destroy" Microsoft. Having Windows installed on every system rolling off of 99.9% of PC manufacture assembly line is a fact of life. But, Microsoft makes its *real* money on the application side, mostly from Office. Getting good OSS applications onto people's computers makes them realize that MS is not necessarily the only game in town. Once OSS starts seriously chewing into the application space, as has started with Firefox, then Microsoft really starts to feel it.
I think the door is open for a suite of OSS applications...be they KDE or Gnome or whatever...that integrates exactly what home users or business users need into one bundle along with tutorials, etc. Firefox, AbiWord, OOo, etc. are very close to being all any user would need. Make that bundle available for Windows, Linux, *BSD, *nix. That is the pressure point, because it makes the platform irrelevant and that breaks the MS monopoloy.
Thank you.
/. in a while.
That's the most sensible post I've read on
"Free Software desktop applications on Windows represent a no-win situation for Open Source, but Open Source desktops on Free Software operating systems do."
Just to be
It's not about what platform it's running on, it's about giving users as much choice as possible. For those of us who are forced to work on Windows, I think it's great that there are a lot of emerging OSS projects. I use the GIMP in Windows every day for example. In my case, working on a Linux box is not an option.
If we eliminate open source software from Windows, then we're giving MS and other proprietary vendors more money because we won't have a choice. I say Bring Me Your KDE and your KOFFICE!
"He treats objects like women, man!"
- The Dude, The Big Lebowski
Most people do care about the OS they use they care about the Apps. I really wish that Evolution would get ported to Windows since it is the closest thing to Outlook going. If you are already using all OSS of even even closed source apps that have Linux versions then the move to Linux becomes easy.
If you use Firefox as your browser, Thunderbird for email, Gaim for IM, Gimp to edit your photos, and Open Office for your spreadsheets and word processing then how hard is it to move to a Linux machine?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
If we insist upon moving everyone and everything over to pure OSS solutions all at once, we will fail. People don't understand the situation as many members of the OSS community do. Nor are they willing to simply take our understanding for granted. The trouble is, they will also acquire that understanding slowly. We have to move in little by little. Encroaching upon Microsoft's territory is the only way of winning it.
First we have to push Microsoft's applications out on their platform then we can begin pushing out their platform. This is gorilla warfare: if we can use the install-base of Windows as an advantage, all the better. Consider this: let's take some random company that's currently using Windows. Will their experience be more positive if they were slowly eased into using OpenOffice.Org but keeping the rest of the infrastructure the same? Imagine trying to determine all their processes and requirements and switching them over to OSS lock, stock, and barrel. It'd be a flop! OSS on Windows, in this case, is the edge of the razor.
I've even seen this in my own company. Everyone started off with Windows, but eventually Cygwin, Firefox, and other OSS tools and software began creeping in. Now we're seeing Linux working its way in as people (read: managers) become more comfortable with the idea of OSS. The logic that "these tools we are currently using on Windows are all available on Linux, we might as well start using Linux" is growing. The dependency is shifting.
(Apologies if this is slightly incoherent: it was written with great haste.)
Why bother.
It's not that i'm dual booting, but i'm dual computing. I have a desktop that I have dedicated to linux and use primarily. However, my programming classes have required I use .net on occasion. Rather than dual boot, I had gotten a laptop a while ago for this purpose. (I know not everyone can, I happened to have something work out just right for this to be the case).
Knowing the difficulties linux CAN be on laptops, i've chosen to leave it XP only, and simply replace as much as I can.
The thing I miss the most, now, is a good, USEFUL term. XP's command terminal just doesn't cut it. At all. Oh well, that's why I have linux on the other box :)
Konqy gets an Image Gallery Kpart. ;-)
What does open source ACTUALLY have to do with what os you run it on?
I mean, the idea of open source is to keep the SOURCE open and free, not to use it as a fighting word for *nix advocacy.
I beleive that open source can fare jsut as well on virtually any platfor, and I, as developer, would love to see my software used by as many people as possible, not just the "privileged ones" that run an open source OS.
Tying ideological advocacy (open source is good) to OS preference (the right tool for the right job I say) is just plain stupid.
people should be able to distinguish between the two.
Linux doesn't EQUAL opensource, just because it USES opensource.
Move sig!
With all due respect to Aaron, I have to disagree with his perspective. If all the applications a user needs are available on both Linux and Windows, then switching from Windows to Linux becomes much easier.
This works in Linux's favor when viewed from both directions:
1) As a Windows user, one can switch to Linux and still have all the familiar applications formerly used under Windows. From the user's pespective, it's the applications that count. They don't care about the operating system underneath. However, when they're told that they can use the same applications; the same data; and be free from viruses, they'll be very open to the idea. From the user's perspective, "it's the applications, stupid." (note that I'm adapting Clinton's campaign slogan; I'm not calling Aaron stupid).
2) As a Linux user and desktop application developer, being able to write applications to a common API (Qt, et. al.), using common tools (KDevelop, gcc, Qt Designer, etc.), on either operating system is a big plus. This extends, not diminishes, the reach of FOSS. From a developer's perspective, "it's the API, stupid."
This is an opportunity to embrace and extend Microsoft, and to finally bring competition back to the desktop market. With a common target API defined by FOSS, it ceases to matter what Microsoft does to the Windows API. If Microsoft changes the Windows API (or ditches it entirely in favor of Dot Net), only the FOSS interface has to be changed to adapt rather than having to adapt every end-user application. High performance, cross platform development becomes much more easily obtained. This helps Linux.
What about people who use linux at home and windows at work? These things take time to change.
:)
Firefox\MySQL and others are already showing millions of people open source is a viable alternative - efforts to port KDE can only help. Surely it will lead to the situation where there is no point buying windows because none of your applications require it?
Consider it a migration step!
Count me in on anything that makes FOSS omnipresent in the popular mindscape.
It sure is nice having my application work on any computer I happen to be using.
On the other hand, I'd suspect the core KDE people would see adding support for Windows-isms as a distraction to what they really want to do. It would certainly complicate testing -- you've got twice as many configurations to verify.
If you don't have FOSS apps available for Windows, that means there's more apps that people are going to buy for Windows, putitng money in the pockets of MS and other non-OSS companies.
/. would.
If every user has to make a determined choice to only use FOSS apps and OS, or only use proprietary apps and OS, then you're going to end up converting less people and making the FOSS community sound like a bunch of whacko zealots to the rest of the world. Why would people risk switching when it's all or nothing? Only the geeks, like us here on
Microsoft makes (or tries to) lots of products. Any market share taken from them is a win. Firefox and OpenOffice.org on Windows are a win, as is Apache on Windows, J2EE on Windows, Perl on Windows, etc. etc. etc.
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
All of the people that I do PC support are now running Firefox, Thunderbird and OO. In a few months I will set them up dual boot with Linux and ween them off of M$.
"we eliminate the majority of the competitive advantage of Free Software desktops in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of consumers" KDE ain't no killer app - nothing you can do with it you can't do on Windows with a different set of software. Half Life 2 on Linux only, now that would have been a killer app. I'm with all those here who say that more cross-platform software can only help users migrate. Hell, when the software is no longer an obstacle, you might even get users migrating because of the choice of window managers. Shallow, but that's what got my attention!
Free Software desktop applications on Windows represent a no-win situation for Open Source, but Open Source desktops on Free Software operating systems do.
these KDE folks should get their priorities in order. Is the goal
a. To kill MS
or
b. to produce good software that people use & like
i'd venture a guess and say it's b. Who cares what something does to MS? This is not a battle b/w companies. Market share isn't actually as important to FOSS as good products is.
Fleur de Sel
Well if they don't like it they'll just have to lump it. If they chose the GPL which is a license that allows coders and users freedom to port software to any platform.
If most users started using open source and free (as in freedom) on Windows and then discovered that the software that they'd come to rely on is available on other platforms, such as Linux, BSD, Mac OS X, ReactOS, etc. then they'd be more likely to consider switching.
If all they have experience of are Microsoft product then the chance of them switching to anything else would be reduced.
Take FireFox as a case in point. Windows users has benefited massively from using it rather than IE. If they look at another platform and see FireFox on that platform they will feel less frightened by it as it comes with an application that they feel comfortable with.
I think everyone wins, including both Windows and Linux users.
I leave it as an exercise to the student to answer the question, and see how it relates to porting KDE apps to Windows.
People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
The problem is that people feel more stuck to there environment then they really are. I moved from DOS/Windows 3.1 -> Linux -> FreeBSD -> Solaris -> OS X as my primary OS. I never felt like the platform was hindering me on getting my work done. Word Perfect/Open Office/Star Office (Depending on the time) Did my papers for me with most if not all the functionality of other popular word processors. I always had some sort of spreadsheet, Development tools, and enough games to keep me occupied. There was a brief time in the late 90s when Microsoft won the browser war. Some of my pages weren't loading up right until Netscape 6 then mozilla came out (about 1 year later) then most of the problems were resolved. I always seemed to have whatever I needed at the time. The only real loss was that some games wouldn't work and there were no alternatives for it. People would be surprised how much they can do on an other system. It is not the case that they don't want to learn a new OS they just feel stuck on there current platform and moving to something else will require a major overhaul
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
running linux under windows (2k/XP) is already here and its called colinux, runs at near full speed (NOT EMULATED!)... can get sound and networking working, use your current distro or a new blank one from image. you can also use your windowing system with xcygwin or a VNC session.
http://colinux.sf.net
I'ts probably worth pointing out the whole thing about middleware platforms here, and in particular why Microsoft doesn't want other people making them for Windows.
If you read this rather long Groklaw post containing the details of the Novell 'WordPerfect' complaint. It's a long read, however, so I'll paraphrase the issue which stands at the root of this case:
WordPerfect, as a suite of application (in the same was as Lotus SmartSuite, in fact) was becoming a middleware platform. It provided a certain amount of programmability, and it was therefore possible to impement 'business logic' using the WordPerfect desktop suite. This means that it's possible for businesses to 'program' WordPerfect and Quattro Pro, etc. with all the repetitive parts of their day-to-day tasks (anything from a mail merge up to a custom database/spreadsheet UI for the bean counters). This makes WordPerfect a powerful platform, since companies can built solutions on top of it and sell those solutions.
So, what caused WordPerfect to be singled out (more so than Lotus, at least) ? WordPerfect was available for many different platforms, and due to their implementation, software developed for the 'WordPerfect Platform' would run on any of those.
This presented MS with a problem. If people can build their business-operation software on top of WordPerfect, then there's nothing really stopping them from switching to UNIX, Mac, or Linux. Their critical business applications will run just as well on WordPerfect for any of those platforms. So, Microsoft (allegedly) did all sorts of nasty things to make people use MS Office instead. That platform wasn't available except on Windows, so people who used Windows+Office to build their business apps would not be able to switch to a different OS later-- unless they re-wrote alltheir business apps. Since no-one really wants to go through all that again, it's a much better situation for Microsoft.
"Yes," I hear you cry, "But is there any danger of you mentioning KDE any time soon?" Indeed there is, a veritable Damocles' Sword-ful of it, right here:
KDE on Windows is middleware. Okay, it's potentially a little more complex that scripting WordPerfect or MS Office, but that's beside the point (especially when you consider that scriptable apps for KDE exist -- at least, I presume so). The idea here is that application written for KDE on Windows are portable to KDE on Linux. In fact, they could need little more than a recompile, depending on the breadth of the KDE APIs.
And therein lies the Good Thing about this idea. If the folks who use software were to standardize on this platform, then it doesn't matter what operating system they run, so long as that operating system has the KDE software platform available. Business solutions developed using KDE (or KOffice, say) on Windows will still run on KDE/KOffice for Linux. With no changes.
All of a sudden, people aren't going to lose their investments the instant they walk away from their current supplier. Admittedly, it goes both ways, but we're not here to put Microsoft out of business, we're here to make Good Software That People Can Use And Enjoy. There is a difference, you know, however small it may seem right now...
Disclaimer: I don't actually use KDE, I use a Mac. Although I have read about KDE and like it (KDEParts & suchlike seem like Good Stuff), and back in my Linux days I preferred KDE to Gnome. If I've made any obvious errors when referring to KDE-type things above, I can only apologise & claim semi-ignorance.
In the process of platform migration in large corporate/government scale, there is necessity to run both old and new technology at the same time for certain period. Dual booting is not an option, immediate switching to Linux having a lot of legacy apps may become jump into darkness, risky. Both government byrocracies and large bussinesses are conservative in general, avoiding unnecessary risk.
Having a whole KDE desktop operational on windows, both technology switch and staff training steps of migration process may be done in advance, without risk of losing something critical on the way.
There you are, staring at me again.
If you force people to do something, there is a much higher probability that they will resist doing it with all their forces.
It is much better to show them how useful and stable free software can be, and explain them why sleazy monopoly practices by big corporations are bad for them, and how that can be avoided if everybody uses open source software.
The following (oversimplified) scenario:
'Day1: Let me install you this great open source applications, which also are available in Linux.
Day7: I have this Knoppix Live CD, which can not damage your NTFS partition even if you play with it, do you want to give it a whirl?
Day14: Do you want me to completely delete Windows and install Linux for you?'
is much better than this other (oversimplified too) scenario:
'Open source applications are high quality: very useful and stable; and you don't support big evil monopolies by using them, but you can't try them because the stubborn open source gurus won't let you unless you install Linux.'
Having people be able to try and use different OSS products under windows will only make people more interested and ABLE to move to an OSS OS later on...
WHY OH WHY do the Linux people not figure this out?! It needs to be easy for anyone to install, not just some geek helping out his mom, or an admin.
Seriously, someone mod the parent up. He has good points.
Is it bad, that Open Office.org is available for Windows? Such a suite opens a customers eyes to the obvious benefits of free software, and impresses them where otherwise they wouldn't believe someone would do that much work would be done for free.
If you ask any Windows user why they don't run MacOS X, Linux or any other operating system, you'll get a reply that, at it's core, is an issue of incompatibility. "Linux doesn't have the games I play", "Linux doesn't have this program or that", "Apple is going out of business.". We might also get an occasional, "Linux is too hard", but what about MacOS X? Linux being hard is only an excuse, to avoid being proven that their application or an equivalent does run on Linux. Afterall, being difficult to use never stopped Microsoft from being successful, or maintaining their position in the market.
Often, I wish that OpenOffice wouldn't even try to be compatible with MS Office. I'm starting to get the reasonable replies, "Well, why should I try OpenOffice if it's compatible? I already bought MS Office or it came with my computer." We have to have some kind of strategic incompatibility. We need to be able to show a end-user, "Look, I can do this, and you can't." I'm not talking from a geek percpective either, an end-user, application level incompatibility. We need cool, useful programs that only run on free environments.
I myself was confronted with this very same problem. Just recently actually. I have been developing a general database/directory/xml program that I aim to GPL, supporting LDAP, SQL, NIS, xml, with migration functionality to and from each system... lots of stuff. I have much of it programmed in Java. Problem is, the program runs just fine on Windows. Runs slow on MacOS X, and might have problems on FreeBSD.
Just last night, I decided to abandon the Java code base, and start looking into GTK2.
It's been my experience that Java has only served as a migration tool from UNIX to Windows. If a project is being migrated to Java, it might be for the sake of having it run on a Windows environment. It's easy to port things to Java, and it's easy to program for Java rather than deal with any system specific API, such as going from Linux + GTK2 to Win32 natively.
A programming language, "write once run anywhere" is a great idea, if there is a rich diversity of environments. If the market is heavy with any single environment, a "write once run anywhere" only serves to benefit the gorilla.
I want to give people a reason to run Linux/FreeBSD or other like OSs to include MacOS X. I want to give people a reason to need to switch to Linux. As hard as this seems, Microsoft has proven it is the way to do it.
Well I don't know if I'd call the GPL "goofy-ass politics"? But quite frankly the OSS community doesn't have a leg to stand on. Simple as that. They complained when OSS was used by the military. Now they're complaining when another "certain group" uses their software.*
*Gee don't you all just wish for some of the protections copyright would have given you, in these cases.
There is no way that I would be using Linux at all without OSS ports to windows. I still use Windows for my desktop, but I use *nix exclusively for my servers. If you can show that there are really cool apps to the windows users, and keep upgrading the quality development of the open source OS (not going to start a distro war), maybe they will switch. It will take time. Personally, my switching point may be the next MS upgrade cycle. Although grass roots is the starting point, the main gains are going to come from changes at the university and corporate level. Home users mainly use what they use at work/school.
Wait...I seem to remember no small amount of condemnation directed towards Microsoft for trying to keep their customer base captive by making their technology interdependent...You need Outlook to use Exchange, you need Windows to use Outlook, etc. So what the hell is this crap about not wanting to port KDE to Windows because then people wouldn't have to run Linux? It seems like the same idiotic mentality.
Look, if you want people to run your software, MAKE GOOD SOFTWARE. Period. Granted, other things have to follow that, but it's a hell of a lot easier to get people to try something that works and stick with it (Firefox anyone?) than it is to force garbage down their throat. Especially without gigabucks to spend on advertising, against a company that spends petabucks on advertising.
And by the way, why is it still considered a viable option to get people to dive headfirst into OSS...platform, OS, GUI, apps, the whole lot at once? What's wrong with just giving them one part at a time? I would think that getting them accustomed to it without having to leave everything familiar and known to them behind at once would be a good thing, not a bad one.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Porting KDE stacks, while it will make some apps run under Windows, won't affect Office (since OO already runs under Windows) or Windows itself. Does it facilitate a move to Linux? Perhaps over the long term.
But this whole discussion is fighting over a niche, and competely misses the point of how to "attack" Microsoft (if that is your desire). Many people got Windows machines early on because they used it at work. When you get Linux or OpenOffice on the desktop at non-IT companies, that's when the exodus might start.
What about those of us who -have- to use Windows, due to corporate policy? I'd like to use some open source stuff-- but the unhelpful attitude of a lot of open source developers (e.g., 'I don't have a Windows box, I don't plan to get one, and why can't you just use a makefile like a normal person') is a serious barrier.
It definately can help pave the way and make changing to linux a whole lot easier. Having OpenOffice and Firefox installed on windows meant that when I got hold of a newer machine without windows, the rest of my family could use it without much hastle.
I wish to remain anomalous
Having successful FOSS on Windows will pave the way to more people and companies to use the same model with their own software. Once the source is opened up, it can be ported to Linux. Then all the people using those applications will not have an excuse to stay on Windows -- money will motivate them to switch operating systems.
It's their computer: most people extend the concept of Windows to include their software. They don't even make the conceptual distinction between an OS and its applications. In fact they couldn't, simply because they are not computery-minded people. Windows is such a strong brand that it doesn't even need to say what it is. Point is that people won't switch to Windows-as-the-OS to Linux-as-the-OS. The idea of an OS-irrelevant world is that one is buying a product that contains OS + Applications. This bundle respects specific standards (binary format, DLL symbols, blah blah) but in the end for the user it's just a brand. How's that for a sales pitch: "Use Business(tm) for the best biz experience; Use Home(tm) for all your digital lifestyle needs." End of story. There's no point in trying to sell X11. In fact you'rew better not telling people about it if you want to sell something...
There are two reasons why A. Seigo's argument seems counterintuitive to people in the Slashdot community:
1) The wisdom of cross-platform apps has been preached for too long. I think a more case-by-case analysis is called ofr andthat the jury is out on this one. While having OO.org or Mozilla availabe in Windows may ease a transition to Linux that is already in the making, it may stop many from happening as the financial and security incentives of moving are removed.
2) Many self-professed Linux guys still use Windows on the desktop and are absolute newbies when it comes to Linux desktop computing.
At my lug, the newbies have no problem getting their work done on Linux because they are not afraid to ask questions and have taken the time to make the transition and adjust their habits, while the self-professed gurus do not even know of the wealth of applications availabe now or how to use them. They think running Samba or Apache on Linux is where the excitement ends.
It is these sorts of users who are currently dooming Linux's chances on the desktop because they cannot come to accept that they might not be ready for the Linux desktop and thus the problem must be with the desktop itself.
Why is this second point important? Because much of the integration and innovation going on in KDE should remain available on a completely free platform, that is, if we expect to gain enough critical mass that hardware vendors and ISVs begin supporting us on the desktop.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
There are a ton of OSS projects that already run on Windows. Apache, ImageMagick, Perl, Python, GIMP...heck, *most* of the packages I care about run on Windows. They just run *better* on Linux.
The other thing standing in the way of OSS adoption in Windows is that very few users have a compiler on their machines, much less a standardized, ready-to-roll from a script setup. Yeah, I know binary distributions work better on Windows anyway, but you need the bedrock of buildable packages to really get OSS rolling.
Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
I alway thought that OSS was about choice. People are free to take the source and provided they comply with licenses, use it how they choose. Even if they choose poorly. Of course, other are free to choose to not help.
I just find it appropriate to read this with a flash ad about Equifax claiming windows TCO is 14% lower than Linux's.
Porting KDE to windows is just a way of open source software (OSS) to grow. Deciding if it should exist or not is users choice. I think we are missing the whole point here. I think OSS should not be having a battle with anyone. OSS is just OSS, it may be better or worse than comertial software, but that is something that should be decided by users, not by developers. Because, after all, software, usually, is written for users.
I totally disagree that putting Open Source on Windows will harm Linux.
... not a Linux project.
Why?
Well, why would someone, who has only ever used WIndows for years, want to jump in and start using Linux, without knowing which applications on *nix are comparable to those on Windows. *Nix applications are not household names (gaim vs ICQ or MSN, Mozilla/Firefox vs. IE).
By porting (or by using VMs), it allows the user to become more familiar with the dark side, err, I mean with *nix.
As for his comments about Firefox, I think he's wrong again. If my memory is correct, Firefox (or well Mozilla) wasn't made to be for Linux. It was started by Netscape, as an Open Source Project
And isn't it a bit hypocritical, to limit where open source can and can't be ported to?
Open source is NOT about linux. I use linux 90% of the time and solaris 10% of the time. About 90% of the apps I use on Solaris are GNU. Solaris isn't free.
Free software is about free software, not linux. If someone wants to port software to any platform whatever I will support them fully. I use windows when I have to and the more free apps I can find the better. I want portablility, reliability and quality in my computers. Spreading/porting or developing OSS for windows is a win-win situation. M$ makes far more money from Office than from Windows, so it stands to reason that getting competition onto the windows desktop is good for OSS.
Microsoft gets valid competition and is forced to make a better product and hopefully lower their prices. Users get a choice. OSS gets more people paying attention. Companies save money. KDE gets more developers and experience with portability.
I really think anyone who wants to use OSS as a tool to beat up on M$ is missing the whole point of OSS to begin with. Sure, we can all rant and rave about how bad Billy is and gripe about the srongarm tactics of M$ but OSS is about codebase, community and progress, none of which give a rats ass about M$.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
Perhaps Microsoft would fund these open source projects. Why does open source have to strictly mean linux? I tend to use both platforms, the more similar we can ge them the better. (IMO)
I SURVIVED THE GREAT SLASHDOT BLACKOUT OF 2002!
The reason Microsoft is powerful is that it has what can be considered a monopoly on the only general use, general purpose OS.
Porting applications over to Window's can only DECREASE that monopoly.
There are reasons people don't migrate to Linux, despite the costs. And one of those reasons is that not everyone wants to learn a whole new way of doing things because everything in Linux is different from Windows.
One way of solving this is figuring ways to let Window's apps work in Linux. And this is useful for those of us who are ALREADY comfortable with Linux. However, this does diddly squat for people who aren't that comfortable with Linux. Where is the advantage, to changing if your applications already work well in Windows and migrating means they might not work and that you'll need to take time out in learning new ways of doing things?
The other way of solving this is ensuring that YOUR apps work just as well in Windows as they do in Linux. Once you do this, then you open the avenue of people migrating to your APPLICATIONS first, because they've gotten tired of some idiosyncrasy in their MS product or are just cheap (or heck, maybe because yours is BETTER). Once they are familiar with your products, it's far less scary to move to Linux, since it means that they no longer have to learn EVERYTHING new.
On top of that, if your applications work in Windows, you now are able to tap into the pool of Windows Developers out there that want to improve the product they are using and who might otherwise not even have given FOSS a second look. The more comfortable those people become with writing cross-platform code, the more likely they are to write their own projects in the same manner, and the more likely that their project will not be Windows only.
When the majority of apps that people use are ones that work on either platform, THEN and ONLY then will the average user consider the choice between Linux and Windows to be something they feel comfortable in actually deciding instead of "Well, Linux sure sounds nice but I'd never be able to do anything with it."
If you can write source code, you can port it. Good gravy, and forget about it. Sometimes I don't understand the logic behind people who think things shouldn't be ported. If you write something, you're trying to get it into the hands of everyone who needs it.
That being said, if you want everything to be free, MAKE IT FREE. The OSS commune is a great concept in my opinion, and freeing it on a win32 platform so people won't have to compile it manually is a great idea. That will only help the cause. What a ridiculous concept. Porting a binary to win32 will NEVER hurt the cause... It's so laughable it makes my bowels jizz.
Most home pc users could give two shits whether they're running Windows or Linux. But what they do care about is the applications that get the job, whatever it might be, accomplished for them. Building open-source software on top of kdelib or qt or ? means more than building it for "Linux". Sorry to beat the dead horse, but it's the apps and not the OS that will infiltrate the desktop. This is at least a reasonable strategy to make some inroads into providing more choices for regular people.
I,
Guess it's probably configurable somewhere, but if the KDE folks don't learn to put the "Ok Button" to the left of the negative response I think they are going to frustrate a LOT of people.
And that ain't gonna help anybody. I can deal with it, but there are a lot of people who will consider that sort of behavior to be foreign and quite frankly, unacceptable.
In the past few days I've been setting up a Linux webserver and believe me, having most, but not all (the inconsistancy is maddening also) of the affirmative buttons on popup dialogs on the far right is really annoying.
Then when I move to Windows the affirmative button on the same program, same dialog box, is on the left side. ARRGGGHHH!!!!
Mostly it is Firefox that I have the issue with, I haven't used a whole lot of other programs on both the Windows and Linux platforms.
Being different just to be different simply makes everyone look at you like your the problem and not the solution.
Therefore, if you are gonna live in Gordo learn to speak as the Gordonese speak. And if you really want the Gordonese natives to feel all warm and cozy, speak as much Gordonese as possible back at your place as well.
---- Go ahead, mod me down, I'll just post it again and you lose your mod points.
IMHO, where OS software can make inroads into Microsoft's domain is quality. Why pay more for a buggy Microsoft product when there is a practical, higher quality alternative available? Isn't this what Firefox and Mozilla are actively demonstrating in the marketplace?
"Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
If the same apps are available for both OSes, then the only difference is in the OSes themselves, which makes the competition about things like speed, stability, pagackage management, drivers & compatability, vendor support, etc
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
It seems to me there are two ways to look at this...
(1) OSS is better, specifically, Linux is better (than Windows), and in the end people will realize this and leave Windows for the better choice, regardless of whether OSS products are available on Windows or not
or
(2) Linux is NOT actually better than Windows, so there is something to fear from OSS on Windows.
One belief cannot coexist with the other... If you believe Linux is better than Windows, than OSS on Windows should be nothing to fear because people will eventually come around anyway and go with Linux. Linux only has something to fear if it isn't as actually better than Windows, in which case running OSS alternatives on Windows might be really better than OSS products on Linux, and hence Linux never breaks through the popular mindset.
Since I always hear people say how much better Linux is, they either do not really believe this, or they believe they have no chance against Windows anyway, regardless of quality of offerings.
Which is it, zealots? Not as good as you say, or are people too stupid to ever realize it's better, in which case your cause is already lost?
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
Remember many ordinary users don't really know what an OS is, or even what the abbreviation "OS" may stand for. Nor do ordinary users know what an "app" is, they run "programs", not apps. For these people, and I'm sympathetic (not everyone is a geek), Windows IS their computer, the way AOL IS the internet. From this perspective, Firefox is a great introduction to free software, but will hardly encourage them to abandon M$. How do we educate users about operating systems? there's the rub.
Making KDE as ubiquitous and multi-platform as possible (I would argue the same for Gnome, but that's not the question being faced here) would be a fantastic thing for the free software movement. This would not be a step away from Linux, but in fact a step toward Linux and free software. The typical user and average corporate organization has a hard time justifying or even seeing the need to take a desktop leap to Linux - KDE on Windows would provide a bridge to help assuage any fears of such a leap being a blind one.
This is something Microsoft feared with the old Netscape and Java - that these technologies would drain the moat surrounding the prison (Microsoft calls it a castle, but let's be honest and call it for what it really is) and make Windows disappear, relegating it to being just another toolset or API to play with.
If you were Microsoft - would you fear KDE coming to Windows or welcome it? I think Microsoft would fear it - in fact it would worry them deeply, because having KDE ported to Windows makes the Microsoft Windows Explorer desktop disappear. THAT is what most users think of when they use Windows - the desktop. Porting KDE to Windows enables it to operate as a pontoon bridge across the moat to help users find freedom from the Microsoft prison. They can still use all of their Windows programs, yet at the same time get used to a popular desktop used on Linux and BSD. The next step is to wean them from Office and Internet Explorer - a task easily accomplished with OpenOffice and Firefox. And let's not forget that WINE is coming along nicely, so it is conceivable that even certain Windows based applications can make the transition to Linux as well.
Imagine it this way: you're an enlightened IT guy trying to move your organization off Windows. The pointy-headed guys can't bring themselves to leave Microsoft - this product provides a solution to that problem. When KDE is deployed over Windows it will make the full Linux transition less jarring and scary to the guys with the MBA's that failed math class. Over time, users/organizations will become more accustomed to using KDE and when Microsoft rolls out License 8.5 i.e. another rent-increase, the organization will be a hairs breath away from being able to deploy Linux or BSD once and for all.
The wonderful justification for porting KDE to Windows is that... it will eventually make Windows go away rather than strengthen it. A beautiful thing in my book.
Sometimes to accomplish a goal a few minor compromises have to be made along the way, and this frankly is one of them (porting KDE to a closed operating system).
I deeply appreciate the ideological counter-argument against this port, but often principle can blind one from a much bigger picture - which is getting people away from the clutches of an illegal monopoly and leading them into a much better world of Free Software.
Not to be troll or anything. I like open source software such as FreeBSD and others, but I like to use WindowsXP or Mac OSX for desktops. I think it's a good thing that open source apps not limiting itself just for Linux because more people can use them if they're proven to be good software. People will eventually switch to linux or open source desktop environments if they think the environments are mature enough. just my 2cents
Aaron Seigo's argument would be valid if Linux's desktop market share was 50%, or even 20%. In that case, making quality FOSS applications newly available on Windows might benefit windows.
But we aren't there yet, kids. With a market share of, what, 1-2%, what's needed now is a path for low-pain migration to desktop Linux.
There are two ways to do this: start using FOSS (or more generally, cross-platform) applications on Windows, then chuck Windows once you don't need it anymore, or start using Linux cold turkey, using WINE and/or CrossoverOffice (or a dedicated machine with VNC or similar) to support your Windows-only apps.
Either method works; it depends on your situation.
But for now, any porting to Windows that opens up a pathway for eventual migration to Linux (or BSD or whatever) is a Good Thing. In my opinion, the only FOSS applications that hurt Linux/FOSS platforms are those written exclusively for Windows.
Finally, if Linux does get to 20% or 50% market share, the balance is tipped, MS is largely screwed (let's see what card they play), and there will be less need to bother porting to Windows or updating those ports.
So port away, my good friends.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
Everyone is guilty of small thinking, based on their point of view. Many people, myself included, let their emotions get in the way of the next logical step to achieving their goals. It's sometimes easy to mistake emotion for principle.
Many Windows users don't know or care that they're using Windows. They use Word, Excel, etc., which they know and care about because they had to learn how to use the programs at some point. The Internet, for many, is what you get from Internet Explorer or AOL.
They don't even know they paid for Windows. It just came with their computer - it was free-as-in-buy-one-get-one-free.
The great masses of folks don't know or care about using an operating system. In many ways, they shouldn't have to know or care.
What they do know is their interface to the operating system, which is the application. They sometimes know their desktop metaphor.
If you can get people using Mozilla instead of IE, get them using OO.o instead of MS Office, and then let them see KDE versus the bland Windows desktop, getting them to switch to Linux (or *BSD, or whatever) is a downhill battle. Especially if it's upgrade time and they have to pay for a new version of Windows.
Our feelings say not to give Microsoft anything - they're bad and will use it against us. Our principles say information wants to be Free, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. May as well play along.
So if your goal is to advance the course of Free software, stick to your principles and let it be Free. Let it go where it wants to go. If it's better than its proprietary counterpart, people will notice.
Ask yourself this: do I really think Microsoft will be helped or hurt by the presence of KDE on Windows? Will FOSS or proprietary software be helped more?
Here's a clue: has Microsoft offered to help with the port?
sigs, as if you care.
In response to the poster's question, it has a pave-the-way effect. The Open Source movement is definetly helped by porting Free Software to a non-Open Source operating system.
First of all the operating system you develop or run applications on is unimportant. You can still develop both Open Source and Free Software applications on a non-Free or non-Open platform; tools like GCC are freely available and very easy to install with bundles like Cygwin, DJGPP and MingW.
Secondly, As Windows developers use KDE they will learn they can easily modify it and add features or change it to their liking. They will be inspired to write their own KDE-like window manager and open source it like KDE has done. They can fork KDE and make their own more Windows-like version. The GPL protects KDE's code and at the same time fosters the collaborative spirit used to develop it, so the Windows developer can do nothing but give in to the Free Software movement.
Wasn't the idea behind open source to make more choices available. To allow you to tailor things the way *YOU* want. If people want to use Microsoft, let them. That is their choice.
I take it Mr. Seigo is not a supporter of the "Open Source brings choices for the consumer" argument.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
As long as the software in question is GPL (or other Free license), I don't see how anyone should be up in arms over this. The software is Free (as in speech): if someone wants to port it to Windows, it is entirely up to them.
I can understand encouragement to keeping it off of Windows, but being indignant about it is plain hypocritical.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
You make it in any way easy for MS to do or say, that open source is the MS way, then you'r finished, bill gates will kill open source any way he can. The open source movement is giving MS a very hard time, unless you want to hand everything to bill, it is important that people move away from MS's operating system, if you pander to MS, that comany will wipe the floor with you and then it will continue on to be present in every digital device you will ever use. Imagine 30 years form now when MS is present in the nano-tech computers of tommorow, these device will probablly even be in peoples bodies and brains as interfaces that run your body and fix it too. Now, also imagine that all programming languages fo the future are MS products only and that to work and practice the art of using computers, that MS controls everything and that programmers will probably have to be liscensed (to avoid MS type brain viruses and spam etc), and that, if MS is involved, it will cost a fortune and probablly involve a lot of brain damage in learning their world view of how to program, besides, you will probablly learn by brain implant download (windows 2084 anybody? (can't use 1984 as this is the 21 century)). What about when all the AI"s are windows based? or by them MS will be in your car, house, the militairy, after all, all they have to do is buy a few realy hot embedded systems companies and then no body can accuse them of not having good embedded systems technology. Bill gates says he will retire some day, but what if future biotech and nanotech (MS based?), allows Bill to get younger and smarter? Or, what if Bill copies his mind and then MS web servers support a copy of his mind, or minds (now a million times faster, or, what if eventually, windows is a copy of bill gates mind, how about that for world control and domination...dictators for centuries have wanted total control over every thing and person, what better way than to have billions of copies of your self floating around in future quantum based computer OS's, look, it even manages your bank account too!! Opps, whats this, withdrawl of $12,054 for yearly OS/app liscence fee, of course, some of the OS/app are open source, so you can't COMPLAIN now, because a lot of brainiacs back in the early 21st decided that it was okay to give some OS apps to nice mr Bill now, was there? (of course, non-conformists will now be upgraded automatically, press or think enter when ready..)
What we have seen with our own project, the Plone Content Management System is that people very often use Windows as their evaluation platform. Since it is so simple for them to download, double-click the installer and have a Plone site up and running in a few minutes, they actually find that Plone is a good alternative to whatever proprietary solution they are using or considering. They get hands-on experience without the hassle of setting up a separate server to test it.
The most common scenario we see is organizations that are evaluating or currently using MS Sharepoint, and they find Plone as a much more compelling and useful system for them, regardless of cost.
When they can then get rid of the Windows box they purchased to run the other system, and install Linux on it, and not have to reboot the server every night just to keep it stable - they couldn't be happier.
While I agree with the sentiment that porting exclusively Linux apps to Windows may lessen the chances of someone switching from a MS platform to a Linux system, I feel that open source licensing, and efforts, do in fact work very well for Windows.
Examples? Sure... Off the top of my head, AutoHotKey is one of the best pieces of software I've found for Windows, and it's entirely open source. It has a thriving user community, it beats its commercial rivals (Automate by Unisyn, for example) in almost every way, and does things that the its competitors can only dream of doing, in a timely and organized manner.
To me, it's proof that open source isn't a bad thing on Windows. Open source is simply a license (in a nutshell), and it should not be used to determine what's released on what platform IMHO. If you truly believe that software should be free, than why is it such a concern when it's ported to a MS OS?
I do agree that porting desktop managers and the like has the potential to decrease the amount of people switching exclusively to Linux, as you can now, for example, reap the benefits of KDE and similar apps (Cygwin anyone), without the need to completely redo your PC setup, but I don't think that open source ports are a bad thing overall.
And really... I think that this whole article is just to stir up the whole anti-MS rage among us Slashdot readers, since none of the debate here will make any difference.
The software's been developed, it's been released as open source, and anyone can port it to whatever platform they want to. No amount of logic, complaining, or rationale can or will change this. Perhaps this discussion should have taken place before the software was released, or the open source licenses were developed, but it wasn't, and so we are where we are.
Now if the discussion were about how to structure future licensing, and or development models, than I think it's a worthwhile endeavor, but why work ourselves up into a frenzy over the license being used as it was intended to be used? The software's free, and anyone can do what they want with it, provided they adhere to its terms, and they make their changes available to anyone who wants them.
Face it... The system's working as it was intended to. Next topic...
As much as I hate to admit it I can not think of a single use for Linux since I am no longer in IT.
A cool looking desktop aside, where is MS Office, yahooIM, my cam software, photoshop, ease of use, simplicity, commercial software, USB flashdrive, cam support, etc. Gaim wont work half the time with yahoo since yahoo changes the protocal every few months, my cam wont work with it, Gimp barely even supports 24-bit color per pixel and is no photoshop, Openoffice is not 100% compatible with MS Office.
Unless your a web developer or administrator there is no use for Unix.
Windows is finally fairly stable and the software is there. It also just works. Need to upgrade your programs? Just click setup.exe. No rpm hell, no dealing with portupgrades, no worrying about dependancy problems that even apt-get can run into during a rare occasion.
Have a digital camera or USB printer? Just plug it in and thats it.
Even for some developers Windows is the target audience for the users. ALso VS.NET comes with some nice tools that makes vi look quite outdated. VB is nice and there is no equilivant in Linux besides beta's of vb.mono.
Unless all the OEM manufactors realize that the ms tax is a pain and ship all their desktops with Linux in order to attract commercial software developers than it wont change.
Windows has its benefits because everyone uses it. You can argue until our blue in the face but commercial support or lack of will keep Windows standard for a very long time.
http://saveie6.com/
If the applications people want are available on Windows, they will tend to stick with Windows
The vast majority of people use Windows-only applications every day. For these people, migrating to Linux means not only switching operating systems, but switching every single application they use.
If formerly Linux-only applications get ported to Windows and become popular, it offers a migration path. No longer will the average user have to switch every single application on their system.
It's counter-intuitive, but making more open-source software available for Windows encourages people to switch to Linux (or any other operating system for that matter, as long as the apps run on it).
it is always funny when people release software under the GPL then get upset when it is used or modified in a way they dont like. If sone one wants to port kdelibs to win32 what are you going to do about it? your code is free.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
For one thing, I don't think people come to linux for the apps. IMHO the FOSS desktop applications tend to be inferior to their proprietary counterparts. While yes, you do have to pay for the latter, they also tend to be higher quality, more polished, and have more/better features.
If this isn't the case, why are we always playing "catch-up" and creating FOSS versions of pay software?
Sorry, people don't come to linux for the apps. I think the migrations is for primarily these reasons:
People don't like paying for anything.
People don't like Microsoft.
They can settle for the products that Linux has; because while inferior, they get the job done.
Don't get me wrong, not ALL linux software is inferior of course, several projects stand out from the crowd and excel and are better than their pay counterparts: Firefox, Thunderbird, Apache, etc.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
These are end-user apps. Having them on Windows will not reduce the number of Linux servers in the least.
The only demographic it could possibly affect are those who might consider Linux as a desktop OS.
So, as others have said, the transition will be easy for end-users -- when someone finally puts together a Linux distribution targeted for the desktop that is easy to setup, and easy to install applications on.
This is not a slam. I use Linux and have for years. But the average user doesn't wan't to tweak. They just want their applications to work.
My other Slashdot ID is much lower.
Aseigo's main line of thought revolves around this: [quote]if the applications they want are to be found only on Linux/BSD, they will eventually end up using Linux/BSD.[quote] of course, this is plain wrong; you learn of this in econs 101... if people cannot find what they want on linux/bsd (and they don't have a linux/bsd box) they'll find something else that works... it's always been the situation. In the real world, people do not behave rationally. besides that, the statement assumes if X cannot be found on platform A, it will _never_ be found on platform A. more importantly though, every freedom won, in terms of a free (as in speech) alternative to a proprietary app is a win for free software (and a step in the right direction--assuming, you are for free software). It will also be an "unsound fancy, and self contradictory" (sorry Bacon) to think that people will actually use (or get to know of) free (and open source) software if they never use it; in a perfect world, people will be able to make binary decisions along Aseigo's line of thought, and move en masse to platforms of choice, based on the reasons he gives; it isn't a perfect world, howeve, and adaptation has always been a gradual process; so too, fights for freedom.
Porting FOSS applications to windows causes as much harm as WINE does. They both accomplish the same thing, allowing closed source software and FOSS to run together.
This can be good or bad depending what your goal is. For the people (like RMS) who think that ALL software should be FOSS this is a bad thing. They want to create an "us" and "them" that can't be mixed and then once the "us" is so much better then "them" everybody will switch and closed source is a thing of the past.
For people that think that closed source is just fine and dandy and that the goal is just the best possible software, this is a good thing. It allows people to pick the parts that suits them the best independently of if they are closed source or FOSS.
There is defenetly a good argument that all software should be FOSS. Closed source is like a car that you can't fix if it breaks down. The only way to fix it is to send it to a licensed shop, of which there is currently only one, and it's not interested in fixing your car. Would you buy such a car?
Personally tend to belong to the latter group. While I think that that car is crappy, I don't think it should be forbidden. But people should be educated about what it is they buy. And about that there is choise.
To me WINE and win-ports of FOSS sounds like a good idea. It allows people and companies to make a gradual transition into FOSS. Which I think will allow for a much quicker transition for the masses into FOSS. Also, it keeps competition at maximum which will make for better both FOSS and closed source software.
Failing to learn from history dooms you to repeat it.
The biggest problem with the lay-person and OSS is that people simply don't believe it. It's "too good to be true" in the eyes of most and expect there to be a catch.
I can't tell you how many times someone was reluctant to try RedHat Linux simply because they thought it would be piracy. "But it's sold in a box as Fry's!" "Yeah so? You can also download it for free from their site and burn it to a CD yourself... some people just like to have the box, labelled CDs and a manual and that's what you're paying for..." They don't get it. My own brother protested that GPG and/or OpenOffice.org couldn't be used in a business setting because of licensing issues. I thought he was crazy but I checked it anyway... not issues I could tell.
People REALLY don't want to believe it's real because it flies in the face of what they are comfortable with -- software that costs them money.
So in that respect, OSS on Windows is a definite Win for Linux because the more people use OSS for Windows, the more the will later be inclined to using Linux since it will eventually run all of the software to which they are accustomed....just more stable, less vulnerable and a lot more cool.
Company A and City B might be adopting OSS into their systems but it works side-by-side with other "custom apps" that are deployed in various places. It's not at all unusual to have unusual software in a business setting...it's getting into the home and casual user that I think is the biggest blocker right now. I'm not sure what the state of "end-user Linux" is right now, but I'm guessing it's not where it should be just yet... could be wrong...
End it already... the only killer app is the fact that Windows is PRE-installed on your moms desktop. There will NEVER be a mass migration away from windows as long as MS hold a monopoly on Dell, HP et al.'s default configurations. Now, IF my mom is given an option at the time of ordering or IF it just comes with FOSS pre-installed then she might use it. How many NON-GEEKS ever bother to buy an anti-virus? No they mostly use the 90 day free trial and then disable the warning that their defs are out of date. Your mom will never migrate unless you do it for her. A computer is a tool. A car is a mode of transport. -- who changes any bit if the engine (other than ricers?) Turn it on and they just want it to work. -- your mom could care less what is running it as long as it gets her where sh needs to be. Get Dell to offer a (Suse, Fedora, etc) desktop for less money and then people will start creeping toward the FOSS
Also the argumant that Windows is better (read different) may become a moot point, when the popular apps are the same from one platform to the next. It's like having Office on Linux, except the other way around, it helps both communities.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Open source is not about windows or linux. Linux happens to be open source. Windows happens not to be. Why should anybody have any qualms about running open source apps on windows. Why should anybody care what app runs where.
If more people choose open source alternatives because they are becoming available on windows, all the power to them. If, in turn, more open source applications are started because of a more inclusive user base, then we all win.
Nothing prevents open-source software from being run on a proprietary-code operating system. I don't hear people complaining that Firefox is available in a windows version. I don't hear people complaining that linux is allowed to run a proprietary ALPHA processor. These things are always applauded everywhere else.
The main thing Microsoft has going for them is Office; not Windows and not IE. Business NEED Office, and for that they need windows, and with that comes IE. If Windows users become more accepting to OSS on their machines, if they see the quality that such software can have before dismissing it as "free and therefore crap", they may be more likely to try an open source alternative to Office. If Office wanes, then Windows wanes. Why then shouldn't Linux followers push more open source software to windows. As soon as people realize that they can have a "free" OS, a "free" office suite, and a "free" development environment, all of which working as well or better than the proprietary apps, then they are more likely to give Linux or another open source operating system a second look.
Remember, having the same apps that run on Windows available for the Mac have helped more than a few users migrate from one to the other. I would imagine the same would hold true for a Windows --> Linux migration...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
Since when was open source about putting corporations (albeit Microsoft) out of business? From what i've learned, OSS is about *open source* - able to have access to source code to modifiy-it/fix-it/do-anything to make it better.
If KDE (from what Seigo says) is just about making sure every last Microsoft user spits on Gates and pours over to Linux/KDE, then they're fighting a battle they will not and should not win.
OSS is about freedom, not war =)
I did that for my dad. He has been using linux for over 2 years now. I started by making him switch to Mozilla and Open Office on Windows 2000. About 6 months later, Windows was ready for a reinstall, I suggested that we install linux because it doesn't have all the security problems that plague windows. He said "OK". I put a few icons on his desktop for apps he already knew, and showed him where the games were.
Needless to say, he is now running Fedora Core and loaths using any windows machine because they always seem to screw up for random reasons. But he always gets a good chuckle out of all the latest and greatest worms and such.
That is not to say that the transition to linux has been fault free. There was some confusion because some applications were built with QT and other GTK and the icon differences between Gnome and KDE apps etc. All differences that are nothing for the power user, but a big deal to Average Joe.
When it is time for a new computer though, I think we will be getting him a Macintosh, so everything "Just works" better.
Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.
After all they used the exact same arguments to not port win32 to unix. Vendor lockin is their business model.
If there's a technical problem, don't port KDE. If there is no technical problem: go ahead and don't worry too much about things like OSS politics.
A lot of popular OSS software already runs on windows (e.g. most of the apache stuff, cygwin, openoffice, all of the mozilla stuff, the gimp, etc). Many of these software packages are being adopted by large companies precisely because they also run on windows. Openoffice would be a hard sell if it wasn't portable. IMHO porting KDE would only improve KDE adoptation for both users and application developers.
A side effect would be that it would remove reasons for users to stick to windows. If you have Kontact, you don't need outlook. If KWord keeps you happy, away with msword. Lots of people are waiting for a proper OSS excuse to ditch the Outlook/exchange combo. Right now this requires expensive proprietary client/server solutions or migrating desktops to linux. Therefore outlook remains the client of choice for many, despite the security issues, licensing cost, etc. KDE can fix the client side and combined with a linux server solution (and exchange compatibility) it's bye bye exchange & outlook.
The KDE software stack is perfectly positioned to basically take over client application development for the windows platform. MS has been relying too much on their monopoly for the past few years and this presents a perfect opportunity to jump in and take over. KDE has all the required features. Much of the infrastructure (QT, GCC) is already ported to win32 (license remains an obstacle though). For many small software companies, being able to develop one application and deploy it on multiple platforms is a very valuable thing. It's too easy not to do it so therefore it should be done.
Jilles
Lots of "windows only" users I know are afraid of free software, and assume it must have viruses and trojans installed.
FOSS on windows can act as an emissary to show the vast majority of users just how good it will be.
I believe it does and will entice more users to use cross platform open software, then it's a minor step for someone to dump windows to something more robust.
A similar sort of trend is happening: apparently 17% of Ipod users are so impressed, they go out and buy a Mac, thus the Ipod is opening new doors for Apple in general.
Besides, I am forced to use windows at work, but at least I can install Openoffice, Thunderbird, Firefox and Cygwin.
Don't take that away!!
Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
... But tough shit. I thought that we were supposed to be better than MicroSoft, because we don't lock our users onto a specific platform. I thought we were better because we are giving people utilities, power, and choice.
When did our goal of "Write better, more powerful, freely available software" become "Doing what we can to fuck MicroSoft"?
~D
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
I believe that porting KDE tools to Windows would be a good thing, for any number of reasons.
1. It lets people who would never abandon Windows cold-turkey sample the benefits of open-source software. Note how well Firefox is doing, it is actaully making significant inroads against a monopoly MS app, and people like it. [off-topic, but I don't know if this has happened before -- that any entrenched Microsoft monopoly app has had its market share eroded.]
2. It will encourage openness within the Windows-using community. To get significant functionality, the KDE programming team will have to reverse-engineer some basic Linux operating system essentials -- to all Windows programmers benefit.
3. It will encourage MS to make better tools. Regardless of how much one hates MS (and I defy anybody to stand before me on that score), it's a good thing for them to have competition.
4. Office is the lifeblood of MS, not Windows. If MS has a monopoly on applications for Windows, they will continue to amass a warchest that will enable them to buy the planet. OEM Windows brings in just a few dollars/sale (a lot of sales, to be sure) but Office brings in a larger share of revenue. If you want to attack them MS it really hurts, go after their Office sales. Again, look at Linux desktop vs. Firefox market penetration. While the Linux desktop has progressed spectacularly well over the last few years, the market penetration is small because it forces people to make a leap they are uncomfortable making. Firefox has exploded into the market, because it's an easy step to make.
I have two big fears, though, with this move.
1. It's going to take significant resources to do this. The KDE programmers are remarkably prolific, but a Windows version of everything will be a major undertaking, and will inevitably slow development of the Linux versions. Jumping through the (small, moving, flaming) hoops that MS will require to get the functionality and performance that the KDE people will demand could well be seen as -- if not a waste of effort -- then an huge effort with little reward.
2. Lock-in. It's not out of the question by any means that MS will attempt to creatively co-op the KDE team by building in cool, but MS-only features, that would then be hard or impossible to port back to Linux -- for patent or other reasons. It would be a disaster (to me) if the Windows version of KDE tools were better than Linux versions.
Anyway -- I believe that the risks are worth the benefits. As I am just a devoted KDE user, but a non-contributor, I of course will defer to the good judgments of the KDE developers, I just hope to stimulate debate a little bit.
Thad Beier
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
The vast majority of Windows apps are available only on Windows. You might be able to get some of them working under Linux if you invest in Crossover Office, WineX, etc., but that's a lot more work, not to mention somewhat iffy. So one way (some would say the only way) Windows is superior to Linux is in its ability to run Windows apps.
Losing your favourite apps is a big barrier to switching to Linux. But if people get used to using platform-independant applications, than the switch is a lot less painful.
For example, suppose Bob, a Windows user, uses his computer to run MS-Office, Outlook Express and Internet Explorer. Then for him to switch to Linux would require not only learning a new desktop but a new web browser, word processor and email client. For him, it's worth putting up with the worms and spyware (and paying for the associated removal software) just to avoid the hassle of making the switch.
If, on the other hand, he uses Open-Office, Thunderbird and Firefox, switching to Linux may well be worth it because he's familiar with those programs already and they are available under Linux.
Windows versions of Linux apps (FOSS or commercial) make OS compatibility less important and so reduce the cost of switching.
(As an aside, the original article gets a couple of things wrong. Firstly, Mr. Seigo says that few Windows users have decent development tools. If that's true, it's only because they don't want them. MS bends over backwards to provide development tools. They sell them (instead of giving them away) only because that allows competitors to exist and a wide variety of development tools means more developers. And that doesn't take into account all the FOSS tools that have been ported from *nix. Gcc does just fine compiling Windows code.
(Related to that, he also suggests that Microsoft could freeze out Firefox developers. This is highly unlikely because they can't do that without freezing out all third party developers. If they do that, they may as well just delete the Windows source code and fire all their programmers. The entire software industry will move to another platform, almost certainly Linux, and that's the end of the Windows hegemony.
(Microsoft has no choice but to tolerate FOSS applications on their platform because they need third-party developers. That's Windows' biggest selling point. Any dirty tricks to knock Firefox (or whatever) off of windows will work for maybe a week until someone compiles up a new version, but any commercial program that it breaks in the process will be out of commission for a lot longer. And each time Windows breaks an app, they remove one more reason to stick with it for someone.)
I stand firmly on the side of FOSS and with that in mind... If KDE or any other application can be brought to the Windows world I say good; bring it over. Like Firefox let world see what can be accomplished by the likes of FOSS. With regards to converting Windows users to Linux - three things must happen for a user to convert to another platform: 1) The platform must be stable and easy for the user to use. 2) Applications must exist. 3) The platform must have enough differentiating factors. Moving KDE over to Windows helps satisfy the 2nd point by showing users that a great desktop environment exists. This is what Firefox does as well. In the grand scheme of things this will not affect movement of users in either direction. It will take a culmination of many events across all three points to do so.
Q: I am short, useless and provide no value. What am I? A: a sig
It's a good blog, and he may have a point. It seems to center around the argument that these apps are enabling people to stay on windows, and so they have no reason to look for a new os. It's a long-shot, but here's how I can see porting to windows as good for gpl/os software. Suppose a period of time before MS can sabotage those apps at the system level, and people are using and liking the apps. And it's time for them to buy a new computer. Or they buy a new one and it includes a hefty fee for windows. And someone tells them, or it occurs to them... 'Hey, I use applications all available on gnu/bsd platforms, why am I paying for windows?' That being said, I think a good demo with a knoppix cd is less risky and more effective. You let someone use it, see what it has to offer, and then point out that it's running of a cd... imagine it installed.
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
This is essentially what I asked Bruce Perens in the Slashdot Interview in July 2003. My question was modded +5, but sadly we never received the answers to those questions. I would have liked to hear his opinion on this topic.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
As for the author's argument that making software available on Windows systems will reduce peoples' incentive to contribute back to the community, I have to disagree with this also. I think users fall into two camps with regards to community support; they either care about supporting the community, or they don't. You're not going to get people to switch camps by attempting to force them to care about certain things. Things like what operating system they run.
All in all, the author sounds like he's trying to convince developers to abandon certain users in an attempt to coerce them into switching operating systems. That just doesn't make sense from the viewpoint of an application stakeholder; we don't want to exclude people, we want as many people to use our application as possible. A more effective means of getting more people to support the community would be to do what the Mozilla Foundation's doing and promote yourself in the mainstream media and make items available for sale that the average user will want to buy (t-shirts, coffee mugs, etc).
If Firefox and OpenOffice were only availble on non-Windows platforms, almost no-one would ever switch to Linux, because everyone would be fully locked into IE-specific HTML and Word documents.
A better strategy is to get some Windows users to start using Firefox and OpenOffice --- much easier than forcing them to switch everything at once --- and because of network effects, that will lower everyone's cost of switching to Linux.
POSIX is the Portable Operating System Interface. AFAIK, Windows supports POSIX. ..and the *NIXs are POSIX compliant, there is a reason we have a './configure; make;' run -- each UNIX has it's uniqueness - from filesystem heirarchy layout or POSIX implementation semantics. Hell, not all UNIXes support multithreading and the reason why samba is not multithreaded.
So why isn't POSIX working out? Maybe it's not enough to be POSIX compliant or is not as good.
Open source is a philosophy as much as it is a development methodology. The less people who are exposed to it, the less people who are comforatble with accepting open source solutions. A large number of PHBs are still very nervous towards open source, and to be honest, it's hard to blame them. In terms of high-quality GUI desktop application software, open source only has a few shining success stories. (Mozilla, OpenOffice, and sort of GIMP.)
:-)
Now, there very well could be some great Linux/KDE apps out there, but the fact is a vast majority of computer users never see nor use them. So, they turn to their commercial Windows alternatives instead, and the status quo is re-enforced.
Moving to Linux to get these apps is a bit like learning how to swim in the deep end of the pool. The OS is unfamiliar, the apps are unfamiliar, the "package management system" is completely new and different from Windows (and while efficient, is not very intuitive); in short, everything is unfamiliar. I can't think of any killer app that could offset all these disadvantages.
So while the KDE developers may *want* users to move to Linux for those 'killer apps', if no one even knows these killer apps exist, and moving takes a huge committment (and a decent amount of technical expertise), realistically, who will want to move?
In fact, having apps like Mozilla and OpenOffice work on Windows means that if people do choose Linux, they'll feel more at home on the OS with apps they're familiar with. Yes, yes, I know people would cite the whole OS/2 fiasco, but I don't think Windows compatibility killed them - it was their inability to differentiate themselves from Windows that did it. After all, if someone says "well then, why not just get Windows", then obviously OS/2 doesn't offer much above and beyond Windows, does it?
With Linux, it will need not only to be like Windows, but better than it, and not just in terms of security. It needs to be easier and more productive. I'm talking about things at the OS level, like system configuration and package management, not just at the application level. I think it's telling that the two main differentiating factors between Linux distros is their package management system and their system configuration tools. Hmmm... Maybe distros are trying to differentiate themselves because these things are the 'killer apps' of an OS?
But IMHO, these tools do not yet measure up to their Windows counterparts in terms of intuitiveness and simplicity. And that's the main thing that keeps me off Linux. Unfortunately, there's nothing to lead me to think this will be resolved on any distro soon. In the meantime, if app developers would like me to use their app, they should consider porting it.
So it's like only so free as long as it serves a purpose which is about denying choice to users. Yeah, thats free. Now, collect your "Little Red Penguin" book, and the long march goes that-a-way....
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
I'm concerned that this may give windows users an unrealitically bad view of OSS apps because the relibility of those apps may go downhill if they are ported to windows.
It also wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft puts stuff in windows that intentionally breaks when Openoffice or similar is run.
It wouldn't be the first time that Microsoft intentionally crippled windows under certain circumstances.. some years ago it was discovered that they added wait states to make windows run slower only on AMD processors. Also, current versions of windows won't run the original compiled version of decss.
Absolutely. The real problem with achieving this is NOT the OSS community, but Microsoft. One wants to cooperate, the other doesn't. At one point Microsoft was capable but unwilling to cooperate. Now I think they are so far down the other path that I don't think that they are even capable of it.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I work at a company that develops software for both Linux and Windows, we were just discussing the other day the lack of Open Source utilities like file system support for windows. There are some very primitive tools out there, but no full fledged ReiserFS driver for Windows.
We had come to the conclusion that it wasn't because it was technically difficult (anymore than writing the support for Linux anyway), but that the people who would have the expertise to do this easily, would not do it.
I have to live and work in the real world where multiple operating systems are required. Why should I have to jump through hoops or maybe devote a year's worth of free time to do deal with this.
While I am fully capable of writing the driver myself, I don't have the time. Maybe this would be a good contribution for a Corporation to sponsor, since the people who have started the job refuse to finish it.
The more people use open source software, regardless of the platform, the more they will seek open source alternatives to proprietary ones.
This is illogical. If you port OSS to Windows (and assuming that gives you more of an audience), then you have just increased the usage and importance of OSS. I think he thinks it will hurt Linux/BSD/etc by reducing adoption of those OS's. OSS isn't just Linux/BSD/etc. But that is besides the point, because the adoption of OSS has been increased.
I would argue that many popular Linux distributions are not truly OSS anyway, since they contain proprietary addins with restrictions that are essential to the effective use of the product. However, I am offtrack with that.
Recently I installed a dual boot system on a new laptop, with debian and kde on the linux side. After numerous issues trying to get all the hardware working (wifi,video), I realized something. First, this is a pain in the ass and second, I can have my cake and eat it to. The same thing applies to this discussion. If you want it both ways, it's already possible. It's called VMWare. Sure its not free, but neither are these precious win32 apps we can't seem to live without. Now I have the best of all worlds, and with the speed of modern machines I find this to be a very nicely performing solution.
As evidenced by the title of the article. Is this about the success of Linux-based operating systems, or is it about the success of Free Software/Open Source Software (FOSS)?
At the moment my preferred operating system is GNU/Linux. But I personally could care less about the ultimate success or failure of Linux and GNU per se. What I desire is the victory of FOSS over proprietary software. In fact I see this victory as inevitable. I support it with minor efforts when I can, although seeing the triumph of FOSS as inevitable means I do not feel the need to completely abandon or wage war on proprietary software at present.
The question of FOSS vs. proprietary software makes sense. The question of Windows vs. Linux makes sense. To me, the question of Windows vs. FOSS, posed by the article in the text, does not make that much sense. I desire FOSS to take over not because of anything specific I have against Windows, but because of what I have against proprietary software. If GNU/Linux died but FOSS prevailed through ReactOS (Open Source Windows NT/2000/XP clone, for those who haven't read the news lately), I would be content. (Although only because ReactOS will surely support a POSIX layer and/or Cygwin so I can get the UNIXy goodness I love as a geek.)
The apps I want can run pretty much on any operating system. From /bin/ls to Firefox to perl, I can pretty much make anything run on any hardware under any OS. (At least, as long as I have access to Cygwin. And Cygwin is proof-of-concept to show how these apps could be made to run on an OS that was neither UNIX nor Windows, if such a beast still existed any more.) Thus, the issue of which operating system will win out is not that big a deal to me any more as long as the OS is a free one! Yes, Windows has some design and security issues. But if the winning operating system were a free Windows (either through ReactOS or Microsoft actually releasing Windows as FOSS), it could be fixed by virtue of the fact that it would be free. (Yeah, I know; you and I would prefer to stick with UNIX for many reasons. After all, why reinvent the wheel? But that's a secondary concern to me.)
So, let's look at history for a minute. When Richard Stallman launched the GNU movement, there were no free operating systems for him to build on. (Barring ITS, which I'm not entirely sure was free, and which he recognized would never be acceptable to the general software using public.) So he chose a proprietary operating system that he thought would stand the greatest success and begin to replace it with free software, piece by piece. In the end he replaced almost every component with GNU utilities and, as we know, when development stalled on the GNU kernel somebody else who was interested stepped in and donated a Free UNIX kernel ... and the rest was history. Suddenly the world finally had a Free Operating system (and with three BSDs, AtheOS, FreeDOS, and a handful of other alternatives, the world now has many, many Free Operating systems in various states of viability).
Until such time as a completely Free operating system was available, the GNU project built, tested, and ran each GNU component on proprietary operating systems. In fact it was the attempt to keep such software portable to the vast incompatible variety of proprietary UNIX implementations that led to the development of GNU autoconfig, the program that writes those handy configure scripts some of us use every day.
The general philosophy was that the author or maintainer of a component would make a decent level of effort toward keeping a Free component running on reasonably recent proprietary operating systems, assisted by those who had a vested interest in doing so. If a particular developer thought AIX 3.2 was just too wonky to support, he'd leave it out of the supported systems list and make no effort on it. Anybody else could pick it up and run with it. If their changes to port said component to AIX 3.2 fit in well with the rest
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Can't I just install cygwin, then install QT, and then install kde &co..
The thing is I can't think of a single KDE application that doesn't have an as-good-as or better free/given away version under Windows.
I like the KDE core and only run KDE at home, but I can't see anyone wanting to run kde-libs/base under windows who doesn't already via cygwin.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Firefox is used as an example of an app that shows the quality of FOSS. A possible carrot to get people thinking about using other FOSS software (including operating systems).
My question is, isn't Firefox's goal more about keeping the web alive as a standards-based system instead of an IE-specific system? The 'gee, maybe I should look at other FOSS apps' reaction just a happy side effect?
To me, Firefox gains undermine Windows dominance because Firefox is creating a bigger market for standards-based web sites. Yes, Firefox adds value to Windows, but it also adds value to other areas even more.
In a sense, Firefox is using a go-ish strategy. Let your enemy win some, but in doing so you (Firefox) win even more. The situation isn't strictly a win/lose scenario that is presented in the blog entry.
Those are my thoughts. Since I'm not following the Mozilla Foundation's strategy closely am I missing something important?
"All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
Open Source or about a platform? Why does OSS have to be tied to a platform?
If you are a fan of OSS then it shouldn't matter if it hurts or hinders a platform. Instead good software is expanding or continuing to expand to another platform.
"If the applications people want are available on Windows, they will tend to stick with Windows."
Maybe in the future, but not today. The problem is that Windows already has most of the computers out there. This means that at this point (but maybe not later), it's better for people to get used to the look, feel, and user interface of familiar open source programs.
Why do you think all these companies (e.g. http://kubero.ntfn.org/) have started up to start selling open source software for windows? Sure, some of them are just trying to make a quick buck by exploitation, but a lot of them really do want to see a different world.
My main point is:
The biggest deterrent for people migrating over to Linux is that "too much is different." If enough people can be familiar with the software that comes with Linux, they will more easily move over to Linux.
Why would they stay with Windows? Linux is free.
the issue is creating long term viability for Open Source desktop software, which requires being able to develop and run that software, having a user base that large enough to be sustainable and satisfying that user base.
So, if somebody is using your software, how are they not contributing to your user base?
For that matter, it more harmful to a KDE developer that somebody use KDE on Windows than they use Gnome on Linux?
My own experience with my family is that having already switched them Openoffice, TBird, and FireFox on Windows, switching them to Linux was hardly even noticed. Those applications' cross platform availability, it seems to me, benefited the user base of the software two ways. Before the switch, those applications gained users. After the switch, they retained users. Furthermore those applications' cross platform availability benefited their main target platforms as well, by making the switch simple and attractive.
I just find it mystifying why anyone would think this is harmful.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Why do people move to linux? Is it because of linux is a better OS? or is it because they got better application? I would think its the former.
If I move because of the OS, why would I want to sat behind in window if I will be using the same app in both OS anywa?
So far, I still think window got better apps, variety etc. (I might be wrong since I am not up to date) it doesn't make much difference to make one more choice available for people who is using window (they won't know such app exist in linux if they dont use linux anyway). On the other hand, if people are interested in moving but worry about the app, they could otherwise be a resistance for people to switch.
I am harvesting funny/good quotes. Please help by putting them in your sigs
Just remember the following logic:
More options = good
Less options = bad
Amen, brother! Microsoft owns windows users because they use ONLY Microsoft products, and don't know anything else.
When Windows users start enjoying _AND_ accepting free open source software running on their windows desktops, they'll start getting used to it.
Besides, saying that with FOSS Windows Software, "people won't be compelled from using Linux", is just major FUD. By being elitist, you guys are just letting Microsoft dominate the market. You're doing PRECISELY what they want you to do.
I imagine Bill-o-borg laughing inside and saying: "Pathetic fools. They're trying to save their kin, but they're only giving me MORE power. HAH HAH HAH!"
It's not windows itself what you're (supposed to be) against, but the bureaucratic closed source system that makes it buggy.
After all, a grand majority of the windows vulnerabilities are windows SOFTWARE vulnerabilities. i.e. VBScript, IE6, Outlook Express, etc etc.
Let FOSS literally invade the windows desktop. Let people customize their windows using FOSS. Then, some years from now, people will see that they have the same software for Linux. "Switch? Why not?"
Besides, there's the ReactOS project as an upcoming alternative to Windows, right? So why this hatred towards Windows?
So, the best way to get rid of Windows is by TURNING Windows into "Linux lite". How? By porting FREE Linux apps to Windows. There are great Linux apps out there. But when I wanna try them, guess what? "No Windows allowed". Seriously, what were they thinking?
As a final note, a very good reason for people to stick with windows, is NOT because of the apps it has or lacks, but because it's DAMN HARD to configure. And it's DAMN HARD to install an app.
Want more users for your product? Don't cheat on your competition. Instead, Be BETTER than it.
The reason most people don't switch from Windows isn't that they like Windows so much. I mean, how much of their OS are they really aware of, anyway? The start menu, maybe?
Changing to Linux isn't hard because they'd lose windows, it's hard because they'd lose all those apps that the can only run on windows.
Everything that people associate with their computer is an application. And 99% of their tasks involve these four "killer" apps:
1. Web browser
2. Instant messenger
3. Office/productivity software
4. Media player.
If great OSS versions of these four apps are available on Windows, and people start using them, then nothing will stop them from switching to Linux.
Mozilla/Firefox is the first step, and it's doing well.
Office/Productivity software is the next step, but I think that will be the biggest challege by far, considering how many people and businesses are stuck with proprietary MS Office documents. And contrary to claims otherwise, many many MS Word documents do not convert perfectly to Open Office.
Instant messenger is already set to go with GAIM, as soon as GAIM starts an awareness campaign, or even without, since there's really no learning curve for AIM users to switch to GAIM. People who switch to Linux won't notice they're using GAIM insteal of AIM.
Media player software is another doozy. There's no linux software out there right now that's as versatile and fully featured as Windows Media Player, and there are no Linux DVD players that match up to windows apps like PowerDVD.
Another alternative is, instead of moving OSS to Windows, move popular windows apps to Linux. This could work for some, like PowerDVD and RealPlayer.
But this would be hard too, since so many of the popular retail apps are from Microsoft. That's the essence of their monopoly... MS Office is a really good set of office tools, but it artificially props up Windows because the company that makes MS Office has a vested interest in keeping it on Windows. There will never be a fair debate within MS on whether it would be profitable for MS Office to be ported to Linux, because while it would be profitable for the MS Office team, it'd be even more unprofitably for the MS Windows team. And that's the essence of their monopoly, and why it would have been a good idea to split the Office and the Wnidows divisions of MS into separate companies.
$8.95/mo web hosting
Microsoft has several income streams including:
Its office suite.
Outlook.
Exchange.
Sql Server.
MS Clustered servers.
The.NET framework and dev tools
Passport licensing.
and the list goes on and on.
If we make free software for windows which competes with any of these non-windows sources of revenue, then we are still outcompeting microsoft, and hence reducing their bottom line, and hence reducing their capacity to lobby the government to take our freedoms away.
Yes, we will also reinforce the Windows OS. Is that really so bad, given everything else that is gained?
Final point: Open Source Software for Windows will have the effect of making open file format standards and open protocols, become in greater widespread use. Such activity will greatly ease potential migrations FROM windows, which is yet another win for Linux.
Think big. Thats how Microsoft got big in the first place.
Second, the reason why several camps are pushing for Linux to develop Linux into a Desktop is to keep pushing/developing the system. As you pointed out, Linux is already very good for certain activities (a few years ago, it wasn't.)
Furthermore, as you pointed out, there's a boatload of money for the group that can make Linux "good-enough" for the desktop. (You don't think Microsoft got all that money for QuickBASIC, do you?)
Finally, some of us push for development of Linux as a Desktop, because we're already using Linux as a desktop. :-)
Wow, is that a Microsoftish statement or what?
Flame me if you will, but the reason I'm a fan of FOSS is that it lets me solve the problems I want to solve. I'm not on the FOSS bandwagon because it's against Microsoft. *Most* of the FOSS I use I'll never peek under the covers -- I just know that it's more valuable to me if I can.
This kind of "we can't do what our 'customers' want because that would help our competitor" thinking is *exactly* why I *DON'T* like Microsoft.
If you put up impediments to someone using your software in a way you don't personally like then you're interfering with the "F" part.
So, are you really for "Freedom" or not? Is it only Freedom if it's Freedom done your way?
--
Dewey
Dewey
I use firefox, gaim etc in windows, then in linux the same... it's definately easier to change apps then os, rather than the other way.
I don't use open-source software because I believe in the open-source ideal, I use open-source software because it's better.
Open-source software is free in more ways than just one, it is free from restrictions, it is free to become whatever it needs to be on whatever platform that you choose that it needs to be on.
If OSS apps cause improvements to commercial apps, it would be a good thing. In the end we just want a better desktop/computing experience, and any kind of improvement is a good thing, no matter what group or corporate entity that brings it.
The only thing that can kill Firefox or Linux is if something better would come along, and replaces 'em. FF and Linux will continue to be there and be used as long as its the right tool for your needs. If the tool needs improvement, than make it better, that's why it's open in the first place.
Artist will always make art.
I suspect this will receive a "Redundant" mod. I hope!
The blog is simple and true. Microsoft owns the marketplace that is Microsoft Windows. He says in the article "You can not compete on a playing field to which you do not have access." That statement is extremely true. Look at any marketplace and that is what you will see, ownership is equal to access control. Microsoft can change the rules on Windows, but not on Linux/BSD.
Disclaimer: I've tried Gentoo, Debian, Redhat 9, and Fedora Core 1, 2, and 3 on my desktop, because I despise Microsoft's business practices and buggy/unstable software. I use nothing but the above on the server side of the house.
On my desktop, I use mostly open source applications, but my OS in WindowsXP Pro. The major closed-source applications I use are MS Project, MS Visio, Hardware Drivers, DirectX, various games, Dell Jukebox Software + MusicMatch, and TurboTax.
I use Firefox, OpenOffice, Sunbird, Thunderbird, Mozilla, XChat, PDFCreator, gAIM, GIMP, Cygwin, PuTTY, Ethereal, etc.
Hands down, in my situation, XP destroys Linux on the Desktop for the following annoying reasons:
1) Sound. Both my onboard NForce2 chipset and SBLive are fully supported with easy to install drivers and come with great Mixer applications. ALSA and the associated tools pale in comparison. Additionally, the sound servers ESD, ARTS, etc. caused echo problems that troubleshooting on irc.freenode.net across ##linux, #gentoo, #fedora, #redhat, #debian, etc. for over 48 hours did not resolve.
2) Radeon 9800 Pro support. Regardless of whether ATI is the problem, it works in Windows and does not work as well in Linux. I like to play HL2 at full tilt, and the Linux support with Cedega is not cutting it.
4) Peripherals. I've got a great scanner, printer, and camera that can connect to my machine via usb, and not a single one is anywhere near full support in Linux.
5) The closed-source pay applications above don't have good alternatives. For instance, Dia is a poor, miserable, failed attempt at an alternative to Visio. I use it whenever possible (small projects) but I use Visio for anything complicated.
Until these issues get resolved, I must continue to consider my use of Linux on the Desktop a hobby. A major change in the way I work, the people I work for, and the way I play, and similar changes for the people I collaborate with all would be required for me to switch.
However, all the free open source apps that I consider to be ready for primetime have been almost forced upon all of those people that I collaborate with, and most of these people love them.
Eventually, as more great FOSS apps are developed and released for Windows, more people will become comfortable operating them, and the deficciences above will continue to be worked out. It will be a great day when we can just replace the OS that the tools run on almost transparently.
Why not switch to a free OS, when it is capable of running all of the tools you are using anyway, and has a lot of additional great tools similar to the ones you've been using?
It would, in my opinion, be incredibly stupid and self-destructive, to adopt a mindset of NOT porting as many FOSS applications to Windows as possible.
I welcome any contrary opinions, and would be happy to have a more detailed discussion via a more appropriate medium, but I must admit that I may inquire as to whether or not you rode the short bus to school.
- Have you ever noticed that the more you learn about technology, the more stupid you sound trying to explain it?
I just participated in a rather heated discussion over on Larry Lessig's blog about how the perception about gratis / libre software is that the word "free" is associated with it, and "free" has two distinct (though not necessarily contradictory) meanings.
Lots of people still hear "free software" and expect that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Now, having been a participant in the open source community for a while now, indeed, it's not a free lunch exactly. Users are asked to comment, provide feedback, and report errors.
But that's a far cry from using a security nightmare of a browser or paying $400 for that productivity suite, isn't it?
No one in my curosry search of the thread has mentioned Ubuntu, which is currently distributing free packages of their software. I've installed it on my box and love it dearly, already. Many friends have been impressed with what they've seen as well.
Interestingly, on the Live CD that comes with the x86 package, there's also an autorun setup for Windows. If you pop the disc in while running Windows, it presents you with the opportunity to install some of the best F/OSS around:
-Firefox
-Thunderbird
-The Gimp
-Audacity
-OO.o
-A couple other programs I don't recall ATM
My budding computer geek brother has never been willing to adopt Linux (saying things like "there are too damn many flavors," etc.). However, now that he's had a chance to use the programs I use every day, he's also beginning to see why maybe I like my system.
IMHO, porting quality F/OSS to Windows is a great way to show people that libre doesn't mean gratis, and gratis doesn't mean cheap. It's important we as a community educate others about the way the community can develop software and GUIs and all this wonderful tech -- but do it in terms that help them understand the big picture at the same time.
I can understand some people concerns, but imagine this...
Joe Sixpack starts using "Open Source App" on Windows and loves it. Billy and his cronies get upset because Joe Sixpack isn't using "Microsoft App". So, Microsoft makes it so "Open Source App" no longer works on Windows because it's not Microsoft certified. Joe Sixpack gets upset, and finally sees a reason to switch to Linux over Windows.
Now, the details of this senario can be debated, but you get my drift. I don't see how Microsoft and a popular open source application running on Windows can both exist at the same time, do you?
- Kevin
The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
Bane if Windows was Open Source maybe. (because of the large number of Windows software). Boom if Windows died or everyone 'defected' to Linux ;)
of open source advocates:
Free code is good for everybody camp
and the
we h473 M$ camp.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Then shouldn't it be unlinked from any ideology and be allowed to be free. If users want to run it on Windows, why not?
This is my sig.
Not sure how KDE on windows is even viable. if it's just KDE apps, then maybe some geeks use those apps, mom and pop just keep using the included windows versions.
if it's a "platform", whereas KDE "replaces" the Windows shell, then I would suggest preparing for a life of grief. Ask IBM how Microsoft felt about OS/2 for Windows. Sucks when those OS security patches move the entry point on you.
Then again, maybe I misunderstand the intentions here.
This is making the assumption that everyone goal is to move everyone to Linux. Maybe some people's goal is to have the best tools available to everyone, regardless of their platform. I don't see it as any sort of problem that people are downloading FireFox for Windows and OS X.
Firefox is one thing.
The entire KDE desktop is arguably another. I read the guy's blog and am not conviced he is correct, but his point is worth considering.
We are not dealing with platforms competing on a level playing field. We are dealing with a convicted monopolist that currently controls around 90% of the desktop computers in the world, who does have as a stated goal the eradication of GPLed software. The question isn't "will Microsoft leverage our own work against us, to keep the majority of mind-share trapped on their platform irrespective of quality or usability?" the question is "how much of their doing so is offset by the advantages of exposing more people to free software and perhaps opening their minds to an upgrade to GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, or OS X?" (the latter, while proprietary, is not a monopolist).
It is an interesting question. Mozilla Firefox certainly HELPS free software in general ("you can run Linux and still use your favorite browser" something that wasn't true for most people in the glory days of IE).
On the other hand, Firefox is arguably a PLATFORM more than an application, so the dynamics surrounding it do not necessarilly correlate with those surrounding the KDE desktop.
It is an interesting argument, and one we dismiss offhand only at our own peril. I have not formed an opinion as to whether this guy is right or not, but I do think he makes a point that may well be true, from a strategic point of view vis-a-vis Free and Open Source Software vs. a Monopolist.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I was just reading this blog about how Gmail's forwarding (and later, POP3) actually detracts from Google's ideas behind Gmail. If you just forward all your mail to another account or download it to your your mail client, you're not seeing their ads (which they use to support the service).
However, by having that option, they're providing a way to try the service risk-free. If they don't like the Gmail web interface, they can forward everything to Hotmail and forget Gmail ever existed, without having to tell everyone to switch back to their old email address. The fact that they can leave Gmail easily makes it easier for them to try Gmail in the first place. Try to lock them in before they become your customers, and you'll just lock them out.
Likewise, "Linux" programs on Windows allow people to try out non-proprietary stuff without the commitment of wiping everything they have and starting over with a new OS. It will be much easier to migrate a user from Windows to Linux who uses Firefox, Thunderbird, Gaim, and OpenOffice over one who uses IE, Outlook, AIM/ICQ/MSN/YIM, and MS Office. If a user finds that they can do everything they need with all these "Linux" programs, they're quite likely to realize that they can use Linux instead of Windows. These ports may slow down migration at first, but when they're looking at a new PC or Windows eats itself again, they'll probably be a lot more likely to at least consider Linux.
Just last night I was discussing re-installing my wife's WinXP computer. Amongst other problems it's locking up about every 6 hours and requires a hard reset.
Quoth me: "Yeah, that's why I don't like Windows"
Quoth she: "So, why aren't I using Linux?"
Hmmm, good question...
Firefox....check
Thunderbird....check
PDF viewer....check
Word....OpenOffice is an acceptable substitute (now)
Quicken....I might be able to do something with this.
So, it seems that since she's already using this software on Windows and I can go to Linux without changing behvior then she's all for Linux. She's just tired of Windows being Windows.
Anyone care to guess how "easy" this transition would be if she were on Outlook Express/IE?
That, to me, sounds like a reson to have more FOSS running on Windows.
Taking extreme positions to try to force an "all or nothing" usage pattern is self-defeating.
Dewey
Not the /. crowd, but more "average" users. Why do they hate Microsoft?
One reason is "leverage". Microsoft does things to "leverage" the Windows platforms, that is, to use Windows' dominance to get users to use other Microsoft stuff. People hate Microsoft for this because being on the receiving end of leverage feels a lot like being forced. People resent being forced to do something. It doesn't matter what it is that they are being forced to do, they resent the force being used on them.
In the battle for user's hearts and minds, don't do the same things that they resent when Microsoft does them. Don't leverage KDE to move the OS kernel. Don't try to force users to switch OSes just to get KDE. Let the user choose.
(And, as a practical matter, if you get them on KDE on Windows, then it's easy to say, "Let's move you over to Linux. Nothing will change except that that computer will quit crashing."
I'm anticipating the day when I have a conversation with Execs and Management that goes like this...
(IBM Commercial Format)
Execs: "HOW much to renew our MS licensing???"
Management: long pause.....
Me: "I have an Open Source (Free, in laymans terms) solution to your concerns, I have 3 clients already using Linux Desktops with all of our current applications. This Linux solution is more secure, more stable, lower administrative cost, and best of all ZERO licensing fees."
Execs: "Why are we still with Microsoft?"
Managment: long pause....
It may get lost in all the other posts, but I'm the perfect case of a Windows user who wants very much to switch to Linux, but hasn't in large part because of the painful application switch.
Because critical OSS is available on both platforms I have begun to take steps towards Linux (or for that matter FreeBSD/OSX/whatever). I've tested porting my mail from Outlook to Thunderbird. I've started using Firefox. I'm now using OpenOffice, and have ported my active docs to it. Perhaps next I'll try GAIM or something for IM (use Trillian now). Etc. In a few weeks or a month, there may be no reason not to switch to Linux. (It should be noted that I am not inexperienced with Linux, I have administrated 5-10 Linux servers and even had a Linux desktop or two.)
So, my point is just that, the availability of these high quality OSS allows me to achieve my goal of getting off Windows in a gradual, organized manner (rather than just making the jump and hoping for the best). I certainly understand the argument against making key OSS available to Windows users, and that approach may even be the best for the long term conversion of souls. But... In my situation, it is helping me switch.
Don't vote for Eugene Papansanovich for Congress!
*Gee don't you all just wish for some of the protections copyright would have given you, in these cases.
GPL is a copyright license.
The founders of GPL were quite aware that their license was a double-edged sword.
They chose freedom over their own narrow personal interests.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
I've posted this several times before, it's NUTS to do microsofts job for them while they are sharpening their knives for Linux. It's nuts to port a free open source browser, apps, anything. Let them stew in their own buggy insecure juices, let the viruses take them down.
WHY you would want to give MS a free skate, do their job for them unpaid, un appreciated and knowing they are out to sink you anyway no matter wehat you do "nice" for them, while they make billions and are doing everything they can to destroy Linux is beyond me. Imagine if there wasn't a firefox browser on windows for people to switch to because IE is so insecure? Instead they would be FORCED to SERIOUSLY consider the entire Linux package deal instead of the cob job "fix" that an app like firefox brings. It's a crutch, a well intentioned but misguided enabling measure like buying an alky a six pack because he's got the shakes.
It's not a "bridge" to open source, it's a freeking relatively mostly poorer people open source subsidised welcome mat for MS to keep doing what they have been doing for 20 years, and that is to SCREW EVERYONE THEY CAN AND LAUGH ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK.
It's like "here Mr. Burglar, my schedule for when I'm not at home, and the key is under the mat, now you promise to not ROB ME BLIND, right?"
Uh huh, yep, that'll work out. And just wait, someone will find and deploy the mother of all worms or viruses and it'll run on something like firefox on windows then open source and linux will be guilty by association and lose all the mindshare they have built up. Short sighted, IMO. LET the PHBses desktop machines get completely hosed, with no fix or open source crutch savior there to help them and you would see mass migration and support for Linux. Keep throwing MS a *free* get out of responsibility-jail card and they will keep taking it.
In much of the reading I do, it seems that FOSS is nearly always toted as a 'Microsoft-killer' - readying for the day in which the evil giant can be taken down. From my understanding and outlook, this is *NOT* the purpose of FOSS.
Instead FOSS is meant to offer *Freedom*, not to outdo MS products. MS is only a target for FOSS only in that their products do not allow freedom. In light of that argument, it seems that porting FOSS apps to Windows falls under the freedoms that are supposed to be protected and advocated by FOSS. Preventing this is only limiting freedom - the same as the supposed *evil empire*.
This is the ONLY reason I'm using Windows at home now. Games. If I could play World of Warcraft on Linux, I'd be running Linux. And lots of other games. Hell, if even 1/3 of the games, the better 1/3, were ported to Linux, I'd be on Linux.
Because it's one less thing for geeks to be elitist about. If every Tom, Dick, and Harry can use the latest free tools like Firebird, OpenOffice, and The Gimp, and they are actually proficient at using the tools, what are the geeks going to boost their egos with. I guess they'll have to port Gentoo's portage to Windows so they can start tweaking out their latest copy of cygwin, you know, for maximum performance d00d.
it's much easier to convince someone to try out an application on Windows than it is to install another OS for them which they are either stuck with - or have to reboot to use.
I recently conviced a friend to try GIMP in place of his expensive copy of PhotoshopCS, he liked it so much that he's asked me to install GNU/Linux on one of his home PCs.
Personally I like to have OSS available on Windows as it means I can use the same tools at work and home (I'm stuck with Windows at work).
IMHO win32 versions of OSS is a good stepping stone that can help move people away from proprietry code dependecy
Microsoft's success in creating a defacto monopoly is based on a single factor. API control. For all the talk of open standards, the fact remains that there is effectivly one (1) API on Windows OS boxes and that API exists nowhere else. Netscape was a threat because it offered the opportunity to put a second API that would have immediate critical mass on Windows machines and also be available on other OS'S. When software application vendors can have single source file written to an API (that offers the same utility as MS'S effectivly propriatary API) available on both Windows and FOSS, it'll be time to sell MS stock, and not before.
to the KDE team, and particularly to Mr.Seigo, whom I respect a lot, I disagree with him.
Nothing to add regarding home users, he's totally right -- these guys simply won't use Linux/*BSD if free software is available on Windows.
Now, when you talk "corporate usage", that's a whole new game.
All I can say now:
- some business need "transitional apps" like Openoffice.org (see Marcel Gagné's article on the subject elsewhere);
- such apps allow one to rely just on the proprietary operating system, and avoid other proprietary applicattions (though, surely, the remaining proprietary "might" be made incompatible with free software);
- there will come a day when, for certain users which use a limited number of applications, Linux can be solely used.
On a personal note, realistically speaking, I have to do without using certain applications, because they're only available in Windows and I don't do Windows.
Other folks use two computers or dual boot, and use Windows part time.
Come to think, this is about the same when the ancient Apple DOS 3.3 was losing share for CP/M.
I had to reboot now and them because of personal apps/ games in AppleDOS 3.3 and professional apps in CP/M.
Plus ça change...
As long as the Linux OS is open source, so developers can trace debugs through the system calls, the Linux OS will be a vastly more productive environment for developers than is the opaque Windows. If open source software is quickly ported to Windows under, say, a cross-platform KDE, then the legions of Windows programmers will be able to - just as easily - port Windows KDE apps to Linux. The reason we like Linux is the apps' features, which include the source. Sure, Linux might become for developers what the Mac has become for graphic/audio media designers/artists: an authoring platform targeting the Windows platform for execution.
But so what? The best tool for the job means Linux will have to come up with better reasons, in the apps themselves, than the meta-level of developing the apps, to deserve our favor. With Microsoft, complacent in its cozy monopoly, controlling Windows development as a technology and a market, that should be far from impossible.
--
make install -not war
Geez... the lack of Quickbooks on Linux was a selling point for me. I prefer financial software that doesn't freeze, crash, and corrupt data randomly requiring a $200 per-incident call to someone in Bangalore just to be told that recover will cost another $500.
This is slightly OT I know, but desktop finance applications like that are a Bad Thing; for the price of your next Quickbooks upgrade, set up a web interface to a decently stable database and you're set.
All's true that is mistrusted
I want clueless Windows users using Linux, just like I wanted clueless AOL users joining the internet. Let them stay in their walled garden, unaware of the riches available in Linux and free software generally.
I don't mean that there are not many who should be enticed to switch and would enrich the community on the community's terms, but keep those who prefer to pay for proprietary software like Windows paying for it, I say. They and their mindset is only a liability.
Linux does not have to be more popular than Windows to be a success, and in striving to be a success, it could become much less than it is now, as we see happening with the internet, which now must be legally sanitized for popular consumption.
The issue is fear.
The KDE folk are scared that people seeing good stable and useful software on their Windows machines will stop them from EVER moving to Linux.
Most general users are 2 things:
1) Uneducated about the technology they use:
They click a button... it does something, that's all they care about. They don't understand Linux/Windows/OSX/Xenix/MPE/MS-DOS/OS2.. They don't care. For them, if they have Windows now, or they use Windows at work and they can use Program X that's OSS based (which they wouldn't know/understand), then they will associate Program X with Windows and actually make it easier for Windows to maintain that customer.
People aren't used to applications that run on several platforms because so many don't.. and the whole DOS vs. Apple OS rift of the late 80's makes it an even tougher sell. People spent so much time pushing other people into knowing that Macs != Windows, that one program won't run on the other system, that people just expect all technology to work that way.
2) Lazy about technology
If the application works under Windows why have to switch over to Linux to have the same application? They have this application on Windows and it works, and they know how it behaves, Linux is an unknown quantity. So they don't mind shelling out a few bucks to have that familiarity. So the day "windows shell" runs on a "linux kernel" might be the day that changes..
It's easy to say "Users will move to Linux because it's free" or "users will move to Linux because it's a better move" but 90%+ of users aren't "knowledgeable about technology", they just use the computer to do their office work or because they have to, and then when they go home, they don't touch their home box. Even with the advances in technology integration people still don't know that "the little tv' is a monitor or the box under their desk is not the "CPU"
It's really a catch 22 because people won't see the OSS applications without choosing an alternate OS, and by putting the OSS apps on Windows, it removes the need to move to an alternate OS..
Look the thing that perpetuates Windoze is the APPS. if users start using OS apps and find out hey I don't need windoze anymore, then they will switch to Linux or BSD. If they never use the apps, they will stay glued to the OS. I met serveral people who started using linux BECAUSE they started using open office and Mozilla and GIMP and Blender other OS packages, when they realized they no longer needed windoze it was like hey, this is great. I can upgrade when I want and I have all these apps I can run.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
as a solution, possibly release limited functionality executables for windows machines. ie, dont spend too much time porting everything -- just enough to make the users want more and switch over.
01100111 01100101 01110100 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01101101 01101111 01110010 01100101 00101110
How does open source software on Windows affect Linux?
a) It's a boon
b) It's a bane
c) CowboyNeal
I'm all for free code when it's better than closed-source code, but I won't eat shit just because it's free shit.
I also think that shifting the mindset of business (especially management) away from the MS licensing model would be a good thing.
I don't know if it's a boon or a bane and either does anyone else. The two opposing viewpoints can be summarized as follows: 1. Making OSS apps available on windows will make users familiar with OSS apps and therefore more likely to switch to linux or other free OS platforms; 2. Making OSS apps available on windows will make it less likely that people will switch to linux or other free OSes because there will be no need to switch since the OS apps are available for windows already. My gut tells me that 1 has the better argument but, unfortunately, my gut also tells me that a heavy object should fall faster than a lighter object. In short, gut feelings based on intuition can be wrong. 1 and 2 cannot both be right. That's why you need to gather data, not anecdotes, to determine the truth. A good experimental psychologist could probably devise an experiment to shed light on this question but in the abscence of hard data we're all just talking through our collective buts.
I'm not sure that 95% of OSS is a waste of time and energy. Even if it is, I waste a lot of time and energy cleaning up after Windows already, so it's not a real concern for me.
I do think this debate reeks of some exclusivity, however.
If you're the industry leader, you can afford to ignore different market segments - at least temporarily. OSS is still essentially second to Windows, at least in terms of mass-market adoption.
Also, ignoring a market out of concern for some sort of "ethic" in programming creates an air of "holier-than-thou" - something that many already sense from the open-source crowd. While it's not really the case, that doesn't erase the perception. To get someone to jump to your side they have to feel like they'll be "accepted"... just look at all the companies that choose to be Microsoft shops to placate investors. Exclusivity doesn't encourage that.
Wait a tick, KDE is heavily dependant on QT, which is free only on linux isnt it? I was under the impression you could not use QT App's on windows, without a dev. license from trolltech, ($1500), but I also thought you could not develop app's with another version of someones software then just switch when you want to start selling it?
If you get people, especially business users, to the point that they run open office, firefox, and other open source software in a KDE environment on top of windows, then it is a VERY short hop over to running it all on Linux (or a bsd flavor).
Most SMBs would leap at the chance to not pay the Microsoft tax. Even amongst the common folk, most have heard about Linux, that it is free, and that it is very reliable and not so prone to spyware and viruses as windows.
If users and decision makers are already comfortable in KDE and using OSS apps on the windows platform, then they will not have the fears or reluctance to move over to a linux desktop.
Styrofoam IS biodegradable, you're just impatient!
the issue is creating long term viability for Open Source desktop software, which requires being able to develop and run that software, having a user base that large enough to be sustainable and satisfying that user base.
What would happen if Firefox's support for win32 were suddenly pulled? What would happen to Internet Explorer's market share? Giving MS the green light, market share-wise, to develop more proprietary web standards would not be a good idea. That said, I see your point. Making an extra effort so that average windows users can stay average windows users is not a wholly good idea either.
If the goal is to get people to switch to an open, vendor-neutral platform like GNU/Linux, then it makes more sense to fix what Windows users don't like about GNU/Linux and make it painless for them to migrate than it does to make it painful to stay with windows and lose the benefits that come with application competition on the dominant OS.
Like most people in this world, I don't always have the choice of what I get, even though I am the customer and the consumer. I'd much rather have a Humvee than an Explorer but guess which one I drive? But not all of these things that are forced on me are because of some economic force.
My use of Windows is one of those. I work in a Windows shop, I support Windows and have a wealth of knowlege and experience to draw on when it comes to Windows. The shop I work in runs Win2K and at home, I run XP. Why? Because someday we will move to XP and I need to know it and be comfortable with it before my customers are.
But I run Open Office and Firefox and other open source applications. Why? Because I can. Because they fill a need and yes, because they are cheap or free depending on how you feel about them.
I need XP and I need open source products for XP. Yes, I could "dual-boot" and run a win/lin environment but I'll tell you right now, I wouldn't. When I mess with Linux, it is Knoppix or something similar. And I do that often enough so that I was actually excited to learn that KDE is considering a Windows project. I hope they do it.
Linux and Open-Source garners it's fans from somewhere. Just by virtue of the numbers of Windows users, most of them come from the world of Microsoft. Windows open source software is a "good will ambasador" of sorts for the people living in the world of Microsoft and Windows. Not many come from Apple/Mac and even fewer are exposed to Linux first! So, obviously, Linux and open source in general need some representation in that world to garner new recruits. The best of the best is what will "sell" people on the rest of the stuff that Open Source has to offer and I think that this especially includes Linux!
Besides this: Free is meant to be free as in freedom. Projects should not be forced to operate under some artificial restriction from above. Let each project make it's own decision. If there is enough dissent, fork it with one team developing for Windows and the other not.
"With an entirely cross-platform software stack the OS becomes the least important part of the system, and can be swapped out at will.
The ap is what has locked users into the ms os. backwards comptibility has been ms' marketing siren song. now with winxp, ms has made using my bosses financial software an increadible pain. we are running a seperate win98 machine next to the winxp machine. MS support thought this was a fine idea. except for the three days it took me to track down the drivers for a pc we got from the recycling center.
true crossplatform software could be the end of the closed source OS
"He's a real midnight golfer"
I have no doubt that having more people use OSS is a good thing, and even if they never migrate to Linux (something they probably wouldn't have done in the first place), it's a good thing that they are using Mozilla, OO.o and co. instead of proprietary solutions.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
That's all it really boils down to. Both MS and FOSS are trying to do this and really, in the best case, this is what a user, whether it be a corperation or Joe Sixpack wants. Linus talks about not competing with MS and just wanting to create great software. That's what software engineering is all about.
By porting FOSS apps to windows, it provides free publicity to FOSS. Someone who already uses/likes gaim/firefox/openoffice is more likely to trust further FOSS and possibly replace their OS.
I would also say interoperability is a major difference between FOSS and MS. Linux can mount FAT32 but Windows can't mount Ext2. Truly open software isn't just about open source, it's also about open standards such that it facilitates interoperability.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
I think Open Source is great but sometimes the rantings of the Linux crowd and chest beating about the evils of Microsoft can get pretty old.
I happen to dig Open Office (for example). I could give a crap about whether using it somehow betters mankind. The developers did an awesome job and I just like it. If you decide that because it is Open Source it must be Linux only then fine; I'll switch back to MS Office and be done with it.
If you are able to get all the other things I "do" on my computer to work under both Linux and Windows then I may consider a transition to Linux.
It makes it easier for Microsoft to "shut the door" on you if you refuse to work with them. This may sound like a troll but suck it up and face it for the reality it is: This is still a Microsoft world. If you want to win you're going to have to play their game and beat them at it. For me, Open Office has done this. Linux hasn't.
Linux "depends" on the applications that can run on it. You need to get applications that people like and use and then everyone will naturally transition to it. It's just that simple. The best way to get people to like your software is to write better software. The best way to get people to use it is to put it on the OS that people are using. Once you hit a critical mass of applications that exist on both then there is no reason NOT to transition from Windows to Linux.
One way to get people to never consider Linux is to thumb your elitist noses at them for running Open Source software on a "sell out" proprietary OS.
I read his blog, and I couldn't help but hear rant.. rant.. rant.. My apologies to its author, my patience is a little short today. Anyway:
I think the argument that software should be limited to a single platform/operating system is ridiculous and hurts the ultimate goal of end-user choice.
The ability to run software originally designed for Linux on Windows, will not keep users from switching OS. Users don't tend to question their OS, until they purchase a program or peripheral and its minimum requirements force them to upgrade.
When its time for an upgrade, they are faced with paying Microsoft (or Apple) the upgrade price (and maybe even upgrading their computer hardware in the process) or downloading Linux. So they ask themselves the following questions (or should):
1. Does Linux allow me to continue using the programs that I like?
If they like Mozilla, Firefox, Thunderbird, or OpenOffice then the answer will be yes. I think the more programs that execute on both platforms, the better Linux answers this fundamental question.
2. Is Linux hard to install?
This is becoming more of a non-issue. RedHat/Fedora, Suse, Mandrake, and even Debian are easier to install. When you look at Windows getting more complicated, you can see that soon Linux and Windows will meet somewhere in the middle in the ease-of-installation category.
3. Will it use the hardware I have or plan to buy?
This is where Windows kicks Linux's ass. As long as all the latest and greatest toys work in Windows and not Linux, the users will not migrate to Linux - Period. This means that the target of the desktop developer's frustration should be directed toward the kernel developers instead... I know they do a fantastic job of advancing the capabilities of Linux, and I hate to direct anything towards them. But if it's not the applications fault, then it must be [fill in the blank].
Microsoft did a great job making and marketing a driver development kit to the hardware manufacturers. We need to do the same thing. If there are drivers for Windows and OS X, then there should be a Linux driver too. Ideologies aside, if we make it easier for the hardware manufacture to make a single driver for Linux then there is one less excuse for them to not support Linux.
The point: Hardware Support and not applications being portable is the Achilles heel for Linux. So leave the application developers alone.
On a personal note: Now that I have slightly more free time, I plan to do my part to resolve this problem by doing some coding ;).
Best Regards,
Bill
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
How is this port even *legally* possible? My understanding was that Trolltech doesn't release QT (on which KDE depends) in a GPLed version for windows. I thought the only "free" version available for windows was the non-commercial license. From my QT book, "The non-commercial QT/Windows edition may not be redistributed, and its license isn't campatible with the GPL."
Writing crossplatform programs is bad?
I knew slushwhore is the-way-it-is, but still...
At home I run linux, but work in winderz. My most used apps (Firefox,Thunderbird, Komodo) run in both environments, so it's really convenient to be able to use the same apps at work as at home.
Besides, having good OSS alternatives at work lets me show others that there is more to software than MS Product 200x
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
To tie this to the article, I think he's right. If I can get everything I need for free on Windows, why should I bother to move to Linux? I can't get a computer without Windows on it unless I build it myself, so why would I go through all that trouble when my computer works fine the way it is?
What Linux needs is software that looks and acts just like Windows software (the way Firefox looks and acts just like IE for the first-time user), but is free and not available on Windows. And it really needs to get pre-installed on consumer-available machines and then start advertising that, from the user's perspective, it is no different from Windows and will create no trouble for someone bringing all their files from Windows.
The number one 'killer feature' of Linux, *BSD, etc. is that users can continue to use the same exact software packages that they can upgrade the software packages they have grown used to using on a daily basis without buying new hardware every 18 months.
It does require cheerleading on our part (I do marketing for a living, so it's second nature for me), but by incrementally introducing people to the concept of "You don't need Microsoft for [blah]", you weaken their monopoly. Most people don't even realize there ARE options, after all!
So you introduce them to Firefox and Thunderbird and make it their default. Show them the basics of each, so that they are comfortable using these tools.
Then install AbiWord and tell them it's just like MS Word. It's not entirely true, but the basic use is the same and then they won't think that it's different and difficult to use. When they need spreadsheet or presentation software, show them OpenOffice, _especially_ when 2.0 comes out. Again, tell them it's just like using Office. It's not, but it's close enough that people will actually not hesitate to do what they need to do. Most people don't have Publisher, InDesign or Quark, so show them Scribus - if they need it at all. Admit that it's not the same quality as the latter two, but hey, it's free! Same with Gimp and Photoshop. Since they aren't used to using the commercial packages, the different interface isn't so horrendous.
Now that they're using a FOSS stack, why not casually drop that they don't really need to pay for their operating system either. Don't force it on them, but let them know that it is an option when they feel like upgrading. A non-MS OS can prolong the life of their current computer and save money on their new one.
Tell a neophyte that the operating system costs less AND the underlying hardware costs less AND they can continue using the same free (as in beer) software they already know and they'll love you for it. Not only that, they've become another cheerleader!
If lot of time and engergy is spent porting code, it means that code would be reviewed, cleaned up, and restructured to have layers of abstraction clearly defined.
If people would try out different compilers they would eliminate non-portable constructs.
BTW, just today I've found a bug in our (proprietary) code which show itself up in tests only using MSVC 6.0. With GCC on various platform and MSVC 7.1 it wasn't caught by tests, but potentially it can cause app to crash. And we have reports from our testers about misterious crashes.
So, putting effort into porting code to as many platforms as possible would undoubtely lead to better code.
It is also possible that there would came bunch of developers who know at least two operationg system s - Linux and Windows. Most messed up code is written by people who never programmed for more than one OS.
Here's the deal... I'm a Windows developer because I basically have to be. What I mean is, I would like to use open source because a lot of times it is superior, etc. However, I can't make the transition because doing so is way too expensive.
For instance, let's say I have software that I wrote using ASP/SQL/HTML right? And the client is saying that SQL Server is too expensive to license. I would love to port everything to PostgreSQL. The problem is I need PostgreSQL to be supported in Windows, otherwise its really not a good option for the client to get new hardware, different network configuration, hoping that the ODBC driver is fast, etc.
If open source want's more momentum, I think it needs to begin invading the land of Windows... look at Firefox... its an awesome browser that runs great and looks great on Windows. And guess what... its gaining market share. OpenOffice is already worrying Microsoft because it is bringing open source competition right on their door step.
So, I encourage developers to port their stuff to Windows. I think it would be great if KDE would work in on most of the machines I work with day to day. Why? Because it lessens the fear (often irrational) of change. If I can use KDE apps today... and I use them exclusively... then when I need a new system, why do I need Windows? And that's the point where the momentum begins to happen.
To say free OS's might be hurt if free apps are ported to Windows is like Microsoft saying Windows will be hurt if Office is ported to Linux. It may be true, but limiting choice is *not* what the FOSS movement is supposed to be about. That's a Microsoft tactic.
I *have* to run Windows sometimes in order to access certain software or devices. Do we really want to *force* people to run Linux because they really like some KDE app?
The *nix/MS 'battle' is getting old. Really old.
Linux has really taken off in the past few years because it's community has really build a solid OS and good applications. This talk of 'beating' Microsoft is as disenchanting as the elections. It seems as though people are more concerned about thier side winning and the other side losing rather than producing a solid product that does what the consumer needs/wants it to do.
I use KDE at school to work on my CS projects. It'd be killer to be able to use KDE at home on my Windows machine so I didn't always have to make time to stay after class and work in the lab. It wouldn't hurt to be able to work on my Windows based personal projects while logged in at school either.
So can we please stop this pissing match and toddle back to our cubes and start producing a solid product?
And the thing that brings me back is always the apps. The kernel is transparent for the most part but the quirks and advantages of the UI and the applications can make or break the experience.
If all my favorite apps are available for Windows XP and all my friends use Windows XP with my recommended apps, even if they like them, whats the incentive to switch?
We can create the best user experience possible, but once its ported, its all up to the kernel to sell the OS. And users don't care about the kernel, they just want to use their apps.
I know we can't stop GPL software for being ported by willing parties, but as part of the community I wouldn't recommend doing this ourselves.
Quack, quack.
It's a very well argued economic concept.
... most i've ever seen) does better.
... but so's the more apps on linux/windows one.
... "hmm what other cool features i can put into firefox to beat IE"... and that is the kind of mentality this country was built upon.
Do you have free trade or do you stick with protectionism.
Firstly, the bloggers hypothesis about how if the apps were available to linux people will move to linux. The belief in itself is flawed.
Take Baskin Robbins for instance. They offer 31 flavors of ice cream. Yet Haagen Daaz's (with at most 10 flavors?
Dumb argument you say?.. I agree
Turtleism is just plain dumb. You stifle innovation. If IE is the only browser on the market what's the incentive for MS to update toa new version of IE? The important thing that comes along from porting to other platforms is innovation. Firefox... with it's great features such as tabbed browsing.. is the perfect example. Being ported to windows.. Microsoft (rumors) is going to put out a new IE with the same features as firefox. How is that NOT good? That's what I call progress and the thing is, I know the guys at mozilla will sit back and think about
From the users perspective, if they get used to the same applications they use in Windows, it's a matter of logical sense to switch to Linux, once it provides the same pratical benefits and, the best argument, it's open and free. It's even more perceivable when users need to upgrade their current Windows version to a newer one: 'Why pay so much for an upgrade if I have the same kind of functionality and better support in Linux ?'. I've been hearing more and more this kind of argument from several colleagues.
Operating systems are irrelevant and have been for a long time now. Linux vs. Windows is irrelevant, unless you're a fanatic. Two things matter: the user environment (Explorer under Windows; KDE or whatever for Linux) and the applications. Sure, the OS enables these things, but every major OS out there provides essentially the same features. Yes, some people will bring up security issues, but the biggest security hole under Windows is easily blocked simply by using a different browser (or by ratcheting up the security level in IE). From a programming point of view, just about any sane, modern programmer is going to use something clean and simple like Python (or even Java, much as it makes me cringe), and from the Python programmer's point of view Windows and UNIXalikes are the same.
"...Microsoft has all the rope they need to shut the door once again on us..."
how much rope do you need to close a door?
When useful open source apps are ported to windows, it usually gets rebranded and rebundled with ads and spyware by sinister companies. It's surely a nasty experience for windows users looking for free software, and certainly often in violation with licenses. Though maybe it will lure users over to platforms where money isn't the sole driver of development.
Hi, could someone please give me a reasonable explanation why being able to win marketshare from IE with Opera/Mozilla/Firefox/whatever is considered so important? The one good reason I can come up with is to reduce Microsoft's ability to stuff proprietary, non-standard technology into their webserver. Anything else, anyone?
What are we going to do tomorrow night? The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world!
seems to me the quickest way to kill a particular app would be to not port it to the os 90% of desktops run. People's biggest gripe about .net is that it only runs on MS, why would KDE want to take the same tact? I would think the #1 goal for KDE development would be to make a high quality windows port.
If I was running a Windows OS with Firefox, Thunderbird, and OpenOffice, that is about 95% of what I do on the computer. The other 5% is games, but I am cheapskate so throw in a Windows/Linux telnet client for playing my text based durismud. Now that I am using all four of these, tell me, why shouldn't I switch? If Open Source developers get me hooked on 4 programs that comprise around 100% of the things I do on a computer, and then tell me I can use the exact same free programs AND get a FREE operating system...why would I not switch? At the very least I wont care one way or the other. And then you tell me that there are another gazillion free apps if I switch? I don't see how this cannot be a good thing.
I know people will say, why switch when you have all that good stuff. But I think more people will say why not switch when I can keep all my good stuff and get more free good stuff.
The OSS advocates that are against running open source software on Windows are hypocrites. They proclaim that it is all about freedom, but by trying to prevent you from using a given tool on a given platform, they are taking away the very freedom they claim OSS has.
As for gaming on Linux, a nice stop-gap measure until true native support is implemented (at the code level) is Cedega (formerly WineX). It currently supports Half Life 2 (for all you cutting-edge gamer types), among many others. They frequently add games to the compatibility list, and they add old favorites as well as bledding-edge titles. Well worth the $15 (but I'll bet you can even leech off P2P if you're that damn cheap). I recently bought Windows CDROMs of Medal of Honor and Battlefield: 1942 and installed them on my Linux box with no problems. I realize those aren't exactly hot off the press games, but to see them install and then actually work was truly beautiful.
Go on, check it out.
Transistors and Beer!!
Why can't you liberals engage in a simple conversation without injecting your political views? Nobody cares.
As a (soon-to-be-former) Windows user whose wage-slavery involves supporting Windows users, I'd not have become interested if it weren't for OpenOffice availability on Windows: As more apps get 'ported and prove to be at least as good, more people will consider purchasing their new computers without windows.
Until there is an equivalent "Insert cd, boot, install OS, install apps" ease of use, many of us who lack education (note: NOT necessarily lacking intelligence) will choose to remain with what we're used to, no matter how poorly it compares in other aspects.
Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
Seems that most people can't get beyond the fact that Open Source means a LOT more than just the Operating System.
The entire software stack does NOT need to be open source for it to be a 'win' for open source software. The more people that become educated about and begin to enjoy the benefits of Open Source, the more likely they will be to be willing to experiment and potentially migrate entirely onto open source software platforms.
My company for example, develops open source software (and has for many years) - the catch is that our current version is windows-specific...for most of our users, our engine is their FIRST experience with Open Source software PERIOD - most have no idea what open source is, what the benefits of OSS are, and so on.
After getting familiar with our product, many of our users have migrated alot of their software pipeline and tools into open source software - which is a win for ALL open source projects.
the GNU/Linux community often comes across as so elitist (at least in the mainstream view) that this kind of argument will HURT open source more than it will help.
By telling people that their efforts are useless or a waste of time simply turns people off of Open Source in general - and does not do the OSS movement as a whole any benefit.
Gekido's Lair
Once they hold most of the relevent IT patents, they will 'close the door' on us anyway...
So what is the difference?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If the applications people want are available on Windows, they will tend to stick with Windows...by porting software to Windows, we eliminate the majority of the competitive advantage of Free Software desktops in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of consumers while Microsoft has all the rope they need to shut the door once again on us ...
While that is one side of thinking of the issue, I tend to think about it the other way around. By showing the Windows world what the free software world has to offer, Windows users may be enticed to try other operating systems.
It's better told through example. Find a Photoshop user (for the sake of sanity, let's assume it's someone who uses Photoshop for moderate to hard-core work, not the kiddies with their warezed versions who apply garish filters to anything they can find). Are you going to convince them to use GIMP? No chance, unless you can show them very clearly what GIMP's capable of. And since they can't use Photoshop on free OSes (WINE excluded), they aren't going to know what GIMP can do unless it's on their OS of choice, and thus will never see any reason to switch to a free OS.
Perhaps the better answer would be to port more Windows apps to free OSes. Which, of course, is another problem in and of itself, as most software vendors are not willing to release anything outside of Windows and Windows's API isn't exactly portable the same way, say, GTK+ and Qt are.
Just my opinion.
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
Since many people programming open source software have a sense of altruism (giving their work away) to whom ever can benefit, I'm surprised they would mind that users of the most used OS by the common people benefit from their software too. If you want to reach a ton of people, and get your product out there, it seems to be Windows is the way to go.
The other side is, if you don't want to spend time on it, it's your choice. If your business is based on OSS programming and service, you might reconsider that, since you can get more business.
I use Win, Mac and Lin and I started getting interested in Linux after finding some really cool tools for Windows that were free. People are slow to change, and certainly aren't going to risk losing their OS, or erasing it because there is one cool software out there, they dont' have on Windows.
If anything, they need to be filled up with free OSS programs on Windows, then after they are using all of them, they would see going to Linux as a cinch.
Should we be worried about web based apps or Java apps, that work everywhere, and thus people aren't going to leave windows? I think Multi OS apps, and easy file portability will switch users. Leverage to Linux after that is simply looking at buying the upgrade. "well, I can get all my win apps on linux and I don't need to pay 160 bucks for the longhorn upgrade."
Simple fact is, people will exert more effort if their is a risk of losing something, than the would if it's just moving towards a benefit.
example: I could use this rad new app if I install linux, but I don't think I will because my wireless network is going to have to be reconfigured and might not even work after I do that. People avoid things out of pain, or potential pain.
...::----::...
I am in no way affiliated with this sig.
I mean this is how GNU started by writing applications to replace unix applications one-by-one untill they go a full GNU OS. While a whole GNU os hasn't happen yet, because it's missing a kernel (don't tell me about hurd), there is GNU/Linux.
If you want to understand Open Source, you have to understand the minds of the great artists, the great scientists, and the great philosophers.
Why did Einstein work so hard on the Theory of Relativity and then give away the results for free? Why did Michaelangelo spend so many hours of pain-staking detailed work on the Sistine Chapel? Why did Plato and Socrates work so hard at trying to form the basis of logic?
If you think it had anything to do with money, you are wrong. Sure, they got paid a reasonable amount of money. But they were never paid anything close to what they were worth.
Did they do it for fame? No. Again, that was not the principle motive behind Einstein and the others. Einstein didn't set out to make himself famous. The same could be said for the others.
No, what motivated them was their own curiosity and dedication to things beautiful. They wanted to create something useful and beautiful and wonderful. They didn't mind that they may not get paid for what it was worth, or that they would not get the respect they deserved. They were satisfied that they were able to do something wonderful, and allowing others to enjoy it was even more satisfaction.
Ask a programmer next time why they do what they do. If they say money, then they probably don't enjoy their job. If they say fame, they are a liar. But if they say that they want to create something useful or good or that just plain works, then you have found the right answer.
So why Open Source? By distributing the software via an Open Source method, more people will use their software and use it in ways they couldn't have anticipated. By allowing people to build on their software, or merely the ideas of the software, they have made their own effort even more productive and useful.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
when the reason people switch to Linux and FOSS is due to
* Financial reasons
* Freedom of software choices
* The ability to make alterations to code
* The ability to review the code you are running on your hardware.
If apache, php, mysql runs on Windows (which it does), would I switch back to Windows as my main development/production environments for the web work I do? No. I'm quite happy with Linux. I save money with Linux. I pay no licenses, and I deal with less software updating and vulnerabilities.
Any of these reasons, or a host of others, might be enough to make somebody want to switch. But just as important are the reasons for not switching.
And the single most important one is retraining costs. This applies just as much to individual home users as it does to large enterprises. It's a real pain to have to relearn things that you already knew, but now have to be done in a slightly different manner.
So if you can at least spread it out, by gradually switching to Open Source alternatives on the Windows platform, until you're finally ready to chuck out the OS as well, that's a great advantage.
(This post was written using the Mozilla browser on a Windows XP machine. I know where I'm going, but I'm not there yet.)
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
I'm a contract worker. I habitually carry a CD of various freeware and OSS apps from job to job, using those that are needed, or will look for FOSS tools when a special need arises. I usually leave a lot of OSS apps behind, and managed to convert one business to Linux. (Tux be praised, they saw the light!)
I was hired to work for a small manufacturing company ... the accounting guy wanted me to give him a list of the software I would need for the job (writing their tech manuals). The only thing I REALLY needed was a photo editor, so I listed the GIMP. He was dubious, but PhotoSHop was $700, so he humored me. Pictures looked great.
A while later, I needed some vector drawings, so I had him get OpenOffice for the draw module ... again he was dubious, but the drawings were nice. The design boss asked me if OO could read MSFT office things. They had a constant version problem between their various users. I showed him it could ... showed him Mozilla, etc. He left with a copy of OO to test out.
Next thing I knew, the accountant and sysop (same guy) was chatting with me about the feasibility of upgrading all the users to Open Office and Mozilla, maybe on Linux so he could do remote admin and have fewer viruses. His sticking point was the lack of accounting software ... Compiere could be customized for less than they were paying to Peachtree, and did shop floor control to boot. He started by converting everyone to OO and Mozilla, then did the file servers, then the desktops ... nobody cared as long as they could find their files and do their work.
Also, every OO install out there means one less MSFT Office purchase ... slows the revenue stream.
The only way for Linux to be a success is to lock people in it's platform. Open source goal contradicts with definition of open source actually.
Slashdot - free anti-Microsoft propaganda 24/7
The main reason while people stay with Windows is MS Office. Switching them to OO will lower MS income and allow easier switch of the OS further.
Also I work at HP and Windows is a corporate standard. But I still can use cygwin, firefox etc.
'nuff said.
That which does not kill her only prolongs my agony.
You caaan't stop progress!!
Believe with me, my saplings.
If people start using KDE on Windows, it will be trivial to move them to Linux. Once they realize that Windows was just a "badly debugged collection of device drivers" and that there's no longer a need to pay the Microsoft tax, they'll quickly switch to KDE on Linux.
Trying to promote freedom by imposing restrictions is never a good idea. The paternalistic fascists who want to impose Linux on everyone are worse than the capitalist monopolists, because their fanaticism is unmoderated by the rationality of financial self-interest.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Games are the only reason I use Windows. Until linux can run them all (and just as fast), linux will only run on my 2nd-best hardware.
So... what is an OS again? Device drivers, memory management and an API, right? I mean, there's all kinds of things Windows/Microsoft sucks at, but alot, if not 98% of that has nothing to do with the OS itself. So, if we're comparing apples to apples here...
As far as I'm concerned there's 3 arguments against the Windows OS (as in, kernel, memory management and API): frequent crashes, vulnerabilities in the code, and a convoluted/ineffective security model.
1. Things crash - Not so much post-NT kernel switchover.
2. Viruses/Spyware - Having worked in tech support for a while now, I can safely say that idiots rule on this one. Not to say I don't get adware/spyware and the occasional virus on my home Windows box (Windows definitely loses here), but I'm nowhere near the level these users are at.
3. Security - I'm not even sure this falls in kernel space for Windows... but if it does, Active Directory can kiss my nuts. Freaking containers and blah blah blah. What a mess. Again with Windows losing on this one.
So let's keep things sane, just like you can't blame Linus for Firefox maybe destroying a directory in its Beta phase, you can't blame the Windows OS for Visual Basic, or the latest Internet Explorer vulnerability. With that in mind, what's the problem with cross-platform software? I mean, what it sounds like most people have a problem with is Windows Apps (such as WMP, Explorer, Office, IE), all of which are immimently replaceable. I submit that the biggest problem with the Windows OS is Microsoft itself. Who wants to write applications for an OS that's just going to replace your app with a shittier version anyway, meanwhile changing the platform so your app only works 1/2 as well as it used to. Blame the Windows OS for OS issues, blame Windows applications for application issues, and blame Microsoft for what they do with their platform.
And really, if most users understood that the OS had nothing to do with double-click vs. single-click or Safari vs. Firefox vs. IE, they'd tell the OS to go to hell because they don't care. Applications ought to be completely transparent as to what OS they're running if at all possible. I mean, let's see a show of hands. Who's said, "Thank God I'm on Windows and, instead of running the quality Free/Open apps I'm used to, I get to run the sub-par Proprietary/Closed apps Microsoft bundles with the OS."
The best way to win people over to Free/Open software is to write the best software possible, and features of good software include portability and cross-platform compatibility. And when Microsoft closes the door on your app, as is their prerogative, reopen it. If it gets to the point where you can't, tell your users. Maybe some of them will try something different just because of your app. But regardless, at some point you're going to have to decide whether evangelism or developing is your priority.
Oh, and curse Slashdot for not having 'vi' keybindings in their post windows.
I have been a Linux user for about a year now, and everybody I know that ever switched or attempted to switch from Windows to Linux was due to seeing the sweet desktop and eye-candy achievable from using OSS desktop software. With a combo of Fluxbox and Gdesklets, I was able to entice at least three of my friends into installing some type of FOSS destkop OS. If that software had been available on Windows, who's to say that they ever would have even wanted to learn anything about Linux or the OSS movement?
Sometimes you get what you wish for and are sorry you made that wish.
Rather than open source putting MS out of business, it seems far more likely to me that someone or something else -- the proverbial next paradigm -- will pull MS down. Where will that leave F/OSS if its only goal is to dethrone Bill Gates?
If you are committed to free software because you believe closed software development is unethical, then Microsoft's stature, or existence, ought not to influence you own efforts.
If you believe, on the other hand, that free software's purpose is to supplement closed software, then your primary objective ought to be to produce software that can actually lure people away from MS.
Apple's record is evidence that a platform can't move out of its single-digit niche by offering a polished and distinctive desktop platform along with applications that are the equivalent of those available to Windows. In other words, people who argue that very few people switch platforms because of the OS are correct. Want know how many? Look at Apple's market share.
Where is Apple actually running ahead of MS? With things like iPod and iTunes. What are these? In essence, iPod and iTunes are tools (applications) that go MS one better. Apple put products on the market that people wanted, people who could care less about Apple's OS.
That's a fundamental lesson for anyone who wants to draw new customers: Offer something that they didn't know they want until they see it.
You can't compete by try to clone your competition. Why switch to a clone when you have the real thing?
You can't compete by trying to convince people that you stuff is "better". Beyond a certain threshold of acceptable performance, improved quality, especially improved technical quality, is invisible to customers; it doesn't motivate them to switch.
If F/OSS is to supplant MS, then it needs to start delivering applications that meet needs Windows users don't even know they have.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I thought that Trolltech's license was either "GPL on FOSS platforms" or, if you want to release your QT-based app unders Windows you had to pay?
Or was that only for closed source apps, allowing GPL'd released QT-based apps on Windows?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
If it's Free software, people can do what they want with it, regardless of the developers' agenda (which they are certainly Free to advocate).
I must be missing something.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
With all the huffing about OSS, and it's advantages... and it's disadvantages for cross-platform development, etc... I really have to question if you OSS guys have even read a single whitepaper on .NET.
That said, how the hell does anyone make any money off OSS? NO ONE has been able to explain this to me.
developers trying to make open source proprietary to linux? that is uber-gay.
Open source is all about being free. I want to be free to make the choice of windows or linux depending on my needs and still gain the benefit of open source software. For example, I have win XP SP2 and i have had next to no problems with it, after the patches and my firewall are appled that is. I also use mozilla instead of IE. windows XP is great for my needs and i still have the benefit of an open souce browser to keep me out of a lot of trouble. open office on win XP would be good. An open source media player next maybe?
...because well-written OSS isn't tied to Windows. That reduces the applications barrier to entry
If the author of TFA has a beef, it should be with lazy OSS authors who don't write their apps in a portable fashion, or who succumb to the siren song of people like Robert Scoble, who was urging Mozilla to tie itself inextricably to Longhorn, thus making Mozilla Windows-only as MS tried to do to Java code with their polluted Java. As long as they don't do that, eventually OSS apps will cover the majority of things people want to do with computers, and eventually they'll ask themselves why they are bothering to pay the MS Tax.
A single operating system isn't the winner in something like this. The winners are the users - users of both Linux and MS Windows (and of *BSD, Solaris, ...) A broader user base of an open source project will typically give you a better development environment (more volunteers, possibly more donations).
While I'm not a fan of KDE (oops no karma for this post), Cygwin, ghostscript, xfig, OOo, Mozilla, and more have helped me and my users on several platforms, including Windows AND Linux.
The more open, the better!
What the hell is that? Please , I don't want you use FOSS, f***ing retarded, nobody must be away from high quality software.
I wonder how many downloads Firefox would've gotten if its developers had adopted the "Open Source on Windows benefits Microsoft only" mentality...Just a thought...
I once shot down a zdnet article because people don't understand what Open Source means. It means ***OPEN SOURCE***. The Source Code is open.
It doesn't mean it doesn't work on a closed platform, purely that you are free to modify and distribute for free as long as you include the source code (and the license rules). People who think Open source=Linux are idiots. Viva la revolution and to hell with platforms. The more open source there is the more people will ask "What is it ?" and learn about a movement and try to learn/encourage derivation. Maybe they'll also learn about Penguins.
I love the first half of the thread. It basically says, Windows users are not as stupid as to go: "wow, this Open Source software is really good, in reaction to my new finding I will now turn my back to the Open Source community and continue to buy expensive Microsoft products" In case people don't realize, Microsoft doesn't really make that much money from the average consumer at home who has to buy their own software. They make money from the coorporations that buy tens of thousands of licenses to every minutely new version of Office because Microsoft has the marketing down SOLID. People at home will always love new things like OpenOffice and Firefox if these are done well and marketted a little bit better. My favorite is Firefox. They really botched the job with the 1.0 release (pauses as entire /. community throws bricks). Well, is it just me or do the Flash and other incorporated plugins slow down the main browser (like UI elements and find as you type). However, it was marketted well and word of mouth was affectionate, even passionate.
And this makes my point. What coorporations are using Firefox as a standard browser? Does Firefox provide a front end for Excel or a drag and drop interface for Outlook? Of course not, and we don't want it to. But until some product offers an alternative way to do some of these things, IE will never be dislodged.
Therefore, to even stand a CHANCE at taking some market share away from Microsoft, Open Source development must push as far as possible into the Windows domain giving more and more people options and choices and in the end, the freedom and ease of switching to any OS they want. Why must they do this? Because Bill Gates did it (in a slightly more evil closed way) and he's the richest man on the planet so it must be right.
Maybe slashdot should ban people who are using windows since microsoft update needs ie to run.
Just a reminder: Stallman came up with the GNU manifesto back at a time when MS was little more than a startup. He wasn't responding to Gates. He was responding to the proprietary principle that it's OK for me to hold your data hostage to my business model
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
The argument being made is that basically application choice is what causes people to pick an OS. I do not necessarily think that this fundamental assumption is correct. Rather, I think the converse is more likely true. Application development follows the primary choices of OSes in the market. Commercial vendors want to apply to the biggest markets to get a return on their development investment. Open Source Developers are going to be likely developing on projects they themselves are interested in; i.e. providing code for their platform of choice.
Even without looking at the validity of that first assertion, I don't follow the rest of his argument. Providing software for Windows platforms will take away the OS community's ability to compete... how so?
Firefox has risen in popularity because many people see IE as a bloated, overly feature-rich, insecure web browser. A lot of people choose to run Unix based servers, and in some cases workstations, for the same reason. I know that I recently switched my workstations over to Debian Linux because I became increasingly disgusted with host Microsoft (mis)handled the patch availability and update choices for their software.
There are some things that Microsoft does better than any OSS package (or set of packages does). You do not need to have the same level of knowledge to be a Windows user or even a Windows System Administrator as you do to be proficient in the Unix world. I still use dual boot systems because I did not want to take the issues of trying to get my games to work under Debian.
Over the recent years, certain distros have really done a good job of utilizing the improvements available in the OSS community as a whole to provide good quality distributions to do things that are mostly on par with what is available on Windows. It is possible to set up a corporate workstation that can interface with a largely Windows network that provides similiar functionality, with things such as Samba and OpenOffice. You could not say the same thing 5 years ago.
All in all, the gap in functionality is closing between OSS and Windows or even Mac. We have already seen several OSS projects can dominance even on the MS side of things. Apache on MS is an example of this as well as Firefox. This is a very valuable movement because it does demonstrate to the computing community as a whole that OSS is viable and stable and breaks down that wall that commercial software vendors have helped build.
Rather than worrying about what MS will do to crush competition, the OSS community needs to continue doing what its been doing; providing quality software and continually improving the usuability and feature set of the software. More and more users and IT managers will take note and migrate if we can truly provide as rich a feature set as MS, without any of the liabilities of MS.
Hello!!!, there have been "open source" applications on windows for longer than linux has been around. They were just called public domain applications, or in some cases shareware. Pick up an old copy of DDJ from the 1980's and read it.
While the internet has brought up a number of nice projects, some people use windows because it has commercial applicatons. While everyone is arguing about replacing word, what they don't notice is that people use word because it integrates better with visio, or they are using windows because their favorite CAD program runs on it. They may also be using visual studio because it has reasonable context sensitive help. There are literally hundreds of applications that are either much better in windows, or they don't exist in linux.
A lot of people view this linux vs windows crap like the emacs vs vi arguments. With the same kind of attitudes seen between the honda civic driving ricers when talking to people driving corvettes.
I don't use Windows _at home_!
At work, it is mandatory because we have a history... 8-/
My arguments above apply as I am trying to change that.
The question assumes a technical viewpoint, part of the very reason that FOSS has a slow acceptance. Most users don't care what OS they're using, so long as it does what they want it to. Even the comments by the very knowledgable people here confirm this view. One comment said that since he was already using Mozilla, OpenOffice, etc., it was easy for him to move over. Precisely the point. The app's drive the OS, not the other way around. The most common app's are not unique to Linux or FreeBSD; those that ARE unique are generally at the technical end of the spectrum. The other problem I have with the view of those that resist Windows development is that the view tends to be espoused by idealogues. People who hold to an ideology unreasonably tend not only to have low credibility, but also hurt the very cause they support. People know me as FOSS bigot, and so I am. But to be fair, Microsoft puts out adequate software for most people's uses. (Compared to the prices of software during mainframe times, it's even comparatively well-priced!) I do think it's expensive by today's standards, but what drives me over to FOSS is anti-monopolistic views, as well as the clear evidence (to me, anyway) of Microsoft's unethical business practices. I just don't want an untrustworthy company owning most of my software. I think if you want to get FOSS adopted, then you MUST go to where people are at. To ask them to come to you with a promise of a later benefit will never work. For example, GIMP is an excellent program, and it has a strong Windows following. That will open them to OpenOffice, or other pertinent app's. If they see benefits (stability, power, speed, cost, compatibility), then they'll be open to further exploration (Linux, OpenOffice, Egroupware, Firefox, Evolution, etc., etc., etc). As long as I'm on my soapbox, I'll add that clone applications will never drive those users over. We're asking them to trust a bunch of unpaid volunteers (we see it as a community; they see it as unfunded or under-funded at best) to do the same job as a funded company. Not likely. The applications must be SUPERIOR in some significant way(s) to draw your people. Firefox is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. People didn't seek it because they didn't like Microsoft. They sought it because it was superior in most ways. It's the biggest threat to Microsoft's IE in a long time. If our community can continue to put out superb software like that, we'll win in the end.
How can you introduce to FOSS the largest user base ? Port your OSS app to windows !
"Once people are used to apps, it doesn't matter what OS is underneath."
In fact this is the most efficient way to spread the world !
Let them try WinLibre or TheOpenCD and they'll switch soon or later to Linux..
What's stopping people you know switching to linux?
I think the contributing factors are:
1. There are windows apps they still need to run
I know that you can use wine to run lots of these but let's face it some people aren't that technically adept.
2. The change to linux is too large a change for lots of windows users. It means for them changing their O/S and all their applications there can be a lot of re-learning needed.
3. Lots of games are developed for windows not linux. However this is changing which is great to see.
4. Not much auto-detection. It lacks the auto-detect functionality that windows users already get and some can't live without. You plug in a usb scanner to windows and it does exciting things plug it into linux and people think what happens now? PCMCIA support is the worst offender.
Yes I do realise this is getting better.
Imagine if all the apps that these kinds of users used were all ones that ran exactly the same on linux. It'd be easier for them to switch to linux once all the apps they needed ran on it. It's really just a staged migration strategy.
Sometimes geeks shoot themselves in the foot saying I'm not going to port my open-source app to windows, let the windows users suffer. They seriously kid themselves and think that a windows user is going to cry just because they can't run openWhatever and go running to linux.
Let's face it the average windows user is just going to find something else to do what they wanted to do and commercial software companies will just write an app and charge $$$ to do it, which will then further delay a linux migration and mean more retraining should they ever move to linux.
There are some silly ideas people have and this is just one of them. To some people linux is fantastic and they can't understand why everyone's not runing it. If you make it simple for people to use and simple for people to migrate to then they'll run away from Bill and towards Tux.
If applications a user wanted were on windows and linux why would someone pay $$$ for windows when linux is free?
You see, that's the little secret of Free Software, most of the folks writing Free Software get paid to do so.
That's not true. Most free software is written by people who don't get paid a dime for it. They write it because it's going to solve a problem for them and it's easier to start with someone else's free pieces than it is to do anything else. Most of us have zero chance of working for anyone who would pay us for such things.
The reason that Microsoft comes into the discussion has very little to do with the "goals" of Free Software and everything to do with the fact that Microsoft is doing everything in their power to maintain the status quo.
Well that's true, but the way they are going about it is a potentially fatal pain for everyone and helping them is not the thing to do. Every dime that gets to M$ is a dime toward the next SCO style FUD lawsuit, lobby money for software patents, BSA raids, Apple switchers and other leagal and PR bullshit.
To develop M$ crap, you have to own it. I don't have much money, but I'm giving part of it to the Free Software Foundation each month so that they can fight off some of it. Why on earth would I spend my money on a M$ OS?
There are only two reasons to port things to M$: to promote free software or because you want life to be easier for yourself when you have to hold your nose and use Windoze.
Neither of them is valid anymore. Mozilla's got one covered and the other is just wrong. Because most things work better in the free software world, it's probably easier to join a free project to replace that one last program that's got you stuck on Windows.
Free software is prodigiously promoted by Mozilla, an effort that does have paid developers. A glimpse of a much better world can be seen through that project. If promotion is your goal, porting more is be a duplication of effort.
In short, your time and effort are better spend doing anything other than making Windows better. I'd rather people watch TV and drink beer.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Survey people using FireFox on Windows. How many of them are saying, "I'm so impressed I'm going to switch to a Free Software desktop." Virtually zero. Too many of us in the Open Source community naively expect people to draw conclusions that today's technology consumers are not motivated, let alone empowered, to make.
I call bs. Earlier this year, I recently (finally) switch over to Linux. why? Because I knew that my most used piece of software on windows (Firefox) would be supported. Did I switch to Linux because of the apps? NO! There are many other reasons- XP is a security nightmare. But I wasn't going to switch till I knew that its programs could do what I needed to do. And since I got to try Open Office and Firefox on windows, I knew that the software was there.
If you don't want to spend your time writing Windows apps, then don't! But saying that porting over software, to a very uncontrolled platform, (if Microsoft had the power you say it does XP wouldn't be such a mess) will kill the project is incorrect. OSS will come because Microsoft has lots of problems.
You give them too much credit:
On Windows it's a very different story. As long as Microsoft controls the Windows technology stack (and they will never give that control up) they will have the ultimate ability to out-compete any 3rd party software on Windows that they wish to.
If this is the case then why didn't the new biggest XP update (SP2) stop all those horrible spyware programs from running? Its because Microsoft is doing everything it can just to fix all the leaks in their boat. They don't have time to quash out something small like OSS software on XP (especially because such moves could create more bugs in the process). There is a reason Longhorn keeps getting delayed.
Again, more BS:
Making the situation even worse, by keeping people on Windows we decrease the odds of them getting involved and contributing back to the community. This is because the tools necessary to do so are relatively rare on Windows.
Again, this argument is very false. As a windows user I was able to use great (windows only) tools like Photoshop to create images for small open source projects to use. Or use Dreamweaver to make a great website. Tools are rare on windows? Not at all. Now, what you might be implying is writing some code. But if windows users want to help they can
A: develop on a live CD...or
B: Work on the Windows port. Imagine that. And some stuff they contribute (like stuff I've mentioned), might help the Linux port.
If I was you, I'd stop sounding like I was Linux's marking director and start sounding like an open minded developer. Your better at the second job.
Open Source Sushi
So, what's the problem?
The author makes his point using examples as OOo and Firefox. As far as Firefox is concerned, I fully agree with the author that porting it to Windows hurts the spread of Linux, thats because Firefox is a way superior browser than Internet Explorer. But then OOo is still way inferior to MS Office (this is not flamebait but a fact that is well acknowledged by all). So porting OOo to Windows does not hurt Linux at all. In fact it helps the cause of Linux as it helps the users to get acquainted with the features of OOo and get used to the new document formats before making the switch to Linux. Conclusion of my post being: porting Firefox to Windows hurts Linux but porting OOo will only help Linux.
Does it hurt the 'Linux to the Desktops!' battle fanfare, if Linux apps and other OSS are ported on a large-scale to MS Windows, or will it rather have a 'pave the way' effect? Does it help to migrate enterprises and public sector units if users to Linux if users are already familiar with Firefox and OpenOffice.org from Windows, or does it take away the motivation to migrate at all? Is porting Unix desktop software counterproductive? Does it even help Microsoft and damage Windows users?
Free software is not all about Linux beating Windows on the desktop. In fact, if quality free software is available on Windows, then personally I don't care about Linux, because all I care about is doing my job, with the least possible cost, money-wise and effort-wise.
Remember, office and outlook compatability stop more linux desktop rollouts than a thousand MCSEs.
KDE is the Linux desktop that originally built itself on a proprietary toolkit.
I'd say that shows just how much KDE gives a crap about the success of free software in general.
And I hate MS. Not capital-H hate, but 9/10 of my servers run silently and happy on linux/solaris/bsd, and 2/3 of my coding is in windoze. And 9/10 of my trouble each day is MS-related. When it's not MS, it's some 3rd party app that has hitched its half-assed wagon to the microsoft express and left me all sorts of buggy, ill-documented, no-source problems to deal with.
I can see lots of other ways people might not fit your either-or choice, so I'm inclined to think your dichotomy isn't so sound.
The issue here is subtle and complex. There are good arguments to be made for either decision (a coder really can't be dissed for saying 'don't let my code support an undesirable paradigm', and I feel cross-platform use breeds familiarity and that will attract new users).
Personally, my vote goes to the 'share to gain market share' side.
I feel that way because it's a central argument to my stance against the RIAA/MPAA. If they want to win hearts and minds, they need to do whatever they can to tear down the underlying motivators of (piracy | entrenched MS users). Same thing here...
Are you doing this for the good of the people or just to stick it to MS?
Windows users not good enough for OSS developers now?
this is attracting people to linux not repelling them. the first OS proggy i used would be mozilla and from there I learned of all sorts of opensource software and I'm planning to get a new pc with linux.
Before I moved from Windows to Linux, I moved from MS Office and IE to OpenOffice.org and Mozilla. The guy quoted in the blurb has it wrong. When the same apps are available on both platforms, you're going to go with the cheapest one, and that's Linux. When I switched my main machine to Linux (I already had an old machine running it), it was because it did the same thing as Windows, without either having to pay a bunch of money or hassle with trojan horse infested pirated software. The strategy of keeping FOSS of windows will just guarantee that most people continue to assume that free = crap or free = spyware infested bullshit, which accurately describes most non-OSS freeware.
Don't drop the soap, Tommy!
Open Source doesn't just exist because people like to get software for free. So-called "Freeware" tends to come with strings attached. Users want quality software, but they don't want to be railroaded. Having the ability to alter and recompile the code yourself gives you all the freedom you could want. But if free Unices should go out of style, are users supposed to maintain their own Linux distro just so that they can continue to run KDE apps? Risk averse managers may think along these lines, and it's their right because the right to think for yourself implies that you also have the right to follow the herd. By claiming dictatorial power over the operating system that KDE should run on, he is shooting himself in the foot.
I like using OSS on windows because it offers a
potential transition to an alternate-OS. When
alternate-OS become less fragmentary and cryptic
about their installation and use, then they might
flourish.
So what exactly is the goal of KDE? To beat Microsoft at providing a flashy, splashy GUI that any retard can use, or is it to provide free and open-source software to the world, regardless of the end use of the software?
Arguing for the latter is the nobler goal; arguing for the former is the practical goal. Which is it?
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
I am assuming that this would crash firefox too (it crashes Mozilla and I assume Firefox uses spidermonkey for javascript).
Create a javascript which does the following:
Opens a popup. Sets a timeout to print and close the popup after an arbitrary period (4 seconds in my test).
When the popup comes up, manually close it. When the timeout fires, it will crash the browser.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Thats a popular misconception. MS didnt kill Netscape, Netscape killed Netscape.
Yes, MS was offering a free alternative, but that free alternative was also one thousand times more reliable and problem-free than Netscape. NS acted like they were somehow owed that marketshare; amazingly, their customers didnt see it the same way.
Just like Word Perfect before them, MS was just there, grinding out a program which did what their competitor didnt, and took advantage of their competitor's mis-steps.
The difference is when I went to OS/2 I wanted to take some apps with me. I only later discovered some superb apps developed specifically for that platform then ported to windows to try and make money (anyone remember DeScribe?)Now I'm going to Linux for quality apps.
The common thread here is QUALITY and ACCOUNTABILITY. I got used to quality products and a smaller, more personal touch that let me know the programmers really did stand behind their product.
In context of the question at hand, then, I'd say it certainly has its pros and cons, but overall it's a good thing as long as there are clear and concise outlets of information to assure a potential user of quality issues and interoperability, as well as what else is available for the environment on different platforms. The key is program size, ease of use and functionality at specific tasks.
So it's not really KDE's availability on a given platform, it's the applications stupid! As a hungry, informed user I want quality apps that do what I want with little hassle, no bloat and an interface intuitive to me. (Do I even have to mention Stability???)
I like KDE because it makes more sense than windows interface, and I like Linux because I can control it's size and 'shape,' more ways than I can with windows. Part of the reason for this is windows integrates EVERYTHING to the point of making removal impossible (explorer, etc) and locks you into high-priced softwares (dvd viewers, etc) that do what I've learned to do with Linux.
With that in mind, why not include tutorials and other learning aids into the KDE-win project that teach real digital literacy (including legal gobbledygook) and how to switch to Linux? Applets that leverage windows information tools could easily provide importantant datasheets for joe blow so when he needs to know specific chipset information for a linux set-up he can find it easily (if he remembered to print the results.)
Folks, as FireFox is proving, people aren't Glued to windows, they're just afraid of change, losing data and/or time. The OS/2 versions of DeScribe (and PM-View) are infinitely better than their windows counterparts, as the Linux versions of programs (so far) are infinitely better than the windows backports [grin]. So long as things stay this way I think OSS, and linux, will be fine.
And 9/10 of my trouble each day is MS-related.
9/10 times I have trouble with Linux it is operator error.
Over the past 6 months I've had a series of problems with Firefox that were resolvable by deleting my profile, reinstalling firefox and regardless of which route I chose, going through the arduous task of remembering all of my extensions and reinstalling them.
A big pain in the ass for me, but at least it was pretty resolvable. I had different IE problems that would only be fixed if I did a clean OS install which I refused to do. From time to time, various SP or other IE updates would manage to force IE to work right once again.
If my bank (suntrust) allowed me to use firefox, I'd never have to use IE for anything again. And this is a major step in my possible, eventual migration to linux/bsd based OS.
Of course, what we really need is open source hardware, but that seems unlikely to take off the way OSS has.
What's the alternative? Write software with a complile-time choice between GTK2 and QT? That leads to a huge amount of duplication, as it's not just a matter of replacing one library call with another; there are major things the two do differently. Sometimes it's a lot easier to write a clean version from scratch. So write everything in plain X calls? Way more duplication (this time of the whole windowing api). It would be great if we had just one really good windowing api with spirtited development, but we don't and it's not just a matter of deciding to stop.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
multiplatform open source software can only help more end users and business users use open source software instead of commercial.
Wow, man...I feel all warm and fuzzy inside now.
Thank you for putting words on those thoughts.
Let me put forward a thought: A lot of software is written with ulterior motives in mind. Example: I use a lot of the MS stuff because I have to, and most everything that they do seems needlessly complicated. It has to be part of ".Net", or use ADO, or MAPI, or whatever other latest "standard" that they have invented. Maybe next year it is a new standard. They just cannot seem to make up theire mind. Or, for that matter, look at what happened to the Netscape browser, or Communicator, or whatever that bloated piece of garbage is that AOL created. Now, I am casting a quick glance -- I know that. But the software that is out there that is really great was written because someone wanted to build something great. I do not think that great software is about Linux winning over Windows. A few names: Perl, Apache, gcc, Python, TCL, Emacs. I think that all of these are available for Windows. If I wrote something that was I thought was really good, I would want it to be available to the widest possible audience. I would not like to think that I would be so stingy that I would want to keep my software only for Linux platforms. I am being a little selfish here. I used Windows because I have to. But just once, I would like to wake up, sit down at my keyboard for more than hour, and not have to think to myself, "My God, what a piece of **CRAP**" If open source can make that so, so be it. I cannot believe how many bugs I am always running into on Windows systems. That having been said, I also use Perl and VIM on Windows systems. I am glad that these packages are not restricted to Linux. 'nuff said. Dr. Pluto Madre
KDE, GNOME run on proprietary Unices such as Solaris and IRIX. Probably just as well on Tru64 and HPUX. It works. Now say there's a few modifications needed to get it compiled and running. Would the GNOME or KDE folks allow such patches or would they say "i don't want users to run the DE on that platform." Btw, KDE and GNOME already run on Windows, both via Cygwin (see sf.net) as well as solutions such as CoLinux.
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
I'm sick of all this "Linux is free" crap. Sure I can download a distro, but if I want any hope in hell of keeping it up to date, I have three choices: 1) subscribe for $$ to RHN or Novell's new Red Carpet Enterprise service, or 2) run a really old version of Red Carpet, or 3) waste a shitload of my time to figure out RPM dependencies and fetch individual packages from rpmfind.net. None of these is an acceptable solution, especially for the poor sap with a 56K dialup connection. Look, "free" software is no longer free (and it never was for those with slow links). Hmm... I can pay maybe $50 less for a computer with Linux instead of Windows, but then I have to figure all this shit out how to subscribe to an RPM dependency walking package to keep the thing up to date... OR I can just buy what everyone else is buying and get my OS updates for free via windowsupdate.com which XP SP2 will conveniently set up for me to do automatically?
but when I'm using firefox under windows I keep trying to highlight text, then middle clicking in the Google box. Then I say a rude word as I realise I'm not using X :(
> I refer to myself as platform agnostic. I don't much care what
> I'm running as long as it gets the job done.
I know many people who think like you. But I have always felt, that the platform wars are in reality about culture. So therefore giving KDE to Windows users might be like inviting strangers to your home country. The fear is that you lose your identity and have to cope with "Babarians led by Bill Gates".
If you just think about the users KDE on Windows is a good thing, as many companies try to lock their employees into their "standard environment" and the little rebellion of installing "just one small software I am accustomed to" is generally not punished. And from these small roots new converts to KDE can be found if co-workers have a look at it.
Devellopers of course have to hasse with this strange platform, but then Stallman wrote gnu-emacs for UNIX despite his expressed dislike of the system and it was a huge success.
But me? Well I am from a different culture. I grew up with home computers and after the death of the real Amiga (introduction of the A4000) I felt like homeless until OS X arrived. There it is: real UNIX and real ease of use - Its not about options, its not about freedom, its about making people happy.
With all due respect, the argument is flawed. In practice, it goes something like this:
:)
1. User A uses Windows because "that's all there is".
2. Open Source guru B introduces A to Linux/*BSD/whater open source platform.
3. A complains "but there's no apps that do email like Outlook Express!" (for example)
4. B introduces A to Thunderbird, which is an absolutely *awesome* email program, and runs everywhere, including Windows.
5. While A drools over all the cool stuff that Thunderbird does, B quietly mentions that Linux/*BSD/whatever (1) doesn't need virus protection software or anti-spyware/adware programs, and (2) never crashes.
6. While A has fun with Thunderbird, noting how much faster and easier it is to work with, even on Windows, she quietly thinks about how many times he or she has to reboot Windows because it's locked up her machine or just gotten flaky and she's lost just time, or even data because she hadn't saved that document or spreadsheet she'd been working on before Windows crashed on her.
7. About a week later, B gets a call from A, asking how easy it would be to install (insert O/S of choice here) and move her data and documents over. B explains that since there are applications that run on both Windows and Linux/*BSD, it's a snap to move the data between Windows and the new operating system.
8. Two or three hours after B shows up at A's office with a hard drive in a USB enclosure to backup her data and a set of CDs to install Mandrake/RedHat/SuSE/his favorite distro, the job is done. Another very happy client.
Remember, the applications may drive the desktop market, but the applications are merely a wrapping for the gift within - the more robust open source operating system - which the user never sees, but gets mightly angry when it doesn't work like it should.
I've been writing software for over 25 years, been involved in working on Linux for 13 years, and I'm here to tell you - Linux and the *BSD variants "just work". No rebooting because an app screwed something up, no cold boots, no lockups, "it just works". Applications that work on both platforms meanss that it will be easier to make the switch away from Windows when the use gets tired of putting up with its instability and bugs.
That's good enough for me - and my clients.
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
I have been a user, later a sysadmin, and all the time since i have known of some good free and mostly open source software, i have always installed that software first thing when i get a computer in hands for installing. It did never matter if it was a Linux, Windows or Mac, i allways installed the same sets of apps. And i would really apreciate the sets were really the same for all architectures and OSes. If anyone gets KDE running fine on Windows (apps and window manager) you will all be nearer to leave the Explorer slavery.
My only complaint about windows open-source or GNU software is that usually linux applications get ported to windows and a dozen other platforms, while major succesfull free software from windows rarely makes it to the linux world. As an example from the top ten sourceforge downloads: CDex (great, but win-only), virtual-dub, DC++, emule. These are hugely popular applications that are relatively mature and yet they have not been ported to linux or any free operating system. (please do not mention alternatives for linux, I know there are several to be found but that is not the point I'm trying to make)
In my experience, there are two distinct sets : linux free software with win ports and win-only free software. I'm not against free software for windows, I use it all the time. But we are not talking about a free-software-for-windows movement.
P.
If windows users are used to KDE, they wil find it less of a culture shock when they turn to Linux.
I use my computer as a tool to do my work. I can not contemplate fully switching to GNU/Linux until every application I use is supported (and I have learnt to use the OSS versions). Whilst this may not seem a strong vote for porting OSS apps to Windows it really is: For the moment my work dictates I run Windows, however OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, GIMP, Blender, Mono, Apache, MySQL, PERL, Eclipse, Xemacs all ensure that 90% of the time I am running OSS (in fact Cygwin and CoLinux means I can also run a full Gentoo system with X11 running OpenSSH, Konqueror, Evolution and cinelerra side by side with dreaded M$ software.) so very soon I hope to drop the dreaded dual-boot and switch to a good OS. As more OSS applications can me easily tried and learnt be Microserfs the better people will understand OSS, and once they are only using apps that work better on an alternative OS they won't even have to think about brining the expensive crappy MS OS.
If you want to FORCE people to change operating systems, then yes making things unix-only may seem like it will make people to unix. WRONG... guess what, no one likes to be forced to do things, that's the reason why everone is rebelling against microsoft these days, because they have tried to force certain things (browser, interface, etc).
;)
However, if you want to actually ENCOURAGE people to switch, then all these cross-platform apps will lead to the acceptance of desktop *nix. These apps remove the appeal of windows, because suddenly you don't HAVE to have windows to run a certain app. Also, when you come to the point where you have to upgrade, if you can have all your applications that you currently use on windows on unix as well, then the operating system is evaluated on it's worth...
The object should be for an operating system to be judged on it's quality, not what applications will run on it. Removing OS specific software will allow for windows to be analyzed against *nix desktops on it's merits, which should result in a better choice.
You dislike the OS, despite that fact there is not a single barrier for OS software to run on windows? The multitude of cross-platform OSS that runs on windows proves the absence. Your idealogical objection towards the OS, becomes a practical punishment of its users. These same users you're trying to convince to come to your side of the argument. Not the most persuasive stance, if you ask me. Generally, a carrot is better than a stick.
Until then, why help them secure market dominance?
I contend quite the opposite. By not porting OSS to their platform, we're preventing market dominance of all OSS, and by extension maintaining the dominance of the OS as a significant requirement for general use of software. What happens when linus changes his mind and says that Linux is going for a CPL license (or something pseudo-FOSS, not that it will happen. Worst-case.). Software that isn't ubiquitously portable is hobbled without major investment of time and effort.
The major point of Open Source adopters is that we are forcing a major change for the better in the whole mega-corporate game
force? We can't and shouldn't force anything. Force implies that willingness to participate is not an issue. If you can't convince people to use Open Source without coercion, do you think forcing them will make them want to use it more? The fact that MS forced its way onto the desktop doesn't mean that people want to use their OS more. Accessibility of alternatives in all software respects and the ease of switching to them are key to executing change, both for individual users and in business. Porting software to Windows makes it more accessible, and also makes it easier for people to switch, not only their applications, but ultimately their OS. Porting applications is part of the process of commoditizing the OS layer.
Theoretically, Open Source Software can run on anything, because porting by anyone is enabled by the visibility of the source. In practice, where it runs on should be based on where it can be used most effectively, not due to idealogical differences unrelated to practical limitations. I don't see Apache being ported to Palm, simply because it's not practical. If suddenly people found a use for a mobile web server (there's an idea!), then I don't see any reason not to start the port. Palm is as closed source as windows (for now). Yet I wouldn't expect as much resistance to this suggestion.
Another point uses FreeBSD (or was it OpenBSD?) as an example. Their stance on only accepting truly Free software is different to KDE's stance, because they limit only themselves. They don't say "closed source is bad so noone should use it". They say "incompatible licenses are unacceptable to us for shipping.". I can still run whatever I want if I choose to, as long it runs. Their stance garners a lot more respect from me as someone who's never even looked at their distro than KDE's stance, simply because I can move to them should I choose. I can't move to KDE because they essentially bar me.
click-clack, front and back. I'm not moving this car otherwise.
I got a lot of resistance to this port from Linux zealots, many declaring the project was not even possible for all the declamatory reasons you might suppose.
What happened in the end, was the enterprise app moved onto a lot of Win32 desktops that weren't running it before, thus increasing the user base, and the acceptance of the app in the corp.
Win32 programmers then started working on the code, adding functionality, fixing problems, and we successfully integrated two previously squabbling departments.
Now, the OS mystique is largely dispelled in both camps, and the Linux and Win32 users don't mind using other systems, and they no longer flame for childish and irrational reasons.
I think being inclusive instead of exclusive is a win for everyone.
I find the central thesis that port to Win32 hurts OpenSource to be closeminded, irrational, and offensive!
Gosh!
like an anonymous coward or simple without time.
to the core team:
you can or you can not bite that bullet.