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.
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
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.
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
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
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!
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.
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
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.
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...
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
"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.
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.