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)
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.
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.
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 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!
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.
Count me in on anything that makes FOSS omnipresent in the popular mindscape.
"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!
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.
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.
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.
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.