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.
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 windows... keep it working nicely for Linux. People will switch to Linux because "look how crappily windows runs KDE".
Meh.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
...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.
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$.
"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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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
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.
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...
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.
... 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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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."
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
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!
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.
"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"
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.
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.
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.