Slashdot Mirror
OSS on Windows the Next Big Thing?
Lam1969 writes "Linux geeks and Microsoft have similar interests, says Computerworld: They both are interested in seeing open-source software succeed. Linux geeks admit that the open source OS isn't necessarily a better platform for important applications, and Microsoft recognizes that many of its customers are using open-source applications, and doesn't want to alienate them." From the article: "Faced with the allure of inexpensive open-source applications among its core customer base of small to midsize businesses, Microsoft has toned down its rhetoric. 'It's a myth that open-source and Windows can't work together. Customers just aren't religious about these things,' said Ryan Gavin, a director of platform strategy for Microsoft."
So far today, I've used WinCVS, Notepad2, Firefox, PDFCreator, numerous Apache development tools and 7-zip all on Win XP. Looks like I'm well aware of the power of OSS on Windows. I'm not even talking about the tons of other apps I have on Windows that are OSS (Gimp, OpenOffice, Thunderbird, Gaim, Nvu, etc.).
If they're supporting it now, it's only because they're grasping at straws and reasons for people to continue to buy Windows instead of x86 OSX. "Look, if you buy Windows, you can go download The OpenCD and just go to town on free software." I know there's plenty of OSS going on for OSX and it's even got the bash kernel so you can compile pre-existing OSS apps that were written for it but man these Windows OSS programs are slick and super easy to install.
Saying that they're promoting it now will not make it the next big thing either. They'd have to open up some information about how to write apps on top of their OS or at least design some API's with the open source developer in mind. You know, if they made their platform a little less proprietary and gave the OSS developers a little more freedom, that would be a sign of OSS support.
Talk is cheap.
Perhaps we'll start to see some adolescent tendencies take hold in the open source community? Maybe the only reason OSS has been developed for Windows was to slap William Gates in the face? If so, it's now helping Microsoft and at least a few workers are promoting it.
My work here is dung.
People would use commercial closed source software on Linux and Free OSS on Windows. I mean, wow. There really are people that will choose to use the best tool for the job.
I'm shocked. SHOCKED!
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Linux geeks admit that the open source OS isn't necessarily a better platform for important applications
Okay, that's it. Turn your card in at the door. We never want to see you again.
Chairs!!111
Now that that's out of the way... we might be able to be serious
It's nice to see Microsoft easing up a bit. I think we will find that this will be the only way to possibly ensure their existence. Embrace and extend, without the extinguish, anyone?
On the other hand, they've promised many things over the years. Is this just another promise?
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Linux geeks admit that the open source OS isn't necessarily a better platform for important applications What? Who admits this? Not only is it a superior platform, for many applications, such as servers, it is showing to be a better platform for important applications. Free software on a closed operating system is a joke.
What the article completely ignores is why geeks prefer Linux. It's not hard to understand. When you're setting up infrastructure, you want to plan for the long term. If you go with Microsoft there's really no telling what's in the pipeline--their whole marketing strategy is based on overpromising which renders their roadmaps useless. Linux and open source app development is more predictable. Even though Microsoft can push stuff out faster, everyone knows the ultimate goal is profits. That means they'll inevitably change things and add dubious features just to force upgrades. On the other hand open-source applications exist primarily to solve specific problems.
There are a ton of short-term reasons to go with Microsoft:
On the other hand, long-term all these reasons evaporate. Open source projects can fall into dis-repair too, but at least you know a project isn't going to be scrapped because it's not driving upgrades anymore.
Inhale deeply, put your arms in a circle and say "Embraaaace", then exhale slowly pushing your arms out and say "Exteeeend"
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
Well, DUH! How many time did it take to understand that? It's not the code being open or closed, it's (mostly) not the fact if the software cost, or is it free as in beer. It's the software itself that matters.
Example, do you see designers complaining about photoshop? Or do you see system admins complaining about linux servers? Not really. And it's because of software that matters.
Microsoft make a lousy OS, but nice applications. Why are they not selling proprietary software on Linux? They could have killed OpenOffice and ODF years ago if there had been a nice, decently-priced MSOffice for Linux.
Of course people will run open source on Windows, but that will bring Microsoft no revenue and no lockin, since all open source products, almost by definition, cannot be locked down to a single platform. Even if the code can't be ported it'll be rewritten.
But I suspect the real reason for this statement is that corporate buyers are increasingly specifying an open source 'stack' as part of their purchasing reqirements. The operating system must be able to run (e.g.) the 'Apache stack' (whatever that means), so there is pressure coming from the market for such a statement.
Still, it's a half-assed approach that seems to be lacking in any kind of long-term strategy.
My blog
Linux geeks admit that the open source OS isn't necessarily a better platform for important applications
Next we'll be seeing the alternate-universe Ballmer wearing a little goatee...
It's just like me. I want RIAA to succeed.
Linux is a kernel. GNU/Linux on the other hand, is an operating system. There's a project dedicated to OSS projects for Windows... OSSwin Project.
Marketing folk just keep shoveling it. Nothing they say has any value - too bad the general public doesn't recognize this. Open source is not about the platform it runs on - whether Windows, Linux, AIX, Solaris, whatever. Among the choices OSS gives you is the 'freedom' to choose an operating system if the developers so choose.
The armies of MS marketing/sales people will take any meaningless information and use it to their benefit. Truth and reality are a myth to them, to be created and spun at will. Hey, if you can make John Q believe it then it must be true - especially if the positive press / message results in more profit. Total waste of time looking for MS's public face to show any signs of logic or accuracy. Why do you think they're so successful? They know it's not about the data in the message, it's about how its delivered. How else do you explain Windows triumphing over OS/2 way back - emotion, pure and simple.
Intelligence is no guarantee of wisdom
Windows, IIS, MySQL, PHP - WIMP
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Windows + OSS is a good combination. The more people use OSS applications, the less tied they are to Microsoft and proprietary data formats. Advocates of OSS need to realize that many people will never switch their operating system to Linux or even OS X, and so trying to push Linux will meet much more resistance than saying "here, just install this application that's free and doesn't require you to change everything about how you use your computer."
The big challenge is making OSS apps better than their commercial counterparts. Some get this right - Audacity is a great app for sound editing that combines a relatively friendly UI with solid features. 7Zip is just as easy as WinZIP and less intrusive. But not all of them do - OpenOffice is great, but it's much slower than MS Office. Many OSS projects are much slower than normal Windows programs, and use toolkits like GTK which are nice for cross-platform development but look like canned ass on Windows. (And that's coming from someone who uses GTK all the time.)
Firefox got the balance of features and UI right - and that's why millions of people have Firefox as their first foray into the world of open source. The more people who see open source as a viable alternative, the more tractions it will get, and the more viable it will be for people to switch to Linux as their OS.
However, that's going to require OSS to start thinking about polish - making applications that Grandma can use. It's not impossible, but a lot of OSS projects need to concentrate on making applications that work well and look decent on Windows - even if we don't particularly care for the platform or the company that makes it.
People like free stuff. News at 10.
is Microsoft's only objective.
A bad scenario for MS is some OSS company become big enough to compete for the PHB's attention with a bunch of lesser but valuable OSS applications. Which could lead to the nightmare scenario of the PHB walking away from the Active Directory/Exchange crack pipe.
OT:
I have to give them big-time credit for creating another crack house with Office and sharepoint. (or some other server CAL nightmare)
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I think Microsoft is very worried about Windows open source applications like OpenOffice that threaten their dominance in the application software market. While their customers are forcing them to take a less hostile position to open source, in general, they still need to fan the flames of criticism of the security, reliability, etc. Even on Windows, open source is a major threat to Microsoft that they cannot fully accept.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
"Linux geeks admit that the open source OS isn't necessarily a better platform for important applications,"
So I guess I'm not a Linux geek.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
The idea that MS is somehow "understanding" about the adoption of OSS on their customer's machines is a joke. It's amazing how short-sighted people can be.
Putting insecure code that hackers can easily break into on an insecure OS? That'll NEVER work! You need a secure OS under all the insecure open source stuff to have real security. Because, you see, Linux is more secure than Windows since the code isn't ope... oh wait.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Just who's extending who, though? I'd say OSS is giving MS a taste of its own medicine.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
[Disclaimer: I am talking about my Podcast]
I do a podcast called Valid Syntax and I talk about OpenSource software...I routinely, and make it a point to, talk about FOSS software for any OS. And there is no shortage of it for Windows either.
Valid Syntax
"If you have done 6 impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways" -- hhgg
OSS and Windows sitting on a tree, K.I.S.S.I.N.G.
duh, I can't finish the rest.
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
IBM was the Microsoft of it's day and they learned the lesson that a company ultimately has to transition from creating standards to contributing to them.
Microsoft seems to be slowly learning this but to say that they actually WANT OSS to succeed might be a bit of an overstatement at this point.
Whats happening is that as scoiety enters the information age, the service value of information is becoming more valuable than the content value. That's causing the rules to change up and down the board, and is making it so that the industry is starting to rotate around information services instead of content controlls like copyrights. While Linux is very nicely positioned for this future, Microsoft isn't, and they know it. Microsoft needs to be friendly with Linux because they need that to make it in this future. They're not like the RIAA, whose crap mostly has no commercial service value at all. Miscosoft is eventually going to need to compete in the service area head on with the likes of IBM, Oracle, and Sun. Each of these companies are positioning themselves with strategies to deal with and benefit from open source, while maximizing the revenue coming from their current core.
Microsoft will probably try to milk the OS, Office, and the dominance of IE for all they can get with the right hand, while pushing a full end open source service assult with the left. While this is nice, to me it's a day late, a dollar short. There are already companies deeply entrenched in this space who can provide for my needs far better. Also, it is a dangerous strategy. Not only is the company likely to go skitso as profit center butts heads against its service center. But they are also likely to reach a point where they can't increase their service core as fast as their licensing core is decreasing. When that happens they will likely go into panic mode and all freakin hell will break loose - making SCO look like the tooth fairy.
My messg to Microsoft. If you really want to play in our playground - open up your damn patents!
So years from now, if most IT infrastructure is open source, but just not necessarily at the OS level, what's to keep companies from switching out the underlying OS once there is an adequate amount of Linux know-how out there for them to hire? I don't think Microsoft likes this very much at all, since there is no lock-in with open source. Companies with existing investment in Windows will use WAMP, but new companies will likely go with LAMP or J2EE from the start.
If anything, I would say that with WAMP, open source software is embracing, extending, and extinguishing Microsoft, not the other way around.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
My boss at work is a big fan of Linux and other open-source applications. However, we still use plenty of Microsoft and other proprietary products- because often there is either
A. No open source solution
B. The closed source solution works enough better to justify the cost.
Obviously open source software is cheaper and easier to modify than closed-source software. However, time is money- even halfway decent programmers make $20 an hour, so a week spent trying to get something to work properly (either through reading manual pages or actually adding features to the program) is $800 of cost to the company. If we could buy that same software with all the features we need for $300, then we are saving ourselves $500.
On the other hand, if we could get it working in a day of work, that would only cost us ~$80, and the open source solution would save us $220. How close the software is to what we need makes a big difference. Eventually there might be good open source solutions for everything- but until then it only makes sense for companies to use proprietary software some of the time.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
That's because with OSS, Windows users are reassured that there is no spyware, phone-home features or anything else unwanted in a "freeware" program. And, they don't want to pay for commercial software.
I've recently used Windows in a VM environment (thank you very much, I'm a Mac and Linux geek) and I was browsing for freeware software. Almost all of that software had malware bundled with it. Gosh, I'm so thankful that I'm not using Windows every day. It is hilarious! You can't trust any single piece of software.
So yes, people like OSS because you can trust OSS. You know what's in there and you know that it won't harm the system.
And plus, OSS software is mostly of greater quality than the usual freeware.
The hip way to get your IP. No ads, ever.
I agree this is nice, I guess. I don't like that they use the term "religious" to (apparently) describe someone who chooses free software because they value freedom. That doesn't sound like they've toned down their rhetoric...
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
Consider set A = { linux users ) , set B = { Microsoft customers } , and set C = { religious geeks } . . . I think it is fair to say that (A intersect B intersect C) even though n(A intersect C) > 0 and n(A intersect C) less than n(B)
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
From the Computerworld article: Microsoft has toned down its rhetoric. "It's a myth that open-source and Windows can't work together. Customers just aren't religious about these things," said Ryan Gavin, a director of platform strategy for Microsoft.
Abusers such as crack addicts and alcoholics and others will say anything whatsoever to get what they want. There may not be a shred of truth in what they say. What they say certainly is no guide to what they will do.
The Computerworld article is just pontification from a writer who doesn't know or care about technical things, but was given one hour to write a story, and a few notes. Here's a quote from the article:
"More than ideology, the fact that Microsoft makes a huge number of business applications -- a number that is only increasing -- could eventually limit the growth of open-source applications on Windows."
A "huge number of business applications"? What have I been missing? Microsoft makes customer relations management software, for example, which it bought from the creator, I believe. After Microsoft started using it, someone from Microsoft called me and thought our company was in New York. I doubt Microsoft can compete in any area in which it doesn't have a temporary monopoly. Microsoft partly depends on having customers who are ignorant of technical things. If Microsoft can compete in other than a "me too" way, please supply some evidence.
Here's a funny movie about Microsoft's marketing, from Microsoft's marketing department, which is beginning to gag on the company's culture of incompetence: Microsoft Ipod Parody.
Its an argument (that often get personal) but does raise some very valid points.
Linux Resources
...how it's Microsoft that is making all the noises about open source. The open source community doesn't give two hoots, I expect, no matter what MS say.
Treat it as you would a bear trap. Say away from MS speak at all costs.
It's not the "next big thing." In fact, it's the old big thing that kept me running Windows XP on a machine at home.
Bingo. Right on.
What we are seeing now is the reality that the experts saw coming 6-7 years ago is finally seeping into mainstream. Shrinkwrap software only business is over. Win2k/XP is mostly just a driver layer and gaming bios these days. The OSS vendors like Novel/SuSE/RedHat have been screwing around to much, that's what's held Linux/OSS back the last few years. Now with Canonical/Ubuntu finally getting the obsticles out of the way (zero-fuss hardware compliance) things are finally picking up speed. I've even considerd going back to Non-Apple Hardware after 3 years of OS X just because of that. I definitely see Linux Desktops become mainstream real soon now.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Like I've said before, this is MS promising to eat all the other ISVs' lunch. MS just wants to play the "free" & "bundled" cards to look like competition while they cherry-pick all the profitable parts of the software industry for themselves. Also, I think MS has learned that OSS isn't all bad. Once real lawyers and professionals look at the OSS licenses without bias, it's really no threat to MS on the utilities and apps front... Unlike all the "freeware" and "shareware" stuff out there, with OSS you know where you stand, if they decide to implement something themselves people won't be comming out of the woodwork that MS "stole" their little hobby app.
I believe the word you're looking for is MONO!
> If I've already got Microsoft installed in the box, why would I bother to throw it away and install
> something else?
If I can already hunt for my food with my stone ax, why would bother throw it away and get something else? Like, for instance, an iron one?
In pre-Linux days their was plenty of sharing going on. Once upon a time mainframe types used to bring reel-reel tapes to conferences to exchange code. Later it was the UNIX/BSD developers/admins. Amazing what was being shared before OSS, GNU & Linux on licensed platforms. Now M$ is in on it. The only difference is that today we have all the GPL, BSD, etc. licensing schemes.
the next big thing is F/OSS running on whatever happens to work best in a given case. all other things being equal, why wouldn't you choose the F/free OS?
in other words, the meaning of the meme itself is pointless. it's just an attempt to put the idea of OSS on windows (again, why?) in the minds of managers.
free software, open standards, open file formats, no software patents.
I publish technical stuff. As a result, I love using LaTeX for technical stuff. Word + MathType is an abomination.
LaTeX is open. It uses text based files. It is stable (I can latex files from a decade ago).
I have been using LyX for nearly a decade as a LaTeX front end. Again, text file data format. They have conveerters that read the old stuff, and if they don't I can find an old copy of the LyX source if I really needed to.
I like tgif for vector graphics/ eps files. Again, open source software that has been stable.
And now, cygwin tools are getting developed enough that I can run my unix apps on XP. LyX has a native port with a decent installer, but other stuff usually compiles and runs out of the box. I recently even got xbattle up and running on XP, and that has not seen much development for years...
Notice the empahsis on "Important Applications" If by imprtant applications they mean server based applications, I have to look at this as an outright lie. Anyone who would prefer to run a mission critical application on windows over linux has an MCXX in thier email signature, and has no problem with a Monthly server reboot schedule.
OSS on windows is simply a way to survive being forced to use XP at work by corporate policy or critical applications (visio, WHY), or at home by games and educational software.
One hopes that if all applications are OSS or cross platform, one day we can pull the tablecloth from under the apps and go with Linux.
No, it's the current big thing. Like it or not, MS operating systems dominate. I'm too lazy to name names so head over to sf.net and do a search for open source projects for Windows. It's enlightening.
Sure, open source operating system have a disproportionately large percentage of open source projects. That doesn't change the fact that many open source projects are designed for Windows or the fact that the ones for Windows tend to be of higher quality.
"Bother," said Pooh, as lightning knocked out hi%#&(F*@NO CARRIER
Yes, I recall Jerry Pournelle mentioning a story several times, about a convention he went to. IBM was loudly proclaiming how they had their SDK on sale for only a couple hundred bucks or something. Microsoft was giving their SDK away.
So, I don't know about you, but Microsoft has always been big on the secondary software market. They know what sells computers, and it ain't philosophy.
I honestly think they realized something very important, they don't care about open source as a problem. They care about Linux as a problem maybe, but that's it.
Having pointed that out, please let me have my troll: Putty indeed nearly makes XP usable. Nearly.
This sig is intentionally left blank
Sometimes I cringe to click on an article that is related to Microsoft or Windows on slashdot. So many people jump on the "Linux is a superior OS for everything, ever, and always will be" bandwagon. I've been on both sides of the fence, I've used Windows and Linux as a desktop OS, and I run a headless FreeBSD server. I have to say, even though I don't always like it, I will continue to use Windows XP as a desktop over Linux just for the basic convenience of it. If I need to do various *nix related tasks, I will ssh into the FreeBSD machine, but if I need to browse websites, check e-mail, or write a document, Windows it is. Until there is a decent graphical interface (one where my acceleration is supported for my video card, last I checked Xorg did NOT do this, and made everything slower then hell), and I can perform tasks quickly on a Linux desktop, I see it lagging behind as a desktop. Don't get me wrong, it works great for server environments (although I still prefer FreeBSD), I'm really sick of seeing so many people championing it like it's the second coming of open-sourced christ.
...what's the current big thing again? I think I'm behind. Did something come after AJAX, or is that still it?
I notice that you listed a slew of desktop apps that you run on Windows.
Interestingly, the article has PHP and Apache icons to define its category. Sure, Microsoft wants you to run your Apache and PHP applications on Windows. What choice do they have? If you're already building Apache/PHP apps, you're probably building them on Linux. Any move to Windows is a net gain for Microsoft, and a net loss for Linux.
But OOo. It'll be a cold day in Hell before Microsoft recommends that on Windows. Or Firefox, or Thunderbird or any of the other desktop apps listed here. Of course, most of them run great on Windows (in fact, often better than on Linux, but don't get me started there...), so if MS were really serious about encouraging OSS for Windows, they'd be on board with these apps too.
Anyway, if you've gotta run Windows, lots of OSS desktop apps are available, and you oughta use 'em. But, don't expect Microsoft to tell you that.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
But if they didn't overcharge for Office, how would they finance IE, Media Player, MSN, XBox, Zune, Defender, Windows Live, and all the other parts of their world-domination scheme that don't generate any profit?
0 1 - just my two bits
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, [then they try to compromise with you], then you win.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
First of all... Microsoft is NOT insterested in seeing OSS succeed. They bashed the entire philosophy, license, and practices of OSS ever since they deemed it a threat. What they are interested in is keeping people on their operating system instead of x86 Mac or Linux... even if it means "supporting" open source applications that have been running on Windows for years.
Second, I've never heard a Linux geek "admit that the open source OS isn't necessarily a better platform for important applications". I'm one of them and I think it's partial arrogance and partial truth that brings the idea that OSS DOES provide a much better platform than Microsoft has been able to provide. MS's expertise and gift is in marketing, not in programming suitable products.
I think Microsoft sees a change coming and they're scared. For their own sake, they better shape up and stop ripping everyone off.
Microsoft and Linux or Microsoft and OSS.
http://sohilsblog.blogspot.com
The next big thing? I thought this was the standard for years. Why else would so much OSS be developed for XP? Why else would so much OSS have pre-compiled binaries and installers for Windows based OS?
.com shop, state government) have had similar environments. I thinks it's rare to find a shop that is truely homogeneous.
I do all my PHP development on WinXP - I have Apache2 with PHP and MySQL running perfectly together on my box. I use firefox and thunderbird. I use Tortise CVS to check code into our Linux Server - and yeah - putty gives me a nice command line terminal if necessary - and I can copy files through samba connections.
Personally I believe that developing in a multi-OS environment (we have several developers on OS-X) helps make code tighter and gives extra sanity checks. If it works on my box, and the server, and another developers environment - then there is less likelyhood that the code will break because of forgotten dependencies.
I'm not sure this is the "Next Big Thing" my experience is that my setup is far from unique. Most of the shops I've worked in to (Telco, government contractors, private medical publisher, robotics firm,
-CF
To misquote Laurie Andserson:
When Office is gone,
There's always X-Box.
And when X-Box is gone,
There's always Windows (now with Open Source!)
And when Win-dows is gone,
There's always Zune!
And when Zune is gone,
There's always mom.
Hi mom!
Hmm, maybe this comment would be better in a thread on the situation in the mid-east.
With F/Fox, AbiWord, OOo, HandBrake (DVD ripper), VLC (media player) and aMule, the Mac's a very happy place to be these days...
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Yesterday I finished a mandatory Target Accound Selling course using the TAS methodology (http://www.thetasgroup.com/tas/). You know, one of those things that as an Engineer you say it's just crap, but you have to attend any way because you're a pre-sales guy... But now, reading TFA, I realized that this is just a shift in their selling strategy against Open Source from what the course called Frontal/Solution/Reputation to Fragment/Peacefull Coexistance.
The original strategy focuses on crashing the competition by promoting either your total superiority and/or your market reputation. The second one still focuses on crashing the competition, but it is much more subtle, promoting the idea that you can "work with them", that "we don't really compete", and that "we work well together", just to lower some barriers with the target customer, effectively fragmenting your competition and looking like a "nice guy" with the customer.
Very well thought out. Don't necesarely believe it...
They openly derided open source and called it "open sores". They said open sourse was a "cancer". If you had cancer, would you accept it and welcome it with open arms?
Doesn't anyone remember what Microsoft was saying just a couple of years ago? Why the turnaround? And why should anyone believe a single word they utter?
This is a rather DUH sort of conclusion. Look at the success of firefox, openoffice, gaim and the other works of windows friendly OSS, which not coincidentally are the most popular OSS. It has nothing to do with platform elegance, superiority or anything else other than market share, but I think the simple fact of market share, and the inertia that that it creates, is something we linux advocates have a tendency to overlook. Microsoft is like momma's cooking to most people, it's not always the best but it is certainly good enough, so if we want to even begin to work OSS into the lives of our parents and peers we need to work within that framework. Then come the pitches: "Well if you liked openoffice you will love this, it's a whole operating system that is made of free, high-quality programs, yadda yaddda"
What I am saying is this: after nearly 20 years of market dominance anything other than windows and it's partners is like voodoo magic to most people, and to avoid that they are willing to pay the microsoft tax. If OSS is going to make any headway into the domain of the average joe consumer, not guys like you and me but guys like our parents and the guys we tutored in college, it needs to start somewhere, and the logical place for it to start is right on top of windows, as a free, high-quality application.
[Disclaimer: the parent post is only an advertisement]
The parent post is only an advertisement.
Valid Syntax, Slightly On-Topic
Yes, open source software runs well on Windows. It's a great way to avoid retraining, to fit into existing infrastructures, and all that. That's why people have gone through a lot of trouble porting Apache, PHP, Perl, Python, bash, Gtk+, etc. to Windows, and why eventually all of Gnome, KDE, and all those apps will run on Windows.
But that's not the "best of both worlds". Once you have gone to WAMP, there is little technical reason not to kick out the Windows kernel and admin tools as well. At this point, Linux is easier to install, easier to administer, cheaper to get, and cheaper to maintain than Windows.
If Microsoft thinks that WAMP is something they can live with, they're wrong. Their OS monopoly is going to disappear, and WAMP is just a transition. That doesn't even have anything to do with Linux or open source, it's the way markets naturally evolve. Microsoft needs to figure out how to get a big revenue stream that's independent of Windows and Office. If they don't, they'll be doomed.
"But OOo. It'll be a cold day in Hell before Microsoft recommends that on Windows."
:)
What comes to mind:
PRESS: So, if it's a choice between a user who can't afford an MS Office license pirating MS Office, which would still keep your userbase up, or installing a legitimately free-of-cost alternative so as not to break the law and make a small short-term ding in your profits...what would you prefer?
MS: Erm...
MS, effing cornered.
As part of their marketing strategy, Microsoft has been attacking F/OSS for years, and it obviously hasn't worked. As a business, they ultimately have to be pragmatic if they want to survive. So they're adjusting their marketing accordingly. Microsoft still wants F/OSS to go away, but they now realize they can't do it with sheer FUD.
Whether they'll be able to compete on the merits is another matter entirely. As Paul Graham pointed out once, MS doesn't like hiring hackers who work on Open Source projects in their spare time. In so doing, they're probably depriving themselves of some of the best talent. While MS marketing may be changing, if the core belief system of the business folks and project managers at Microsoft remains fearful of the taint of Open Source, their dominance will continue to wane.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I'm sure this is exactly what MS is afraid of, but I'll just report it as it happened:
I used to use Windows (2000) just like most people. I programmed in Visual C++ and did a lot of audio work in Windows 3rd-party applications like SoundForge. I had installed RedHat 7 to check it out (partly because of some school-related reasons, wanting to understand some of this "Unix" stuff I'd read about in my operating systems classes). I found it cool, though it did take quite a lot of work to get it set up, especially since I was just learning it. I hated the RPM thing, and how I had to find dependancies manually. All in all it was a nice curiosity, but I kept using Windows. I did keep Linux around though, eventually upgrading to RedHat 9.
However, under Windows I was mostly using OSS programs like FireFox and Thunderbird, etc. I realized one day that in fact EVERYTHING I did on my computer, short of some audio applications, was in OSS programs, which were available just as easily under Linux. So I swtiched my email and web browsing over to Linux, and started programming in it.
This led to me spending a lot more time in Linux, and the more comfortable I got with it, the more I started to prefer it. I switched to Debian and enjoyed apt-get which solved the packaging problems (yes I know there are now solutions for RedHat too).. In short, I became a pretty hardcore Linux user, because I really started to like it more. These days, when I do have to use Windows, I still have FireFox and Cygwin installed and the only proprietary stuff I use is for my job, like Visual C++.
That's the thing -- i just don't NEED Windows. I don't need ANY proprietary stuff for my day to day computer usage. And OSS on Windows is what helped me realize that..
In short, I think probably the biggest advantage of opening the source code of an application is that, given sufficient community interest, it will likely be ported to other platforms. The more platforms that an application supports, the easier it is for the users to ween their dependancy on a specific OS. In this day and age, when there are multiple operating systems that provide essentially the same functionality (arguable some better or worse than others), users shouldn't _depend_ on any particular one of them to be able to work with their data. With so many API libraries available for developing cross-platform software, any barriers thrown up to stop applications from being ported are, essentially, artificial.
All this "we like OSS" blather aside, Microsoft is preparing to prevent some types of OSS from running in the future. Specifically, they will require all drivers to bear digital signatures under Windows Vista. IIRC, the key can come from WHQL or Verisign (who will offer keys only to "legitimate corporations").
This doesn't just affect hardware. Off the top of my head, this will break WinPCap (as used by Ethereal), loopback image mounting with FileDisk, volume encryption with TrueCrypt, various installable file system drivers for HFS+, ext3, reiserfs, etc.
Or would they rather just "stick it to the man"?
Saying that they're promoting it now will not make it the next big thing either. They'd have to open up some information about how to write apps on top of their OS or at least design some API's with the open source developer in mind. You know, if they made their platform a little less proprietary and gave the OSS developers a little more freedom, that would be a sign of OSS support.
I don't know how MS can say they are open with their APIs and open source developers can use the APIs. That's the big thing with the EC, European Commission, and the fines the EC placed on MS. The EC and developers in Europe say MS isn't being open with the APIs, that MS is requiring developers who want to see the documentation of them to sign ndas and such. Even Microsoft's twelve commandments avoid EU concerns. MS doesn't walk it's talk.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Doesn't "installing a legitimately free-of-cost alternative" include OpenOffice?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
At best your assertion is overbroad, and at worst suggests you have some sort of agenda. Which is it?
Things like open source non-linear video editing solutions or graphics programs such as the gimp are really pretty lousy compared to some of the costly (or on rare occasion free) closed source alternatives.
The lack of an open source program like Photoshop keeps photgraphers away from FOSS. Sure there's GIMP, but it doesn't have the capabilities many photgraphers need. I'm a photographer myself, amateur though I want to turn pro, and if there isn't a FOSS program like Photoshop then I'll have to use PS. Unfortunately right now I can't justify the cost of it. I've been thinking of trying out Corel Painter but don't know how well it works in photography. Now, if I were half way decent at programming I'd give it a hand at trying to work on an OS graphics program.
FalconShould there be a Law?
http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12
It's $32 bucks to buy while it's in beta with a free upgrade to the final release and later to 2.0. It's free to try either way. It's closed source but very cheap. It'll go up to $79 later if you were to wait to buy it until the final release. Paint Shop Pro by Corel is a very capable image editing program and you can usually find it on ebay or other places for under 50 bucks. I found it for $45.
It is not MS bashing. Just stating the facts.
> "Linux geeks and Microsoft have similar interests, says Computerworld: They both are interested in seeing open-source software succeed.
Ooooh, suuuure. I am very interested in a OSS, but I wouldn't like OSS more if there were more users. After all, Macs have a reputation not because so many people use them. Stability is a good thing.
And saying that MS is interested in OSS success is nothing short of blasphemy.
> Linux geeks admit that the open source OS isn't necessarily a better platform for important applications, and Microsoft recognizes that many of its customers are using open-source applications, and doesn't want to alienate them."
I would like to point out at least one geek that thinks Windows is a better platform for important apps, like: DB, routing, networking, embedded devices... Don't tell me that Windows is a real-time OS. There are plenty of such, created as open-source projects. Windows is used mainly because of popularity, not because of superiority. By the way, the RTFA says nothing like the submission.
> From the article: "Faced with the allure of inexpensive open-source applications among its core customer base of small to midsize businesses, Microsoft has toned down its rhetoric.
Alas, not their interest, but the success of OSS is making MS change their mind.
> 'It's a myth that open-source and Windows can't work together. Customers just aren't religious about these things,' said Ryan Gavin, a director of platform strategy for Microsoft."
Ooooh, yeaah... It is a myth that MS is taking every step nesseccary to hinder OSS development where that suits them. Not that I blame them, I would do just the same. But don't underestimate the hard work Samba, Apache and all the others do to interoperate with Windows. The EU did not convict MS for playing too nice, didn't they?
By the way, LAMP sounds waaay better than WAMP.
While Macs give Windows competiton, MS still makes and sales software for Macs. MS even sales Virual PC so you can run Windows, of course you have to buy Windows, on a Mac. Something I'm hoping to hear in the annoucement for Leopard is the ability to run windows apps in Leopard. I heard sometime back that Apple had the right to include Windows APIs in the MacOS.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The stories I'm hearing recently are that the Windows activation lets Microsoft disable computers any time it wants for no particular reason. Who'd want to be held hostage to that? Seems like people would be fleeing MS's operating system, not moving to it. If MS wanted people to use their OS (not Linux), why not disable activation permanently?
see Subject
Similis sum folio de quo ludunt venti.
Is microsoft trying to make it their line of business to announce that open source software CAN work with windows, only 2-4 years after EVERYONE in the IT industry realized that this was already the case?
Personally, I've been using almost exclusively open-source programs on top of windows for the last 3-4 years - if it's worth using, it'll be ported to Windows. I must admit I discovered most of these brilliant programs first when using Linux, but when I have to use Windows (sadly, very often with all these damn proprietory office formats) I make sure every program I put on the PC is freeware or open source.
I don't think Microsoft has to worry about alienating open source users as much these days - first, they are trying to push their own open-source initiative and secondly I think most techies have realized that MS has lost their total market domination and will bend to the will of the user when pushed.
Will program for karma.
Thanks, I bookmarked the site and will try it when I get a new computer.
Paint Shop Pro by Corel
Years ago, when Jasc still had Paint Shop Pro, I got PSP 7 and liked it. I don't know if current interations offer the capabilities of PS though. As I'm using a pc more than 6 years old though, I plan on getting a new computer and I'll get a Mac this tyme. So, for now I'm planning on getting a good book on GIMP and will try it, I hope a universal binary will be available when I get the computer. What I may do later is buy an old version of PS then get an upgrade version of PSCS, unfortunately Adobe doesn't plan on releasing a universal binary of it 'til they release an upgrade, next year.
FalconShould there be a Law?
This shouldn't satify the Linux geeks. No one will switch to Windows because they "support" OSS. Note, they use the term Open Source, not Free (as in free speech). Under OSX you can compile countless numbers of free (as in free speech) software. WHO IS WINDOW'S TARGETING? When I have the misfortune of using their product, I do use free software, but it really doesn't change my view of MS. They are just targeting their existing user group, composed 95% of uninformed people who just want to cheapest software possible. Note: no offense the Windoze users reading this, as you read Slashdot, and are mostly in the last 5% not in the above croud.
I've heard this so often, so now I'm curious. What exactly are you missing in GIMP? I admit that I just do red eye / contrast / color balance things, but then I hardly qualify as even an amateur photographer.
As I haven't used GIMP in years and have never used PS I don't really know what PS has that GIMP doesn't. All I have is what some other photographers have told me. The last tyme I talked to any of them about it was about three years ago, so things may of been improved with GIMP. I do plan on trying GIMP though, hopefully in a couple of weeks I'll be ordering a new MacBook Pro, and I want to get a good book on using GIMP.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I thought the story was about things like: needing postfix email firewalls to keep exchange from getting owned or squid proxies to keep browsers from installing malware. Glad I read the article. Hmmmm. If you think about it, spyware, virusen, and worms are free software. They have been compatible with microsoft software for years. Damn. I'm back to being confused.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
As for Windows, changing from NT4 to 2000 didn't present any problems, neither did XP... and I recently installed our software on a 2003 Server with no trouble whatsoever. I expect that switching from Debian to Ubuntu would require much more of my time and much more tweaking and migrating from our current installation than switching from 2000 to Longhorn would.
I can see switching from NT4 to 2000 but not to XP, the hardware demands are greater. Sure you can upgrade the hardware but then will it be compatable with NT, or are you upgrading everything at once? If so then how is that different from having to upgrade everything when upgrading Linux? I wish I could of upgraded my NT4 to 2000 but I don't think MS came out with 2000 for the Alpha, that's what my NT box's cpu is, a DEC Alpha. Now, I'm hoping to get a current version of Linux to install on the Alpha.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Mozilla is one example: They are primarily a Windows developer, and seem to be increasingly hands-off when it comes to "Linux". The Windows version has a proper installer, for instance, but the last I checked the "Linux" version did not even have an RPM... you have to untar it and carefully replace it in /usr/lib by hand (making sure any global .js or plugins from the old one are properly retained).
.NET). What you get with "Linux" is chaos that repels most creative types; only rather odd people can cozy-up to a system where a budding programmer experimenting with graphics, sound or databases cannot expect his/her programs to simply run on a friends' "Linux" system.
Applications users and developers are drawn to stable platforms, whereas "Linux" has a fairly standard kernel but no platform from the POV of a user or app developer. A modern platform includes:
* A consistent GUI. Inconsistent interface == No one wants to do tech support for it under contract. That doesn't just mean choosing Gnome or KDE; even more important is that you have the same configuration applets for the most common services (like display, file sharing, etc.).
* ONE point of reference for installing peripherals and software (a user needs to be able to walk into a store and ask for something compatible with "Linux" or some standard moniker, not a piecemeal laundry list of sysadmin-centric standards like "hotplug", "X11 Direct Render", "CUPS v5.67" and "libc6 v123.456").
* A default IDE (Xcode, Visual Studio) that is approachable and has comprehensive documentation (ADC, MSDN) and a standard framework (Cocoa,
There are things the "Linux" community could do to counteract these shortcomings, like collaborate on a comprehensive Hardware Compatability List site so people know what they can safely buy. But the most knowledgable actors in this area like Redhat and Novell do not seem interested, seeming to prefer expanding their role of arbitrating what you can do with third-party programs and when you're allowed to upgrade them.
Many people that switched to Linux had previously been running mostly OSS on their Windows machines. Me included. It is hardly the "next" big thing. It's the "last" thing you do on Windows before you go Linux.
Meh.
I've (unfortunately) seen Windows-based solutions pitched as (and made to appear as) vastly simpler; so much so that your average Windows administrator makes about 70% as much as a UNIX administrator (in this area of the Midwest, although my research leads me to believe that this is not a localized phenomenon).
Why is this? It is because a far larger percentage of PHB's can see how much easier and less demanding Windows is to administer. They therefore pay less; and become angry when they discover that their Windows sysadmins aren't the nearly omniscient Gurus they've come to expect from IT. Then, the pay scale drops even further. Now, guys like me work in UNIX shops and other PHB's want to know why they should pay for what I can bring to the table when there are plenty of other sysadmins who will work for less. Never mind the old bit "you gets what you pays for", the bottom line is that I'm still expected to be able to configure and maintain a more complex (more flexible, IMHO more stable) system while accepting the lower pay due a Windows administrator (who's only recourse when things break is often to get Microsoft support to acknowledge that something's broke - at least, that gets him off the hook).
Bottom line - Windows administrators get less respect because they do less. UNIX administrators have to do considerably more studying, understand the "under the hood" aspects of their OS in greater depth than their Windows counterparts, get more involved in the design, configuration, testing and implementation of software on their systems; yet we're collectively lumped into the "Computer System Administrator" bin as often as not, with disastrous results.
We see the Windows administrators going home earlier, because most of the larger shops still acknowledge the CW that Windows is for clients, UNIX is for servers; and the servers are considerably more important (machine for machine) than the clients. We watch these guys get the same pay and perks as we do, but they have an easier job not because their job is easier, but because the nuts 'n' bolts stuff is running under *NIX. Yes, I know that there are numerous exceptions, enough to make my stated case not an overwhelming truth but rather a simple majority of cases. Part of the "dumbing down" of IT. Incidentally, most modern *NIX operating systems can be patched instead of upgraded; you ain't gettin' your old WinNT box up to XP functionality without reinstalling. Am I disdainful of your position because you want to get the same pay and title as I but work less? Yes I am! Let's put all of the background services (DNS, NTP, NFS/file shares, print services, etc.) on Windows instead of *NIX and compare 1)Administrator effort and 2)Downtime. There's a reason the majority of businesses stick with *NIX for core infrastructure - you gets what you pays for.
Perhaps I switched distributions more than the avarage administrator does... but still within the same distribution standard packages change, just like Debian itself moved from Sendmail to Exim4, or from ipchains to iptables. Whatever the case, each re-installation forces me to learn new software and migrate configurations. This, for me, is hidden cost of Linux.
And you don't have to learn new software with Windows? Personally not professionally I've used Windows from 3.x to XP, I'm currently using ME and next to me is my NT4 box, though not 2003 and each one required me to learn more. As I see it, you or I have to learn new things whenever the OS is upgraded whether the OS is Linux or Windows. Therefore there's the hidden cost of both OSes.
A very important point is that Windows products have graphical and generally user-friendly configurations,
In part the lack of a gui is why Linux hasn't taken the desktop by storm. There are some who are working on user friendly guis and configurations but there are others who want Linux to stay in the back office, server room, and not on the desktop. Now I haven't seen never mind used some of the distros coming out but I've heard some of them like Ubuntu have good guis and are easier to configure so that may not be a valid pint much longer.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If they did that, they'd be slitting their own throats. If you can get MS Office for Linux, why buy Windows? They have to keep that applications barrier to entry high.
Releasing a version of Office for Linux would help not harm MS. Office is one of if not the biggest money maker for MS and they don't earn much from Windows. If MS were to release a version of Office for Linux more people would buy it, if priced right, than they'd loose in sales of Windows. Sure some may switch to Linux but many now using Linux would get Office. Look at CodeWeaver's Crossover Office. It's a build to run MS Office on Linux. CodeWeavers does the same with other apps, such as Photoshop.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"You go to look for some silly little utility, and not only is it closed source, it's $18.95. "
Funny how you left out that little part about letting you try it first, and at best nagging you for money (if at all). The RIAA/MPAA doesn't even give you either option. Truely a terrible "toll booth".
"Actually I shouldn't say "silly little utility" - developers have a right to ask whatever they want for their stuff, and it's their own hard work that produced it. But as a user, it's sure nice to work on Linux without all those toll booths everywhere."
Or one could learn to program and all those "toll booths" disappear.* But anyway you all are free to live in your "toll booth" free environment. Just don't be surprised when you all don't get in a prompt (if at all) manner all the things that a "toll booth" environment generates. e.g. tax software or other vertical markets.
*Of course your "toll booth" is time instead of money. So it's nice to know that reality gets it's due, no matter how "cheap" humanity becomes.
There's quite a bit of OSS .NET stuff out there, but of course it's tied only to Windows.
Have you seen Mono, a port of .net to Linux?
FalconShould there be a Law?
My guess is they use the term religious in reference to free software to explain to normal folk how irrational free software people can be at times. Most people couldn't care less about whether or not the software is free as in speech, not just beer. They just want to use something that works for as little money as possible. But then you have people ranting and raving about GPL licenses and making sure source code is available and all that stuff. But again no normal person really cares about this so to explain the Free Software "ethos" to normal folk using the term "religious" is pretty apt, since believing in a diety that can't be proven and who doesn't even help you when you are in trouble is also pretty irrational.
This is actually an important point. I enjoy open source software and recognize the benefits that the GPL license can bring to us all but whenever I hear a Free Software proponent discuss software "freedom" or how they "value freedom" and its kinda like you are talking to someone who honestly, truly, madly, deeply feels that the battle for free software is akin to the battle for african american civil rights, gay rights, women's sufferage, human rights....etc. I mean I really really *really* hate to let some folks down but this struggle for free software is mainly going to result in software that people can use for free instead of having to shell out $10,$25,$250,$1000... for it. Most people will NOT be looking at the source code. Most people will NOT be porting it to new architectures decades from now when the original companies go under. Most people won't even know what the GPL is 25 years from now, just like they don't right now. The main result of this entire open source/free software movement will be to save people money and saving people money is always a good and excellent thing to do but its not in any way equal to freeing the slaves, giving women the vote or achieving racial tolerance.
It would be nice for once if FOSS advocates could kinda maybe acknowledge that.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Okay, one of the reasons you had to learn new commands with each new system is because you were changing operating systems. I am sure you realize that Linux is just a kernel, and it takes more than a kernel to make an "operating system" (well at least one that can be operated by a mere mortal). Slackware, Red Hat, Mandrake, et al. are different distributions of Linux (i.e. different bundles of software that run atop the Linux kernel) that are released by different groups with different agendas, so they will obviously be different! If you had stuck with the same distro throughout, you might have noticed fewer changes, or at least the changes might have been more gradual.
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
I notice that you listed a slew of desktop apps that you run on Windows.
I'm not sure that this is really about the desktop, though. Sure, there are some really nice open-source desktop apps out there, but with the average Windows user being only slightly smarter than a budgie, retraining them to switch from Office, Photoshop, etc to OOo, GIMP, etc isn't all that likely. At least not anytime soon. And then there are the power users who actually use features on the proprietary apps that aren't available on OSS alternatives.
I personally think that the future of OSS on Windows has a lot more to do with the backend. For example, my company was a little tight on money recently but needed a new helpdesk ticketing system (we have about 400 users). I looked at several different commercial and OSS solutions, and we decided that we could save a lot of money by going open source. Then when we looked at our options we discovered only a handful that run on Windows, so we went with RT. Interestingly enough, RT runs just fine on Apache/MySQL on Windows, and it's a pretty good system on top of that. Next we needed some sort of instant-messaging solution that was restricted to within the company only and was logged. A little bit of looking around and I came across the Spark/Wildfire combination. One of our developers was building a web-based records-tracking application (we are a medical facility) and needed a back-end database. Rather than shelling out $10,000 on a pair of SQL Server CPU licenses (or even more on Oracle) we made it work with MySQL. All of these experiences have shown us ways that we can save substantial amounts of money and still have good tools to work with by going the open-source route. Now we're evaluating some other open source apps that don't run on Windows, so I've got a couple of Linux test boxes in my lab. Eventually we'll be running a pretty highly mixed environment. Maybe one day we'll even swap our desktop apps out for free alternatives, but that's not where most businesses are considering using open source on Windows.
Linux geeks admit that the open source OS isn't necessarily a better platform for important applications
As a Linux geek, I cordially invite you to speak for yourself, Lam1969.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Microsoft, you know what I'm saying, Apple bitbrains and linux bitbrains over there?
This message brought to you by NONSENSE, NONSENSE, SENSE IS YOUR ASS KILLED.
How is it in Microsoft's interest to see open source succeed. Everytime someone uses something open source, it is usually is to replace an expensive M$ product. Open source causes M$ to lose money. . .
Klingon Software is not released, it escapes, inflicting terrible damage onto the enemy as it does
Stick with Open Source under Windows because ...
.. and open-source vendors have traditionally portrayed the choice .. as a black-and-white decision"
"Would I want to put it all on Linux? Yeah, that's the geek in me,"
Only geeks can use Linux.
"But the Alfresco application doesn't necessarily run better under Linux"
OO applications run better under Windows.
'not having to rehire or retrain existing IT staff makes "the whole thing a wash"'
Configuring Alfresco, MySQL, Apache Tomcat and JBoss is more difficult under Linux than under Windows.
"Microsoft
Is there any citations where you can produce any such statements from any 'open-source' vendors?" We do really know where the retoric is coming from.
"One choice promises easier management at a higher price. The other offers lower costs and better security -- at the cost of more complexity"
A totally misrepresentation of the situation. Once it's installed a typical OO system requires less IT staff than its equivalent Windows setup.
What licensing restrictions come into play when running OO applications under Windows?
davecb5620@gmail.com
Less time is being spent in front of the PC and more time is being spent in front of the iPod, the set top box, and the plasma TV. With less time to devote to the PC, there's less need for an operating system which can run forever and more need for booting up for 5 minutes, doing something computationally light as quickly as possible, and shutting it down.
Not suprising that high school students looking for that first programming experience are shifting back to windows software.
From the article:
I'm sorry, but this means absolutely nothing. I got my MySQL with my Linux distro, not from the MySQL web site, and I would guess this applies to a lot of others as well. Trying to get an estimate of the OS share of an OSS application is just as hard as counting the users of OSS applications. Unlike proprietary software, sharing OSS software is not only legal, it is encouraged, making download statistics from the software developer essentially worthless.
Thanks, I didn't know that. It was my impression that Mono was supposed to be a way to get .net to run on Linux. Not that I'd ever use .net, I just don't know.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Actually, it's very FLOSS-unfriendly. The EU courts just recently concluded that MS, as such a big IT company, has absolutely no legitimate reason for not being more open with its APIs. This is AFTER many states and countries imposing fines and other sanctions against MS for its anti-competitive behaviour. Windows gets the job done, but MS uses its product like a weedkiller, nuking the entire ecosystem of software development until nothing is left but concrete with a few holes and their own 1 or 2 favourite plants. At such a critical time in IT's history, this is no way for the majority of IT desktops to be governed. Hence, people hate Microsoft. Hence, dumb-ass Microsoft-pushed articles like this one trying to combat it without actually addressing the real issues.
The best thing about Linux and *BSD is the package managers. If such a thing with a software amount comparable to Linux-Distributions would exist for Windows there would be many people switching back to Windows. Or at least it might give OSS a huge push, because many small software packages would become famous overnight.
And now kill me for this.
However, that's going to require OSS to start thinking about polish - making applications that Grandma can use. It's not impossible, but a lot of OSS projects need to concentrate on making applications that work well and look decent on Windows - even if we don't particularly care for the platform or the company that makes it.
I've said it numerous times the way to develop OSS is to do it cross-platform. Audacity is a superb sample how it can be done. Yet many other OSS don't follow its path most probably because they don't know how. Especially for helping developing cross-platform OSS I've created wyoGuide (http://wyoguide.sf.net/).
There are two ways to make OSS more useful, one way is to look at the guidelines in text form and implement them as much as possible. This can be done with any framework and in any language, there's no restriction albeit the improvements will be limited to Linux. When true cross-platform functionality is needed there's IMO no way than to switch to wxWidgets and use the code samples of the wyoGuide guidelines as well.
IMO it's very important for the Linux desktop that free applications also can be tried on Windows. Only then users can get familiar with OSS and possibly switch to Linux later on.
O. Wyss
See http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html