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."
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.
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
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.
Wouldn't that necessarily disqualify you from calling yourself a Linux geek?
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
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
When enough people are using OSS on Windows it will be possible to switch to Linux on the desktop and most people will barely notice and won't have as many problems moving over. If the only closed source software you're using is Windows then you're gonna be wondering why you're paying for it. People pay for windows because it has the applications they're used to and it's preinstalled. If OSS applications reach enough usage the hardware vendors will be able to switch to Linux and lower prices without putting off customers. Once enough people are buying computers with Linux pre-installed other manufacturers will follow suit.
the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
> 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?
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.
So in turn are you not locking them in to using Linux with your application by denying the porting to Windows? The same argument many people use for hating Microsoft? Seems a little hypocritcal to me.
Shouldn't TRUE open source software allow you to port and run it on any OS?
That's pretty much what I was thinking. That was some highly unusual spin. That entire comment seems to be inspired solely by the following bit from near the top of the article:
Clearly the submitter has a reading comprehension problem. What Bob Hecht says there absolutely is not the same thing as saying that Linux is not a superior platform. What he said is that the application "doesn't necessarily run better under Linux." He doesn't share why this is true; the application could have been targeted so much toward Windows that optimizing for Linux would be difficult.
The article itself is pure garbage:
More complexity? MORE COMPLEXITY? Windows is known for needless complexity. Maybe they mean more complexity of management... but then all that proves is that they need a talented editor over at computerworld. Not that this is news.
Besides, managing LAMP is getting easier all the time, and while the tools are still harder to use than the IIS MMC snap-in, they also work on a reliable basis. I've had the IIS management tools screw themselves up - or perhaps screw IIS up? - to the point where I had to reinstall the system in order to use them. You simply don't run into a situation like that on Linux. At worst you wipe out some directories and reinstall the software, and that's only if you're excessively confused.
Computerword == suck.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
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.