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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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.