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?""
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...
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.
oh come on... If i wrote some open source app for windows it's not like i have some secret mission to promote Microsoft. Keeping it open source just means that you can take my source-code and port it to LINUX, thus furthering your "secret mission" of linux domination. :-P
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
...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.
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.
ASP is a language-independent framework. While VBScript is popular, there are two languages shipped by default, JScript being the other. You can also install other components to allow you to use other languages, such as ActiveState's PerlScript. In this particular case, it's VB.NET, which (I believe) is substantially better than traditional ASP VBScript.
With all due respect, that particular complaint doesn't mean much when you are converting it to Perl and PHP, seeing as that's the way a good portion of the rest of the world feels about those languages too.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
(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.
Could you explain how IIS is more secure than Apache?
I could: Apache 2.0.x had 28 security advisories since release (2 still unpatched at the time of writing), while IIS 6.0 had only 2 until now, and they were both patched.
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.
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
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?
That would explain the mass exodus of Apache users moving to IIS 6.
Find coupons in Greeley
It's good that this is modded as funny.
People often quote the number of security advisories against a product as evidence of how secure it is. In some cases this is warranted, but this is not one of them... a general rule: comparing closed source and open source products in this fashion is not valid.
Most security flaws in open source programs are discovered by people looking through the code, and noticing things like unchecked buffers, etc. In closed source programs, these types of flaws are found generally through more sinister means. What this means is usually closed source vulnerabilities are less frequently reported, but when they are they are generally more serious -- not because the potential exploit is more serious, but because it's almost always guaranteed that at the time of discovery a working exploit is already loose in the wild.
And there are many other factors involved as well. Apache does WAY more things than IIS does (when you include all of the add on modules and so forth), and this is fair to say since the security advisories include problems that relate only to modules.
The Apache 2.0.x stream is almost 6 years old now. IIS 6.0 has only been around for about a year or so.
It seems silly to count the number of security vulnerabilities in a new closed source product against a much older, more widely used, more complex, open source one.
Having said all of that, I feel the need to point out that secunia.org is really not a very trustworthy source of information. There are many known IIS 6.0 exploits that don't appear on that list.
For example:
IIS Information Disclosure
I just wanted to say that you really can't do such a comparison.
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/
Well there's been some interchanging of "free" and "open" throughout the comment sections which I'm not sure is warranted since there's two different philosophies at work here in terms of software. But for all points and purposes I suppose I'll try and tackle both.
:)
Yes, GNU isn't interested in developing things which are not [or rather, cannot be] free from the ground up. That's why they don't endorse OpenOffice 2.0 or the Sun JDK [the former due to great use of the latter]. Sure, there was compromise at the beginning, what with having to develop GCC on some other compiler that wasn't free [if memory serves me right from "Revolution OS"], but the groundwork has been laid out and so there's nothing stopping the 'proper' development of free software now.
But the perceived issue here is in regards to the politics of open source and the lack of understanding of those mentalities when it comes to Windows users. Indeed, it's hard to change that mindset overnight; as a University student [and a CS major to add to that] I'm faced with enough "pay me for my work" peers that cannot even begin to understand the point of doing something for free [they believe no one will donate a penny given the choice]. There's also the ones that use Linux due to financial constraints but have no other affinity to the OS or the mentality.
I consider that neither of these groups can truly understand the nature of free and/or open source. While the world is happy enough with just one Richard Stallman, it cannot be denied that Linux is a movement that has more than just technological implications. Sure, it isn't communist [as it has been sometimes thrown around] but maybe some "technological marxism" [economically speaking] can be traced to it, and surely it bothers a lot of people.
Okay, kinda went off-topic there, apologies.
Windows OSS isn't a movement per-se. It's sprung as a by-product of the Linux/BSD OSS movements and lacks the drive or 'notoriety' characteristic to these. There's rarely any understanding of the core mentalities in most [read: average] Windows users and they'll look at anything free with incredulity at best and suspicion at worst.
The non-Windows community doesn't disregard WinOSS based solely on the non-free stack upon which it tries to function: yes, I think it is generally a matter of portability rather than anything else. Most OSS devs work in free environments because it feels more 'at home' to do so; and non-portable code does not interest them since they cannot benefit it.
The stack principle is valid in terms of free software; the mentioning of it here, when it comes to Open software, seems an indication of the lack of depth given to clearly understanding the difference between the two issues... wonder why you'd get shot down sometimes
Cheers!