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 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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Disclaimer: More recently, I have migrated to OS X as my primary platform, and I use very little cross platform software here since it rarely integrates well with the rest of the system or follows the HIGs. Windows and *NIX users are easier to please with cross platform software since programs that don't fully conform to the platform's UI guidelines are the norm.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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
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.
Mozilla is an App. It runs on Windows. Is it a win for MS?
This is wrong logic. Here is what I think.
1. If the new applications are worse than MS, there isnt much value till they get better.
2. If the applications are better than MS, then people will move to OSS apps and ultimately may pave the way to move to linux
Just remember the following logic:
More options = good
Less options = bad
Isnt this how MS won from Apple and IBM to start with? The only way to win from MS is to give more freedom.
Yours truly,
Part of the "Microsoft hate" is because Microsoft threatens the very existence of OSS; "winning over" a decent section of the mindshare to OSS will help to prevent this.
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.
The last count I saw (on linux-kernel) showed that Linux supported more than twice as many devices as Win2k. Windows is ahead on supporting new hardware and way behind on supporting old hardware.
My scanner hasn't worked under windows since Windows 95/98 (the 95 driver kind of worked under 98, but locked up occasionally), but SANE supports it just fine under Linux; I see no reason to replace it since it's a quite nice true 600dpi flatbed. Indeed, I wound up with it because Windows stopped supporting it (my parents were forced to "upgrade" to a much inferior but newer model about 3 years ago).
rage, rage against the dying of the light
Count me in on anything that makes FOSS omnipresent in the popular mindscape.
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$.
And then people wouldn't need Windows anymore (aside from the Office thing but that is nearing the end as well).
Let's say you have a windows machine and then you have these cool cross-platform Open Source apps on it. Let's say you've been using Windows all this while - what would make you want to switch? Why would you want to switch? That's the point he's trying to make.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
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.
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.
Yeah, getting stuff to be cross-platform worked so well for OS/2 (win32 subsystem) and Mac (getting MS to port all the MS software to Mac) ... OS/2 is dead, and Apple pretty much had to reinvent the Mac for MacOSX, and, even then, needed a MS-based infusion of $$$.
To be honest, I remain unconvinced that getting FOSS running on Windows is either good or bad for MS. OOo specifically is good (since MSOffice is one of the two largest money grabs MS has, with Windows being the other). The rest? I'm kinda thinking it's good for MS in the same way that MS has always tried to entice developers to develop for Windows - it helps to add value to the Windows platform: "Look, you can run all these free programs, and when you decide you want commercial quality, you can run all these other programs, too!"
MS's marketing machine will find a way to spin this to the positive - why keep giving them ammunition?
More options = more problems
;P Of course, what do I know, I'm just a facist at heart.
Less options = stability
Ask any Apple user about the stability of their system, then think about how many options they have for hardware and software compared to their x86 using retarded cousins.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
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.
Ahh, but who cares if he switches or not? Since when are we in the marketing department? If he likes Windows, but wants to use KDE, then I have no problem with that.
If he likes Linux, but wanted to run MS Word, then it would be nice if he could do that too.
Why do we give a fsck what OS people run? Do you get a commission for every MS user that switches to Linux?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
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.
I dare RMS to release Hurd under that level of restriction. You'll see that virtually nobody will even touch it simply due to it's ultra-restrictive nature. I have nothing against the GPL, in fact I think it's a great license for the Linux kernel. GPL'ed apps are fine too, but when you start dictating that different software packages must adhere to the exact same philosophy to even interact is pushing it too far.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
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.
If I had mod points, I'd bump this up as well. Creating software that is cross platform, especially the core libs, are a huge boost to the Open Software movement. Whether on Win, Mac, Linux, BSD.. doesn't matter. If you make the tools available to Windows, there's a good chance someone would look and say, "Hey, if we use this, we can broaden our marketshare by providing ports of our code to 3 other platforms without having to rewrite much." It takes time, but we've seen over the past 10 years how much of a difference it has made so far.
Microsoft doesn't need ammunition, and it doesn't need help to cause problems. They are far, far more influential and backporting to Win32 just gets them nice and irritated. For instance, "Hi, umm, Microsoft Support? Yeah, I'm trying to run this program called Gimp, and it seems to keep erroring out because of XYZ." Could you imagine flooding their phone lines with calls for OSS apps. It'd drive them bonkers.
So I say, keep it coming. Port everything, just make sure the Linux version still works since that's the one I'm going to use.
-What have you contributed lately?
This is alot like people who are switching to Mac because of the iPod. I know some people gave these types a hard time, but I don't. What is happening is that people see the ease of use offered by iPod / iTunes and want more of it (that or they want to be trendy, but we'll assume the former). So, they get a Mac.
If KDE is ported to Windows, people will see that there are other options w/o leaving the comfort of the OS they learned first and start using other FOSS. Eventually, Microsoft is going to have so many security holes that people aren't going to trust it. Then they'll know where to go if they haven't already gone there.
I think most people feel "stuck" with Windows, rather than actually liking it. They are comfortable with the UI, though. The only way to change the power structure is to let them know there are other alternatives that are much better than Windows and still operate in very similar ways, thus allowing comfort and change.
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.
My concern with open source applications under Windows is the quality. From what I've seen, the open source applications were usually developed under Linux, then ported to Windows. Many times, the Windows port isn't close to the quality of the Linux version, probably because fewer people are developing and testing it. I can imagine Windows users saying, "If this is open source, I don't see what the big deal is."
So I think porting the many great open source applications to Windows could be a great introduction to open source, but only if the quality is maintained.
Firefox is currently ripping IE a new one, and that's a good thing. From what I've heard of the Windows version, it's as good as the Linux version. Open Office on Windows didn't seem nearly as good as the Linux version, but it still beats paying for MS Office, so it has a good following. But it doesn't adequately convey the positive experiences I've had with open source applications running under Linux.
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
The single best thing that the GTK guys could do would be to ditch their abysmal file open dialog and just delegate the call directly to Win32's ::GetOpenFileName method. The one in the latest Ethereal (GTK+ 2.4) is only marginally better than the previous putrid and completely unusable POS. Unfortunately the whole UI has become extremely sluggish... and this is on a 1.7GHz Pentium-M.
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.
Well the harm that will be done is that a lot of time and energy will be spent on porting code. There are a lot of areas that need improvements and a host of applications that need to be developed.
95% of OSS is pretty much a waste of time and energy. Look how much of sourceforge is full of duplicate GTK/QT frontends to some library someone came up with. If people want to waste their time, it's their time to waste, let'em.
Firefox is currently ripping IE a new one, and that's a good thing. From what I've heard of the Windows version, it's as good as the Linux version.
Here's the best praise I can give Firefox: I cannot tell which OS I'm using it on until I start downloading a file.
They did a terrific job.
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."
Thank you. If I were a KDE developer, I'd be pleased that more people liked and used my software, regardless of the underlying OS. I don't know what this guy's problem is.
While I try and use as much FOSS as I can, I can see your scenario causing some problems for Joe User.
User: "Hi, umm, Microsoft Support? Yeah, I'm trying to run this program called Gimp, and it seems to keep erroring out because of XYZ."
Microsoft: "That's because you're running software that is incompatible with Microsoft Windows. Most so-called 'open-source' software is not fully compatible, and can cause problems."
User: "Really?"
Microsoft: "Of course. How can they possibly afford error-chrcking, compatibility assurance, and quality development when they're offering the software for free?"
User: "Oh, ok. Can you recommend any alternatives then?"
Microsoft: "Certainly. You can use..."
Hey, I'm just suggesting...
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
of open source advocates:
Free code is good for everybody camp
and the
we h473 M$ camp.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Free Software doesn't have a coherent set of goals. Ask any three Free Software hackers why they write Free Software and you are likely to get five answers. What Free Software has is an economic model that works.
Take Linux, for instance. What are the chances of an undergraduate student from Finland being allowed to hack on a commercial operating system? None, there is no chance that anyone would have give Linus a shot at meaningful work on a commercial operating system when he first started hacking Linux. Once Linus did write Linux what were the chances of Linux being able to compete with the various and sundry commercial operating systems if Linus charged people money to use it? No one would have paid money for early versions of Linux, and no one in their right mind would have even played with Linux had it not come complete with source code distributed under a permissive license.
Fast forward a few years and Linux is slowly crushing the life out of commercial operating systems, and it continues to do so with hackers that wouldn't have a prayer of getting a shot at meaningful work in the commercial software world. Marcelo Tosatti was maintaining the 2.4 kernel as an 18-year-old high-school student in Brasil. What are the chances of Sun or Microsoft giving that kid a job. Yet Marcelo has been making money writing Linux software since he was 13. He's currently employed by Cyclades. Linus, and most of the other kernel hackers, are also doing far better with Free Software than they would have been had they followed more "normal" career paths. You see, that's the little secret of Free Software, most of the folks writing Free Software get paid to do so. Those that don't get paid directly usually get indirect financial benefits, and they can at least use their Free Software success as a calling card.
The end result is software that is cheaper to write and maintain than conventional software written by folks that get paid to do what they would probably do for free.
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. Microsoft has built their business around an economic model that requires huge profit margins, and the Free Software business model is destroying those margins. Microsoft controls the computer market, and they are using their current market dominance to drive their incompatible file formats and incomprehensible protocols. Free Software hackers simply want their software to get used (for a variety of reasons, many of which are economic), and Microsoft stands in the way of this goal.
This isn't saying that there aren't some Linux hackers that don't *hate* Microsoft, but it's not the hate that is driving Free Software adoption, it's the economics.
The trouble with this fact (new hardware not supported) is that people like me (I upgrade once or twice a year) can never get a decent, stable distribution running on their desktops.
Thus, for all intents and purposes, Linux hardly supports any system (i.e the whole entire sum of the box's hardware) I've ever used, at the time I was using it.
I strongly believe Linux will never work on the desktop unless there is a stable *binary* API for both kernel drivers and X video drivers that companies can target.
More on-topic:
I live in MS Visual Studio (50%), Cygwin (20%) and Firefox (15%) (sundries remainder). The closest thing to VS on Linux is Kylix, which is pretty much abandonware - perhaps something will emerge from Mono/SharpDevelop. Having the same applications available on both platforms is, IMNSHO, the only workable strategy to migrate users to Linux.
Imagine a Big Bang approach: everybody comes into work on Monday morning to a completely new set of applications that they've never used before! You'd need to be in fantasy land to think that scenario would work!
The only way it can be done is by minimizing the difference between the two platforms, so that it becomes purely an economic argument.
Stability etc. don't and won't fly. X drivers in my experience have been far, far more flaky than Windows drivers for my (new) video hardware. It's probably the X driver that matters most on the desktop. X is the average Linux distribution's worst "feature". I compulsively set inittab to runlevel 3 rather than submit to that torture.
[I've been modded Troll for stating my honestly-felt opinions about the shortcomings of the current Linux desktop situation. Too many Linux zealots are afraid of the opinions of the very users they wish to convert, and their defensive rage hurts their case more than they know.]
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.
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.
That's not really much praise. If that were true, it would show that FF doesn't fit in with native programs. Fortunately, it's not really true - there are noticable visual differences between FF's various ports, especially on MacOS.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
First is a social goal: to give people (including the software's own developers!) a choice so that they can choose to use free software instead of proprietary software, when they cannot afford proprietary software or when the proprietary vendor exercises too much control over the user's rights.
Second is a practical goal: to convince enough people, through the merits of the software and the developers who work on it, that investing their time and money in the development of free software is worthwhile and will provide a greater return to them than paying for proprietary software.
Neither of these goals is about control, though some confused people attempt to use the foundations of free software to further their personal goals of coercion.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
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.
> Either way it's a win for FOSS.
Exactly. No offense, but screw linux. I'm more for standards and free software and collaboration and better ways of doing things than for someone's pet OS.
Don't be so defensive - you raise a good point. As much as I love Linux (and use it full-time at home), I still can't quite shake off the feeling that using it as my home desktop is roughly akin to being a crazy old man who lives in a hut in the woods eschewing electricity and modern conveniences for purely idealogical concerns - the OS equivalent of being Amish ;). Where will the Microsoft ex-patriate flee? Again, as much as I personally like it (and "like" != "run it smoothly and trouble-free") I could not, in good conscience, recommend it to anyone else [unless they were a non-savvy user who simply wanted to browse & e-mail with impunity, like my dear old mum :)], which leaves Macs which, while apparently excellent, are not exactly wallet-friendly.
So we are at something of an impasse; quite a lot of people are sick of Microsoft, but there really (debatably) aren't any credible, cheap alternatives.
This is why I'm always heartened to hear rave reviews of the latest distros like e.g. Ubuntu, whose beta release made substantial strides in useability and "It Just Works"-factor for the "common" (ugh) desktop-user. My own experience is that Linux desktop useability has increased substantially even over the last year, and it seems to be accelerating. Call me an optimist, but by the time Longhorn comes out, Linux will be a very credible alternative. For now, however, (in my opinion) there is a large measure of truth to what you say, and it is a problem.
In both of those cases, they depended on Mr. Bill for the apps, and MS pulled the rug out from under them. This is a slightly different case of providing users with the applications on both Windows and Linux. This doesn't really create a dependance on Microsoft -- in fact, much the other way 'round.
The advantage of this approach is that it does make it easier for companies to transition from Windows to Linux/*BSD. The disadvantage, in the short term, is that it makes life a bit more comfortable for them while they're on Windows.
I think that what I'd ask people to do is look at each porting question from a strategic point of view: Is having this app cross-platform going to make it more likely that people will move to fully FLOSS or less. If more, then port it. If less then don't.
BTW: It's not Windows vs FOSS, its proprietary vs FOSS. Microsoft just happens to be the deathstar of proprietary systems.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
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.
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?
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.
If my bank (suntrust) allowed me to use firefox, I'd never have to use IE for anything
Suntrust Bank keeps sending me emails telling me I need to update my profile. I go there and plug in all my bank account and credit card information, but they keep sending the emails.
:^)
On a serious note, it's frustrating that many banking and credit card sites insist on IE, despite the fact that it's one of the least secure browsers available. The CERT recommendation to use Firefox instead of IE has finally forced them to rethink their IE only policy. CERT is the computing security division of the US Department of Homeland Security.
I've had good luck going to the about:config page in Mozilla and telling it to report that it's IE when queried by servers. They think they're talking to an IE browser and they provide the content which usually works as well in Mozilla as it does in IE.
Forcing the browser to lie has some downsides. You may get some IE specific code that doesn't work in Mozilla. You'll also be contributing to the problem you're trying to fight because your Mozilla or Firefox browser will be counted as IE when you visit sites. Their IT department will then say, "Why should we support Firefox? 98% of the people visiting our site use IE." Producing a "This site optimized for IE" website is a self fulfilling prophecy. Force your customers to use IE to do their online banking, and they either will, or they'll lie to you.
Webmaster suggestions:
1) HTML standards are good. Stop using browser specific crap.
2) Most times your Flash craplet only serves to drastically slow down your site and turn away visitors by not working on their machines. Want an animation? Use GIF89a.
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.