Slashdot Mirror
No Respect for Windows Open Source
man_of_mr_e writes "Shaun Walker, one of the founding developers of the DotNetNuke Portal/CMS has written an interesting piece about Open Source software on the Windows platform. "It's hard being an open source project on the Microsoft platform. Because no matter how hard you try to exemplify true open source ideals, you will not get any respect from the non-Microsoft community." He also says "There are Open Source zealots who believe that unless an application is part of a stack which includes 100% Open Source services and components, that it can not claim to be Open Source. [...] But does this "stack" argument actually make any sense?""
his reminds me of that Star Trek Voyager episode a friend of mine watched and told me about because I'd never watch that. The Voyager was chasing down some other Starfleet ship that had modded there ship by using direct port alien injection. They were squishing Martians or something to make warp 1000 to get back to Earth. So this story is exactly like that; the DNN team are essesntially doing a good thing (like the alien mashers getting their people home), but in a bad way (helping the evil company by providing it with free apps that promote their product).
Personally, I don't trust them. In this case, I'd encourage them to go closed source. Nobody should be promoting the use of VBScript or whatever that crappy Basic derivitive is that people use to write ASP (I've converted a lot of this garbage to PHP/Perl, and everything I've seen written using ASP has been absolutely horrific - the worst, least optimised crap I've ever seen - hell I could do better way back when I used to sit in my high-chair bashing away on my toy learning computer - last week it was. Now I think of it, maybe this is why IIS seems slow and wobbly; it's burdened with coping with the worst "Programmers" on Earth.
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Open source is open source, no matter what platform. Just because you use Windows does not mean that you beleive that everything should be DRMed or closed. If you write something open souce, you know what, thats good enough for me.
Yay, I have a sig.
Considering still 90% of people, inc me, use a Windows environment, having your software work on it is not a bad idea, unless you want to cut 90% of your market off without even trying. Get people onto free open source software and they may try your OS. I wouldn't have tried Linux if I hadn't tried OSS such as Firefox/OO, yes it's silly but I didn't know about it before them.
I hold more respect for people willing to produce open source products for windows. Mainly because of the people this article is written about. I think there's some sort of irony to giving away something so open on top of a platform that stands very much for closed. Maybe that's just me though. I don't see a lot of people griping when their Closed-Source ATI linux driver keeps their video card running on their "open source" OS...
Why is this a surprise? Devlopers of closed-source software on Linux get a similar lack of respect (oracle excepted)
I'm a Windows developer because it pays the bills. Imagine if you did it by choice!
Unless an application is running on a system in which the processor design, motherboard schematics and BIOS firmware are 100% Open Source, it can not claim to be Open Source.
Sound reasonable?
Nuff said.
:)
OSS is good no matter what platform you use it on. I don't care what RMS says and I imagine if more folks would give up the whole politcal thing and just focused on quality that things would be better.
Of course I'll not go into the irony of the fact that most of the people doing said whining are using Linux and the contradications that they ignore.
So no OSS on Windows is *good*.
And this from a dedicated OpenBSD and OS X user.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
WTF is "The Microsoft Community"? When I boot into XP I'm in TMC but when I boot into Debian I'm not? When I boot into OS X I'm not except if I'm using Word?
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
No, of course not. These are zealots we're talking about. Logic rarely has anything to do with it.
As to the argument: What are the overall goals of OSS? I suspect you'd get 10 different answers from 5 different people. But even if you define the goal as free and open software, you'd still want OSS projects on windows to create a transition medium. So the zealots would still be wrong.
In short, ignore them and keep up the good work.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
It's just a vocal minority. Chill. Most people aren't that particular.
Seriously, I love the fact that people are passionate enough about something that they're willing to write Open/Free Software for Windows. After all, it's a VERY popular platform, and unlikely to go away any time soon. Firefox? Sure! OpenOffice.org? Yes, please! These two projects are helping keep things at the office I work at both safe and legal. ClamWin? Why not? I could go on, but I won't.
A good analogy would be the days when kuro5hin.org was worth reading. You'd have material that was getting voted to sections and the front page all the time, but you'd only see comments like "stop posting this crap, we don't want to read it!"
Who's "we"?
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
I'm usually very understanding of people defending linux, unix, bsd... and in fact, I'm an avid NetBSD user myself. However, people who don't support open source software on Microsoft platforms are really just hurting themselves. For example, how can one argue against the "low quality of open sourced software" to a Windows user, who cannot try any open source software themselves? Mozilla Firefox has helped immensely in this regard, showing how open source software can truly trump proprietary software.
I'm all for open source operating systems, but let's be realistic here: zealots who don't respect open source efforts on Windows are not only being stubborn, but are hurting their treasured cause.
- dshaw
But, at the same time, I totally understand the argument that people who write OSS for windows or port OSS to windows are part of the problem (tm). If we want to defeat windows - and I hope we do, because it sucks - we shouldn't be supporting windows by making it more usable.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Here's what I think of open source, at least from a technical perspective.
From a legal perspective, there are 58 OSI-approved "open source" licenses last I checked, which together constitute at least 58 different definitions. There's no consensus on what it really means. Personally, I feel that if I can read the code, the code is open source. All the other factors are extraneous.
However, one would think that in the spirit of openness, the open source community would welcome whatever contributions it gets, no matter how they're licensed. Sadly, that's rarely the case. I actually had someone threaten me with trademark infringement on the term "open source," when we released the Lampshade PHP framework under a dual license of our own. Of course, that person didn't own the trademark, becaues there is no trademark on the generic term, but whoever it was felt justified in threatening me anyway.
If the open source community wants respect, it should be willing to treat people who contribute with respect, too. Scaring off contributors is not the way to go.
Typically Open Source is mix of both pragmatism and dogmatism, and many of the most vocal members of the Open Source community hold ideological beliefs that software and knowledge should be free, so if your software doesn't run on "Free" systems, you're not following their ideology.
Why is this a problem? and why should OSS developers on the Windows platform care about opinions of zealots?
I know a lot of people are going to say that if you want to use a content management tool like Dot Net Nuke, why not just go Linux instead.
That's sometimes easier said than done. I worked for a company that had a huge existing codebase in ASP and C#, and they had already bought the licenses for Windows server. The actual Microsoft Content Management Server was so insanely prohibitively expensive that it wasn't even an option. Dot Net Nuke saved the day.
For the open source model to become what people want it to become, it needs to be not only embraced by the slashdot community of Linux nerds, but by everbody else, as well. Stuff like this is a good start.
Seems to me if you're going to be hard-nosed about the 'stack' idea, you wouldn't consider anything open-source unless it also ran on an open-source firmware (like OpenFirmware), and perhaps even open-source hardware...which doesn't describe the majority of Linux boxes out there, last I checked.
This flies in the face of science.
I use lots of open source software on windows (firefox, VLC, thunderbird, etc.) and really enjoy it. I get the best of both worlds; I can use awesome software for free and I don't have to deal with any of the shortcomings of linux (my copy/paste works correctly, all my hardware is supported, and I can play games other than frozen bubble and tux racer).
I'm not sure why any open source developer would shun windows. On Windows, the users have no problems paying for good software (I bought x-chat for windows), and the market for software is a lot larger than the 3 or 4% that use linux.
I don't think that the problem is a lack of respect, but perhaps we are sensibly cautious. I mean, Microsoft has a documented history of wanting to destroy open source. Just because they layer some open source apps on their operating system without a mention of apology or cast-in-stone policy change we should all believe they seen the light?
Click here or here.
Is there a story here? Even if these people were a majority it doesn't do anything to stop anyone who wants to write open source for whatever platform they feel like. Even if these people want to declare that freely distributed Windows source is no longer to be called Open Source it still wouldn't stop Windows users distributing software and calling it something else. So try as I might, I can't find even the tiniest shadow of a story here.
If it's Windows only I could see how the anti-MS types would lose respect but if it's cross platform then intentionally preventing it from running on Windows would seem to be missing the point of openness.
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
If the code is viewable to anyone and usuable by anyone then that means anyone if they wanted could start their own personal project to port it off of the propriatary software and onto a free software base. If you lack the information to do something like that then I would argue that it wasn't open source. Just because a program is running only on windows doesn't mean it's not open source. Algorythms are platform independent.
The kernel that is being run doesn't really matter to a user when they consider one specific program. Usually what matters is the librarys being used. While supporting Windows is a honorable goal, using Win32 exclusive libraries creates problems. The windows implementations of Gaim, and wget work well because the foundational libraries project authors used to write the software have been ported to platforms that did not already support them. When you choose to write an open source program using proprietary libraries, porting to a more useful platform is hard, and the lack of forsight observed is just frusturating.
/. crowd will not assess many pity points for whining.
I think the quoted in this post was trying to get false sympathy. By using someone elses foundation you are gaining advantages that allow your job to be done more easily, However when that foundation is closed source you do no favours to people who would improve or port your project. So unless you want to do ALL the non-foundational work yourself, find a good open source foundation, or write your own OS foundation.
This is more of a practical argument than a philosphical one. I'm sure the
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
I prefer programming on Linux because I find it easier. There is more *free* documentation, the standards are more open, and better programming tools are available for free. I have no doubt it evens out when you buy Visual C++ or something of that nature, but it isn't really an option for me. Linux, as I see it, is far more developer friendly; almost every system has a compiler, so you have a reasonable guarantee, as a developer, that a user will be able to compile your software without any extra packaging. Also, consider that code written for POSIX compliant, UNIX-like systems will run on any such system, whereas an application written for Windows will only run on Windows (except through WINE or emulators). Cross-platform code, either through something like Java (yes, I know it has its disadvantages) or through cross-platform libraries, like QT or wxWindows, is certainly the holy grail. That being said, I don't think it's hard to see why single-platform OSS applications tend to stick to a POSIX environment rather than Windows.
I mean, sure, there are undeniably people who insist on running a 100% pure free software stack (I'm close to this end of the spectrum myself). And there are undeniably trolls out there who see the use of non-free software (more commonly MS software specifically) as evidence of moral corruption, idiocy, or malice. And these populations have some overlap.
But so what? The reaction from the sane folks in the OSS community is going to be just, well, ignorance. As a full-time linux user, I will admit that I've never heard of "DotNetNuke" and have no plans on using it. It just doesn't enter my field of view, sorry.
Ignoring projects isn't the same thing as "disrespect", and I suspect the author has confused the two.
Windows user here, but when I have a problem to solve, I look first to Open Source, usually a search of sourceforge.
There are some very nice OSS windows apps, as well as *nix apps ported to Win32. There are also a good number of "Windoze" type comments which do nothing but let me know the maturity level of the author(s).
Hint for the flamers - that maturity level would be low.
If I'm trying to get a OSS project into a predominatly windows shop, I already face some sort of battle. My CTO sees a polished salesperson offering a packaged product with SLAs; then they see me and the PFY. Don't give the salesperson ammo, be professional.
Would I care if a project that was really useful to me on Windows wasn't viable on Linux? Yes and no. I think that platform independence is a HUGE plus in the FOSS world. It definitely earns you bonus points. It increases the level of freedom the users of that project have. BUT, users of that project are also free to port it to other platforms. I wouldn't be able to run my WAMPP environment if people hadn't ported the AMPP portion to Windows.
Using more proprietary foundations like .NET do limit the usefulness of an OSS project, but only until people get interested in developing ports. If nothing else, you can build a forked project that uses the best logic and functions that aren't platform dependent and merges them with a more platform independent underpinning.
If you're developing OSS for .NET, kudos on being open source, but you do miss the bonus points for being platform independent and don't whine about not getting the cred platform-independent projects of the same nature do. If you're an OSS user who sees this great project built on a proprietary stack and are pissed because it's not available for your platform, "port up or shut up".
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
I have a lot of respect for the developers of putty and winscp both are windows based open source project and work wonderfully. I have even given up using samba altogether now and use winscp exclusively as a file manager and file transfer.
I don't know much about this project, but perhaps the flak/non-repect that you are recieving is that by being Windows-only you are helping to support and maintain the MS monopoly/vendor lock-in.
Again, I don't know much about this project - but is there a specific reason for being Windows only instead of being multiplatform?
Developing good OSS software on Windows is like tossing out life jackets to shipwreck survivors. They're not safe yet, but at least they aren't drowning. I love Linux and running on some of my boxes but the OSS software has been the most useful to me is Firefox running on my Windows XP machine and likewise for millions of others. Everyday I'm thankful to the FF team because it saves me many many hours of frustration that I had to deal with before when using IE. There's also Thunderbird. If you're measuring success by number of hours of frustration you've saved people and value you've added to their computing time, OSS on Windows makes sense. FF has been WILDLY successful and undoubtedly the most common OSS foothold/beach head on most Windows machines. Once we've convinced the average Joe that the OSS model is sound, then other OSS programs will follow. They're not going to read the Cathedral and the Bazaar. FF is something they can see. The experience will convince them.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
I have heard about DotNetNuke here and there, but not very often. This is surprising since it's supposed to be good, is free, and I often do work implementing content management systems.
OpenOffice.org gets lots of attention partly *because* it supports Windows, so supporting Windows isn't the problem. The main reason why I suspect DDN gets little attention is because it's stuck to a proprietary system: Windows and IIS. If they haven't already, the DDN team should work on getting it working with Mono under the Apache web server in both Windows and Linux. If needed, they should contribute code to Mono to fix incompatibilities. They'd then be able to play in the same ballpark as other content management software that is available cross-platform and they'd certainly get a lot of attention from Linux users.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
Recently (Dec 2004) there's been some outspoken people saying that Free Software applications on win32 and other proprietary platforms is a bad thing. Well I'm outspoken, so here's my opinion.
People should switch to GNU/Linux because they value their freedom, not because there's more apps, or because the TCO is lower. If they switch because of these secondary reasons they will be nothing but a burden on Free Software. These people are the ones who are after a free lunch and frankly, we have enough trouble feeding each other without feeding them too. So how is Free Software on win32 a good thing then? Porting Free Software to win32 is a cheap way to give users the opportunity to experience freedom for themselves. They can directly compare their freedom to copy, modify and distribute Free Software to the tyranny of most closed source alternatives. Then they can make the choice to switch for the right reasons and be a productive member of our community.
How we know is more important than what we know.
...it may as well be cross-platform!
I don't have any problem with OSS written for the Windows environment. It's just as cool as any other, but I am most accustomed to seeing any given project being written to support multiple platforms. I don't see any reason why any Windows-targeted project couldn't also be made cross-platform when using the appropriate libraries.
OpenOffice.org, Firefox and The GiMP are terrific examples of this sort of thing. It could only make a project more likely to live longer.
First of all, make your (hard) work open source because you want to share it with others.
.. well then you've at least put it out there.
Don't do it for "street creds" or anything similar silly.
So what if the non-windows open source community doesn't like your project.
If it's a good project people will get interested in it and contribute to it. If it's not
Someone somewhere will make use of some of the code somehow, even if they don't contribute back.
And personally I think the "but windows isn't free!" argument is void.
If people wants to use some open source application on their platform of choice, it's open for them to port it.
That's kinda the idea of open source, no?
you will never get respect if you are from the Dark side. Sadly, you are not going to get respect from the Windows side (not closed enough) and you will not get respect from the OSS (not "do not be evil" enough or simply not open enough).
Besides, whinners are always tossed aside.
I could never get past the fact that Dot Net Nuke was all in VB.NET.
Talk about zealotry. How about a C# port for all the grown ups?
It's just platform chauvinism, plain and simple. It stems from a very simplistic world view, a sort of If you aren't 100% against them, you must be against us.
The irony is, it's often those who whine and complain the loudest about Micro$oft that do the least to support actual Open Source development.
Ooops, that was almost well thought out and reasoned... I should have just said: "You're new here, aren't you?"
Attack the problem from all angles.
Don't force the poor MS-Windows users to suffer a pure lock-in environment. Show them a glimpse of Freedom and they'll know where to come when they eventually get fed up.
I think most OSS people just want to see your OSS Windows software running under multiple platforms. I think the lack of respect comes when people build things for windows which are then not ported to linux.
Apache, Mozilla, MySQL, PHP - these are examples of OSS projects where they are both cross-platform, and respected. I don't think they would have been nearly as well recieved if they were for Windows only. Of course, there is a large subset who think that anything designed for the Windows platform must be crap. I think it's easy enough to recognise and filter those opinions out though.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
The Java open source community has made that abundantly clear.
pooptruck
From my experience, there are a lot of people who make "free" software in windows and it's frowned upon becuase "it's a plot to install a virus on my system". Then there is the folks who feel that writing software for windows should earn them money no matter what. On the flip side, you can get a lot of flack for making non-free software on Linux or you can been seen as evil for charging for services that "should be free". Long and short of it: you can't please everyone. If it makes you happy and people are using it, just keep doing what you are doing. There is a vocal minority on either side of the fence to flame you :)
-Carl "No, we already thought of that one. 'Why?' '42' - It doesn't fit." -Hitchhiker'
I feel that the best of the open source are the projects that include windows stuff. I can not tell you how many people I have shown Ethereal are now using it. In fact I showed an instructor Ethereal and after he saw it, he made it part of his windows class.
I think that the windows open source packages are a very good way of showing what can be done with open source. As a result open source can be shown in a positive light. If this free package works this well Windows.... How good do you think it is under Linux? Or how good is Linux?
I understand the all or nothing attitude, I wish the world was so simple. If I had my choice it would be 100% not windows. But for those of us who are trying to "fight the good fight" good open source windows packages open doors for other options.
It's the Zealots who screw things up for everyone.
1) Its not open source if it runs on windows - (dot net nuke) - umm yes it is, hell with the BSD licence its more open source than the linux kernel (the level's of freedom it allows)
2) RIAA/MPAA/ARIA/MIPI - They are over zealous in attempting to protect their existing revenue streams rather than adapting to the new environment that we now have and finding better ways, more customer friendly ways to make money.
All I have to say is mad props to anyone (company, person, organisation) who releases anything where the source is availailbe, modifiable and distributable.
Do the following really mean anything? SCSA MCP CCSA CCNA
--I'm not actually after an answer!
Let's see.
From DotNetNuke Introduction
"DotNetNuke is built on a Microsoft ASP.NET (VB.NET) platform."
From TFA:
"It's hard being an open source project on the Microsoft platform. Because no matter how hard you try to exemplify true open source ideals, you will not get any respect from the non-Microsoft community."
Like duh, if I cannot run your software, I can't bloody well form an opinion now, can I? And whining like a three year old that you don't get no respek isn't helping either.
Luser.
I'd say that some cases of Open Source on Windows are genuinely good, and others aren't so much. When it's open source that can run on Windows, I say "yay!". When it's open source that requires Windows, I balk.
Part of the philosophy is to put choice into the hands of each individual. I give a lot more credence to OSS that can run on multiple platforms. Sure, you can run .NET projects on Mono or the like - but that's a hoop you have to jump through. You can't be truly confident in the success you'll have, either.
When a project requires you to use closed source software to ensure its functioning, it's virility as an open source program is questionable. Sure, the source is available - but it's dependant on something that is closed. There's no guarantee that the framework upon which it is built won't change, and if it does change then what? Open source programs that are built upon closed source interfaces and systems can do nothing but hope that the next version of said closed source program will continue functioning the way its previous versions have. And they're given no guarantee whatsoever.
I still think it's great that projects like DotNetNuke release their stuff as open source. I just wonder why - why do they choose to build it upon something closed source? It's not as if .NET is intrinsically better than other development options. I mean, DotNetNuke is written in VB.NET - even if I were to develop in .NET, this wouldn't be my first choice. Regardless, I'd be hesitant to choose something that is so heavily tied to a closed source system.
Slashdot's never been at the top of the heap as far as journalism goes, but seriously, what the hell has been going on the past year? It seems like actual tech/science news is becoming a rarity here. I mean look at this article: "Some guy was dissed by a couple nutters!!!!!". Yah, crazy zealots are crazy and exist as a minuscule subset of any group. How shocking. Then there's the blog rumour buzzmill. OMG, some dude posted wild speculation on a BLOG! Google's totally writing a java based word processor, and a browser, and a DVR! Some dude on a BLOG says so, because he saw a cloud that totally looked like a portent! I wouldn't mind so much if there wasn't anything going on, but there is! I see tons of stories every day on other tech and science sites that are passed by in favour of wanking some more to google or posting these "I got my feelings hurt!" human interest pieces.
DNN is as burecratic and annoying as any other open source application I have had the pleaseure of using. The fact that it is for the dot net framework has no impact on that.
I love how they hide things until they are "ready". Very good strategy there.
It won't be long before there is another flavor of the month web platform thingy and they will drop off into obscurity like the others. Could it be dot net on rails I hear coming?
...reminds me of that Star Trek Voyager episode a friend of mine watched and told me about because I'd never watch that. The Voyager was chasing down...
We're all geeks here, no need to deny it.
CRM = CMS.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
i think it is all about solving problems and sharing solutions / searching for solutions. for me this is the most important aspect of open source.
.net + gkt#, ..)
also software development is more and more going into a direction where you can solve a problem on one system and having solved it for others as well. (java,
and also if a software is developed nearer to a propietary api it is more avaluable than a closed software and has value for the community, because of those parts which are plattform independent. and then still then sometimes it happens that a proprietary api is transformed to a new plattform (directx for linux).
really, for me it is an arrogant view of an open source supporter saying open source is only valueable if it is developed on / for an open source os.
i think open source is a big puzzle and at the beginning there were GNU tools for a proprietary unix kernel (sure with the goal to write also an open source kernel) and everybody of the linux community uses them. so for me it is not important which part of the puzzle is first or last. they will fit together at the end. i'm sure.
sebastian
For the ideals of Open Source, indeed, there's no reason not to use Windows Open Source software, but from the perspective of a Free Software advocate, there's a very real reason to want the sort of "software stack" mentioned.
The idea of Free Software is to replace all proprietary software with Free Software. It was the intention of the GNU project to clone Unix part by part.
When a program is built that runs on the Free platforms, it strengthens the entire movement.
Free Software for Windows can be a positive goal, but does not help the goal of replacing all proprietary software since the platform itself is non-Free.
It all depends on your goal.
Sometimes, Free Software on Windows can be a good thing. Firefox and OpenOffice.org, Gaim and Gimp have all been helpful for Windows users I know in evaluating GNU/Linux desktops. Since they're used to the program, the transition is easier.
But what all of those programs have in common is that they run in both GNU/Linux and Windows, and not Windows exclusively.
Who cares what some person who can not spell Linux thinks?
If your goal is widespread adoption ASAP, then no, the stack mentality doesn't make any sense. You want your program to run anywhere, even if it starts on an MS platform and moves to OSS platforms later.
However, third-world governments and other impoverished groups are automatically excluded from the use of any program which requires an MS platform, because the cost of entry is automatically at least the cost of the operating system from Microsoft.
This is, of course, no reason to deride the great applications that are available only on MS platforms -- and I remember when Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox was one of those -- but by any account it's slightly foolish to tie your programming to a single platform. If the anti-Microsoft crew gets their way, and open source is the only option, where does that leave your dot-net application? Hopefully in the hands of the mono project... but if you're tied exclusively to a platform, your deployment options drastically dwindle.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
This is one reason why I don't use C#. People who use C# develop for Windows and Windows only (MONO be damned). C# is owned by Microsoft; true there is an open implementation but Microsoft has refused to support it, refused to allow them to their .NET conferences or anything else... which says they will NEVER support an open implementation of C#.
It's like building an 'open source' house with wood that's owned by Bill Gates. What is going to happen to your house when Bill decides to start breeding termites on location? Bye bye house. And bye bye open source C# implementation.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
It appears one of those 14-y.o. zealots modded parent to troll. Tsk tsk tsk.
I simply dispute the idea that open source software doesn't get respect unless it is part of a 100% open stack. There seem to be a good number of projects aimed specifically at OS X and apple products despite the fact that large parts of OS X are not open source.
I think what is really going on has less to do with open source vs. non-open source but more with the type of culture the operating system encourages. Quite simply windows does not encourage a hacker friendly culture while OS X and other operating systems do. Of course all open source systems encourages this hacker friendly atmosphere because they are written by hackers and their success depends on attracting new contributers. If MS did everything though open standards and hacker friendly rather than commercially friendly architecture I suspect they would recieve alot more respect from the OSS community even if they kept their underlying kernel and other code closed.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
The main problem here is the exclusivity.
(The second problem is listening to zealots)
That is always going to be a value judgement, don't you think?
For instance, Stallman would say that proprietary software is inherently immoral, as is any act that helps perpetuate it. That would probably include writing free software for unfree platforms, but would still be better than writing unfree software for any platform
Darl McBride will tell you that Free Software is immoral, since it impinges on his god given right to extort 695 bucks from everyone on the planet who ever installed Linux. This is giving McBride more credit than he deserves, but purely for the purposes of illustration.
Linus seems more interested in getting the software to work than in the theology of the project. The Torvalds school of thought probably doesn't care much except where there are strong technical issues.
The point is that none of these positions "make sense". None of them are rational. They are all (for those involved) core beliefs - the assumptions upon which logic and rational thought is founded.
A better question is "how useful are these beliefs?" or "Might there be more benefit to be gained from a less extreme stance?"
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
But does it run easily and cleanly in wine or other (non)emulators?
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
The stack argument never made any sense. Over the years I've seen too many projects that claim to have Windows versions, and then when you download the source they don't include any kind of Windows build files (NMAKEs, project files, etc) or they say it has source for Windows when it really just has source for Cygwin, which isn't native Windows. Worse than that, I have even seen projects that just give you headers and libs with the Windows "developer" distribution. Or, if you offer to provide better Windows development files, they say they don't want them. This will often happen with project files for MSVC. Yes, I know they are subject to the format whims of MS's next release, but for cryin' out loud the format doesn't change that often, and there is nothing that says you can't provide NMAKEs and other, more stable build scripts too. Regardles, those MS files are part of the preferred method for modifying the program and I have even seen projects where the developers obviously used MSVC but wouldn't tar up those files. That's just cruel, because then I have to go through the hassle of re-creating them.
Anyway, the stack argument is being invalidated every day by apps like Firefox and Open Office. It might not have taken so long if so many people hadn't been snobbish. People are more likely to replace their kernel when they can keep familiar apps then they are to replace familiar apps for the sake of a kernel.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
... "But does this "stack" argument actually make any sense?"
Because however unlikely it is to occur at any point microsoft could outlaw open source being generated with its tools. Unlikely Yes, remotely possible? Yes. Their toy, they can play with it how they like.
Shadus
I had the utmost respect for OSS but no knowledge of linux or any of its programming languages, so i felt like opening up my Vb6 apps would be my small contribution to the world. i got no respect from any other programmers and i couldnt figure out why. they told me that as long as my projects were on a microsoft platform, in a proprietary language, that they could not fundimentally be open. i would forever be microsofts bitch.
Then microsoft killed Vb6, and i understood what they meant.
I am now writing this from a laptop i built especially for ubuntu and i need to stop looking at slashdot because my C homework is due in 3 hours.
I specialize in linux because it pays the bills...
As far as the original article, I can respect any good programmer, but I've always thought that the cool thing about open source was that it was an alternative to the typical corporate bs, a breath of fresh air as it were.
I guess I just don't get the whole idea of starting an open source project, then writing it solely for ms windoze. I mean, what's the point? If your program is just for ms windoze, all you're doing is helping strengthen the would-be monopolist, and basically snubbing the free software community. Doing that is merely an attempt to provide another reason to use ms windoze, rather than helping give the alternatives a fighting chance of survival.
I don't know that it necessarily has to do with "purity" (the stack being 100% open source). It just has to do with cost. What is the point of Windows open source if half the tools needed to develop have a big initial investment? I have never done Windows development myself, so I could be mistaken. Do Windows developement tools cost money for non-commercial use? I know you CAN compile things on Windows using free tools (cygwin, et al). What i am asking is: is it realistic for a native Windows application? Can any Joe Average Hacker check out a copy of the source for an open source Windows program and build it? I think this is the real issue.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
(Meh, sorry to those I modded up, but I need to say this.) The article is (possibly intentionally) vague on what they mean by 'Windows OSS projects.' If you read into what DotNetNuke actually is, you'll discover that it is a Windows-only OSS project built on the .NET framework, and that they appear to be partly sponsored by Microsoft itself. The article is referring to Windows-only OSS projects, not OSS projects with Windows versions.
Though I imagine projects like VLC, Freeciv, and Gaim occasionally have someone whining about their supporting windows, that's not what this is talking about, and frankly, where DotNetNuke is concerned, I'm with the 'zealots', despite having nothing against proprietary software. OSS has built up a strong reputation for being cross-platform, so an OSS project that's for Windows-only and is dependant on Microsoft technology is understandably going be frowned upon by OSS purists. Windows-only OSS developers are, arguably, not helping the OSS communities much, and they are especially detrimental to the spread of Open-Source and Open-Source-based operating systems. It's not showing Windows users that they have something nifty that they could still have if they decided to try linux or get a Mac, it's just further miring people in the Windows platform.
Now, are these people against DotNetNuke still looking so much like zealots, or are they perhaps starting to look more like people against Microsoft who see this as yet another boost to Microsoft's power?
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
Admit it! Windows users feel secure when the choice they have to make is simple. No choice is a good thing if you do not want to make a choice. If Windows users really disliked the lack of choice they would do something about it.
Windows comes with the PC. Much of the software needed comes with the PC, and what's missing is easy to purchase. Everyone knows they need to pay for anti-virus software. It's easy. Not many decisions to make. Just spend a few bucks and get on with life.
Linux requires too many decisions (KDE or Gnome or what-else), too many choices for email client, browsers, word processors, and so on. Need I say more?
Windows eats Linux for simplicity. The lock-in is great! Come on Windows!
I am a strong believer in F/OSS. Not only do I run it, but I contribute code and money (I also submit bug reports, patches, contribute answers to forums, and am an advocate of F/OSS to my peers). In short, I drink the Kool-Aid. I use only Linux and FreeBSD on machines I own (and I bought the machine on my desk at work, so I can use it there). I am a zealot. I think that an all (or mostly) F/OSS stack is something to strive for & that a lot of F/OSS software does work better on a free OS (usually because that is what the developers write it for & where it gets the most complete and knowledgable testing).
That being said, I do still sometimes have to use Windows & I am happy to have F/OSS on that platform. I patch my own code to work around bugs that only impact Windows users & I have financially supported projects on that platform. I have even given money to good F/OSS software which is only on that platform. I am certainly not alone. Just look at the top projects on sourceforge. Most run on Windows. Some run only on Windows.
So...some of the best Windows-only/Windows-mostly F/OSS:
Filezilla--great (S)FTP client/server. Hopefully a *nix port soon.
7-zip--excellent compression software. p7zip is there for the rest of us, but updates take a while to reach us.
PuTTYFor your ssh/scp/sftp needs.
I've given money to these projects & carry them around on a USB key (along with Thunderbird, Firefox, and vim). Cygwin is another handy thing to have if you have to be on win32 for very long.
Just because something is developed for Windows doesn't mean you can't make it easily portable to other platforms. That's where standards like POSIX and the .Net CLR come in. As long as you develop to open APIs you are not locked in. Free software only gets my attention if it's free as in beer or free as in I can do whatever the hell I want with it no strings attached. RMS + FSF = BGEA.
Good heavens, don't do that!
There are only a few vendors who make FPGAs with enough gates to run a full MIPS core (you'll need more than the mimimum to boot an interesting operating system). And then you're locked in!
Unless the FPGA design is open source, you're a complete hypocrite, worse than any Windows user, because you preach open source and are living in sin.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
The guys right about the lack of respect from the open source community, but why should that affect anyones decision. I could care less what you all think.
If its based on non-open source services then it shouldn't get the same regard as something that is. If you have an open source game, based on directx what is it really contributing to the open source community? more code that needs proprietary API's? Basing something off opensource services also allows for the SERVICES to get some help in knowing which direction to go, possibly even taking some code and incorporating it for their own. I believe that for a project to be truly open source it must also rely on open source projects only, otherwise its not contributing at all to FOSS alternatives to whatever they are using.
to something like pile or bundle or may be even mound, that way :)
people wont have anything to argue over
Arash
Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
So, why does your software (or any OSS) deserve any respect in the first place?
For many of the 'zealots' that you are talking about, OSS doesn't deserve respect merely for the fact of being open. It deserves respect primarily beecause it is good software, and secondarily because it makes a contribution to a good cause.
I, and most of us here, don't know enough about your software to say whether it deserves respect as good software.
But, if it only runs on Windows, then we know that it doesn't deserve respect as a contribution to a good cause. I'm not saying that 'windows is evil' or denying that Windows is the dominant OS, but there are many reasons why Linux (etc.) is a good cause. It even helps Windows users because it provides sorely needed competition to Windows and thereby helps keep MS in line.
If someone writes software that runs on Linux, or that is cross-platform, then I know that they are at least trying to make a contribution to a cause that I and many others believe is good for us all. So they have my respect.
If the article was talking about Free Software, then I'd see the point. But since Open Source is just about producing better code, integrating that better code in whatever platform is available makes absolute sense.
btw, I use Free Software exclusively.
From your site:
In order to download DotNetNuke® Projects, you must register on the site.
I'm thinking you're getting no respect in the Open Source community because you don't get it. The community is not about how you license your software (you don't even have to be a developer to be a member of the OS community). It's about the spirit of community and openness from which springs the compulsion to use a particular license for your software.
The above statement from your site and your publication of an MS-only piece of software makes me assume that you accept Open Source because that's the way the world is and it is how one develops a resume these days, not because you like it. Is that necessarily true of you? I can't say for sure, but first impressions mean a lot, even your post somehow hits me as a little off - something about the whining or faulting others because you are not being accepted, like you need someone to bless your OS-ness, instead of just knowing you have it. I can't say exactly what all it is, but I'm guessing it's the same thing that has made others uneasy (perhaps some other poster will be more insightful in identifying the real causes).
Moreover, changing that one line on your site isn't going to do it. Faking it won't work - if you don't understand, people will see it in a million ways. OS developers will see it and continue to give you no cred. If I'm wrong, or if you're willing to learn more and understand why Open Source is a good thing, more power to you. But until you do, you're probably in for a fair amount of continued disenfranchisement.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I honestly don't see why the Grandparent was modded as a troll. Whoever modded him down clearly missed the humor in the Linux typo, Lunix, which actually is an OS: Little Unix. On top of that, it was probably an obscure reference to the humorous article Is Your Son a Computer Hacker?.
AbiWord, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla Firefox, etc. are all good products avaliable for MS Windows, Linux, etc. This is good as it allows a windows user (once they've moved to OSS) to easily migrate to other operating systems.
As one of those folks forced to use "Windows For Work 8.5" (and often for work-at-home) I'm thankful for fantastic products like AbiWord and Firefox being avaliable to me.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Why the fsck do you thing that windows users pirate almost all their software? How many open-source windows projects are there that aren't just trying to use existing code for their free software? Not fscking many!
I doubt he even understands Open Source.
from the site:
"In order to download DotNetNuke® Projects, you must register on the site."
from the BSD License:
"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE."
Italics added by me.
Registering is a restriction, a small one, but a restriction none the less.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Since XP, technological measures have been in place (DeActivation) that can separate you from your applications (not to mention your data) at any time, through wilful act of the vendor, or fault in the system, and this is regularly experienced by customers of M$ and Adobe.
It seems obvious that portability is part of the spirit of freedom as expressed in free and open source software. If your code can't migrate from Windows - then it's going to be taken from you and your users sooner or later.
you had me at #!
Just go look at the stats on sourceforge, software that runs on windows gets 10x the downloads that linux software does. A great example is Postgresql which was ignored by many until it got a windows port. Who needs respect when you've got popularity?
Another commenter gave a laundry list of software that he routinely installs and uses in his Windows environment. I was pleasantly amused to see how closely it dovetails with my own.
/etc/init.d or its Windows equivalent the ntservice architecture or the darwin equivalent, /Library/StartupItems.
I write software using Python, which is available on most every useful platform. When it's infrastructure-type-stuff, I make sure that all but the very outermost layers are crossplatform. Platform-specific stuff is limited to
If it's gui-type-stuff, I use a cross-platform toolkit, such as GTK or wxpython. (I'm very much looking forward to pyqt4, which is supposed to look great on all three of my usual, aforementioned development targets, but it isn't out yet.)
Making these choices up front saves porting costs, and keeps the zealots at bay because your software already does exist on a fully OSS stack.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Hate to be the devil's advocate here, but i think any open source project is beneficial to the open source community. If it's truly open source, anyone is welcome to port it, remember that.
I've found a couple of situations where free software has a better quality implementation on Windows than linux. I came to mozilla for Windows from a linux background. Yet there are several niggly ways in which mozilla/windows is better than mozilla/linux. One of them is the fact that you can't use ctrl+arrow in the address bar to select by word in linux.
Eclipse is far more responsive and cleaner-looking on Windows than linux.
I've used postgresql on linux for years and years. The other day I installed postgresql for Windows and was quite impressed by the implementation. It works like a Windows app but doesn't compromise performance or power.
Believe with me, my saplings.
...and they can go fuck themselves.
Write OSS regardless of platform with no agenda and preaching.
M*soft will be rolling out Vista next year and 64 bit, yada yada. I'll buy it, you'll buy it, your company will buy it. Almost every new pc sold will have it installed. If you want to help the open source movement, you must develop for windows. Linux is not not a consumer os (yet). Right now it's for people who like spending 34 hours downloading, burning, compiling, coding, burning, downloading again (new distro this week), searching for drivers, formatting, reinstalling, switching back to windows after they've gotten fed up looking for whatever command they needed but couldn't get any help finding, and then finally trying again weeks later. I've convinced my office to switch to firefox and start using ghostscript for pdfs. Thanks to those who wrote these open source programs for windows. Thank you.
Mono
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The problem is that a significant cost in producing a hardware product - any hardware product - is the software engineering. If a Chinese company could "borrow" the driver for an ATI product, they would be one step closer to producing an ATI replacement product. I am sure they already either are licensing or "borrowing" the hardware bits.
So, ATI knows this. All opening up the driver would do is (a) give people more of an opportunity to screw things up and (b) give a helping hand to people that want to drive them from the marketplace.
Most video drivers these days are pretty large - larger than your average open source project - and unlikley to respond well to being tweaked by people unfamiliar with the architecture. Surely you don't think ATI's drivers are better self-documenting and structured than most open source projects, do you?
I'm a grad student, and I work part-time as a software developer. Naturally, I don't have a lot of money to throw around on commercial software like Visual Studio. So I use Dev-C++ and a lot of other FOSS projects as well (e.g., boost, FLTK, government-produced numerical methods code). I have a Windows/Linux dual-boot system, but I rarely boot into Linux, because my clients only want their software developed for Windows (and occasionally Mac *yuck*). Many of them don't even know what Linux is.
/. had an article a couple months ago where some OSS zealot was saying that supporting systems like MinGW was slowing the development of OSS. What, like a couple of #ifdef's and a well designed makefile is too hard? I think what he was really thinking was that he didn't want OSS projects to be ported to Windows period. It seems to be a popular opinion, because MinGW is usually the last system to be supported by a project.
I can understand the idea of an OSS project not getting respect on Windows. I remember
In short, I'm going to keep using and developing for Windows until every Windows user simultaneously switches to Windows, and hardware manufacturers start supporting Linux. In the meantime, I'm grateful for all of the FOSS on Windows.
Also, the whole point of open source is to not be bound by proprietry technology - why write for Win32, ASP, etc when the future of your application is at the whim of Microsoft in terms of changes to APIs, deliberate crippling of your app (if it competes in a market MS wants for themselves), fighting to get bugs fixed, etc?
I guess it comes down to this: Why bother going to the trouble of writing an "open" app when you're still bound to a proprietry O/S?
You're free to do so, but don't expect everyone else to jump on the bandwagon...
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I financially support open source projects that work on Windows because their projects make the most impact to the majority of my customers. Very few of my clients want to migrate away from Windows but ALL want to reduce their overall software costs. Open source on Windows is almost always a winning combination.
Why would the license apply to the copyright holder?
Why would a license giving people who receive the software from the copyright holder permission to distribute it enforce a particular mechanism of distribution?
how to invest, a novice's guide
I use and recommend a lot of Free/Open Source software on Windows. I just don't use Windows for my own purposes, so most of these solutions tend to be cross-platform.
I don't use Windows because I don't like the terms of the EULA. But I don't make that decision for my customers. In these cases, complimenting Windows with Free/Open Source software (like SpamBayes, Cygwin, and the like) makes a lot of sense. So while I make my own software use decisions around the stack argument, I want my customers to have access to Free Software regardless of what operating system they currently use.
For the most part, I don't recommend a lot of Windows-only FOSS. Most of the projects I recommend are somewhat cross-platform. So a Free/Open Source Windows-only apps aren't going to get much of my notice. However, there are exceptions and I think it is important to cultivate a Windows-based open source community (if nothing else it will warm people up to other open source projects).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
If your "stack" isn't entirely open, then you are at the mercy of a closed set of APIs. If Microsoft wishes to put you out of business, they simply need to change the API and deny you any information about the new API. You only get around this with open platforms.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
Open source software on windows is great. It just isn't trumpeted because open source OS's have grabbed all of the attention these days. One of the big reasons that free *nixes have become so popular is that people were getting sick and tired of having windows as the only readily available substitute for a real O.S. on the world's most ubiquitous hardware platform, the i386 PC AT architecture. Linux and the BSD's took off, and that's where most of the action has been, although cygwin and some other compatibility layers have allowed quite a bit of this software to be used in Windows almost as easily (perhaps more easily in some cases, as installing up to date versions of major open source applications on a typical Linux distro in a clean way is a major PITA. Long with FreeBSD ports!).
... to all those who toil to bring OSS project to Windows. I *have* to use Windows at work and I sure do appreciate so many of these projects making my life easier without my having to justify to my boss the purchase of commercial licences.
In fact, I now work for a company that is quite liberal with software purchases. I'd still rather use OSS on Windows because it takes up a fraction of hard drive space and my PC runs better than if I had all that bloated, overpriced, revenue-generating, resource-sucking crappola.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Like a cow's opinion. It doesn't matter.
First off, most peeps I know who use windows when I confront them either say
... well you should know better. I mean when you have to use cygwin to develop anything in a remotely free fashion that should be your first hint. Stop denying what you already know is true and join the winning team.
1. Fuck you stranger, get out of my office!
2. So what? I pirated it
3. So what? My business bought it
To #1 I say, sorry and I'll respect the restraining order.
To #2 I say, fuck you, people work for a living and you're ripping them off [even if it is windows].
To #3 I say, enjoy your layoffs, expenses and salaries come from the same bank account.
As for the developers
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Pity Xilinx discontinued the XC6200 series... It was documented in such detail it was practically open source.
I do it for the fun or programming, for the spirit of OSS, and for my own enjoyment. Mod me down but I seriously don't give the slightest crap about what any "zealot" has to say about my work. It's as free for them NOT to use as it is for my existing and future users to use it and spread it.
...because firefox would be over 100 million downloads if it was only on open source platforms....
The kernel and shell are the easiest parts of a system to swap, considering the obvious similarities between modern GUI shells.
The applications are the hardest part to replace. Change apps until they are all free, then it's trivial to move them to a free kernel and shell.
The true beauty of free software is its cross platform and hardware independant nature.
POKE 36879,8
Windows doesn't need the help. On the other hand being able to use the same apps on any platform is pretty nice. But when it comes to donations, if I'm going to donate money, it's going to be for open source development.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
There's nothing about Open Source that says it has to be free-as-in-cost. An FPGA is a (conceptually) simple piece of hardware. There's nothing stopping me from building one myself. I don't even need to use silicon - I could make the gates out of water pipes (assuming I could persuade everyone to evacuate somewhere large enough, say, Belgium, and use that as my CPU). I could use the same code to generate a mask and get a small fab (such as the one at Southampton University) to produce the ASIC for me, and then it would be completely Open Source.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Anybody who thinks this way is just some elitist snob. The truth is that trying to convince the masses to move to linux is silly at present moment. Its just not ready for all of those people that only know how to check their email and write papers. Every version of linux requires some kind of tweaking and quite a bit of readjusting. Its a great idea to have completely free software on a rather expensive OS. At least that way, they're helping those who can't help themselves. Any developer that nags about keeping opensource on an opensource OS is only assisting those who know what they're doing.
I think that the author of the article misses the real point. Most people writing OSS run Linux. That's a fact. People writing OSS are much more likely to write for a platform they use frequently, Linux. If you are writing an OSS app for Windows, most of the rest of the OSS community, running Linux, sees little point because they can't use your software.
Few care about the nit-picky definition of "not being open because the whole platform isn't open" The author of the article misrepresents that for the general lack of interest most of us have in Windows-only software- we simply can't use it, and are therefore unable to see why we should care. That being said, many larger OSS projects maintain windows ports (firefox, gaim, etc), but they were Linux programs first for the most part.
The "Open Source community" is hardly monolithic, so if you're feeling like a pariah because of a few whiners, I'm sympathetic. Despite the current, happy state of anarchistic fragmentation, there are a lot of trends within the OSS community. Most of us do use Linux, and when we come across an open source package, our first thought is to try and use it within the frameworks that we already understand.
This project you're working on sounds cool, but in order to adopt it, many people would have to use non-free software. For the people whose goal is to use a freely redistributable, freely modifiable system on top of Windows and IIS, your project is a good candidate. For those who want to take maximum advantage of OSS (whether for financial, religious, or technical reasons), you've cut yourself out of the running. That's your own decision to make, and you shouldn't get heat for it.
You complain that those who judge you harshly are wrong because each OSS app should be judged on its own merits, without regard to the software it interacts with. While I think that point is arguable from both practical and political angles, you don't give the same consideration to the "Open Source companies" with hybrid business models.
Please stop using "Open Source" and "zealot" so close together. Google is starting to get suspicious of the entire movement.
Finally, don't let it get to you. People gripe and whine, and there isn't much to be done about that. It's human nature, like underage drinking and hogging the remote.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I use it, I respect it. It's open-source. And doesn't run on any other platforms than Win32 (which is a pity, because it's a great client).
I found that I couldn't use it. I am a free software user. My requirements are pretty simple. I need to be able to install the software, well, for $0. I need to be able to fix the problems as they arise. My reasons for this are the same for anybody who would choose Linux over Windows, at least on the server.
;) Until then though, I just don't have time for it.
Cost matters to me. I don't have the money to pay for the platform... but I'd like the services. Is this wrong? Not really.
DotNetNuke was a neat project. I liked it on it's technical merits. I really considered using it. But then I quickly realized I couldn't get it running on Linux at all. It won't run with Mono.
This leaves me in the position to pay for the MS Server OS to run it on. This is a $800 cost. We've blow my budget of $0 by quite a bit already. Additionally, I loose a lot of the benefits I have perceive in running it on MY platform of choice: Linux.
All this comes down to something pretty simple. The cost of implementing a DotNetNuke solution is not $0. Sure, the code for DotNetNuke is free and open source, but the cost of the entire solution is not.
All of this is fine though. Since it's open source, hopefully it will be running on Mono soon anyways.
Running on proprietary hardware has little or nothing to do with the fact that the software itself is Open Source.
BIOS is software. Unless you're using a LinuxBIOS motherboard from CWLinux, it is also proprietary.
Such components are not distributed as a part of the operating system and so do not fall under the section 3 exception cited above
Section 3 of the GNU General Public License, version 2, doesn't say "distributed with the operating system". It says "distributed (...) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system". I'd surmise that DirectX is a rawther "major component[] of the operating system".
I guess porters would be best to stick to whatever versions of MSVCRT and DirectX ship with the latest Windows version.
Given that MinGW targets the MSVCRT distributed as part of Windows 9x, and given that many Free apps target DirectX 7, which was also distributed with a version of Windows 9x, I don't see a problem even under your interpretation of GNU GPL v2 section 3.
I think we should all support open source projects in any form but it would be nice is his project was written in something more portable like C/C++, perl or python.
I wish more projects out there were designed from the start to be portable on Linux, Windows and OS X. More often than not, a lot of so-called cross platform software originating on linux rely heavily on X11.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Free software only gets my attention if it's free as in beer or free as in I can do whatever the hell I want with it no strings attached. RMS + FSF = BGEA.
True, Richard Stallman may be compared to Billy Graham, but virtually all of the FSF's computer programs are available either gratis or darn close to gratis. Case in point: CheapBytes distributes copies of F*dora, M*ndriva, and D*bian distributions, which include most important GNU programs, for a very reasonable fee. If you're installing a copy purchased from CheapBytes on multiple computers that have been paid for, then it is effectively gratis compared to the value of your time. Or if that's not enough, you can use BitTorrent to download a distro for no charge over a network that is already paid for.
And by using a MIPS or ARM-compatible core you're open to IP infringement lawsuits.
For ARM I'd have to agree, but everything in the MIPS-I architecture except for unaligned loads is taught by prior art. Case in point: Plasma, a 98 percent complete MIPS-alike written in VHDL.
Windows sucks and no one cares.
The hard thing about windows and open source, is that it is non trivial to edit the code to make modifications. Back when I used windows (about 5 years ago), I spent a lot of time attempting to make some basic changes to mozilla, but I was never able to get it to compile properly. Once I started using linux, I realized that customizing any application I wanted was just a few keystrokes away.
:-)
Within my first couple weeks using linux, I had already done things like modifying ping to allow oversized icmp packets, and nmap to show services when scanning in verbose mode. These days I modify code on a regular basis, and help out in tracking down bugs whenever I can. I do think that any serious code should be audited by a large userbase, and I do have a great amount of respect for the windows hacking community. I still think that it is much more difficult learn from windows code, which is (in my opinion) on of the main benefits of having code be open.
I guess what im saying is that most windows users dont really realize how "free" their programs really are
An open source project is good, but when it operates under a closed OS, you cannot guarantee the integrity of the application.
There's a reason why windows-based open source projects don't get as much respect. It's because Windows is NOT a stable platform. A developer cannot write a Windows application, open source or not, and not be plauged with support problems that have absolutely nothing to do with the program itself, and are the fault of bugs in the Windows OS itself. At least, if Windows was open-source, some of these developers would try to fix Windows problems to lessen their own support issues, but they can't.
The truth is, it's really painful to develop under Windows generally, especially if you're publishing commercial software that has to be supported. There are too many variables that you can't control that wreak havoc with the integrity of your application. Windows is the worst example of this, but not the only one.
Stuff like Ethereal and Gimp can get a job done, but leave you wanting to avoid open source if possible.
What is the most recent version of GIMP that you've tried? GIMP for Windows has improved significantly over the course of the 2.x series.
I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with writing open source software for windows. At the same time, It bugs me to see open source projects for Windows. Here is the reason why.
Linux simply does not have as many (or in some cases) as good apps as there are for Windows. Now you can come up with list of hundreds... possibly thousands of applications for Linux. But when you trim out all the alphaware, abandonwhere, or software that requires a geek to compile and install... the remaining selection is pretty sparse. Tell me, what is an easy way to remove red eye from photo's on Linux. There is a way to do it with Gimp, but I can do it in a couple of clicks with my photo suite on Windows. That's just one small example, I'm sure there are many others. Lets not even mention games... it's hard to get excited about early 80's clone games. I'm a bit nostalic myself, but when I'm in that kind of mood I fire up mame and play the originals.
Anyway, before I stray too far from my point... simply said I'm jealous of the manpower being wasted on an operating system that already has too many apps. If someone is going to donate their efforts for free, shouldn't they contribute to an OS that can really use the additional apps?
Blender And Linux Fan
Only if the BIOS for your computer is also "open source". Or maybe only if the hardware is also open source. That leaves a pretty small world for the open source zealots.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
What about 'Free' .NET apps?
If GPL software is like a virus, then Mono must be the kissing disease of free software :-)
There are zealots saying that you can't have a "non-slavery" society / country unless it has a 100% slave-free social / legal / administrative stack. Go figure.
... ). It stands for some things against others - in favour of society, humanity, and real - better - human evolution. You know, Hippie stuff.
There are zealots saying that you can't be "nazi-free" unless your political and legal administrations and systems stack is 100% "non-nazi".
There are zealots saying that you cannot have an integrated society unless it is 100% apartheid-free.
There are zealots saying that you cannot have a "no-death-penalty" country unless it is 100% without any death penalty.
Some things are only true at 100%.
Open-source is one of those things.
It is part of a wider and deeper filosophy ( principle / policy /
The funny thing is, it's a success. It works. Splendidly.
Proprietary software - acording to FS - is a complete antithesis, constituting an incarnation of primitive and petty greed leading to isolation, conflict and false profit at the cost of general dilapidation. Proprietary software is, then, like a dictatorship. Or dope dealers. FS, more like a democracy. etc.
So.
Either you strive for 100%, or lag with the fakes.
Go figure.
Shut up, I don't want to lose my job cause some guy realises he can get the same for free.
It's like Al-Qaeda terrorists whining about not getting any respect for their ideals of World Peace. Respect is earned, through actions. Lip-service will more often than not *lose* you respect. Running free software on Microsoft Windows is paying lip service. Everyone likes getting something for free. You've misunderstood the meaning of free.
Writing free software for Microsoft Windows is like substituting the New Zealand cow in the McDonalds burger for a steak you bought from the local butcher and cooked yourself. You're getting a nice bit of steak, but still a crappy sugar-filled bun and dubious fillings with some "special" sauce, and fully contributing towards the profits of those you say you don't believe in. ie, you're a hypocrite. A hypocrite who has the hide to complain that they don't get any respect.
Matt
Andromeda -- no one understood the basic "Andromeda universe", the shows were all blaster fests with no premise or redeeming message, and the acting blew chunks. Why did we watch Andromeda? For the babes!
Andromeda (was the ship named Andromeda Ascending or some sort of thing?) itself/herself was this computer-generated babe. Then there was the blonde babe who piloted the ship who was one of those female-hetero-fitness-freak types who had the hots for the Rastafarian copilot, only Rasta-dude was some kind of alien who didn't understand the human sex thing, and it kind of went from there.
Huxley's Brave New World coined this term "pneumatic", and let me tell you, the redeeming quality of Andromeda was very pneumatic babes, very buff dudes -- it was all soap opera -- and who cared about writing or acting?
I'm seeing a wide range of comments on here, which is good.
My personal thoughts on this are, I don't buy the argument about the stack on down having to be OSS. If I write a java app (as I do frequently) to do some stupid simple task, I'll always release it under the GPL, and give it away to programming friends, if they ask, to see what they can do. Now, that app is OSS, if they run it on their Red Hat box, their windows Box, as a web applet, or on their toaster. You may edit that app in any way you want, and you're completely FREE to do so.
However, some people say that it would become non-open source if it were moved to Windows, only because the system its running on isn't OSS. I don't see how that would change the status of my application, its still the same code under the same license. I did see one good comment up above, about when OSS relies upon propritary DLLs, but I ask if you would consider that to still be OSS. I'd say that parts of the software are open, and parts are closed, which would be different, as you can't edit all the source for one application, just bits and pieces.
I'm with the author on this one, some people just take the issue way to far. I happen to run windows, and OSS, that's a fact. I do have a linux box, and I run a lot of the same apps on it, and I would consider them to be OSS on both machines. If you don't like the DLLs something uses, write your own! Might I give Linux itself as an example of something that was produced when people didn't want to deal with the proprietary version, and wrote their own.
Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game
True.
But does it favour user "migration" (not "migrane") in any direction ?
To ? Fro ? Hither thither ? Someone must have already given these questions some ( a lot of ) thought.
I use Cygwin, Puppy, gimp, etc., to interface with my linux boxen on temp jobs, while testing client's connections to them. And, I always carry about a couple of live-CD linuxii. In essence, windows has become more of a nuisance than a solution. I only mess with it at client's request. And then I get on with actual work.
I've found tons of open source projects that are exclusive for linux. Well, guess what. I need windows. Whenever I see one of those "linux-only" open source software, i feel betrayed. I'm *NOT* ready for the jump yet!
Specially because my motherboard is linux-unfriendly.
This is why I put so much emphasis on cross-platform software. Why do you think Firefox got so popular? Just because it's open source? Because it runs on Linux? NO! Mostly because it runs on Windows!
So, whenever I see comments on new cool open source software, I feel tempted to ask: "Yes, but does it run on Windows?" And trust me, I'm NOT trolling. There's just this need for windows software that some OSS/Linux zealots seem to ignore.
Con: Porting massive amounts of Open Source software to Windows actually butters Gates' fat belly, because that just makes that many more applications that run on Windows.
Pro: Porting any program to any operating system other then it's original platform, especially when you weren't the original author, is a heroic feat. A true act of selfless idealism. A brain-numbing intellectual feat.
Con: Effort spent this way takes coders off of making Linux better. Like, say, (since I am the Gimp's only fan, appartently) making a mod of the Gimp that tastes and smells just like Photoshop so everybody else but me can quit hating it.
Pro: What better PR than to have our programs running on the proprietary system, the better to show off what we can do? Every time a Windows user disparages IE in favor of Firefox, that's a victory for Open Source, right?
Con: My stingy grinch side wants to say: "The Hell with Windows users. There's gajillions of software titles on the shelf for Windows. Let 'em buy software, like they like to do anyway!" Honestly, I would see nothing wrong with GNU/Linux development supporting itself by: (a) Being 100% free for Linux, and (b) charging for Windows' ports. "But the Linux users get it for free!" "That's right, and switch to Linux and you'll get it free, too!" What could be fairer than "Free you, free me; money you, money me."? Yeah, make a special closed-source Windows-only license. Just to hear the gasps of indignation: How DARE we!
On the whole, I'm in favor of Open Source ports to Windows, but that's only because of my prime belief: More free software makes it a better world for everyone.
If the stack is the basis for peoples complaints; then why haven't the complainers started to:
1) Help port mono faster; so that this can run on *nix
2) Work on the porting effort of this nice little app while working with the mono crew.
Complainers; start your PC's and get coding.
... started as a series of patches to proprietary Unices ?
Mac OS X is very different from Windows in that it is built largely out of open source tools. The Darwin project delivers a significant part of the OS, and many of the features added onto OS X are open.
For example, in OS X, when you turn on "Personal Web Sharing" on a Mac, you are actually launching Apache, the open source project running about 80% of all websites. Taking the model further, Mac OS X Server is little more than a carefully constructed concatenation of numerous OSS projects... each one with it's own marketing name, but BSD-based open source code nonetheless.
True some Mac stuff is rather closed, and some of their OSS-based apps cause tension with the OSS developers (I'm thinking of Safari here), but it's nothing like Windows. That's just closed from head to toe. You want in... follow Microsoft's rules and, oh, pony up some cash too thankyou.
Of course the "open stack" argument makes sense, even if it's not 100% necessary. Because there are degrees of openness, and different scenarios in which the source of any part of the stack is used. Open for reading, but not committing changes, is good for the individual developer, though not necessarily as good for the rest of the community. Open source for applications but not the OS means that when tracing through the SW stack, sometimes things happen "down the rabbit hole" that can't be known, therefore not debugged. But of course any degree of openness is better than none, or less. So Windows OSS is less useful than Linux OSS, because some of "the SW" isn't open, therefore less useful. But it still might be useful enough, and is probably more useful than a more proprietary stack. However, any pressure to open more SW is also useful. Because we need to get the proprietary era behind us, with proprietary SW the exception rather than the rule. Even just arguing about it is consuming time better used on actual development.
--
make install -not war
Clarifying freedom 0, it includes the unambiguous statement,
That clearly means technical portability, and also prohibits "DeActivation" features (phone home to decide whether to run) in any free product. But even if one ignores the portability requirement, "DeActivation" features of the operating system, for instance, revoke freedom 0 for anything running on that O/S. (Perhaps there is a loophole for editions of Windows that don't include DeActivation.) I am sure Richard Stallman has much more to say about this.
Robert Storey of DistroWatch paraphrased a speech by Stallman as follows:
Openz has a similar take:
The opposite of freedom is restriction. It's not possible to run on Windows alone and claim freedom under GNU's definition. It's doubly impossible if you're talking about DeActivated Windows such as XP.
An Anonymous User has written about what this means in reality:
you had me at #!
If I write something in PHP, nothing, other than manual recoding, is making it not PHP. To run it, I must have PHP up and running on a system. This is fine, if I'm using Linux or Windows or a platform that has a native PHP port. However let's say you have something speical, like BeOS, that doesn't have a port. Your options are to either port PHP (lots of work) or port your code (also lots of work). However, if both are open source, you can do either one, it's not a problem.
My point is, that with complex code you have a lot of dependancies. Even if all those dependancies are open source, that doesn't necessiarly do you any good for porting to other platforms. Different platforms have different ways of doing things. For example porting a graphical app to OS-X from Linux does NOT mean just recompiling it for PPC and requiring X. Yes, OS-X can have an X server, but that's not have it natively does graphics. A true and proper port will reqrite the display portions to not use X and instead use the Quartz APIs.
The reason he probably gets no respect is that his software not only runs on a non-open stack, but it depends on it...
People aren't friendly to open or closed programs which lock you onto a platform when they don't have to...
I almost posted something earlier (but the form timed out before I remembered to send it...sigh).
.not.invented.here/not.fully.open.src, from "gcc/gasm" to interpreter of choice.
But one of the problems facing OpenOffice acceptance in Massachusetts is the fact that it doesn't have the use of the native Windows accessibility libraries that MS-Office does. Why not?
Uh...for the same reason this author claims his open source isn't fully accepted in the OpnSrc world --
Oh one hand I can "grok" this and grok the desire for a full "verified up from the assembly code" program where every step can be audited and verified. However, gcc doesn't produce as high quality code as the non-free Intel compiler (or so I've heard, I can't afford the Intel compiler...:-)). But it's quite noticeable in areas like the auto-scroll feature in Tbird/FireFox -- had to be implemented after the fact and not quite the same as the native, and notably slower on older machines. The libraries are more portable across platforms -- that's good, but at the cost of easy porting, comes the price of performance unique to specific OS's and platforms.
If one doesn't believe there are performance penalties in trying to implement GNU utils on alternate platforms, they can see a great example in the Gnu "find" command. Compare and contrast the performance of a Gnu implementation (such as Cygwin) 'find' for finding a simple filename to the native MS GUI 'find' interface (W/O the background indexing feature). The native interface is only about 10x+ faster. But hey, find.exe is 'fully open source'.
Are such trade off "always" desirable for the end user? I understand there are 'cons' to using MS libs...(like inherent bugs among others), but there are possible benefits too. It's hardly a black and white issue. *sigh*
-l
You know, everyone here's trying to be political and informative. Fuck that. I hate fucking anti-windows zealots. You guys suck. Get a life assholes.
Yes
Gee, I wonder why?
In my experience, most open source programs for Windows are crap. These programs:
- fail to install
- crash during install or startup (Mozilla Firefox, Abiword, Phoenix e-mail)
- fail to run, and instead, pop up dialog boxes with cryptic error messages (K-Meleon browser, Foobar 2000 Vorbis player)
- work only with the newest versions of Windows
- complain if OS components such as DirectX are "too old" (Real Alternative)
- create default directories and crap files there even when asked to install elsewhere (Zinf, Real Alternative)
- don't un-install cleanly or correctly (Zinf)
- are billed as "lightweight" even when they're not (K-Meleon, Notepad2, Firefox)
- have hideous, sadistic, and/or unusable user interfaces (PuTTY, Video LAN Client)
- run so slowly as to be unusable (GhostScript/GhostView)
Some of these programs are hasty or poorly-maintained ports of UNIX programs. Some of them have developers who turn up their noses at the idea of a Windows port. The overall result is the same: the quality, stability, performance, usability, and portability (i.e. runs under different versions of Windows) of the Windows version suffers.All of which is unfortunate. If you're an open source evangelist, decent open source programs for Windows could win you some hearts and minds.
Hmmm, what problems are you having in this respect? Although I've never had this problem personally I'd be happy to help you out.
The truth is, it's really painful to develop under Windows generally, especially if you're publishing commercial software that has to be supported.
Again, hmm, I guess I don't really understand your assertion.
I develop software for Windows for a living. Microsoft really works very hard *with* developers just to avoid such problems. MS provides terrific documentation and support to developers and there is, actually, a really great community of helpful and *respectful* people.
There are too many variables that you can't control that wreak havoc with the integrity of your application.
Well, like what?
The only times that I really see this In Real Life are when the application developers write bad code (which happens for all platforms), cheat on the WHQL driver tests (graphics card manufacturers are notorious for this), or when developers use undocumented APIs. The reason that those APIs are undocumented is because they are subject to change, and are not intended to be used by software developers.
Now, I will concede the problems associated with malware, It bothers me as much as anyone else, but I have never personally gotten a virus, worm, trojan, spyware, or other malicious program on one of my own computers...
Sorry this was OT, but you didn't have to read it!
I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable
I suppose this would be as good a place as any to mention the wiki I started, Windows for Linux Users, which attempts to gather up some software that is useful for long-time Linux users who are for some reason constrained to use Windows. I know I had a terrible time getting the environment to a point where I didn't want to smash the computer because focus wasn't following mouse and a bunch of other little annoyances.
http://www.welton.it/davidw/
but open source software that runs only on Windows encourages the use of Windows
and discourages the use of free operating systems. On the way to a fully free
software stack, it's basically a dead end. You can't expect the members
of the FOSS community to endorse that.
Open Source, two words. One means 'Open', e.g. the opposite of 'Closed' and the other one means sourcecode, together they mean: a non-closed form of sourcecode.
Gee, since WHEN is that tied to CROSS PLATFORM crap? Because in this particular situation, it's very handy to use that cross-platform nonsense to hit back at this DNN OSS developer?
It's precisely the whining YOU put forward in your posting what made him write the article.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Yes, this is exactly my point. It isn't some fanatical demand that the entire stack be open source rather a more modest demand that the entire stack not be built with closed source in mind.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
``I'm all for open source operating systems, but let's be realistic here: zealots who don't respect open source efforts on Windows are not only being stubborn, but are hurting their treasured cause.''
.deb or OpenBSD pkg and started using the software.
That's assuming they treasure that cause. I'm an open source developer, and I don't write for Windows. Why not? My cause is to make my own system better suit my needs. Since I don't use Windows, any minute I spend porting my software to Windows is a minute not spend improving my environment.
I share my programs with the world, so others can benefit, too. If these others run Windows, they'll have to adapt my programs before they can use them (which usually isn't _that_ hard). If that's what they chose to do with my software, I'm happy to have given them that opportunity. But I'd be just as happy if they just downloaded the
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Is this open source if it is running an a machine with an open source bios... and NOT open source if the machine has a closed source BIOS?
OMGzz +doubleplusgood+3fajilion insightful whining article on slashdot.
Open source, is, as parent says, open source.
Respect? I don't respect anyone who whines on slashdot. Or who mods this down as troll/fb/ot. =]
love, peace and singing mice.
Suonds like someone just trying to get exposure.
please type the word in this image:exposure
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
His opinion has a lot of annoying consequences, for example we are not allowed to provide Windows binaries for download on our project home page. (Our project is very portable, and we maintain MSVC project files.) Instead, people have to google for a Windows binary of our program instead, or look around on some other websites for a useful link. I would so much love to make it really easy for Windows Users to play around with our program; in its niche it could actually get a lot of people in touch with open source.
In fact, several of our current developers trying things out in a purely windows environment, and have then switched to Linux when they realized how much better the development environment in any Linux distribution is, compared to anything you can get for free on Windows. One of them had not even known about open source before he got started.
I was pretty impressed with the ReactOS tour until I saw their list of supported "tools":
* Nero Burning ROM
* WinRAR
* Flash Player
Um... If this is what they consider "tools", I think they're emulating Windows a bit too closely... Although, truthfully, I'm pretty impressed by the undertaking and wish them the best of luck. I'm almost tempted to try it.
Telltale Games: Bone, Sam and Max
Everytime you see an article about SkyOS on OSnews you see a bunch of people bitch about it being closed source, and that having open source apps ported to it isnt in the "spirt" of open source.
These coments are very frustrating, and they make you not want to be an open source advocate, if you are going to sound like these wankers.
There are two types of people in the world: 1) those that can extrapolate from incomplete data.
I won't deny anyone the right to spend their time the way they want to, but I can see why people writing OSS for Windows don't earn as much respect as those writing for a free *nix.
The reason is that Windows is incompatible with existing OS API standards. This makes it difficult to port apps to or from Windows, whereas getting an app that uses mostly POSIX APIs to work on any other operating system requires a lot less effort.
Thus, if you want to support multiple platforms, your choices are essentially to spend the extra effort and support Windows, or to support only the other operating systems and spend the effort actually developing your app. As I said in the beginning, you're free to chose as you wish, but I'd choose the latter option any day.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I don't want any of my work to give anyone a reason to support companies like Microsoft who try to limit people's freedoms. That's why I develop my software on a completely free platform. So I know it works on a completely free platform. Many people using Windows don't care about their freedom. They do care about quality software and for that reason try to replace all the user space software from Microsoft with better free alternatives. This is the sole reason for the existance of cygwin.
However, giving people a way to work around bugs in Windows makes them stay longer with Windows. That's why I consider porting software to Windows sabotage. It does not help people under Windows, in the contrary. It makes them stay longer with Windows. And while they stay, they will put pressure on others to also use Windows. It only helps Microsoft.
While this text singles out Microsoft, other companies are equally evil. For example, porting the diet libc to Solaris would help Sun, noone else. Don't do it.
In the same line of argumentation, I will not modify any of my software so it works better with proprietary development platforms like Visual C++, even if I sacrifice great amounts of performance by not exploiting their features. And I ask you to do the same.
This text was taken from http://www.fefe.de/nowindows/.
-- AC
Mysql is NOT GPL, GPL is what i call true Opensource.. but the source IS open.. ;-)
Look at FireFox and the mozilla family, OpenOffice.org, last I heard Evolution was headed for windows compatibility and apparently people are even talking of making KOffice cross-platform. On the server side, MySQL has always done it, and Apache 2.0 and PostgreSQL 8.0 also added Windows support. As for the languages, Perl, PHP and Python support all the main OSs.
And that's only counting native ports... if you look at Cygwin, you can find the entire Unix universe in there.
Open source means that the source is open for people or groups to modify. If it is for Windows specifically, all you have to do is a little more work to port the software over to whatever you want. Big freaking deal.
FOSS has become more political and more stupid than the morons in the corporate world.
Open source as I describe it above is great and it's a good thing. This bitching and political community around is the problem.
oh look, I don't get props from some 18 year old who lives with his parents because I didn't write my code in Java.
Grow up!
I was even thinking about starting a site called "OpenWindows.org, opening windows because microsoft isn't going to". Or something like that. It would contain choice, like:
- Ext2 driver
- Gaim
- Opendocument plugin
- Pdf writer
- FreePop for hotmail or hotmail forward application
- Firefox/Thunderbird
- etc.
Why opinion such as "Open source for Windows is a waste of efforts" have rights to exist? Main reason is predatory behavior of Microsoft Corportaion on the market that provocates hatred of people working in the industry.
So I personally respect developers of crossplatform soft even much more then brilliant kernel developers.
There is indeed nothing worse than seeing a nifty Open Source application on Windows...and then gritting your teeth when you find out it's on Windows *only*. Hence, to get respect of the non-Microsoft community is pretty straightforward - make your application cross-platform (preferably plan to do this from the start, otherwise you may have a big rewrite on your hands).
There are cross-platform toolkits out there to help you (e.g. wxWindows) and remember that the more cross-platform Open Source apps we get, the easier it is to wean someone off Windows and onto another platform (think OpenOffice.org, Firefox, Thunderbird etc.).
Windows, by its very way of being, has instilled in people a certain culture that is at odds with the Open Source movement.
Windows brings the idea that the act of writing software is a service that must be paid for, by charging money for the privilege of installing said software. The Open Source movement believes that the act of writing software should not chargeable. After all, the programmer who wrote it was going to write it anyway irrespective whether or not you paid for it; so refusing to hand it over without payment is just playing dog-in-the-manger -- and contravening Freedom Two in the process. But Windows goes on further and directly contravenes Freedoms One and Three {both of which are contingent upon the user having access to the source code, which is not supplied with the software} and even goes some way towards infringing upon Freedom Zero by means of the -- mercifully unenforcible -- End User Licence Agreement.
If something costs money, goes the thinking, then it can be stolen. And so there has appeared a group of people who have obtained Windows and other software without paying for it. Microsoft calls these people "pirates" and "thieves"; in reality they have stolen nothing but are merely attempting unilaterally to assert Freedoms Zero and Two. This fuels an attitude amongst these people that they are "sticking it to The Man" somehow, when in fact they are just as dependent upon The Man as any paying customer. In fact, by far the vast majority of software used in the world consists of unpaid-for copies of Microsoft Windows and applications running upon it.
Back in The Days, when computer users had no choice but to be knowledgeable in the field, the Four Freedoms could to a large extent be taken for granted. Computer users were effectively a society who looked after their own. Everyone benefitted from everyone else's work, and collaboration was the only way to advance. The community shared the bond that comes from a survival situation. The incompatibilities between different kinds of computer meant that the only feasible way to share software was in the form of source code {and often, different implementations of the "same" programming language meant that even this needed significant alteration}.
Today, it is possible even for a person who knows nothing about the inner workings of a computer to use one. This situation has led to a large number of people who are ignorant of the existence of this thing called "source code", believing it to be of importance only to boffins in laboratories somewhere. This attitude is deplorable: it is like someone who lives in a city not caring about which plants are edible, or how to build a bivouac, dismissing such knowledge as of importance only to "survival nutters" and the Military. Even if you do not know these things yourself, it is important at least to have friends who know these things -- it might save your life one day.
Ignorance of the benefits of the Four Freedoms is exactly what fuels the acceptance of the way Windows, and other closed-source software, trample on them. Windows users typically have been taught not to care about Open Source software. Either they expect to have to pay for software and not get the source code, or they expect to be able to get it without paying {like they are doing something big and clever} and do not care about the source code. Windows users who go on to become developers typically perpetuate the Cycle of Abuse by releasing their software closed-source. {cf. children brought up in violent families who go on to inflict violence upon their own children}. In some cases, the abuse of users' Four Freedoms is malicious but in many cases, it may be attributed to ignorance caused by developers having no better example.
The kind of computer user who is savvy enough to understand the importance of the Four Freedoms in general, and source code in particular, typ
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
My orginal post was a joke (I don't really have anything against windows developers) but I can see where both you guys are coming from. To me it seems a bit odd to do a windows only open source application but then again I'm not sure if there is any harm in doing so. And damn The Simpsons for polluting the phrase 'Devil's Advocate'. All I think of when I see/hear that phrase is a bloody pinball machine.
Why don't you ask one of the guys(m/f) that sends you his MSVS project file to act as maintainer for the Windows port? Tasks:
- Alpha/beta testing
- Buiding the official Windows binary distribution
Off course he'll be the one that has to keep the project file up to date.
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
>9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
Ooops. The GPL fails that test.
The GPL would not fail that test if the license allowed you to your modified source closed if you so desired.
Folks, mind the distinction between Free Software and Open Source Software. Despite ESR's efforts to convince the public that they are the same.
Free Software is all about protecting the freedom of the user.
Open Source Software is about a supposedly superiour development model.
See the difference? Open Source has no ideals. Therefore you cannot "exemplify OS ideals" and you cannot argue about them.
So what about the ideals of Free Software? Well, you are not protecting user's rights if you are tying them even more to a proprietary platform, while a good Free alternative exists. Do whatever you like, but obviously you don't deserve respect from the Free Software community for what you're doing. And please shut up about ideals, you don't have any.
I just get a bit irked about contributing to open source projects that aim win32 portability. When developers start caring about win32, you can't use library xpto, so you have to do things yourself, so you end up spending a lot of extra development time for the sake of a platform you don't care about. So I say, screw cross-platform programming. Focus on POSIX systems because they are in dire need of applications. Win32 users don't _need_ open source, they just end up downloading everything they need from emule.
Gustavo J.A.M. Carneiro
When you consider the number of Linuz Xealots using binary-only display drivers and BIOSes.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
"...you will not get any respect from the non-Microsoft community."
Not true. The TortoiseSVN developers get respect from the broader community.
With Subversion being written on top of the Apache Portable Runtime, and examples like the upcoming 1.3 release (asp dot net hack) it's also clear that whilst (most) svn developers might have a Linux bias, a concerted effort has been made for the Windows platform. Something i'm very grateful of.
All that being said, the article has some merit.
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion
"Ruby is an example of what VBScript should have been but completely failed at."
Yeah right. VB is all but ruby. First because you can count on all Basic languages to have the very same lame Basic syntax as they always had all these years. And then, because Ruby's got many innovative and advanced features that the audience that consumes Basic won't ever grasp.
"PHP is, at it's heard, a procedural language but very robust and powerful applications have been built with"
harharharharhar... good one...
PHP is a shitty piece of crap that is very much the same as an open-source VBScript/ASP with Perl syntax and less flexibility. It's not as robust and flexible as Perl, nor as modern and modular as Ruby and Python, but nevertheless went more popular because it's so simple and straightforward that non-programmers can use it.
Same reasons for VB popularity...
I don't feel like it...
"proprietary Qt library"
Qt is not proprietary. It's an open-source library with full source-code available under the GPL. It's also available under a commercial license for those wishing to pay for support.
here
http://www.trolltech.com/company/model.html
lamer!
I don't feel like it...
No matter how you frame it, when you port something to MS, you're making something which makes it easier for people to work on windows, which is, after all, the ideological opponent to what you're doing. You're making it easier for people to stay on windows, to help them stick to that platform, a platform whose makers would rather have you go away and die if not for this very fact. You're just handing them users and profit, and why should we do that?
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
I'm sorry, our star salesman is currently in a meeting with another important customer! You'll have to wait until tomorrow!
I used DotNetNuke for a few years and recently switched away from it. I prefer applications that run cross platform particularly since I work in a enviroment that contains Linux, Unix, Windows and Mac. I hate to have to switch to different applications when I switch enviroments.
DotNetNuke does run on Linux using Mono, and in fact can be seen doing so at http://dev.mainsoft.com/. I ceratinaly think they have done an excellent job on the application. I used it since version 1.0 and the iBuySpy days. The reason I switched was due to the fact that most of the modules that I wanted to use were closed source (private assembly) and I had to be purchased through http://snowcovered.com./ I found this extremely annoying that only a few developers wished to contribute open source modules back to the project. I think this is it's biggest failing; the developers themselves.
Well, most of the time it is because software is choosen to solve business problems. Who represents the software in a business setting? Who does the customer go to for support if they aren't staffed to support themselves? The ability to get decent assistance from knowledgable individuals, including perhaps the developers themselves, doesn't address the business need to mitigate the risks from a contractual and business arrangement.
Yes, these things can be addressed. Yes, any manager with any amount of imagination could craft a solution or figure out how to directly contract a developer or 3rd party. However, because it doesn't exist in a typical corporate business model, people see it as being unsupported or without a sales team, not a serious product because no company stands behind the product.
Instead of admonishing the ignorant for their beliefs, you have to slowly get them to consider by gaining more knowledge, they will be better off.
~Gildas
Software that only works on Microsoft Windows does not get a lot of respect by users of other operating systems. That is hardly surprising.
Microsoft Windows users in general doesn't understand free software, so you don't get a lot of respect from that side.
The last group is people who use and care for free software on Microsoft Windows. If that group doesn't respect you for producing free software for Microsoft Windows, then it is a surpise.
Finally, the GNU project has no interest in free software that only works on non-free platforms. Which again is no surpise given that the pupose of the GNU project is to create an entirely free software platform.
I don't. Last time I bought a PC, I restricted myself to systems which had free open source drivers for all the hardware. If there were free CPU designs available, I'd look into those too.
(I love the smell of burning strawman in the morning.)
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
First, he was stating the difference between open source and free software. He was stating the goal of a free software advocate, not everyone's.
Free software is not just about free _developers_. It's about free _users_.
I want software to be free. I agree to take some freedom away from _distributors_ (not developer), and give it to the _users_, no matter whether they are developers or not.
The GPL assures that no _distributor_ takes freedom away from users or developers.
The whole idea of the GPL is promoting the spread of free software, by forcing distributors to refrain from restricting users and developers freedom.
Of course, someone does lose freedom. Distributors. Developers and users are protected. Free software is not about protecting distributors. It's about protecting users freedom. Not hypocritical.
I'm involved in a .NET application written in C#, and Windows is the only target OS. It's a nice bonus if it runs on Linux, but that's not a requirement; running well in Windows is.
Until recently, we've been using Microsoft's own C#/.NET widget library, which is called Windows.Forms. GTK/GNOME on Windows was considered and dismissed for the obvious reason: that it would be relatively crappy on Windows, and offer no advantages.
But after several months with Microsoft Windows.Forms, we found two significant limitations, and had another look at GTK#:
Imagine you've got a scrolling list of little control boxes, each one with a few buttons and labels. In our application, there's one for each remote-controlled device.
We found that Windows.Forms crashes as soon as the number of widgets system-wide reaches 10000(*), which is easily reached as soon as we had about 500 of those boxes. This is due to each Windows.Forms widget requiring an OS handle. No good!
The code to workaround that took weeks to write and is much more complex than we'd like. It needs to dynamically create and destroy widgets during scrolling, and requires extra layer of "virtual widget" indirection which complicates much of the program.
GTK# has no such limitation; only memory limits the number of widgets. So the GTK# version of our application is much simpler.
(*) That's Windows 2000. The limit is larger on Windows XP, but still present.
Layout. For most of our application, we need widgets to be laid out automatically, flowing and resizing sensibly according to the size of text, and doing the right thing with different combinations of widgets displayed.
Windows.Forms inherits the crappy hardly-existent layout of native Windows widgets. If you want widgets to lay out according to some algorithm, you have to write the algorithm yourself, or grab some 3rd party code to do it.(**)
GTK# is miles ahead in automatic layout. It's layout model is based on logical boxes within boxes, with padding and stretchy things - like HTML and TeX - which makes it look better and also is more of a joy to program. You don't feel like you're spending your time doing things the computer should be doing.
(**) .NET 2.0 Beta provides some big improvements in the layout department, but it's still far behind GTK#.
The result is that we've moved our application from using Microsoft's Windows.Forms, to using GTK# on Windows. (We're still using C#/.NET). As a side benefit, the same application now runs on Linux using Mono.
Although it's not consistent with the Windows look, GTK looks a lot nicer in many ways. In particular, the way boxes automatically size to fit the text in them, the way buttons highlight as the mouse moves over them, and the good-looking themes (they're not all garish; some of them are functionally helpful).
So, based in my experience so far, I'd heartily recommend considering GTK# instead of Windows.Forms on .NET, even if you're writing a Windows-only application.
The file browser being quite different is surely one of the weakest points, so if that's important you'll want to stick with native Windows widgets. Same goes if you want exactly the native look. But if you don't mind those things, for applications that don't use a lot of native Windows features, GTK# on .NET works surprisingly well, looks good, and has a number of technical advantages.
-- Jamie
Yes, I have used Windows Write to split binary files into floppy-sized chunks and then copy /b'd them back together.
If you have to run it on a computer then that needs power and you are a slave of power! True open source runs on an abacus!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Because no matter how hard you try to exemplify true open source ideals, you will not get any respect from the non-Microsoft community.
.Net app? Unless it runs on Mono, they can't even use your app, so why would it earn you respect?
From the non-Microsoft community? What the fuck did you expect? Why would the non-Microsoft community give a shit about some Microsoft
#!/
For whoever moderated this as a troll - I am not trolling. If you do not know what trolling is, please leave slashdot and do not return. Thank you. THIS comment is offtopic - hope that clears some things up for you.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2005 OSTG
The 2 phrases "truly open source" and "requires ms windoze to run" somehow strike me as oddly discordant, and an oxymoron in the making....
An open source project that is truly in the spirit of open source is something that runs not only on ms windoze, but other platforms as well, say, for instance, OSX, linux, solaris, FreeBSD and more. If it's microsoft only, I don't really consider an example of open source.
It Actually Takes A lot More To write a program for windows then for linux, so we shoudl give respect to those who transcribe the code from GNU to Windows libraries.
I think the whole point is about who benefits when you make an opensource product on windows. Is it you the founder ? Is it me the user ? hmm ..its tough. In this case I'm sure shawn benefitted greatly by releasing a .NET open source product thats tied down greatly to microsoft proprietary products. He has been able to benefit greatly thanks to the fact that microsoft themselves have promoted dnn greatly on their asp.net site. I guess now he can make a handsome income selling services whereas to selling licenses(which microsoft does currently with all their products).
:P
:)
:-(
.net applications on linux or the thousands of cheap shared hosting solutions on windows. These do not resolve anything! Fact is even if i moved to a shared host setup, microsoft sold a license, and do not forget the many limitations and restrictions imposed on you and the high costs involved whereas to running your own independant serve
So, Shawn walker the founder benefitted, but what about me the end users who uses dotnetnuke ? Lets find out. In order to run this wonderful free, opensource product created by the great shawn walker, i have some hidden costs. And to simplify the case here is a normal person that wants to use dnn from the first release :
1. Its been written in vs.net, though you can modify it to be compiled at the commandline, this is a big job so you purchase a license for vs.net 2002, then 2003 and now vs.net 2005. This is not exactly free, the cheapest standard edition is some 250 bucks or so if you want to develop it further to meet your needs you need to purchase a license to vs.net
2. Its backend uses ms access or mssql server 2000 and now 2005, well, ms access is pretty bad as a database for web applications and scales badly(by the way ms office is not free and access is part of your office suite) . So you are forced to use msde or sql express if you are on a short budget or you can pay the $5000 one processor license to the standard edition of MSSQL Server. 2 processor license costs $20,000 and a 3 processor costs 40,000.... Oh, i can use the free editions you say, the stripped down versions of MSSQL server (msde or SQL Express) after all its free. Well if you dont already know, msde though being free has a query governor that limits its use to 8 simultaneous connections or so, and sql express is stripped down so badly that you might think again if it were wise to tie yourself down to a proprietary system like this or use a full blown open source database like postgresql, firebird, even mysql in this case is a much cheaper and better solution with better free database design and administration tools. You can also try a shared host setup but mssql costs are huge, you will notice soon enough
3. Lastly you need a WINDOWS machine to run your final free opensource DOTNETNUKE product. This can vary greatly in prices but a windows 2003 standard edition(not windows xp) costs you around $1000. Maybe you want to run 2 web servers and have your database run on a seperate server as per microsoft specs that the database should be accessible only locally, while the web server be open publicly, hmm well, thats $2000 + $5000 + a couple of hundred bucks by now probably reached a 1000 because of the 3 seperate vs.net versions you had to purchase.
Wow, i think i want to thank shawn walker very much for doing such a great job selling me microsoft licenses. You are my hero shawn, surely you deserve all my respect now. I just dream of one day being a microsoft reseller like you
And trust me, i havent even started to warm up here, just let your imagintation run wild and its not so difficult to see who the real winner is here. IS it shawn ? Is it you the user ? or is it MICROSOFT! SO what is exactly free about opensource that is tied down to windows ?
And dont get me started on mono(who are just so scared until now about being sued by microsoft) that you can use to run