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?""

Comments

Re:A lot like Star Trek...

[badriram]

1) They use ASP.NET with VB.Net, which is Object Oriented, and any day for me a better environment to develop web apps than php or perl (ya so burn me). I do not know about you PHP and ASP 3.0 (vbscript or javascript) both lend themselves to bad code, because they are at heart scripting languages. Not to say people cannot develop clean applications on them
2) IIS 6 does not have any remote vulnerabilites in its default install. It has been out for two years. Thus if you compare IIS 6 to Apache 2, IIS is far more secure than apache. IIS 6 Application management far outstrips what apache currently has.

In summation, if you dont know what you are talking about, either learn, or quit spreading mis information

Re:I use a lot of OSS on doze

[drinkypoo]

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.

Actually, I commonly tell users to use Windows because Linux would be too much for them, and/or wouldn't run their software, so I'm not much of an advocate in any case. If people are interested, I tell them precisely what my objections to Microsoft are, and I begin with their limp, lackluster ability to actually deliver stable product.

On the other hand, let's face it, it's not hurting anything by calling it windoze (it is slow) or by calling them Micro$oft. Remember Compu$erve? That name was considered amusing (though not brilliant or inspired) commentary. Why is Micro$oft any different? Answer: It isn't. People like you who claim that people like me are the problem are different from how people used to be. I'm just poking fun, and occasionally it does lead into a serious conversation that goes somewhere, so get off my back. Cal-OSHA rules indicate that if you are going to be there, I have to install handrails for your protection.

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?

I maintain that we are sacrificing the future in for the present by supporting windows. Including myself.

5) You take things way too seriously. Relax.

This from the high and mighty language nazi who thinks that my using gently mocking terms for Microsoft and its products is doing harm to the FOSS cause? Hypocrite.