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)
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?
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
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.
Why is this a problem? and why should OSS developers on the Windows platform care about opinions of zealots?
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
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 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.
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
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?"
The question is not does it run on an open platform, but can it. Linux and NetBSD, for example, will boot happily on a MIPS system running on an FPGA - and the core can be downloaded from Open Cores under a Free license. That's probably a bit more Free than I feel the need to be, but I like the option being there. Software written using Windows APIs, however, will not run on anything other than Windows unless care has been made to port it to winelib or similar.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
1) There is no operating system called "doze" - You might benefit from the link in my tagline.
2) You can't defeat something unless you have something better to replace it with. Linux is not better from an end-user standpoint.
3) People who port their software are NOT part of the problem. They are part of the solution. Exposure to what F/OSS is capable of will make it more likely that someone will use it in the future.
4) People like you are part of the problem. You would limit choice based on platform.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
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"?
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.
1) It wasn't right then, it's not right now. If you really love Linux/Unix/Etc, then at least try to support it in a way that encourages new users. This brand of advocacy that you endorse just makes it so people think you're a raving lunatic with no objective opinion. You know, a zealot.
2) Sure it can. Right now, OS X is better than Linux is, and it appears to have coexisted just fine in a Windows dominated world.
3) Most people don't know anything about OSS, and are unlikely to move to Linux just to experience it. Face it, Linux users in general are the minority, and if you want to see that userbase increase, we need to slowly get these people used to the idea that OSS is not something to fear.
[..]we shouldn't be supporting windows by making it more usable.
4) Actually, as per your original post (see above line), you flat out said we shouldn't port OSS to Windows. That's limiting choice based on platform. Isn't part of the whole FOSS argument that you're giving the user choice and freedom?
5) You take things way too seriously. Relax.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
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.
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
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?
Open source Windows software that is cross platform has a tendency to be really shitty from a Windows user's point of view.
Stuff like Ethereal and Gimp can get a job done, but leave you wanting to avoid open source if possible. GNU software tends to be the worst offender, words cannot describe getting GPG to work on Windows.
Windows users expect a Windows interface, software that places emphasis on a good UI and that can do everything that 'normal' Windows software can do (for example the file open dialog being able to see the network).
I understand your points about cross platform OSS being both more useful to the community, and not alienating it, but due to the way it looks, Windows OSS that was not designed with Windows in mind makes people from the commercial software world think free software is free because it's too unprofessional to charge for, rather than free as in speech. That last line is not a troll - going to a university that did not explain the OSS philosophy in their courses, the feeling was that the university ran free software because it was too cheap to purchase proper software.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Okay... hypothetical scenario for you:
A long-time Windows developer has written a wonderful application using a Windows-only language. He was going to release it as shareware, but recently found out about the world of OSS, so has decided to release it as open source.
To complicate matters further, we'll say that the app is Windows specific and unportable.
If we take your argument, his actions are damaging to OSS, but I disagree. The program is useful and worth releasing; the fact that it released as OSS should be a point in its favour. He doesn't have the skills to write cross-platform code, but he is at least embracing the concepts of OSS.
Developers are just like regular users in this respect -- if you want to wean them off Windows, they need to be given a chance to move to OSS gradually.